Cambridge foe

There can't be many people in Cambridge who haven't heard of the impending plight of their south Cambridge neighbours by now - two Boeing 737s flying across Romsey town and the city's southern suburbs every hour every day of the year. Surely this is scare mongering? Members of South Cambridge Against Marshall (SCAM) don't think so. This is essentially the message they have been spreading across the fore-mentioned areas since late May. The Marshall Group, the 'victims' of this campaign, operate Cambridge Airport on Newmarket Road. Last November a planning application for a new terminal was submitted to South Cambridge District Council (SCDC), which sparked the campaign. Fearing that the new terminal would lead to a huge increase in the number of large passenger jets flying over the south of the city, local residents formed the group SCAM, to resist the development.

The issue goes public

SCAM themselves are not exactly news at this stage either, but there is apparently some confusion as to what their aims are. They are not a political, or any other kind of organisation. As mentioned above, SCAM are simply a group of concerned Cambridge residents, who want all the information relating to the new terminal development made public, so that the issue can be debated properly. They are just people who want a quiet life and an acceptably quiet sky.

Representatives of the Marshall Group offered to meet with SCAM to discuss the issue, but SCAM insisted that any such meeting should be public. And so it was, on Tuesday 28th May, that about 800 people attended the meeting in All Saints Church to challenge Terry Holloway's (group support executive of the Marshall Group) case for the new airport terminal. The planning application had asked for an increase in the number of aircraft movements by 10,000 a year, which would bring 150,000 passengers to the city, according to the company. Mr Holloway said during the meeting, "We do not expect there to be any more than one large jet a day containing around 150 people. The rest of the flights will be small planes, with 50 or so passengers."

Reasonable compromise

The main concern on the part of SCAM members after the meeting with Terry Holloway (apart from having an environmental impact assessment done, and limiting the total number of aircraft movements), was to press for SCDC to impose strict limits on the number of movements of large passenger jets, such as the Boeing 737/757 and the Airbus A320/321, along the lines that Holloway himself had proposed ie. one flight per day during summer. This was seen as a reasonable compromise between the Marshall Group's (declared) business interests and south Cambridge's residents' concerns.

Application hearing postponed

The planning application was due to be heard at a meeting of SCDC Planning Committee on Wednesday June 5th. (David Hussell, the planning director, had already recommended consent in principal, but believed there should be "extensive public consultation" on the issue). The hearing was postponed. The chairwoman, Cllr Jane Healey, withdrew the item from the agenda because the application's main impact would "be felt within the boundaries of another local authority - Cambridge City Council (CCC)", and because of public concern. Cllr Healey went on to say there had been "a lot of misunderstanding circulating" about the application, because" the actual application itself was unclear as to its intentions." The chairwoman stated that the SCDC would be inviting the applicants to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment and to submit an Environmental Statement to them, addressing such issues as "environmental and surface transport implications of varying levels of passenger aircraft movements, of types of aircraft movements and of hours of aircraft movement". These were the issues raised by SCAM after their earlier meeting with Terry Holloway. Cllr Healey also said that they would discuss the matter of consulting Cambridge city residents with CCC.

Lack of publicity

So SCAM's concerns are being addressed. So why all the suspicions regarding the Marshall Group's plans, I ask naively? Well, the meeting of Tuesday 28th May was the first time that this issue had really been made public. Two days later, (Thursday 30th may), SCDC published a report on the planning application. (This report is available from the SCDC's offices in Hills Road). Before the meeting on Tuesday, the only representatives of the public who had access to discussions on the development were representatives of local residents' associations who were members of the Cambridge Airport Consultative Committee (CACC). However, a SCAM representative claims that the last two committee meetings (Sep2001 and April 2002), were sparsely attended. Most people present, apart from SCDC and parish councillors were people who had an interest in further development of the airport. Local residents' representatives were in a minority, he alleged. The lack of publicity that SCDC had given the issue is a matter of concern for SCAM. They feel it is a result of efforts by the Marshall Group and Bidwells (their advisers) to push the application through as quickly as possible to avoid too many restrictions being placed on the future operations of the airport.

