'Our village will be destroyed by the third runway - we want just 1 thing from Heathrow'

Angry residents in a village at risk of being "destroyed" by a third runway at Heathrow Airport say they feel betrayed and ignored, but have vowed to carry on the fight for their homes. Airport bosses submitted plans to build another runway for £21billion within 10 years to include a new, full-length runway on Friday, August 1.

They are seeking permission for a new 3,500-metre runway to the north-west of Heathrow's existing location, but insist they would consider a shorter one. For the long runway, 752 homes would have to be demolished. Heathrow bosses say they will pay the "unblighted" market value for the properties plus an extra 25% in compensation. They would also pay stamp duty, legal fees and moving expenses.

But residents in a village affected by the plan fear for their future. They claim some up to 16,000 people will be displaced as a result of Heathrow expansion, while others will have to contend with "unbearable" aircraft noise and pollution.

Andrew Melville, 73, has lived in Harmondsworth for 46 years. He told the Daily Express: "The village is going to be destroyed. The only thing Heathrow can offer us is no third runway."

The retired contracts manager added: "We just feel betrayed, ignored, treated as nothing more than an inconvenience - not even that. At least you address an inconvenience. Heathrow are silent."

Heathrow, which is owned by a consortium of investors, insists it will set up a community compensation fund to support "wider development" around the airport and install more noise insulation. It also said an expanded airport will generate tens of thousands more jobs for locals.

But Armelle Thomas, 79, who has lived in Harmondsworth for 56 years and has been campaigning against Heathrow expansion since 1993, told the Express: "We've had many battles with Heathrow. We've been threatened for such a long time. I'm 79. You don't move at that age and put yourself somewhere else with no contacts. You also can't move a community."

She claimed the stress caused by the uncertainty over the village and her home led to the death of her husband John, a WW2 veteran, 10 years ago when he was aged 93. Responding to Heathrow's offer to purchase the homes, she said: "I wouldn't want money. I want my husband back."

She also believes uncertainty over Harmondsworth's future has led to a hollowing out of local public services, with no GP surgery, permanent library or pharmacy in the village. "Heathrow has never been a benefit to us," she said.

Under its plan, Heathrow would see an extra 276,000 flights per year, up from 480,000 today to 756,000. The M25 motorway would need to be moved into a tunnel under the new runway. Heathrow also wants to create new terminal capacity for 150 million annual passengers, up from its current 84 million.

This will involve a new terminal complex named T5XW and T5XN, extending Terminal 2, and demolishing Terminal 3 and the old Terminal 1.

The airport says its runway and airfield plan would be funded privately at a cost of £21bn, but the total plan, including terminals and supporting infrastructure, is expected to cost £49bn.

Christine Taylor, 67, lives in Harlington, which borders Heathrow. Her mother, Sheila, 93, has lived in neighbouring Sipson for nine decades and remembers the land on which Heathrow sits when it was fields bordered by picturesque, tranquil villages.

Ms Taylor told the Daily Express she wouldn't talk to her mum about Heathrow's plan for a third runway for fear of the upset it would cause her.

She said: "This is yet another threat. They never give up. Heathrow never stops planning its next development. This threat alone may be the end for our community. I read this bull**** about how great this is going to be for everyone. No way is it good for us."

The mother of two adult sons said of those whose homes would be demolished: "As devastating as that is, at least they won't have to live through all the development. But I hope common sense will prevail and it won't be built."

She argued taxpayers would still be on the hook despite Heathrow's claim the extension would be privately funded. She believes: "They will argue the M25 is not exclusive to them. This Government will also have to pick up the pieces when all these people are removed. Where would they go?"

Ms Taylor said: "We are not Nimbys. I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy. We just feel [Heathrow expansion] is grossly unfair and damaging for the country and planet. We have done everything we can to save this area. It's airport expansion that's the problem, not us."

Despite such concerns, Chancellor Rachel Reeves said it is "essential" the UK increases its airport capacity to ensure goods made in Britain can be exported and sold around the world.

She added the Government is "absolutely determined" to seize the opportunities that come from being an open trading economy.

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said she was pleased to have received the initial Heathrow expansion proposals, describing them as a significant step towards unlocking growth, creating jobs and delivering "vital" national infrastructure.

Ms Alexander said the Government would consider the proposals this summer with a view to reviewing a national airports policy later this year.

The policy provides the basis for granting consent for a new runway and should ensure any scheme meets legal, environmental and climate obligations.

But trust in politicians among locals appears to have run out in the villages around Heathrow after years of flip-flopping.

Neighbours' frustrations were directed at governments of all stripes as well as the airport's owners. Former prime minister David Cameron said "no ifs, no buts, no third runway". His successor, Theresa May, forced a Commons vote on supporting an extension, which Labour opposed at the time, but now wholeheartedly backs.

"We're sick of lying politicians. I don't believe anything they or Heathrow say. They just short-change us. It's disgusting. We've been forgotten. Our quality of life is turning to s***," Mr Melville said.

He added: "People can't sell their houses. Banks won't approve mortgages. People can't move. Landlords come in, buy at knock down prices, take a three-bedroom house and turn it into bedsits."

Heathrow insisted locals will be at the "heart" of a consultation process to better their "understanding" of the impacts and benefits of the plan.

Meanwhile, the Labour Government has been accused of hypocrisy, as it preaches the need to reduce Britain's planet-warming carbon emissions and supports a third runway, which will see hundreds of thousands more flights.

Tony Bosworth, climate campaigner at the charity Friends of the Earth, has already said if Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer wants to be "seen as a climate leader", then backing Heathrow expansion was "the wrong move".

Even the Labour Mayor of London, Sir Sadiq Khan, said he remained opposed to a third runway "because of the severe impact it will have in terms of noise, air pollution and meeting our climate change targets".

The Government said it is committed to net zero and to speeding up efforts to develop more efficient and zero-emission aircraft technology with almost £1bn in research funding.

A source close to Heathrow said the airport supports efforts towards sustainable aviation fuel, hydrogen use, carbon removal and efficiency improvements. They said the flight hub has a detailed plan to reach net zero in the sky and on the ground by 2050.

Heathrow said it has a "robust" noise action plan approved by the Government and is making "real" progress. The source said the airport's noise footprint is the smallest it has been since the 1970s, with quieter jets, "optimised" flight paths and limits on night flights.

But Paul Beckford, Policy Director at Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (HACAN), claimed that Heathrow expansion will expose hundreds of thousands more people to harmful levels of noise pollution.

Mr Beckford, whose organisation was set up in the 1960s to represent locals who live around the airport and under its flight paths, believes new communities will be impacted and those currently overflown risk seeing a greater concentration of aircraft.

The director said: "Many people will have bought their homes in order to avoid aircraft noise from Heathrow, but if expansion goes ahead then their respite and health are at risk from significant increases in noise exposure."

He added the lack of detail published so far, combined with other expansion proposals, further increases uncertainty for communities threatened with destruction.

The airport's Chief Executive, Thomas Woldbye, said last week: "It has never been more important or urgent to expand Heathrow. We are effectively operating at capacity to the detriment of trade and connectivity.

"With a green light from Government and the correct policy support underpinned by a fit-for-purpose, regulatory model, we are ready to mobilise and start investing this year in our supply chain across the country. We are uniquely placed to do this for the country. It is time to clear the way for take-off."

But Ms Taylor sounded a far more sombre note. She said: "I feel a bit depressed looking over this plan because of what it means for us. The fight will continue, but, even if we win, we have already lost - this isn't the place it once was."