The Heathrow expansion is an emotive issue and I will admit my bias at the outset: I am very much against it and took part in the government consultation, only to be infuriated by the complexities of the document which was filled with 'techno-babble' and seemed to be designed to dissuade people from taking part in the process.
Under government proposals, Heathrow's number of take-offs and landings would nearly double from 480,000 to 800,000 a year by adding a runway for short-haul flights by 2020 and expanding the use of the existing two runways. The third runway alone would account for an extra 240,000 flights each year.
Flight paths to cater for the new runway would affects parts of London and the south-east that have previously avoided being directly over-flown by planes, including Maidenhead, Slough, Chiswick, Hammersmith, Chelsea and Notting Hill.
The consultation closed in February and a decision is due to be taken by the end of the year, but rumours abound that it is ‘a done deal'.
This is despite huge levels of opposition to the plans from the Tories; London Mayor Boris Johnson (who wants to close Heathrow and build a new airport on an island in the Thames); councils in affected areas; and HACAN, the largest voluntary organisation in Europe campaigning on behalf of those who suffer because of aircraft flight paths.
This is not to mention the thousands of ordinary people who have expressed their views in the media; taken part in the Consultation; and attended anti-expansion council meetings and protest events.
Another high profile (and non-Tory) opponent is former Labour minister Chris Smith, now chairman of the Environment Agency.
This week he stressed that a third runway at Heathrow would be ‘very detrimental' to Londoners' health: ‘I hope very much that the government will not go ahead with the third runway at Heathrow,' he said.
‘All the studies we've done in the Environment Agency of the likely impact of air quality on west London are very detrimental. If the third runway goes ahead, if we get that extra both air and ground traffic that will arise out of that, then it is absolutely certain that nitrogen dioxide levels will go way beyond what they ought to be for the sake of human health.'
The DoH insists that any expansion of Heathrow would meet strict local environmental conditions. However, ministers have not explained how this would be achieved and I'm sorry to say that I am not inclined to accept pledges from government departments on trust!
Besides, air pollution is not the only issue to be addressed. In addition to increased air pollution, there is the serious problem of increased noise pollution for Londoners living in the shadow of the flight path. This is not always taken seriously (particularly by those who live nowhere near a flight path) but it is unquestionably damaging to people's sleep patterns and to their physical and mental health.
Some parts of the capital, particularly south west London, are subjected to low-flying aircraft virtually every 90 seconds: houses vibrate; conversations or televisions are rendered inaudible; and sleep is impossible. Night flights turn residents into insomniacs and those during the day prevent people from using their own gardens and even areas of their own homes.
If Heathrow's expansion goes ahead, it has been calculated that the number of people subjected to aircraft noise levels above the 57 decibels considered by the government to be the ‘beginning of community annoyance', will rise from 375,000 to 535,000.
HACAN would like to see a ban on night flights; an extension of runway and flight path alternation; a cap on the number of flights at Heathrow; an adoption of the noise levels recommended by the World Health Organisation; a tax on passengers transfer using Heathrow; plus clear information on flight paths.
The organisation is determined that the problem should not just be shifted elsewhere and I have yet to ascertain its view on ‘Boris Island' (as the Mayor's plans have been dubbed).
Personally, I think HACAN's demands sound entirely sensible, and I believe now is the time for a serious rethink of the UK's air travel policy. While practical and economic issues do need to be considered, my message to ministers is to ignore the views (and the health) of everyday Londoners at your peril!