"One 737 per day during summer" story not true?

Another issue is that some SCAM members fear that the "one 737 per day during summer" story is simply not true. One of the most compelling reasons for this seems to be a financial comparison to previous operations at Cambridge Airport. Scot Airways/Suckling which had previously provided flights from the airport using small aircraft had finished operations at Cambridge Airport by last December, partly because of financial reasons. The budget airlines (Ryanair, Buzz, Go, etc.) flying larger passenger jets out of Stansted, were obvious competition. They were targeting budget business travellers (an obvious market for the Marshall Group) as well as budget holiday-makers. And budget business fares charged by the bigger airlines were much lower than those charged by Scot Airways/Suckling. So why do the Marshall Group think they can make a similar operation (premium-priced business flights in small aircraft) work now? There are two answers to this question.

To put it simply, they are convinced that the operation can work and that the services they have outlined are what they are genuinely intending to provide.

They are prepared to try it for a while, but if it doesn't work, they will consider switching to large aircraft, if there are no restrictions in place to stop them doing so.

Big jets have to cross south Cambridge

So if SCDC did place a restriction on the application, limiting the movements of large jets to one a day, that would be one major problem solved. Or would it? The risks attached to any large passenger jets flying out of Cambridge Airport has only recently come to light. The Marshall Group currently repair and refurbish such jets. But these jets then take off empty with enough fuel to get them to whichever airport they have come from. There is a vast difference between this and a fully loaded, fully fuelled 737, say, taking off. The following factors determine the length of runway an aircraft needs to get airborne. Length increases with total aircraft weight ie. the size of the aircraft, its load, and the amount of fuel it carries. Length also increases with wind speed if the aircraft is taking off with the wind, and decreases if taking off against the wind. The prevailing wind in the area is from the south-west. According to guesstimates by people familiar with airport operations and Cambridge Airport, a 737 with 150 passengers and 4 hrs fuel in calm conditions will probably need all 1971 m of runway to take off. This means that with a south-westerly wind of any strength the same plane is going to have to take off into the south west ie across south Cambridge. On the other hand, small business jets, such as the BAe 146, and smaller planes like the Shorts 360, the Dorniers and Fokkers that the Marshall Group usually operate, would probably be able to land and take off to the north-east across Newmarket Road under most conditions ie away from the city.

Flying 737s across a school is decidedly dodgy

So what are the safety implications? Normally airports, depending on size, the sorts of flights they operate etc. have Public Safety Zones (PSZ). These are triangular areas stretching out from the end of the runway, where an accident, should it happen, is statistically most likely to occur. So far the DTLR has not said how large the new PSZ at Cambridge will be. SCAM feel there is a reasonable likelihood that it will include at least part of the Coleridge School site. But, irrespective of what size PSZ the DTLR eventually opts for some people in SCAM believe that flying a 737 across a school just 1000 m from the end of the runway is decidedly dodgy. They have a very good point!

Since these issues came to light, some SCAM campaigners have suggested that there should be a total ban on larger jets using the airport for commercial purposes. There are also suggestions to limit the total number of public transport movements to 5000, so that all flights could be routed across Newmarket Road except under unsuitable weather conditions.

Use the airport site for housing

There are other reasons as to why some sort of brake should be put on the expansion of Cambridge Airport. On of them is housing. Cambridge FOE have time and time again challenged the assumption of the need for massive housing projects in the area, especially when they eat up the Green Belt. On the other hand, we have not denied that there is a need for more affordable, social housing consisting of smaller units, especially in cities like Cambridge where property is grossly overpriced. CCC themselves have said that in the long term, it would be sensible to move Cambridge Airport further away from the city and use the site for housing. If the Marshall group build their new terminal, Cambridge Airport is not going to move for a long, long time!

In the latest negotiations between SCAM and SCDC, the group have been pushing for an independent body to carry out the Environmental Impact Assessment, rather than leaving it to the Marshall Group. They are also insisting that Cambridge residents should be directly involved in the consultation process.

