Harm to Heathrow or Harmondsworth

During the eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull during 2010, throughout all the disruption to air traffic, the residents of Kew and visitors to the Gardens could briefly enjoy a return to pre-World War Two Arcadia, with most flights in and out of Heathrow grounded.  On a visit of my own to Kew Gardens (in the winter), I noted how I could see the undercarriage of aircraft unfurling and the noise would have been unbearable had I lived in the environs - triple glazing but where's the fun being cooped inside the house all day, unable to enjoy the garden?
Such impressions coloured my view of any expansion to Heathrow.  Of course, it also meant I would not be hypocritical in opposing a Thames Estuary airport (Boris 'The Animal' Johnson chuntering on the radio today that it "will be built" - fear a prime minister Bojo).  Environmental groups also opposed it and bought up a plot of land and parcelled it out among paying supporters, forcing Heathrow to take every single litigant to court for compulsory purchase, time-consuming and expensive procedures.  Further, there was apparent room for expansion at Birmingham airport and with HS2 being built would make central London less than an hour away (faster than the Piccadilly Line on the London 'Underground' from Heathrow) - airports are just transit areas, not needing glamour, so does it really matter at what one you land?  Gatwick could also be expanded to two runways though there are attendant well-heeled protesters there as well.
Today though, the Airport Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, ruled that a third runway at Heathrow (with attendant £17bn expansion) was its 'clear and unanimous choice'.  Gatwick expansion would be significantly less viable, dealing as it does with intra-European flights rather than those to 'emerging markets' destinations.  Increasing the size of Heathrow wouldn't be a free-for-all, with bans on night flights on the new runway, a legally binding 'noise envelope' plus stringent limits on air pollution and airport users paying a levy to help the surrounding community adapt (plus a community board so locals can voice their concern, though this sounds like a powerless talking shop) and, importantly, parliament should create a Bill explicitly ruling out any fourth runway at Heathrow.  All these conditions, the Commission says, should make Heathrow 'a better neighbour' than it is currently.
This will be of little comfort to those directly under the flightpath and even less to the villagers of Harmondsworth, which will largely be destroyed to make room.  The boundaries of an enlarged Heathrow would come up right to lych gate of the Norman Anglican church and the Five Bells pub and the Baptist Church should also survive but who would they serve?  Harmondsworth has a history going back to Offa the Great of Mercia in the eighth century and is mentioned in the Domesday Book.  The ecclesiastical parish used to encompass the hamlets of Sipson and tellingly Heathrow, yet will now be all but gobbled up by the new inhabitants of the latter.  The Grade I-listed Harmondsworth Great Barn, the property of English Heritage is north of the well maintained Anglican church, so it seems the planners of expansion were careful to minimise costs that would involve relocating esteemed buildings.
It gives me no pleasure to say it but a third runway at Heathrow probably has to be built, with the ensuing destruction of much of Harmondsworth.  But we are not Dubai, able to build in the middle of the desert.  Despite 'The Animal's proclivities and other Tory MPs whose constituencies lie under a Heathrow low flight paths, estuary airports either as a 'Boris Island' (Fantasy Island is more apt) or a Norman Foster-conceived Isle of Grain airport have been ruled out as non-starters both on grounds of cost and airline opposition (BA have publicly stated that they would only move to an estuary airport if Heathrow was closed and they would be expected to be compensated for the disruption).  'The Animal' treated the Commissions demands as the requirements for a new runway as a pack of lies and seemed to believe that that primacy of parliament when ruling out a fourth runway is not worth a fig - he has invested so much personal and political capital in opposing Heathrow expansion that he can't back down now.  It raises the interesting question of whether he would have to resign from the cabinet (no great loss, he doesn't have a post until he ceases to be mayor) if David Cameron pushed ahead on the third runway.  The proponents of Heathrow within government would avoid a defeat if the Labour Party was mature and voted for what they would have done had they won the 2010 election.  For some reason, no decision will be taken until the autumn and don't hold your breath that the whole issue won't be kicked into the long grass further then.