I am writing to register my objections to the expansion of Farnborough airport flight plans. 

Why should the small number of rich, private-plane users be able to inflict noise and pollution on the rest of us, particularly during a climate crisis?

It is particularly ridiculous that the quieter the area we live in, the more likely we are to have aircraft take-off and landings inflicted on us, because the calculations are done on the basis of numbers of people affected. Surely rural areas deserve some protection?

Keith Shepherd



I’d like to add one point which reinforces the case against the proposed Farnborough Airport expansion. 

The government’s Climate Change Committee issued a report in June this year which reviewed the progress in the aviation sector regarding greenhouse gas emissions.  

It concluded ‘there should be no expansion of UK airport capacity until an airport capacity management framework is in place’. 

Without this (and there is at present no such framework in place) ‘any capacity increases at individual airports will lead to permanently higher capacity’ (incompatible with climate change targets). 

Even if the missing framework were in place, the Climate Change Committee is clear that any expansion should only be allowed if the ‘carbon-intensity’ of aviation is outperforming targets. 

As carbon intensity is measured in carbon dioxide emitted per passenger mile travelled, and private jets produce by far the highest carbon intensity, the conclusion must be that increasing the capacity for private jets is unacceptable and the Farnborough proposal should be rejected. 

Stewart Edge

Farnham Liberal Democrats

Beavers Road, Farnham


The Farnborough Airport proposed increased flight frequency is unsustainable because, like Heathrow Airport, it is in a densely-populated urban locality. 

Any increased frequency of aircraft flights brings avoidable higher fatality risk and harm to the towns and villages within Farnborough Airport’s Surrey flightpaths. 

With global warming and unpredictable weather patterns, a global food famine has become a realistic threat. This confirms the folly of future reliance upon biofuels for aviation transport. If land is allocated to bioenergy, it can’t be used to grow food, for carbon sequestration and to sustain wildlife’s habitat.

Private jets are the “polluter elite” which, without evidence to the contrary, do not pay a fair price for their pollution. 

There is also growing evidence that more than 90 per cent of rainforest offsets are worthless. 

The path to net zero is wasting less, consuming less, and paying more for the privilege. 

Until the health safety and environmental consequences of the proposed Farnborough Airport expansion are subjected to all-inclusive analysis and made transparent to all stakeholders. Its expansion delivers the reasoned conclusion that it is unsustainable. 

Brian Edmonds

Quennells Hill, Farnham

*** I recently attended four of the six Farnborough Airport expansion public consultations. 

I went as a protestor and spoke to dozens of people to hear their views. The sentiments expressed were pretty unanimous – people are strongly opposed to any expansion of the airport. 

Some were very emotional and visibly upset. 

It is a nonsense that this airport is a ‘huge benefit’ to the local economy. Even if it was, is it worth wrecking the environment, ruining residents’ quality of life with noise and air pollution and emitting tons of CO2 when we are in a government-declared climate emergency? 

This airport is only used by the very wealthy, celebrities, royalty. Did you know the inaugural flight for pets arrived from Dubai on September 26? 

Why should anyone have to suffer so the rich can have their way? 

In my opinion, private jets should be banned altogether. 

There is lots of organised local opposition. Please contact Farnborough Noise Group or Extinction Rebellion Waverley and Borders if you would like to be involved. 

Nancy Clarke

Grosvenor Road, Medstead