Another guest blogpost from Protect Fenner’s Action Group.
Hughes Hall have confirmed that it has purchased land on Fenner’s and plans to extend the college campus, including student accommodation, onto the ground adjacent to the cricket pitch. This is currently designated as Protected Open Space in the Glisson Road-Newtown Conservation Area, used for all sorts of cricket-related activity, and is a precious green lung in an increasingly built up city.
Recent cricket match on Fenner’s, looking towards Covent Garden and the land Hughes Hall has purchased for development (photo: Lionel Sheffield)
Hughes Hall is proposing to build accommodation blocks for up to 100 students on the iconic Fenner’s Cricket Ground.
This means scarce and precious green space in the most densely populated part of Cambridge will be lost forever.
In planning jargon, Fenner’s is Protected Open Space with a quality rating similar to the Botanic Garden and Parker’s Piece.
If protected recreational grounds like Fenner’s are developed it will set a dangerous precedent for the whole city. If this is allowed, what green space is safe in the future?
Please read the details and sign. You can add a comment after you’ve signed and verified your signature by email.
Diagram of land purchased by Hughes Hall on Fenner’s Cricket Ground, for building student accommodation (Proposal shown to residents, 30 November 2023)
Our green and open spaces are of fundamental importance to our city’s character, ecology, and our own wellbeing. We must support all efforts to preserve them in the face of the constant drive to build and develop.
Please email protectfennersactiongroup@gmail.com to support our local campaign to save Fenner’s and green spaces in Cambridge for future generations. We will let you know when further details, including architects’ plans, are published.
See also these blogposts on behalf of Fenner’s Action Group
Protect Fenner’s Action Group in the local and national press
Fenner’s cricket ground faces threat from student block Residents fear the three-storey block could spell the end of cricket at the home ground of Cambridge University Cricket Club Laurence Sleator, The Times, June 13 2024 (£)
Another one? Didn’t Pamela Wesson and her Friends of Mill Road Bridge group win a court case quashing the Traffic Regulation Order?
Not exactly. The legal challenge to the earlier Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) was challenged on technicalities.
Ms Wesson, chair of Friends of Mill Road Bridge, made a statutory claim under paragraph 35 of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 challenging Cambridgeshire’s decision to make the Cambridge (Mill Road) (Bus Gate) Order 2023.
Ms Wesson argued that the authority: failed to provide adequate reasons for proposing and for making the order; made a mistake of fact in the operation of an exemption for ‘blue badge’ holders; failed to carry out the public sector equality duty; erroneously took account of the potential to attract funding; and that the decision was tainted by predetermination.
Ms Wesson posted on Facebook that her group was “tremendously gratified by the outcome of the case” which felt like “a David-vs-Goliath struggle”, alleging that the County Council “made a mistake of fact in relation to how the decision affected individuals with disabilities” and it wished for all people to be able to cross the bridge “without detours or fines”.
However, Katie Hawks, from Mill Road 4 People, said that it was wrong to describe the proposal as a road closure.
It’s not closed, it’s actually opening it up to more cyclists, pedestrians and faster buses.
We really, really want more children to be able to get to school by themselves safely and [this is] one way of doing this.
Now Cambridgeshire County Council has agreed to end the legal proceedings and start all over again.
Cambridgeshire County Council has agreed with the claimant to end legal proceedings in relation to the Mill Road Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) challenge.
We will no longer be defending the case through the courts, and the judge has agreed to quash the decision that was made to approve the traffic regulation order for the scheme.
A hearing on the case was held in February and the council has reflected on the outcome of this. It has decided to undertake the statutory consultation and decision-making process on the traffic regulation order again. This is to stop the council spending money and time associated with defending this case.
So this is yet another consultation? How many have we now had?
No. Cambridgeshire County Council has a legal obligation to invite comments on any TRO (rather like the City Council does with planning applications).
The County Council has a duty to look at all objections and take into account any that are valid.
So, I only need to contact the County Council if I object?
Yes and no. Those, such as the Friends of Mill Road Bridge, who oppose the bus gate are likely to claim that the TRO should not be approved if more people object to it, rather than support it.
Was there ever a proper consultation?
There was a thorough public consultation in 2022 carried out by the Greater Cambridge Partnership.
72% of respondents supported vehicle restrictions on Mill Road bridge.
77% opposed doing nothing.
54% indicated that congestion was the most important issue affecting their use of Mill Road.
A bus gate scheme has strong levels of public and political support: local councillors (city and county) have been calling for restrictions to through motor traffic on Mill Road bridge for over 50 years.
Should I respond?
Absolutely! Whether you’re for or against the bus gate TRO you should have your say.
But first read the information on the Cambridgeshire County Council website, to check what is being proposed – what categories of vehicles will be banned from Mill Road bridge, and which will be exempted. Decide for yourself if you think the TRO is fair, balanced and reasonable, or otherwise.
Don’t rely on what you may have read on (anti-)social media. There is a plethora of disinformation circulating.
There are a number of methods to respond. See the Have your say link.
For those in favour of the Mill Road bridge TRO, Camcycle have a variety of points which you may wish to include in this post New Mill Road TRO: Let’s go!
There are, moreover, a number of inaccuracies and contentious statements in this petition.
For example, the petitioners object to “shutting off a main arterial road” whereas Mill Road is one section – along with Brookfields, Parkside, Parker Street, Drummer Street and Emmanuel Street – of the Class III road numbered C280 maintained by Cambridgeshire County Council. Class III, not an A-road, not even a B-road, not ‘arterial’. The Drummer Street and Emmanuel Street sections of C280 are already restricted to buses, taxis, cycles and essential access (eg deliveries). Read for yourself and make up your own mind, whether the Mill Road Traders’ Association are making valid points, in their petition.
Is there more background?
Very much so. Not just the Covid-era restrictions, but a full closure for railway works in summer 2019. And an earlier closure in the 1980s
If you are unfamiliar with the recent history of Mill Road bridge restrictions the Background section on the County Council’s Mill Road bridge TRO webpage, will bring you up-to-speed.
For the 2019 railway-related closure shenanigans (and the Cadent Gas excavations) see Closure of Mill Road Bridge for Railway Works Summer 2019*, which also references the 1980s closure. *This Mill Road Bridges post has had a little updating but is likely to have a few broken links. It still gives a flavour of the disruption which the Mill Road community had to endure.
