COUNTY councillors are calling on the Government to ensure that any planning conditions are rigidly enforced should permission be granted for a fifth terminal at Heathrow Airport.

Buckinghamshire County Council made its appeal following recent newspaper speculation that the Terminal 5 Public Inquiry was likely to come out in favour of the development, but only with tight planning controls.

The county council is opposed to the construction of the terminal on planning, environmental and traffic grounds, fearing that development, which it estimates will bring another 30 million passengers per year to the airport until action is taken to limit numbers, will threaten the green belt, clog up roads and reduce the quality of life for residents.

Cllr Bill Chapple, deputy leader of Buckinghamshire County Council, said: "We remain opposed to the building of Terminal 5. The building itself would be a vast development, equivalent in size to the construction of a whole new airport and the potential increase in traffic and pressure on the green belt could be devastating for southern areas of the county."

Cllr Chapple said if the Government insists that Terminal 5 is to go ahead it must also insist on strict measures to mitigate the effect on the environment and the quality of life for those living around Heathrow.

Members of the Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce & Industry continue to support the building of a fifth terminal at Heathrow which they would welcome as the catalyst for significantly improved access to the airport.

Mary Flavelle, policy and communications executive at the chamber said: "Without Heathrow many of the companies which have brought prosperity to the Thames Valley would not have located in this region. Unless Heathrow is allowed to plan for the future there is no certainly that the region's prosperity can be sustained."

She added the chamber was very aware that expansion should take account of the local community and the environment, but once this had been agreed, the chamber believed there could be no realistic argument against the building of a fifth terminal.