Many of the streets of Coleridge ward, around Rustat Road and around Romsey’s Greville Road and Argyle Street, have recently joined those of South Petersfield in residents’ parking schemes.
Those streets have seen some advantages:
Commuters and occasional rail users who were unwilling to pay to park at the railway station, nor to take a bus or taxi, no longer clog the streets with their cars, for the whole day.
Similarly drivers who want to park for free and walk to the city centre can no longer use these local streets.
More road-space is available to local drivers and to cyclists.
There are fewer vehicle movements on these streets.
There are, however, a few problems.
Residents must now pay an annual fee to park in their street.
Permits are required for visitors.
As soon as one street has a residents’ parking scheme, the neighbouring street encounters the same problem.
Serviced apartment (sui generis use class) scheme containing 39no self-contained 1xbed room units along with Cafe, gym and community space at ground floor with a vehicle drop-off zone, disabled car parking space, cycle parking and associated landscaping and retention of existing BLI frontage.
This proposal comes shortly after a very similar proposal for student apartments was refused planning consent…
So, the plans to turn Romsey labour club into student accommodation have been refused having been called back to the ctte. Romsey cllr @dave4labour tells me there is a "certain irony" that a speculative application like this has been refused & locals did not want student flats
Take a look through some of the drawings from the Cambridge City Council’s planning portal. You can view or download copies of these drawings – and all other documents in connection with this proposal by clicking on this planning reference link: 19/0004/FUL.
Important dates:
Application Validated Date
Thu 03 Jan 2019
Actual Committee Date
Not Available
Neighbour Consultation Expiry
Fri 08 Feb 2019
Standard Consultation
Mon 07 Jan 2019
Standard Consultation Expiry
Mon 04 Feb 2019
Last Advertised In Press
Fri 18 Jan 2019
Latest Advertisement Expiry
Fri 08 Feb 2019
Last Site Notice Posted
Fri 25 Jan 2019
Latest Site Notice Expiry
Fri 15 Feb 2019
Agreed Expiry Date
Not Available
Decision Made Date
Not Available
Permission Expiry Date
Not Available
Determination Deadline
Thu 04 Apr 2019
Temporary Permission Expiry Date
Not Available
If you have a view on this application, click through on this link 19/0004/FUL, look at the details, register if need be, and submit your comments.
Other trees in Hooper Street have already been lost; each of the remaining trees are therefore more precious, in an otherwise heavily built up area of the city. They are an essential green ‘lung’ for the area, in countering air pollution.
Result for a community that stands together…
Date: 8 January 2019
Reference: 18/584/TTPO
Application: T 1 & T2: Chestnut – Reduce height by 4/5m and shorten lateral branches by 2/3m to rebalance crowns. T3: Chestnut – Fell. Jubilee House 3 Hooper Street Cambridge CB1 2NZ
Dear Sir/Madam
Decision on Tree Works Application
Thank you for your letter about the above application. Your views were taken into account in coming to a decision. The application was Tree Refused Permission by senior officers, under delegated powers.
Valid applications including plans, supporting documents, consultation comments and the decision notice are available to view online. Please go to www.cambridge.gov.uk/planningpublicaccess to open the online planning register and enter 18/584/TTPO in the search field.
At the Mill Road Depot consultation in December 2018, PACT learnt that their design requests for the Gatehouse Community Centre on the depot site had been heard, and we feel the design now being submitted for planning approval is excellent and will serve the community well now, and into the future.
PACT would now like to invite you to a meeting to bring you up to date and discuss any ideas you might have, as the location of the community centre will not only benefit the whole of Petersfield, but also the wider community.
To this end, there will be a meeting at The Salvation Army Community Centre, 104 Mill Road CB1 2BD (next to St Barnabas Church) on Tuesday 26th March at 7.30pm.
At the most easterly end of Mill Road, through Brookfields, across Perne Road are three large lakes. They are not currently open to the general public.
