UPDATED At Tuesday night’s meeting of the London Heliport Consultative Group (LHCG), the message from the heliport’s Managing Director, Will Curtis, couldn’t have been clearer: residents are no longer welcome.
Curtis confirmed that the heliport will be abandoning the long-standing council-chaired oversight group and replacing it with its own, held during office hours, with no public access and no guarantee of direct resident involvement.
After a meeting marked by sharp exchanges, personal criticisms, and procedural disputes—including a direct insult to the chair of the meeting—it’s not hard to see why Curtis might prefer to keep future meetings behind closed doors.
“We’re Taking It Back”: An Operator Seizes Control
From the start, Curtis made it clear the heliport had lost patience with the council-run forum. “We are taking the Consultative Committee meeting back in-house,” he declared. “There is no requirement for us to hold a meeting at all given the scale of the airport.”
That last part is technically true—because the heliport is small enough not to fall under statutory scrutiny—but residents and councillors were quick to challenge the notion that this exempts it from public accountability.
His reasoning for abandoning the group? The 2023 appointment of a resident representative, Tom Farrand, whom Curtis described as a “vexatious complainant” who had submitted “countless completely pointless objections.” Curtis said that allowing Farrand to join the group was “totally unacceptable” and represented the kind of process he no longer wanted to be part of.
But Farrand, speaking calmly, pushed back. “I don’t believe I’ve ever phoned the heliport—let alone 30 times,” he said. “I used the noise complaints form once, in good faith, and when I realised what it was for, I stopped.” In fact, heliport staff later confirmed the number was fifteen form submissions, not phone calls—and all from over two years ago.
“I’ve participated constructively ever since,” Farrand said. “It feels like the heliport just doesn’t want scrutiny from residents at all.”
Insults Fly: “A Shambles” and “Astonishing”
Curtis didn’t just direct criticism at residents—he also openly attacked the chair of the meeting, Councillor Jamie Colclough, blaming him for what he described as the collapse of order during the previous session.
“I’m astonished you’ve been reappointed as chair,” Curtis said. “The last meeting was a shambles. It was unacceptable.”
He accused Colclough of allowing Farrand’s appointment without proper process—despite council officers confirming that it was procedurally valid—and claimed that the heliport would no longer participate in any forum chaired by him.
Colclough remained composed and professional throughout, calmly steering the meeting forward and giving everyone—including Curtis—space to speak, even when faced with personal attacks.
Dismissive, Disorganised, and Incorrect
As the meeting progressed, Curtis’s tone veered from irritated to outright aggressive. He interrupted speakers, refused to take notes, and dismissed concerns with shrugs. When resident representative James Eaton highlighted that the heliport’s proposed constitution appeared to omit residents altogether, Curtis admitted, “I haven’t got it in front of me, and I’m not intending to look now.”
Pressed further, Curtis gave contradictory answers. At one point he insisted there would be room for four resident representatives—but only if they came from “formally constituted residents’ groups” and were “unanimously approved by all members.”
Councillors challenged the logic. If the heliport both decides who’s allowed on and sets the rules for appointments, then the process lacks independence and becomes effectively self-selecting—undermining the entire principle of external oversight.
Even the draft terms of reference provided by the heliport contained conflicting language. In Section 3, resident representatives were omitted. In Section 5B, they were suddenly included—but only under very specific, high-bar conditions. Curtis said the document must have been the “wrong version,” then later suggested it was just “a courtesy” and “not final.”
Curtis’ presentation included other contentious points. He suggested that noise complaints had decreased—specifically noting none had been received in 2025. While figures from 2024 showed a regular pattern of complaints, councillors acknowledged that improvements to the online complaints process may have helped reduce misunderstandings.
Curtis also claimed that the heliport had consistently met its operational targets. That, too, was challenged. One resident representative raised concerns about the number of flights during busy periods, but heliport staff presented data suggesting full compliance with movement limits.
Calm Resistance from Councillors and Residents
Despite Curtis’s behaviour, councillors and residents remained composed while pushing back respectfully on his assertions. Resident Jenny Scott-Thompson echoed the disappointment: “It’s really unfortunate to see things changing like this. I’d hoped we could improve—not dissolve—the group.” Councillor Alexander proposed a process to flag heliport-related planning applications so developers could proactively include noise mitigation. Curtis verbally supported the idea—while simultaneously dismantling the very forum that could oversee it.
Curtis repeatedly invoked his authority and experience, saying he had chaired groups at Biggin Hill and Oxford and that they had worked “perfectly well”—but that in those cases, the airport controlled who got to attend.
“This is not my first gig,” he said. “The way these meetings are being run is just not acceptable to us.”
Curtis also dismissed comparisons to Heathrow or major airports, saying that because London Heliport is smaller, it does not require a statutory consultative group. That is legally correct—but, as multiple speakers pointed out, it does not make public scrutiny any less important, especially when the heliport operates in the middle of a dense residential area.
Outcome: No Resolution, Just a Walkout
By the end of the two-hour session, the heliport had not agreed to any changes, instead confirming it would no longer participate in council-led meetings and would proceed with its own version. They made clear that any future forum would:
- Not be held in public
- Not be chaired by councillors
- Possibly exclude residents entirely
- Only invite those the heliport considers appropriate
They also insisted that the council and community could no longer refer to their own meetings as “the London Heliport Consultative Group.”
A Clear Pattern
The meeting revealed more than just a governance change. It painted a picture of a private operator unwilling to tolerate oversight, even when it has nothing to hide.
Curtis’s assertive style, combined with occasional factual inconsistencies and procedural disagreements, and his direct insults toward named residents and the chair all suggest that this is not just a procedural dispute—it’s about control.
