By Cedric Pulford

[First published January 8, 2003 by Observer News Service. Copyright Pulford Media Ltd. This article may not be reprinted or distributed either electronically or on hard copy without permission]

FATHER Phil Hughes is a man of two worlds. As an Anglican clergyman he is concerned with matters of heaven and earth, which coincides neatly with his double role as full-time chaplain at London's Heathrow Airport and parish priest of villagers fighting to stop the airport swallowing up their communities.

Heathrow - handling more than 64 million passengers a year, the world's busiest airport for international flights and its second busiest cargo port - is at the centre of a major environmental battle.

At stake are economic benefits of at least US dollars 79 billion from a third runway at London-Heathrow airport, according to its promoters, British Airways, or the effective destruction of the picturesque village of Harmondsworth with its 11th century church, medieval great barn and 16th century inn, the Five Bells.

Father Phil is standing by his parishioners in this seemingly David-and-Goliath fight. 'I love aviation, but the community is distraught by the runway proposal. It affects homes, schools, spiritual life. It is wiping history off the map,' he says.

If the third runway is built, the graveyard of Father Phil's church would find itself right beside the airport perimeter or even inside it, leaving villagers to reflect sourly on a new meaning for their loved ones of 'rest in peace'.

The plight of Harmondsworth is more than a tale of yet another village lost to the cause of progress. It symbolises the struggle between a government which insists that airport expansion is vital to Britain's economic wellbeing, and conservationists, who reject the claim that progress means more planes.

The British government says journeys from UK airports are likely to soar from the present 180 million passengers per annum (ppa) to 500 million ppa by 2030 and that this means more runway capacity is necessary. Its consultation document suggests a range of options, including a third runway at Heathrow and no fewer than three new runways at Stansted, in Essex, to the east of London. New airports in the English midlands or further down the Thames Estuary towards the sea, again to the east of London are other prospects.

Conservationists maintain such number-crunching is simplistic and the proposed expansion is more about cheap leisure flights than vital business travel. The bonanza of 'cheapies', like the planned US dollars 98 one-way fare between Britain and America, simply cannot be afforded in terms of pollution, noise and the safety of the country's crowded skies, they argue. (Already, in a Europe-wide decision, above 29,000ft planes need only stay 1,000ft apart instead of 2,000ft as before.)

This approach received a considerable boost this week - and the airlines a significant setback - when a leaked a report from one of the country's most authoritative think tanks, the Institute of Public Policy Research, attacked the government for 'being in hock' to the airline industry and said that existing capacity at airports should be utilised before expansion is considered.

The IPPR, Britain's ruling New Labour's favourite policy analyst, urges that the aviation industry's contribution to climate change through harmful fuel emissions and land hungry development must be recognised and dealt with .

Back at Heathrow, although firm plans are up to a year away, the protest has already become physical. Outside the British Airways headquarters at Heathrow an un-British scuffle broke out between demonstrators and security staff. Pushing and shoving lasted for ten minutes until the police arrived.

British Airways - privately owned, but the nation's flag carrier - is pressing hard to expand Heathrow, calling it 'the only realistic option for maintaining an internationally competitive aviation hub in Britain'. It is an argument that speaks to a government concerned about airport competition from Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt on the European mainland.

Dr Andrew Sentance, BA's chief economist, says: 'British aviation has an extraordinary track record of success. We have the third largest airline industry in the world ? after the US and Japan. In how many industries can the UK now make that claim?' For every one job in aviation, four more are supported indirectly across the economy, he adds.

The campaign group, HACAN Clear Skies, strongly opposes a third runway. It challenges the idea that airport expansion is about meeting business needs or about liberating poorer people to fly.

Chairman John Stewart says: 'Short-term leisure travel is where the expansion will come. The government seems to accept that it's not its business to stop people flying, but this expansion will benefit mainly the well-to-do. The country's top ten per cent of earners will be taking six or seven weekend breaks a year [if demand is not regulated].'

Noise is probably the Heathrow protesters' best hope. Millions of Londoners are subjected to constant daytime aircraft noise and will not welcome the idea of flights almost trebling. According to HACAN Clear Skies, households in a band stretching from west of the capital and across much of the southern suburbs experience average noise levels above the recommended 57 decibel limit. This is an area that includes super-wealthy Richmond-upon-Thames and the Queen's weekend home, Windsor Castle.

Airport protesters are keen to avoid being seen as nimbys (not in my back yard), and Mr Stewart argues the case for a complete block on new runways anywhere. Father Phil, however, accepts the need for airport expansion. 'We have to increase capacity and remain competitive,' he says. 'But planes are getting bigger as well as quieter. With up to 800 in a plane we may not need new runways at all.'

[Cedric Pulford's book, Air Madness, on the environmental impact of aviation is published by Ituri]

Click here for the CONTENTS page