> Heathrow has been an airfield since the 1930s.

A private airfield, owned by Richard Fairey for his use and that of his owner-pilot friends in the Royal Aeronautical Society, who had their annual picnic there.

The London hub airport in that era, and into the late 1940s, was Croydon.

You can look at it the other way round. The government know that Heathrow is a terrible place for a major airport. And despite being surrounded by villages, nature reserves and Windsor Park they still choose to expand it.

Not everyone can afford to choose a better place to live, but they still deserve reasonable things like quiet at night, clean air and so on.

Homes that are cheap because there’s an airport nearby probably wouldn’t be so cheap if there weren’t an airport nearby.

If house prices are all that matter, then accept that increasing the number of flights at Heathrow will reduce the value. Should the owners be compensated?

It's about 3 million people.

So what you are saying is that it is reasonable to come to a place you know is currently used for X and demand it change for you, I including stopping doing X?

The argument in London is not to close Heathrow, but to stop expanding it.

But in any case, I think it's completely reasonable to demand that toxic fumes are no longer noisily spread over ones house, workplace or school.