Over the years, much time and energy has been spent by people like Ann Sobey in fighting for retaining Sipson Village in the face of the proposed third runway.
It is also an unfortunate fact that, due to that threat, the character and composition of the village has changed.
In years gone by the head of a family in Sipson was most probably employed at the airport.
Over the years the children have grown and departed, leaving mum and dad in their home amongst neighbourhood friends all of whom wanted no more then to be left in peace for the rest of their days.
Due to the publicity attached to Terminal 4, then Terminal 5, followed by the threat of a third runway, that peace has been disturbed and some people have moved on. What has become of their houses?
In spite of a BAA spokesman saying: "We do not believe that the property market in Sipson is any different to the rest of the country", I think it would be true to say that within a five mile radius of Sipson village if I wished to buy a house similar to the one I now live in, it would cost me an extra £50k.
I live across the road from the house highlighted in the article 'Couple's Heathrow Housing Woe' [Gazette, October 29] and have a piece of land with planning permission for a house - but can I get a buyer? No way.
Of the under 50s residing in Sipson, how many of them are in rented rooms and working locally on low wages, which means they cannot afford their own transport or to own a house?
Landlords are picking up houses cheaply in the village for buy-to-let and are on a winner, as they can get as much rent per room as a person with a house not near to Heathrow.
They are happy to take in their rent with the knowledge that if the third runway comes they will be compulsorily purchased but do not have to find an alternative place to live.
A further point of interest is how many of the houses in the village are owned by the council?
I suppose the council tenants have some security in expecting to be rehoused if the third runway is approved.
Living in Sipson in my opinion means we have no, or very little, interest in the noise pollution that would be brought about by increased runway activity. If the third runway is approved we would have no interest as we will not be here.
Is it now time we got down to some real statistics and found out how many resident homeowners would be affected by the third runway? Age groups do not seem to have been considered.
What would the 'oldies' do if they had to move? My son is in Australia, but my daughters and grandchildren are all round and we will all have to move if the runway is approved.
In this respect I find it archaic BAA and BA hide behind the Government and expect to use compulsory purchase to gain their ends. Are not the rules at least 50 years out of date?
If Mr Damon Hunt believes the statistics he has given with respect to businesses being behind the need for expansion, is it not time that business put its money where its mouth is?
Come on out into the open; if buisness wants a third runway because it will be good for their business, well and good.
So pay for it like any business developer would. Let them negotiate with the homeowners a price for their house in the same way as a property developer.
Is it so wrong that a homeowner needs persuading to leave the site where he has chosen to live for the rest of his life?
Chitterfield Gate, Sipson.