If you wish to find out more about this issue, contact:

Ken Hart: ken.hart@ntlworld.com

Angus Runciman: Tel: 246382; angus.runciman@fpk.com

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scam737

If you or anyone else want to be added to the group's email distribution list, please send details to angus.runciman@hotmail.com

If you wish to voice your concerns about the issue, write to:

David Rush, Planning Department, South Cambs. District Council, 9-11, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 1PB.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative MP for South Cambridge) and Anne Campbell (Labour MP for Cambridge City).

James Murray

Come Fly With Me

- invite an expanding Marshall Group

On the face of it, Marshall's planning application for a new terminal building seems fairly innocuous. The existing terminal building, built in the 1950's, is poorly located, in terms of access for airport passengers, being in the middle of the Marshall Aerospace works, thus posing huge security problems for Marshall's and it is lacking in adequate adjacent car parking. Additionally, the terminal is becoming increasingly untenable with regards to newly introduced regulatory and security requirements. Surely then a new terminal, located on the Newmarket Road will address all of these difficulties, so why all the fuss?

Confusion over aircraft types and numbers

Well, for a start, the new terminal building will be substantially larger than the existing building. Why does it need to be if it is solely to answer the previous problems? Secondly, contained within the Marshall's planning application is mention of a possible increase in aircraft movements (one movement equalling one take-off or landing) of up to 8,000 a year. Current aircraft movements at Marshall's are in the region of 56,000 movements a year, so on the face of it this only represents an increase of only 14% - not really a big deal is it? What the figures don't reveal is the possible makeup of these movements. At present the vast majority of flights to and from Marshall's are light aircraft (from flying schools etc) and medium sized passenger aircraft operated by ScottAir (twin-engined, propeller driven Dorniers and Fokkers).

The only large (greater than 5,700kg) passenger jets flown to and from the airport are there for maintenance, repairs and refits and are not being used for scheduled flights. The current number of jet movements at Marshall's has been estimated at a maximum of 2,000 a year therefore, if the proposed increase of 8000 movements a year was comprised entirely of, say, Boeing 737's and Airbus A320/321 aircraft, this would represent an increase of 400% in passenger jet movements, or 27 movements a day, or 2 every hour - quite an increase. Now, this probably represents a somewhat hysterical extrapolation of the few concrete figures available, but consider the following:

Larger potential catchment area than Stansted

1. Cambridge Airport/Marshall's has excellent road and other transport links, giving a larger potential catchment area than even Stansted can claim. Furthermore, the proximity of the A14 corridor provides links for the East Coast ports such as Felixstowe and Harwich and the M1/M6 corridor means that potential passengers south of Leicester can be in Cambridge within 1 hour 20 minutes.

2. One of the critical factors in running regional air services is making sure they are reliable. Cambridge Airport/Marshall's has a huge advantage in this respect in being outside of the London Air Traffic Control Zone. This means that flight into and out of the airport do not have to compete for airspace and air traffic control time with all of the aircraft landing at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.

Potential for considerable expansion

These two key factors give Cambridge Airport/Marshall's a substantial advantages over the other airports mentioned and hence the potential for considerable expansion away from its current core business and into scheduled passenger jet flights. Marshall's state that most of the proposed 8,000 additional movements relate to the type of aircraft that are currently the bread and butter of Marshall's business, ie light aircraft and smaller passenger planes, with an additional 250 extra passenger jet flights a year. However, it is the potential for a much greater increase in jet flights that concerns Cambridge residents, concern which has manifested itself in the formation of pressure groups such as SCAM (South Cambridgeshire Against Marshalls).

Marshall's representative did little to allay peoples' fears

This concern was, unfortunately, heightened by the highly evasive nature of the Marshall's representative at the public meeting called by SCAM on the 28th May. His avoidance of straight answers and requested facts and figures did little to allay peoples' fears that all of the additional flights wouldn't be jets. Managements and airfield owners change and even with the current management, the temptation to recoup the costs of the new terminal building as quickly as possible, through the increased fees chargeable to larger jet aircraft could be irresistible.

