Oh dear. Build a new airport in Kent. That old chestnut. We've already got two airports here that want to expand and ruin the beautiful Kent countryside and seaside. We don't want your noise and pollution, thank you.

Heathrow is London's problem, so let London deal with it.

Richard Eastcliff, Ramsgate, Kent

How many of these complainers travel on holiday by plane?
I used to live next to arailway line, I did not complain about the trains.
These airports were there before many of these complainers were alive, so why move there in the first place.
Someone living near Heathrow told me that it did not disturbe them as they were not on the flight path.
perhaps Britons should get on with their lives and stop complaining about everything.

Mike, paphos, cyprus

Having the Heathrow flightpath over the most populated bit of the country obviously makes no sense. It certainly would not be approved now if it were a new project. The success of Ryanair at a different airport and the fact that it has a higher market capitalisation than BA is proof that the BA economics argument over Heathrow expansion is in fact purely a self interest argument and bears no relation to the general economic well being of the country. Politicians meekly comply with the self interest. We need to stop being so third worldy and move the airport. Hong Kong did it. Why can't we?

Gary, London, UK

How many people are aware that the CO2 emission obsession means that they are going to deliberately compromise noise levels on new jets?
The next generation of planes could be only half as noisy but are unlikely to be just so the already insignificant but dishonestly inflated CO2 effect of air traffic will be minimised.

D Cage, Highworth, Wilts UK

Living in Windsor means living with the noise of aircraft, whether taking off or landing. When I inquired of BAA about the noise of aircraft taking off they indicated it is not measured. Saying that the safety of the plane is more critical than the noise. While I agree with that in principal, it does not ease the burden of being blasted out of the back garden. Nor does it address the pollution generated. How many people have to clean their windows of black particulate material almost daily?

Don, Windsor, Berkshire

Far more people in Europe are affected by noise from trains and cars than from aircraft. Noise is a fact of modern life I'm afraid. Also, if we start banning planes at night where does it stop - should we then close down the road and rail network too?

Steve, Highbury, London, UK

I have lived in the Chiswick area for 30 years. Aircraft noise has got worse in that time and the number of flights has increased. I bought my house long before there was any talk of scrapping runway alternation.When permission was won for the buiding of Terminal 5 we were told categorically that there would be no third runway. What sort of a government refuses to acknowledge the damage done to health and well-being by the noise and pollution created by Heathrow and condemns its citizens to ever greater levels of both?As a teacher in Kew I frequently have to stop teaching when aircraft noise is too loud. This is a beautiful area to live in ,with a real sense of community, but runway 3 would be a disaster for hundreds of thousands of people in West London.Bring in the carbon credit card that makes us choose how we spend our allowance and let the elderly benefit financially by selling their allowance to those whose selfishness is environmentally damaging.

Jane Theakston, Chiswick, UK

Now we have the high speed train from London to Paris, we should limit flights and let the French have the noise, pollution etc. if they want them.

Much has been said about the economic benefits of expanding air traffic. I disagree. Some trade is too dearly bought.

Michael Bruce, Selby, Yorkshire

Congratulations !! At long last you have lifted the lid on the disgraceful way in which the DfT has conducted the process of the ANASE report.
For the past 2 years the DfT has refused to supply information (under the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004)on the progress of this report,and as recently as last April had the gall to say that "it is in the public interest to await the completion of the study, so that analysis and interpretation of the information contained in these documents can proceed unhindered"!!
In other words "wait until we have massaged the facts to give us the answer we want".
Your article has given us fresh impetus to continue to pursue such information that the DfT has so far refused to divulge.
Jamie, Windsor (on behalf of the West Windsor Residents Association and the Royal Borough's "Windsor Area Aircraft-noise Action Group)

M.N.Jamieson, Windsor, Berkshire

Labour must force through the third runway because the situation as it stands now is that Heathrow breaks the EU rules. Labour has 2 choices if it wants to be within EU rules - either reduce the number of flights or build a third runway. The reason that a third runway is a solution is that the EU measurements use the footprint (hectares etc) of the airport/ runways etc in the calculation of pollution, so it follows that a great number of hectares actually reduces the allowed pollution. So all the people forced to sell their houses, all the loss of farmland and amenity, all the disruption and billions of pounds spent will be in the cause of getting Labour back to compliance with the EU. Anyone out there think it's worth it? or should they actually do want everyone living within 20 miles of Heathrow wants them to do, and reduce the number of flights?

harry, maidenhead, uk

What concerns me even more than noise levels is the fact that air traffic control is already pushed to the limit of safely handling flights. What provision will be made to handle this massive increase in traffic and where will safe air space be found for ever increasing numbers of aircraft?

