Labour giving green light to London City airport expansion 'a sign of things to come', campaigners warn

The government’s “worrying” decision to approve a London City airport expansion is a “sign of things to come,” climate campaigners have warned.

Ministers have greenlit the airport’s proposal to increase capacity from 6.5 million to 9 million passengers a year, approving an increase in weekend and early morning flights.

The Climate Change Committee – the government’s independent watchdog on rising emissions – has previously warned against airport expansions, which it claims jeopardise the UK’s legally binding target to reach net-zero by 2050.

• Is it time to ban private jets?
• How shuttered airports could be brought back to life to tackle UK’s housing crisis

Labour-run Newham Council opposed the expansion, citing noise and air pollution threats. But in their joint-authored approval letter, secretary of state for housing, communities and local government Angela Rayner and transport secretary Louise Haigh insisted that London City’s plan “complies” with environmental regulations.

Campaigners, however, are less certain. Anna Hughes, director of Flight Free UK, described the expansion as “concerning”.

“The Labour government’s own climate advisors have said that there should be no airport expansion. They’ve ignored that,” she said. “They’ve also ignored the local Labor council that said, ‘We don’t want London City Airport to expand.’

“They’re using the same sort of line that the Tories used – ‘We can deal with climate emissions using offsets and technology.’ But the science suggests otherwise.”

Alethea Warrington, senior campaigner at climate charity Possible, said that the government had “failed its first test on climate.”

“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,” she said.

“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 advisors, the Climate Change Committee, which recommended no increase in the UK’s airport capacity – in favour of allowing more planes and more pollution.”

London City Airport is a hub for private jet flights, boasting a ‘luxury hub.’ Newham is one of the poorest boroughs in London. This juxtaposition is “insulting” to the local council and local residents, who opposed the expansion, added Warrington.

“This is not useful infrastructure that is going to help local people,” she said. “Meanwhile, they’ll have to put up with more air pollution, and more noise pollution.”

London City airport and the Department for Transport have been contacted for comment.

Will other airports like Heathrow and Gatwick expand?

London City airport isn’t the only airport looking to expand. Heathrow has long lobbied for permission to build a third runway, while Gatwick, Stansted and Luton have all mooted various ways to “unlock new capacity”.

“Unfortunately, I do think that this [City’s expansion approval] is a sign of things to come,” Hughes said.

“More passengers cause more emissions. This is fundamentally the issue. Yes, we have more fuel-efficient planes than we used to. But a huge surge in flight numbers more than outstrips those improvements in efficiency.”

In 2023, UK flights emitted 32 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2), around a tenth of our total emissions or roughly the same as New Zealand’s total carbon footprint.

Train travel is around thirteen times less polluting than plane travel. As Europe experiences a rail revival, the non-flying options are increasing.

Indeed, 54% of journeys taken from London City airport in 2023 could have taken place in six hours of less by train, the New Economic Foundation think tank previously revealed.

If you zoom out, this is often quicker than catching a flight, Hughes adds.

“It’s a really hard sell because people look at the flight time, and say ‘ I won’t take a train for six hours when I could take a flight for 90 minutes,” she said. “But look at the overall time, it changes. Getting to the airport, checking in, and everything. For many journeys to European cities, you are spending as long getting there if you fly.”  

Do you have a story to tell or opinions to share about this? Get in touch and tell us more. Big Issue exists to give homeless and marginalised people the opportunity to earn an income. To support our work buy a copy of the magazine or get the app from the App Store or Google Play.