Stop the expansion of the UK's largest private jet airport
Consultation window closed
〰️
Consultation window closed 〰️
Page update: The airport's consultation has now closed and they have said they will soon be submitting a planning application. We will be keeping a close eye on developments. If you have opted in to receive our emails, we will make sure to update you about next steps. Haven’t opted in yet? Click here to receive updates).
Farnborough Airport (the largest private jet airport in the UK) wants to increase its flight numbers from 50,000 to 70,000 flights per year. This is a massive increase in flights, and a huge threat to our climate.*
Before their expansion plans can be approved, the airport must consult the public. This is our chance to say ‘no’ to an increase in private jet flights, and prevent Farnborough Airport’s concerning plans from going ahead.
By walking you through each of their multiple choice questions, and offering our suggested answers, this guide makes it really easy to oppose Farnborough Airport’s proposal.
Get started:
First up, open the airport’s consultation page in a separate tab, fill in your details, and hit ‘NEXT’.
+ Question 1:
“Farnborough Airport has a role to play in the economic success of the local area.”
This question is designed to create the case for further expansion of the airport on the pretext of it generating “economic success”, regardless of the detrimental impact of more flights in terms of noise, pollution and emissions.
We recommend answering this question: Strongly Disagree.
Under “Additional comments”, you might add one or a few of these points:
- The airport largely takes money away from the local community, with the majority of flights leaving the UK benefitting the economies of other locations.
- The economy of the area would be better served by the airport being required to improve public transport infrastructure, rather than expand aviation services to encourage people away from local businesses.
+ Question 2:
“It is important that Farnborough Airport is able to plan for its long-term future and support the forecast market demand.”
We recommend answering this question: Strongly Disagree.
Under “Additional comments”, you might add one or a few of these points:
- Market demand is driven by the aviation industry’s desire to grow at all costs to drive profits, with little consideration of the cumulative climate impact of increasing flights and emissions.
- The long-term future of smaller airports like Farnborough is an industry-wide investment in electric aircraft for short-haul flights and a sharp decrease in the number of private jet flights being permitted in order to fairly reduce unnecessary flying and emissions.
- The “market demand” the airport should be looking to respond to is for fast, efficient, clean and reliable public transport services and the encouragement of more people to take the coach or the train for trips to mainland Europe rather than polluting short-haul flights.
+ Question 3:
“We are proposing a number of changes to the way we operate, and would welcome your views on each of these."
- A: "To support the forecast market demand for flights, we want to increase our flight limit to 70,000 flights per year by 2040. What do you think about this?”
We recommend answering sub-question A: Strongly Disagree.
- B: "We are proposing to amend our non-weekday flight limit to meet market demand. Do you support this proposed change?”
We recommend answering sub-question B: Strongly Disagree.
- C: "What do you think about our plans to adjust the operating times on non-weekdays from 8am-8pm to 7am-9pm?"
We recommend answering sub-question C: Strongly Disagree.
- D: "We are proposing to enhance our Sound Insulation Grant Scheme. Do you support this?”
We recommend answering sub-question D: Agree.
Under “Additional comments”, you might add one or a few of these points:
- Proposing the possibility of an increase to the number of flights during a climate crisis is hugely irresponsible and makes it much more difficult to achieve net zero emissions in the timescales needed to avert further global warming.
- Adding lengthened hours to the operating times of the airport would simply make local residents’ exposure to anti-social noise pollution more pronounced and contribute negatively to the surrounding area and community.
- The enhancement of a Sound Insulation Grant Scheme is in theory a good move by the airport, but in reality this will do little to ease local residents’ experience of overflying and noise pollution, particularly if the number of flights increase and operating periods lengthen.
+ Question 4:
“We understand that there needs to be a balance between the economic benefits we can provide and our environmental impact. We are therefore proposing a number of changes to our community funding programmes which we would like your views on."
- A: "We are proposing to enhance our Sound Insulation Grant Scheme. Do you support this?”
We recommend answering sub-question A: Agree.
- B: "We are proposing to increase our contributions to our community funding programme. Do you support this?”
We recommend answering sub-question B: Agree.
- C: "We are proposing to create a new Sustainability Fund to help fund local sustainability projects. Do you support this?"
We recommend answering sub-question C: Agree.
- D: "If we were to introduce a Sustainability Fund, what would you like to see it used for? Please tick all that apply.”
We recommend answering sub-question D by ticking all of the boxes (including "Other").
In the box that appears for “Other”, we recommend including one or more of these ideas for investment:
- A ring-fenced fund set up to campaign for the banning or fair taxation of private jets, in acknowledgement of their sky-high emissions and the climate damage being caused by them.
- A ring-fenced fund set up to campaign for a frequent flyer levy and kerosene tax to be introduced in the UK.
- A ring-fenced fund for the transition of aviation workers to other jobs in lower-carbon industries.
Under “Additional comments”, you might add one or a few of these points:
- The enhancement of a Sound Insulation Grant Scheme is in theory a good move by the airport, but in reality this will do little to ease local residents’ experience of overflying, particularly if the number of flights increase and operating periods lengthen.
- For community funding, it would be good to see this money reinvested in clean, green public transport in the local community and not being used simply to get people to and from the airport, which is one of the area’s largest polluters.
- While it is always encouraging when larger companies want to create new models of sustainability, the real proof of concept of “sustainability” is whether they are adversely contributing to climate damage through their operations, which - as the UK’s largest private jet airport - Farnborough Airport undoubtedly is. The real need is for Farnborough Airport and the whole aviation industry to understand we are in a climate crisis and commit to quickly and justly reducing the emissions you are causing.
+ Question 5:
“Is there anything else you would like to share with us about our proposed changes to the way we operate?”
If you are a local resident, you might want to say more here about how the airport’s operations impact your life, health and wellbeing.
If you want to add some further points about the climate impact of the airport, here are some ideas:
- Farnborough Airport states that they handled 32,600 flights in 2022 and further claims that by 2030 they will handle closer to 50,000 flights (the current limit). Because of the climate crisis, we cannot safely increase the number of flights over the next 7 years at any airport and we need to see the demand for flights decrease across the board. Raising the number of flights will simply incentivise further increases in flight numbers.
- In a Survation poll on behalf of Possible conducted from 15th to 19th June 2023 (sample size: 1,008), it was found that 74% of people agree with the statement that “private jets should be subject to higher tax than commercial flights to reflect their higher emissions”. Further, 43% of people agreed that “private jets should be banned to protect the climate”, with just 24% disagreeing. Although Farnborough Airport does not make government policy on aviation, all airports have a role to play in acknowledging the climate crisis, and advocating for the reduction in aviation emissions through fewer flights.
- There has been huge local opposition to the airport’s proposals, with the Farnham Herald saying “of the dozens of people interviewed by the Herald at the event, the message was unanimous – the proposal to raise Farnborough’s flight limit from 50,000 to 70,000 flights per year and more than double weekend flights from 8,900 to 18,900 must be cancelled.”
Then click the box “I’m not a robot” (unless you are, of course), and then click submit.
Once you're done, please ask your friends and family to do the same. Click here to share on WhatsApp.
All finished?
Great! Make sure to sign up to our mailing list so that you receive important updates on this campaign, and other ways you can take practical action on the climate crisis.
*Want to learn more about the climate impact of private jets? Take a look at our recent report Jetting away with it.