Councillors and residents may yet form a parallel forum or find new ways to scrutinise operations. But with the heliport walking out—and shutting the door behind them—the future of public oversight in Battersea is now more uncertain than ever.
Correction: This article has been updated to reflect meeting transcript evidence and to clarify contested assertions. In addition, Will Curtis, managing director of the London Heliport provided the following response to this article.
Response from Will Curtis, Managing Director, The London Heliport
The London Heliport, located in the Borough of Wandsworth, is the only licensed heliport serving London. It provides connectivity to the regions and to UK industry as well as providing vital support to the police helicopter service and the London and national air ambulance services. The London Heliport was constructed in 1959 by Westland Helicopters and although it is, today, considerably smaller than it was in 1959, it has operated continuously throughout the past 65 years serving London and its economy.
The number of annual aircraft movements and heliport opening hours are limited by a Section 106 planning agreement with the local authority. These limits have been strictly adhered to over the past 20 years as can be seen from helicopter movement records.
The London Heliport has historically attended thrice yearly meetings of its Heliport Consultative Group at which local ward councillors, council officers and appointees of residents’ groups discuss issues surrounding the ongoing operation of the heliport. They also review helicopter movement records and discuss any noise complaints received.
Until now, these meetings have been organised and hosted by Wandsworth Council. By contrast, at all other UK airports consultative group meetings are organised and hosted by the airport itself. The reason for the unusual arrangement in respect of the Heliport is that, prior to the COVID pandemic, meetings were always held ‘in person’ and a suitable venue was therefore required. Being very small in scale, the heliport did not possess a suitable venue in which to hold these meetings, whereas the Council did. Hence the meetings have, to date, been organised and hosted by the Council as opposed to by the Heliport.
Post pandemic, we have all learned to hold such meetings via video conferencing saving everyone a great deal of time and inconvenience and obviating the need for a venue in which to hold meetings. As a result, it now possible for the heliport to organise and host its own Consultative Group meetings.
Some might ask why the heliport would choose to change the status quo that has apparently served for many years. The honest answer is that we have, of late, become increasingly frustrated with the ineffective manner in which these meetings have been chaired. Lately, as a result of particularly poor governance and a lack of proper disciplined guidance from the chair, meetings have become disorganised, elongated and unproductive. Under this ineffective control, meetings have failed to follow the correct protocols resulting in some undesirable outcomes, confusing public messaging and general disagreement within its membership. We do not feel that this arrangement serves the local community well and it is not a situation we were prepared to tolerate any longer. It is, after all, the Heliport’s Consultative Group meeting, not the Council’s.
Contrary to a report in the Putney News, we are not quitting the Heliport Consultative Group. Quite the opposite, in fact. The only change is that, in future, the Heliport (as opposed to the Council) will organise and host these meetings. In common with almost everything in this country, the private sector will invariably drive better outcomes than government be it local or national. We will ensure that the correct order of business is observed throughout meetings. We will ensure that the membership includes genuine appointees of residents’ groups as opposed to local agitators, appointed from the public audience, on the spur of the moment, against our wishes and the Group’s terms of reference and without proper scrutiny. We do not want to facilitate representatives who are unable to produce any evidence that they represent anything other than their own self-interest. It is our belief that such a lack of diligence does not serve local residents well because such appointees take up a place that could and should be given to a bona-fide residents association.
Membership of the Consultative Group will be made up of heliport management, helicopter operators who use the heliport, four local ward councillors and four representatives of resident’s groups able to show that they speak for a formally constituted residents association. If more than four residents’ associations wish to be represented, the Group will consider how best to accommodate this in the longer term, but we broadly welcome input from such associations.
The group will appoint an independent, experienced and capable chair-person (as opposed to a local councillor with a ward to represent) who will be tasked with running Group meetings according to the published agenda and within the terms of reference of the Consultative Group. Revised and updated terms of reference for the Heliport Consultative Group will be reviewed at the next meeting and will adopted, or further amended, and then adopted by a vote of the membership.
For many years, Consultative Group meetings not open to the public, but minutes were published after the event, on the Council and Heliport web-sites. Recently, the Council has elected, against our express wishes, to broadcast meetings to the public. We do not object to public scrutiny but, in our experience, meetings open to the public often result in local Councillors ‘show-boating’ to residents as opposed to dealing with the business at hand. Sadly, it appears that some local ward councillors see naked opposition to the heliport as a local vote winner and so wish to be seen to be tough on the heliport in front of potential voters. We do not think this is useful in getting the best outcomes for residents. Further, an airport Consultative Group cannot openly discuss sensitive subjects such as security arrangements, breaches of security or safety incidents that are still under investigation at a meeting that is open to the public and by extension, to the press. Additionally, for reasons of data-protection, much that we would normally be able to discuss must be omitted.
We therefore intend to return to the previous protocol whereby Heliport Consultative Group take place in private but meetings are minuted and the minutes are later published for public consumption.
So, the good news is that the London Heliport Consultative Committee remains in full force and effect. We believe the Group will, in future, better serve the local community and will better represent local residents. Any local resident’s groups that feel they should be represented are welcome to contact the London Heliport in order to make an application to join the Heliport Consultative Group. We aim to maintain good relations with the local community, but we are ultimately a private commercial business and not a government department open to full public scrutiny as some local Councillors appear to believe. Whilst we will listen to all sensible points raised by our local community and we will act upon constructive criticism wherever we can, we will unashamedly seek to strike the correct balance between public transparency and the privacy of heliport colleagues, aircraft operators and our valued clientele. Local residents can rest assured that the London Heliport continues to serve our capital city whilst, at the same time, seeking to be as good a neighbour as may be practically possible. Above all, we remain committed to the continuation of the Heliport Consultative Group.
Will Curtis
Managing Director
The London Heliport
