> Ministers have approved London City airport’s application to expand, in a decision that has disappointed climate campaigners. The airport submitted a proposal to increase capacity from 6.5 million to 9 million passengers a year by putting on more weekend and early morning flights. Local campaigners and Newham council opposed the move, arguing the air and noise pollution would affect people living nearby and that it could potentially increase carbon emissions. Angela Rayner, the secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, and Louise Haigh, the transport secretary, announced their decision on Monday. It said there was unlikely to be harm caused by any extra noise pollution caused by additional morning and weekend flights, and that it was right to respond to forecasted growth in demand of flights. It also said the decision to expand the airport was “in line with national policy” on the climate crisis.
> However, although the government accepted the higher passenger cap of 9 million, it rejected the airport’s proposals to extend its Saturday afternoon operating hours to 6.30pm. The airport currently closes at 12.30pm on Saturdays. Analysis published by the Guardian last week found that more than half of the journeys taken from the airport last year could be done in six hours or less by train. The Climate Change Committee has recommended there should be no net airport expansion in the UK if the country is going to meet its legally binding target of net zero emissions by 2050. Many English airports are seeking to expand. Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton and Stansted are all pushing to increase passenger capacity via new runways or terminal expansions. The Labour government has taken a soft stance so far and signalled an “open-minded” approach to Heathrow’s proposed new runway.
> Alethea Warrington, a senior campaigner at the climate charity Possible, said: “It’s incredibly disappointing that the new government has … allowed the expansion of this polluting, high-carbon project. London City airport’s expansion will benefit only the private jet users who fly into the airport, at the expense of more air pollution for Londoners and more emissions that harm our climate. The new minister for transport must explain why the government has ignored the clear scientific consensus on constraining aviation emissions – along with the advice of their own scientific advisers, the Climate Change Committee, which recommended no increase in the UK’s airport capacity – in favour of allowing more planes and more pollution.”
> Johann Beckford, a senior policy adviser at the Green Alliance thinktank, said: “This is a disappointing decision given the new government promised it would prioritise tackling climate change. “The decision sets a worrying precedent for planning applications at Luton and Gatwick airports due later this year. The government cannot jeopardise net zero ambitions and the health of local communities for the sake of airport and airline profits.” Alison FitzGerald, London City airport’s chief executive, said: “While we welcome the approval to increase our passenger numbers, we are disappointed with the government’s decision to reject our proposal to fly from 12.30pm to 6.30pm on Saturday afternoons. As the government has recognised in its decision, rejecting our request to extend our Saturday afternoon operating hours will slow down airlines bringing cleaner, quieter next-generation aircraft to the airport. Local residents would have had the added benefit of these aircraft operating at the airport throughout the week, not just in the extended operating hours.”
> The Department for Transport has been contacted for comment.
Flights don’t currently have a viable clean alternative. While they should be coated to include externalities being picked up including combatting climate change, constricting the number of flights by limiting capacity makes no sense.
The exception is short haul that can be replaced by rail, in which case the solution is to tax the flights to raise money to build those rails.
The focus for carbon reduction should be on roads, building public transit, and on domestic and commercial applications like power and heat.
Fuck Newham residents in particular I suppose. More flights and a new road tunnel, all that land could have been housing..
Although I find the airport convenient, this is sad news.
More flights should not be going from there. It’s such a dense area.
City Airport should be made housing.
There is no reason for it to exist anymore since Crossrail opened where it is more convenient now to go to Heathrow then from the city or Canary Wharf.
LCY is a pollution causing beast in one of London’s poorest boroughs. Disgraceful and needs to be closed
It’s also worth noting that newer aircraft which are already in use there have larger capacities than the planes they replaced.
The E190s BA currently use seat 98 passengers, the newer A220-100s a few airlines use up to 135 (125 on ITA & Swiss).
The even older E170s sat 70-80.
Embraer have some similar sized planes to the A220 in the works which might be an upgrade path for other airlines.
If everyone upgraded, you could quite easily add an extra 20-30% passengers with no extra flights.
How can they justify ULEz if they are going to pollute more with air travel
A new road tunnel and airport expansion in the same area is nasty work
I’m sure many aren’t familiar with the area but there’s a primary school just a few hundred metres from the taxiways and runway
This is appalling..
