.png)
The government has approved a significant increase in the passenger cap at London City Airport, allowing an additional 2.5 million travellers annually. This decision, which raises the cap from 6.5 million to nine million passengers per year and permits three extra flights in the first half hour of weekday operations, has sparked controversy among environmental advocates.
Despite these changes, the government chose not to approve a proposal for extending Saturday afternoon operating hours, a decision made by Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities, and Local Government.
Situated near the River Thames and approximately three miles east of Canary Wharf, London City Airport has served the business community since its opening in 1987. It remains a crucial hub for professionals travelling to the City of London's financial district.
Green groups have voiced strong objections to the expansion, contending that the increase in passenger numbers will exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions and undermine the UK's climate goals. They argue that this move contradicts the advice of the government's Climate Change Committee, which states that expanding airport capacity is at odds with the UK's statutory climate targets.
The government's approval follows an appeal against Newham Borough Council's earlier rejection of the expansion plan last July. The rejection was based on concerns over greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, and noise pollution.
In its decision letter issued yesterday, the government maintained that the expansion aligns with national climate policy, including the Jet Zero Strategy's objective to achieve net zero emissions from aviation by 2050.
The letter further states that the operational air quality impacts of expanding the airport "would not be significant" and that "with specific regard to air quality, there would be no conflict in terms of national policy on this matter".
It added that the current public transport provision for the City Airport "would have the capacity to absorb additional demand associated with the proposed development".
Aison Fitzgerald, CEO of London City Airport, welcomed the government's decision to lift the cap on annual passenger numbers. She stressed that only cleaner, quieter "next generation" aircraft would be allowed to fly during extended operating periods in what she claimed was a UK first.
Even so, she said she was "disappointed" that proposals to lift the curfew on flights between 12.30 and 6.30 pm on Saturdays at the Airport had been rejected.
"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," said Fitzgerald. "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."
However, the decision has ignited significant outrage and discontent among various environmental organisations. They have pointed to a report from the Climate Change Committee released last year, which called for a moratorium on all airport expansions until the government formulates a definitive capacity management strategy that aligns with the UK's statutory climate targets.
Johann Beckford, senior policy adviser at Green Alliance, said allowing additional passengers and flights at London City Airport was "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," he added. "The government cannot jeopardise net zero ambitions and the health of local communities for the sake of airport and airline profits."
Greenpeace UK climate campaigner Paul Morozzo described the decision as a "surprisingly clumsy misstep from our new government", noting that over half of the destinations served by the Airport – such as Edinburgh and Amsterdam - can be reached by train in under six hours.
"Not only does it undermine the UK's climate leadership, but it will mostly benefit an elite of wealthy frequent fliers while dumping the environmental costs on some of London's poorest neighbourhoods," he said of the decision.
"It feels like the new Labour government has followed the previous administration in falling for the aviation industry's arguments that climate change can somehow be dealt with later, by some magical untested technology, instead of taking the tough decisions needed today."
Dr Alex Chapman, senior economist at the New Economics Foundation think tank, also criticised the decision, saying it "puts the interests of a small number of wealthy frequent flyers over the wellbeing of us all" while doing little to benefit the UK economy.
"London City Airport operates low-efficiency planes, on routes doable by train, for high-income passengers," he said. "The government's decision today will result in millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, immediately wiping out the progress the new government made in its early decisions on renewable energy."
He added: "The government is defending its decision by pointing to supposed economic benefits from the expansion. But these are little more than industry propaganda, reached by ignoring emerging trends and casting aside best practice impact assessment."
The Mayor of Newham, Rokhsana Fiaz, said she was "deeply concerned" residents close to the airport would be "seriously harmed" by the impact of further flight noise due to the increase in flights in early mornings on weekdays.
"We will be studying the decision notice carefully and considering all options as we remain concerned about the detrimental impacts on the health and quality of life of our residents."
Comments