THE GROUP for Action on Leeds Bradford Airport has joined 15 other national and community campaign groups calling for an immediate halt to all UK airport expansion plans.

The government recently announced that it has accepted the advice of its expert climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee, and has formally included greenhouse gases from international flights in the UK’s carbon reduction target.

But campaigners say there is currently no national plan for reducing aviation’s greenhouse gases that fits with the UK’s target of reaching carbon net zero by 2050.

GALBA has signed a letter sent today to Grant Shapps, Secretary of State for Transport, and Robert Jenrick, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who are responsible for determining the fate of many airport expansion plans.

The letter reminds the government that the CCC has “made it clear that adequate airport capacity already exists to meet the future levels of demand... compatible with... achieving net zero by 2050 and advises therefore that there should be no net increase in airport capacity…”

The letter welcomes “the notice issued to Leeds City Council to postpone sending out a final decision letter while consideration is given to a call-in” and concludes “until the Government has… a net zero plan for the [aviation] sector, including a national strategy for airport capacity which acknowledges and plans for the new carbon constraints, it would only be responsible to impose a blanket moratorium on all airport expansion planning.”

Chair of GALBA, Chris Foren, said: “Putting a halt on all airport expansion plans makes sense. It’s impossible for local decision makers to understand the total climate impact of all these different airport proposals. The government has to step up and take responsibility. We simply cannot afford to miss the target of reaching net zero by 2050. The consequences of climate breakdown would be catastrophic for the next generation - our children. The good news is that we can make the right choices today to build a better tomorrow. We can invest in good jobs that also fight the climate crisis and create a safer world.”

Earlier this year LBA said it was delighted that its plans for a replacement terminal had been awarded planning consent by Leeds City Council, enabling it to become an “outstanding net zero airport”, whilst creating thousands of jobs, and helping to support the region’s recovery.”

Chairman of Leeds Bradford Airport, Andy Clarke, said: “Our scheme will provide significant improvements, benefits to the regional economy and an improved passenger experience.” He promised “stringent noise controls”, and that Leeds Bradford Airport wanted to be “innovative and do things differently”, listing “world class access, state of the art technologies and better facilities”.

Pudsey MP Stuart Andrew is among those supporting the new LBA terminal. Last month he stressed the need to secure jobs and to ensure emissions targets are met.

He said:“Leeds Bradford Airport is a major employer locally and I have had discussions with a number of constituents who work there who are understandably anxious about their jobs given the impact of the pandemic on aviation.

“The proposal to replace the old terminal, with a carbon neutral facility of a similar scale to the current one, has my support. It is a massive improvement environmentally and our city needs and deserves a better-quality gateway into and out of our region.

“This investment will reassure many of those who depend on the airport for their livelihood. The fact that it is closer to the proposed train station is also to be welcomed. I have long advocated a rail link as a way of reducing the number of cars travelling there which is why I campaigned so actively against the Council’s proposed Link Road.

“That said, the Government have set in law a much more ambitious climate target, cutting emissions by 78 per cent by 2035 compared to 1990 levels. That means that we need to look at the number of flights and their times in more detail to ensure we are doing our bit to contribute to this effort and to avoid creating unreasonable noise nuisance for residents.

“I believe it was wrong that the plans panel were not given the opportunity to look at the flying hours part of the application separately to the new terminal building. I am, therefore, exploring this further to ensure we can safeguard the investment and secure local jobs whilst also ensuring the new ambitious target for emissions is met.”