Jennifer, Cambridge,

In July this year I visited Kew Gardens, a trip I had looked forward to for years. I counted approximately 30 seconds between low flying aircraft headed for Heathrow an 'attraction' that is not publicised in the brochures!! Fortunately, most visitors weren't too bothered by it, but it certainly ruined the hoped for tranquility of a garden as far as I was concerned.
I can't imagine how the thousands of residents in that area endure it.

Shirley Bowen, Blackpool, UK

I lived under the main flight path, 1 mile from Manchester Airport for 16 years. You get used to it to the point you barely notice a 747 flying 1,500ft over your head.
If you don’t like aircraft noise don’t buy a house near an airport!
I knew when I bought that house that there was a very high chance that air traffic would increase and the airport would likely expand, just as I know road traffic will increase in 10 years and as a result the roads will be noisier and busier.
So acting dumb and complaining after you've bought a house that it’s getting noisier really gets no sympathy from me.
If you don’t like cow dung don’t move to the country, if you don’t like noise don’t move near an airport!

“”The study also found that aircraft noise causes greater annoyance to people on higher incomes””

I’m now wondering if there is any correlation between income level and common sense. Somebody should fund a study group.

Phill Barlow, Wirral, England

As the government admits we need lots of housing. Heathrow is a brownfield site with good rail links to London. As a brownfield site the land should be fairly cheap so any development can include a few thousand low cost houses that the government aspires to privide for key workers.

We now a high-speed rail link to St Pancras running through Kent. Surely the time has come to close Heathrow and move the runways etc to a point close to the crossover between the M25 and the high-speed euro rail line. This will move the noise away from a highly populated area with very congested road links into an area that is relatively lightly populated, has lots of room to allow the runways lengths required, has 10 lane motorway links and the fastest train service in the UK linking to a brand new station designed to cater for international travellers.

John , Chippenham, UK

So now the avoidance of annoyance is a basic human right; where will it end. We need airports for prosperity and unless those expressing annoyance have lived there since before Heathrow became a commerical airport then they cannot be surprised and we shouldn't be concerned if they are now annoyed by the noise an airport makes.

Glen, Manchester, England

The noise from flights over Fulham is quite outrageous and we are some distance outside the 57 db zone.

There are two choices: the expansion can stop now at Heathrow and the limitations remain in force, and we will generally tolerate it. Or go ahead with the expansion & I guarantee that there wil be a backlash that will result in draconian measures. It is a festering problem for an increasing number of people and when it explodes no amount of government and corporate spin will hold back the tide.

And I have not even mentioned the amount of air pollution that is becoming increasingly noticeable.

Anthony Ducshell, Fulham London, England

Build a new airport in the Thames Estuary.

ab, quimper, france

I lived in Fulham on and off for a year and wondered why I kept waking up at 6am every day. And then, at 4am. I soon learned that it was aircraft from what I assume to be Heathrow that has initially begun flying in or out at 6am and then later, when I assume a law changed, at 4am. And the noise the aircraft make during the day is loud enough to block out the noise of a TV and make it hard for either party to hear when on the phone.

Wonderkid, London, London

How can we consider expanding Heathrow and adding more flights when we are being told that the skys above London are becoming saturated? Will it take a midair collision before those with vested interests stop pushing Heathrow and consider expanding Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow.
Most flights to North America fly up the UK and out over the Atlantic anyway so why MUST they leave from Heathrow? We are also told that the expansion will mean more jobs? And how are all these extra workers going to get to work with the chaotic road system?

George, Glasgow, UK