Experience shows that if there are no limits to expansion, expansion will eventually occur. For example; during the development of Gatwick airport, the government of the day gave solemn undertakings never to permit a second runway, yet policy are now planning for exactly that. There is therefore a need to convince residents that there is an enforceable commitment and resolve to limit the number of jet and indeed other aircraft movements. If the only means to do this is by restricting the size of the terminal building, then the application should be removed.

No-one has the right to impose additional environmental burdens

The residents of Cambridge are worried about the increased noise, pollution and, yes, danger (however slight) of an increase in aircraft movements (especially jets) from Cambridge Airport. Accurate or not, the strongly worded leaflet circulated by SCAM is a heartfelt reflection of that concern (Something Anne Campbell MP with her patronising press release condemning their actions would do well to realise). Unlike residents around Heathrow, Gatwick and to a lesser extent Stansted, the vast majority of whom have moved to the areas knowing there was an airport close by, and are therefore prepared to accept the noise/pollution/slight risk, the residents of Cambridge have not chosen to live in such an area. Surely no-one has the right to impose such additional environmental burdens and risks, over and above those that have traditionally taken place and are presumably accepted by the local population, without their informed consent. Marshall's is a respected local employer, with an honourable tradition within Cambridge. It would be a terrible shame if its reputation were to suffer through a lack of respect for the people it has served so well over the years.

Ian Ralls

GM and Real Food

GM food labelling showdown

Europe wins over the USA and the biotech industry

US efforts to break down European resistance to genetically modified food products suffered a setback yesterday after the European parliament voted to introduce the toughest GM labelling and traceability rules in the world. In a vote that attracted massive lobbying from US biotechnology companies and consumer groups, the assembly - which has real power to determine the shape of future legislation - took heed of consumer concerns and decided that all derivatives of GM food and animal feed products sold in the EU should be subject to labelling. It also tightened up the present 1% threshold for genetically modified organisms in foods, reducing it to 0.5%.

Effectively, this means tens of thousands of products like crisps, soft drinks, breads, cakes, chocolate and sweets could now be labelled GM. Consumer groups estimate that at least 30,000 food products contain derivatives of GM maize or soya. Recent testing by the Food Standards Agency found 15% of bread products had GM ingredients. (For further information, see www.foodstandards.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/gmtestingstudy.) However, the parliament stopped short by three votes of demanding GM labelling on products of animals reared on GM foods. Eggs, milk and meat will not be labelled even if the animals have been reared on GM foods.

UK embarrassed, US infuriated

The vote is an embarrassment for the UK government and the food standards agency, both of which said the European commission's proposals would be unworkable. Apparently, the British Labour Party was the only Labour (left of centre) party in the EU, opposed to the proposal. The government urged its 29 Labour MEPs to reject the 0.5% threshold. A government spokesman said last night that Downing Street continued to believe the figure was "neither practical nor achievable." The government's plan for a GM-free label was also rejected.

The vote will also infuriate US firms such as Monsanto, which believe that labelling GM food will stigmatise their products and confuse the consumer, and industry bodies in the US, which believe the new labelling laws, if passed, could affect $4bn of trade a year. In voting for such a tough regime MEPs may have sown the seeds of a fresh trade war - the new rules are likely to be so repugnant to Washington that it will seek to challenge their legality in the World Trade Organisation. But environmentalists and green groups said they were delighted. "This is a victory for consumer choice," said Jill Evans, a British Green MEP. "It sends a message to Tony Blair and his American friends. The European parliament is the direct voice of the people of Europe."

Beginning of the end for moratorium?

Before the new regime can come into force, the parliament will have to vote on the issue once more, before the end of the year, and then broker a deal with EU governments. Each stage of the legislative process is certain to be subject to intense lobbying. Chris Davies, a British Liberal Democrat MEP, warned that it was far from certain that the new rules would survive in their present form. "These rules were passed by extremely narrow majorities. I am not sure we will be able to get the necessary majority next time round."

Although US biotech firms may not like the new rules, there is a crumb of comfort for them. No new GM crops have been approved by the EU since 1998 because of public anxiety, but yesterday's vote is the beginning of the end for that moratorium. Seven member states have insisted the ban on new approvals remain until watertight labelling rules are put in place and yesterday's vote means that a new regime could be up and running within a year and a half.

