SIR - Heathrow Airport may not be close to you, but the extra 49,000 employees needed for a third runway will need houses within 50 miles of it and, without several new towns, these people and their families will greatly increase demands on housing and our overstressed infrastructure and services.

Our overcrowded patched up roads, lack of parking, ridiculous house prices and problems with local services will get much worse unless thousands of ordinary people write a simple letter this weekend to object to even more development in our region.

I write as a parish and borough councillor involved in three airport related committees, and with the public and council officers. Heathrow has brought prosperity, high employment and highly salaried big business and with them house prices beyond most young people and modestly paid workers. As a result, most councils and other essential public services (planning, highways, social services, public transport, schools, hospitals, doctors, firemen, police, etc) are understaffed as many potential employees simply cannot afford to live in the area.

We all know the obvious parts of our infrastructure (roads, bus and rail services, etc) lag behind due to cost and lack of space, yet government policy to concentrate economic develop-ment in the south east unrealistically expects more rail use when capacity and safety can be stretched no more. But a far more serious defect in the policy is the amazingly seldom mentioned inability of the hidden service mains to cope with ever increasing demands and the enormous disruption and expense of digging up roads (and sometimes repairing them) when gas, electric and water mains, telecoms and sewers do get upgraded. The spillage of excess sewage into the Thames is just one of the problems my community faces. In almost every instance we will have to pay while others reap the profits.

British Airways and others threaten economic doom if R3 (and a sixth terminal) is not allowed, saying many airlines would vacate Heathrow in favour of enlarged continental hub (interchange) airports. But didn’t they say that Terminal 5 would protect the jobs of their employees and satisfy the demands of the international business community of London and the Thames Valley? Don’t they realise that their business clients will leave if the area is gridlocked and support services are even more stretched? The congestion charging suggestion of airport operator BAA admits failure, not a solution.

A third runway at Heathrow means far more than another 30 per cent more flights. It will exacerbate problems over a wide area, but it will only be one of many more extensions required to meet 300 per cent anticipated future growth. Increased noise and dangerous pollution affecting many thousands more people will not be offset by new aircraft as the current ones have a 30 year life. New runways at Stanstead or Gatwick would be a botched quick-fix which would not meet long-term demands.

I have no doubt whatsoever that a new airport east of London is essential to meet London’s future demands and stop the never ending ‘special circumstances’ claims for even more development at Heathrow. Cliffe or a similar second international ‘hub’ location in the Thames Estuary would be ideal for one of the two major airline alliances which now compete for space at Heathrow, possibly with 24 hour operation and 50 per cent of flights over the sea. The airlines say two hubs in one area has never been viable, but nowhere else is as busy as London and Heathrow just cannot continue its relentless expansion. New road and rail links would be relatively easy to provide to the Cliffe area as it is close to Eurorail and the far less congested side of London. The regional plan states that East London (‘The Thames Gateway’) needs more commerce to counter unemployment - and Cliffe would be the catalyst it needs.

Please send a short letter saying no to Heathrow Runway 3 and preferably give reasons why Cliffe would be so much better, to Future Development of Air Transport - South East, Department for Transport, Zone 1/28C, FREEPOST LON 17806, London SW1P 4YS, to arrive by Monday June 30th. Please don’t leave it to others - your letter could be crucial when it comes to the count!

Malcolm Beer, Orchard Road, Old Windsor.

SIR - George Andrews of Friends of the Earth is absolutely right to point out that, unlike motorists, air transport enjoys tax free fuel (Letters June 13th).

Given that much of the pollution and noise problems in the area stem from aviation, the Green Party is arguing that we need a congestion charge for air traffic as well as road traffic. The GLA should be given additional powers to set emissions charges and increased landing charges at Heathrow, as has been achieved at Zurich airport.

The aviation industry must pay its way for the environmental damage it causes. Only then will there be a serious incentive to stem the unsustainable growth in air traffic. Revenue from the air congestion charge should then be ring-fenced to fund environmental improvements and sustainable transport initiatives in London.

Cllr Darren Johnson, Leader of the Green Party Group in the London Assembly, City Hall, Queens Walk, London. SE1.

SIR - I urge people to write opposing the construction of a 3rd runway at Heathrow by the 30 June. The address is: Future Development of Air Transport - South East, DfT, Room 1/28c, FREEPOST LON 17806, London SW1P 4YS If this runway is built it will be the thin edge of the wedge. Even now BAA have stated that it will necessitate the construction of another Terminal(T6). Also another runway is being proposed (four in all) which will be to the south of the existing runways.

If this runway is built, people in Richmond and Twickenham who, at the moment do not suffer from aircraft noise, will find that planes will be landing over their heads every minute going west, roughly in a line just south of Richmond Bridge. It will be an environmental nightmare.

F Brown, Gordon Avenue, Twickenham.

SIR - There are only a couple of days remaining for people to register their opinions on plans to build a third runway at Heathrow.

It's worth remembering what this will mean for us all in west London: an extra 175 000 flights over our heads every year, unacceptable levels of noise for eighteen hours a day, increases in air pollution, causing more asthma difficulties for our children, increases in traffic congestion on roads that already can't cope, the risk of a major airline incident over our heads.

If you find the prospect of all this unacceptable, please take a moment to write to Alistair Darling, the Secretary of State for Transport, 76 Marsham St SW1P 4DR.

Send a copy to Ann or Alan Keen MP [if resident of Hounslow borough] at the House of Commons, SW1A 0AA.

Petitions are available from libraries or by calling 8995 7289.

The government will read and take notice of our letters and petitions.

We've had a terrific response to this campaign, with support from all political parties and a wide variety of community groups.

If you've already written then thank you.

But if you haven't, why not take five minutes now to drop line to Mr Darling?

Your letter could make a great deal of difference to life in west London for years to come.

Seema Malhotra, chair, Brentford & Isleworth Labour Party.

SIR - My depression at the prospect of the further destruction of west London is often relieved by the antics of advocates of further expansion at Heathrow.

I chuckle at the local Labour Party parading its opposition to proposals of Labour government.

I read claims that a short third runway will contribute £37 billion per annum to our GDP.

Heathrow only claims to contribute about £10 billion and that is disputed and takes little account of hidden costs that must come close to the alleged earnings.

Janis Kong of BAA (letters, June 6th) seems to have read a different BAA response to the consultation from the one I have.

If anybody believes that a third runway is being forced on a reluctant BAA by the government, they should read BAA’s actual response.

I hear how expanding Heathrow will increase income from tourism and inwards investment.

Tourism costs us more than it earns.

I have read no explanation of how this would reverse if it increased.

Outward investment exceeds inward investment.

More flying seems more likely to make both of these worse than to improve anything.

The shakiness of the argument that civil aviation creates wealth is illustrated by Anthony Manners (letters, June 13th).

While arguing against expanding Heathrow, he claims expanding Stansted may not occur to the government because of the cost to the taxpayer of upgrading rail links.

Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for upgrading something to cater for an airport?

This having happened many times does not make it right but just illustrates the phoniness of figures for airport contributions to our economy.

I meet civil servants, desperately trying to cut the odd few million tonnes a year off our greenhouse gas emissions, puzzled about why an extra 50 million tonnes from aircraft doesn’t matter.

Even the future of the planet cannot stand in the way of the quest for flights so cheap that newspapers give them away by the thousand.

Imposing a quite modest and entirely reasonable tax on flying would shrink passenger numbers to a level that required no expansion at all.

‘Freedom to Fly’, seems often to be freedom to fly from anything that resembles honesty or sense!

John C Murphy, Camrose Avenue, Hanworth.