London is divided over proposed plans to add a third runway to Heathrow Airport.
And while the UK government desperately tries to drum up support for the Heathrow expansion project, they face stiff opposition from local councils, residents and international environmental groups.
We're not talking about angry letters to newspapers and rants on TV, which most governments sweep under the carpet without apparent thought or conscience.
Instead, anti-Heathrow expansion activists have challenged the legality of the decision to go ahead with the expansion on the grounds that the consultation process was 'flawed' and the decision 'irrational'.
The opposition group, collectively called the 2M group, also allege that the decision to build another runway will significantly increase the level of noise and air pollution in the area, which is in direct contrast to the government's much touted dedication to climate change and low-carbon transport systems.
Greenpeace executive director, John Sauven, explained the decision to take their fight to the courts.
"The government's decision to expand Heathrow is completely at odds with the urgent need to slash emissions and stop runaway climate change.
This is why we are launching a legal challenge," he said.
The director of campaigns at WWF-UK, David Norman, added his voice to the debate when he said, "The decision to allow a third runway at Heathrow blows the chances of setting the UK onto a low carbon pathway completely out of the water.
If the targets set in the Climate Change Act are to be meaningful, the government must stop adopting policies that undermine them.
" Not only does the 2M group enjoy the support of high-profile international organisations and 23 borough councils, they are also backed by Transport for London and the current Mayor of London, Boris Johnson.
The cause of Heathrow expansion proponents is further handicapped by internal fumbling and failure to comply with international standards.
For instance, Noise Action Plans regulated by the European Union have forced BAA to change the way it calculates aircraft noise and forced them to reveal that they have been grossly underestimating the numbers of those affected by noise coming from Heathrow.
BAA initially estimated that fewer than 300,000 people were affected by the noise coming from airport traffic but had to revise the figure to over 700,000.
The newly released Noise Action Plan, however, fails to detail how the airport plans to manage and reduce the levels of noise from its existing runways.
Should another runway be added to Heathrow, air traffic is projected to increase from 480,000 flights per day to over 700,000, and at over 70 decibels per plane that amounts to a massive increase in noise.
Hacan, a European organisation dedicated to helping those affected by aircraft flight paths, has determined that over 30 planes flying to and from Heathrow flew over Vauxhall and Putney in the central London boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth respectively.
This is an area that BAA claims is beyond the boundary of boroughs affected by flight noise.
Heathrow expansion supporters claim that the plans will reduce the time airplanes spend circling the airport as they wait for runways to be cleared for landing, they add that a third runway will allow arrivals and departures from more destinations, making the world more accessible to Londoners and Britons in general.
Then there are the financial gains.
A report commissioned by the British Chamber of Commerce (BCC) shows that a third runway could generate £30 billion over the next 60 years.
This includes around £12 billion in increased productivity (more flights and fewer delays) but excludes £20 billion in indirect benefits such as increased employment.
The report also reveals that for every year that the expansion is delayed, the UK loses around £1 billion.
According to BCC director General David Frost, "Connectivity is vital to the UK economy as businesses seek to develop new global opportunities that will allow them to generate wealth and jobs.
Without additional capacity at our major hub airport, we will continue to fall behind our continental competitors.
" John Stewart, chairman of Hacan, retaliated and according to the Financial Times said that the report, "smacks of desperation ...
The major failing of this report is that it has not factored in the environmental and social costs - the cost of noise, pollution, climate change, community destruction, traffic congestion etc.
That makes a mockery of its figures.
" London Mayor Boris Johnson has proposed an alternative to the Heathrow expansion project by suggesting that a new airport be built near the mouth of the Thames, enabling planes to take off and land over the North Sea to minimise noise as well as the danger of a crash over London.
So far the government hasn't expressed any interest in the Lord Mayor's proposal but as opposition increases and credibility becomes more of an issue we could see a new precedent as a national government puts its people before profit.