Based on a Guardian article by Andrew Osborn and John Vidal

James Murray

Pro-GM proposals introduced

Freedom of protest undermined

The government is planning to withdraw the rights of protesters to raise GM-related issues at hearings of objections to new GM crop varieties attaining National Seed List status. This information is based on the contents of a Government document which has been leaked to National FOE. Nothing has yet been proposed in Parliament. But if this becomes law it will obviously make it more difficult for us to prevent new varieties such as Sheridan being added to the List.

The Government stance is that these hearings are held for people to raise objections relating to non-GM aspects of the seed and that the GM properties of the seed are covered by other legislation. The truth is that there is no legal framework in place for the public to challenge new varieties being added to the Seed List because of their GM properties.

Sheridan is another Aventis GM fodder maize strain developed from T25, which is similar to Chardon LL. The addition of Chardon LL to the National Seed List was proposed two years ago, which several of us objected to at a cost of œ30 each. In fact, not all the verbal hearings have been heard yet! And there were 600 written objections (available for perusal from the FOE office - ring Ursula on 840882 for access).

In the latest local campaign action, Ursula Stubbings, Julie Crick, James Murray and Bonnie Clavering, took 55 petition leaflets to Sainsburys' Sidney Street branch manager asking him to take from their shelves the dairy and meat products sourced from farms feeding their animals GM feed (Waitrose and Marks and Spencer have already done this). Our mascot papier maché cow was also present at the action (see Cambridge FOE Newsletter, December 2001). A Cambridge Evening News photographer turned up to take a photo which was duly published in the paper on Wednesday, 3rd this month. The manager was sympathetic to our cause, and supported the issue of customer choice. He stated that they were trying to move towards the goal of having all their animal products sourced from animals on a GM-free diet, but that it took time to achieve this.

Ursula Stubbings and James Murray

Campaign against Climate Change

The USA currently produces about 25% of the world's CO2 emissions, and has a population equivalent to 5% of the world's population. And Bush has the cheek to reject the Kyoto Treaty! (All right, it wasn't brilliant, but it was a start.) What's your answer to him? Join the Campaign against Climate Change (CCC)! The CCC have organised a demonstration outside the American Embassy on the 4th July. Assemble at the American Embassy, Grosvenor Square, at 5.00pm to 7.30pm, Thursday, 4th July. (Nearest tube stations are Bond Street and Marble Arch on the Central Line. (Apologies for the last minute notice). For more information on CCC, their contact details are: Tel: 07903 6316 331; email: campclchange@yahoo.com ; website: www.campaignagainstclimatechange.net

Notice Board

Cambridge FOE AGM 2002

Cambridge FOE are pleased to announce that they will hold their AGM in the Barn, 1st floor, St. Barnabas Church Hall, St. Barnabas Road, off Mill Road, at 8.00pm on Wednesday, 17th July. There will be strawberries and cream afterwards.

Earth Summit

Stay up to date on news from the Earth Summit in Johannesburg from 26th August to 4th September, at www.foe.co.uk/earth_summit/

Trip to Renewable Energy Centre

A trip to Brancaster Activity Centre has been arranged with the Cam National Trust Group for 28th September. The Activity Centre is a renewable energy centre, among other things. If you are interested in going, contact John Kazer, email: <Johnkazer@hotmail.com>

Apology for irregular newsletters

We know that our record of producing regular newsletters has suffered in recent years. And this newsletter is a bit on the short side compared to what you're used to. Of course you do deserve more for your annual subscription. However, the problems with newsletter production is another symptonm of the state of the group i.e. low in funds and person power. It takes time and energy to research and write articles, and put the newsletter together. So it's just not possible to produce it on a routine basis when, quite literally, just a few people are doing all the work. Hope you enjoy this edition. It gives you all a chance to do some campaigning by writing a letter about the airport issue.



E-mail:camfoe@telinco.co.uk		comfybadger

Home