It’s a particular waste of space because not only could it be used to build housing. if the airport didn’t exist, height restrictions could be lifted and we could get taller buildings..
but it’s all ok because some C-Suite executive will be able to fly their private jet in at more hours
9 comments
> Ministers have approved London City airport’s application to expand, in a decision that has disappointed climate campaigners. The airport submitted a proposal to increase capacity from 6.5 million to 9 million passengers a year by putting on more weekend and early morning flights. Local campaigners and Newham council opposed the move, arguing the air and noise pollution would affect people living nearby and that it could potentially increase carbon emissions. Angela Rayner, the secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, and Louise Haigh, the transport secretary, announced their decision on Monday. It said there was unlikely to be harm caused by any extra noise pollution caused by additional morning and weekend flights, and that it was right to respond to forecasted growth in demand of flights. It also said the decision to expand the airport was “in line with national policy” on the climate crisis.
> However, although the government accepted the higher passenger cap of 9 million, it rejected the airport’s proposals to extend its Saturday afternoon operating hours to 6.30pm. The airport currently closes at 12.30pm on Saturdays. Analysis published by the Guardian last week found that more than half of the journeys taken from the airport last year could be done in six hours or less by train. The Climate Change Committee has recommended there should be no net airport expansion in the UK if the country is going to meet its legally binding target of net zero emissions by 2050. Many English airports are seeking to expand. Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton and Stansted are all pushing to increase passenger capacity via new runways or terminal expansions. The Labour government has taken a soft stance so far and signalled an “open-minded” approach to Heathrow’s proposed new runway.
> Alethea Warrington, a senior campaigner at the climate charity Possible, said: “It’s incredibly disappointing that the new government has … allowed the expansion of this polluting, high-carbon project. London City airport’s expansion will benefit only the private jet users who fly into the airport, at the expense of more air pollution for Londoners and more emissions that harm our climate. The new minister for transport must explain why the government has ignored the clear scientific consensus on constraining aviation emissions – along with the advice of their own scientific advisers, the Climate Change Committee, which recommended no increase in the UK’s airport capacity – in favour of allowing more planes and more pollution.”
> Johann Beckford, a senior policy adviser at the Green Alliance thinktank, said: “This is a disappointing decision given the new government promised it would prioritise tackling climate change. “The decision sets a worrying precedent for planning applications at Luton and Gatwick airports due later this year. The government cannot jeopardise net zero ambitions and the health of local communities for the sake of airport and airline profits.” Alison FitzGerald, London City airport’s chief executive, said: “While we welcome the approval to increase our passenger numbers, we are disappointed with the government’s decision to reject our proposal to fly from 12.30pm to 6.30pm on Saturday afternoons. As the government has recognised in its decision, rejecting our request to extend our Saturday afternoon operating hours will slow down airlines bringing cleaner, quieter next-generation aircraft to the airport. Local residents would have had the added benefit of these aircraft operating at the airport throughout the week, not just in the extended operating hours.”
> The Department for Transport has been contacted for comment.
Flights don’t currently have a viable clean alternative. While they should be coated to include externalities being picked up including combatting climate change, constricting the number of flights by limiting capacity makes no sense.
The exception is short haul that can be replaced by rail, in which case the solution is to tax the flights to raise money to build those rails.
The focus for carbon reduction should be on roads, building public transit, and on domestic and commercial applications like power and heat.
Fuck Newham residents in particular I suppose. More flights and a new road tunnel, all that land could have been housing..
Although I find the airport convenient, this is sad news.
More flights should not be going from there. It’s such a dense area.
City Airport should be made housing.
There is no reason for it to exist anymore since Crossrail opened where it is more convenient now to go to Heathrow then from the city or Canary Wharf.
LCY is a pollution causing beast in one of London’s poorest boroughs. Disgraceful and needs to be closed
It’s also worth noting that newer aircraft which are already in use there have larger capacities than the planes they replaced.
The E190s BA currently use seat 98 passengers, the newer A220-100s a few airlines use up to 135 (125 on ITA & Swiss).
The even older E170s sat 70-80.
Embraer have some similar sized planes to the A220 in the works which might be an upgrade path for other airlines.
If everyone upgraded, you could quite easily add an extra 20-30% passengers with no extra flights.
How can they justify ULEz if they are going to pollute more with air travel
A new road tunnel and airport expansion in the same area is nasty work
I’m sure many aren’t familiar with the area but there’s a primary school just a few hundred metres from the taxiways and runway
This is appalling..
It’s a particular waste of space because not only could it be used to build housing. if the airport didn’t exist, height restrictions could be lifted and we could get taller buildings..
but it’s all ok because some C-Suite executive will be able to fly their private jet in at more hours