Villagers paying the price for Heathrow expansion
AS A child and later when I married in 1976, I lived in Sipson, one of the villages close to Heathrow which will be demolished if the proposed new runway is built. Until the Nineties it had a strong community spirit. Everyone knew their neighbours, and it was safe for children to walk to the local primary school in groups of friends. The furore over the building of Terminals 4 and 5 and a prospective third runway changed the ethos of the village. By the 2000s, Terminal 4 was in place and T5 on the drawing board. The runway debate continued and the village went into decline. BAA started a house-buying scheme, paying over the market value, and private and council tenants were installed in those properties. The village became neglected, and the remaining population experienced blight on their homes. Who would want to buy them at full price if there were doubt about long they would be allowed to stand? Widowed, with my children having flown the nest, I sold up to BAA in 2011 and was paid well for relinquishing my family home. Fortunately, I was able to relocate, but I have friends in Harmondsworth who are still blighted and can’t sell until a decision is made. Heathrow will probably eventually get a new runway and for those left in limbo it would be kinder if the decision came swiftly.
GILLY MALSHINGER, Cippenham, Berks. I COULDN’T care less if Heathrow loses its ‘leading hub’ status as an airport to Schipol in Holland or anywhere else. People’s lives and homes do matter here, unlike in undemocratic China where the authorities are famous for land-grabs, bullying and coercing people into leaving their homes, mostly without adequate compensation, because the government wants their land. I used to live in Battersea, where you would hear the aircraft noise from 4am and at regular short intervals thereafter. If you were a light sleeper, it affected your state of mind and drove you mad. It’s not just the pretty village of Harmondsworth and others that would be ruined by Heathrow expansion — great swathes of South and West London would be badly affected. The impact on people’s health and state of mind far outweighs any benefits to business. The supposedly independent Airports Commission’s talk of a £147 billion boost to the economy is a fantasy. Britain needs a new airport offshore.
KARIM H. SMITH, Barnet, Herts. SIR HOWARD DAVIES’S ridiculously expensive airport expansion inquiry has finally delivered its long-awaited recommendations. Let’s hope these are Sir Howard’s own recommendations — it’s possible that the gentleman might have felt the heavy breathing of vested interests on his neck. One recommendation stands out: the third runway must be built at Heathrow. As for the rest, it’s the usual dose of optimism and statistics with a flavour of pie-in-the-sky. This will be a heavy burden on London, which already has the country’s worst air quality. Politically, socially and financially does it stand up to scrutiny? Other major airports have been built with a view to minimise the negative impact on nearby cities and have space available for expansion when required. Unfortunately, Heathrow expansion will always be detrimental to London and its citizens’ quality of life. The inquiry has missed the last opportunity to bypass Heathrow in favour of Gatwick, which offers a much more feasible prospect, besides being cheaper. Incidentally, would Gatwick expansion not create the same job opportunities? As for the preferences of airlines, these should not be considered at the expense of London residents. Let’s hope the Government will, for once, decide in the interests of the people.
A. BAGLIONI, West Drayton.