That may change before too long.
The Land South of Coldhams Lane, including the lakes south of the railway and land parcels to the north of the railway, is identified as an “Area of Major Change” in the new Local Plan. As well as built development, ideas include the ecological enhancement of the area, outdoor recreational uses and a new urban country park.
Anderson Group, who own part of the site, is holding a community planning process through the Autumn and has appointed architects and master planners JTP, and other consultants, to work with the local community to create a new Vision for the “Area” including an illustrative masterplan and other matters required by Local Plan Policy 16.
The bridge re-opened just before the start of the schools’ Autumn Term. This page has been left as a record of some of the issues which arose. It is not intended for updates, and has now been locked for comments.
We have received the following communication from Shapour Meftah, Chair, Mill Road Traders’ Association. It is the view of Shapour, but not necessarily of Mill Road Bridges. We are approaching all of the city and county councillors on both sides of the bridge and invite their comments.
Following our recent survey which we managed to reach up to 90% of the traders with shops on the Romsey side. We found that the impact from the Mill Road bridge closure to the traffic has caused a significant loss in takings from 25% up to 60%.
Some Traders are thinking of ceasing trade as their takings have reached well below the threshold to survive. All traders are asking for some sort of compensation and I strongly believe it is their right to do so.
As the Chair of the Mill Road Traders I will use all available resources to help them with their request. The other important information that arose from our survey was about the so-called idea of parklet, which is supposed to be a well consulted plan with Romsey Traders. From the survey we carried out, we found the following:
90% of traders are against
4% in favour
4% Not sure
2% not spoken to (shops closed or shop owner was not available).
The above statistics show that this project was not consulted in detail with the Romsey traders and was rushed through by the Romsey ward team. My understanding, from the meetings we had with the authorities, that Govia has allocated a sum of money for both sides of Mill Road in respect of trying to help the traders and Mill Road communities to overcome and survive the Mill Road bridge closure time. I am very grateful that on the Petersfield side of Mill Road, we had lots of positive meetings which were organised by County Councillor Linda Jones. Her approach to traders and residents was both realistic and clear. We are very pleased with the outcome of all her decisions and we believe she has worked hard to achieve what is best for Petersfield. We would like to acknowledge our gratitude to her and her team.
My position as the Chair for Mill Road Traders is to look after both sides of the bridge and make sure the Romsey side benefits from this money too. I am not sure how much of this money has been allocated towards the parklet project and how this project has been granted. As it stands now this project is not well-planned and consulted therefore, I am asking people who are responsible for it to halt the project and listen to the voice of their constituents and use the money for better purposes. Some suggestions given by traders are:
Targeted advertising and publicity run by the Mill Road Traders’ Association
Equipment that can be used for other events i.e Community events
Improving disability access on Mill Road
Ad hoc events such as a Community lunch and networking events that can bring build a stronger community
Support for the Traders in need
Training and Skills workshops Traders and local Residents
Well informed policies that can deal with emergencies
Finally, I would like to emphasise the point that as responsible representatives of our community, our job is to listen, understand and care for the needs of our community.
Yours Sincerely Shapour Meftah Chair, Mill Road Traders’ Association Tuesday 16th July 2019
The Mill Road Summer team has been confused and saddened by a press release from the Mill Road Traders which arrived by email on Tuesday afternoon, 16th July and which will be reported on in the local news in the coming days. We’ve consistently tried to encourage involvement from local traders in Mill Road Summer and we’re working hard to support them and everyone else in our local community during this challenging time.
Mill Road Summer was organised by volunteers, councillors and community groups in Romsey to be an umbrella festival for all of the events happening on Mill Road while the bridge is closed to cars. Numerous public events have been held over the past few months with the local community and traders invited to help shape the plans and budget for the Mill Road Summer.
[W]e held public meetings for the whole of Mill Road and from these came a committee badged under the name of Mill Road Summer. This committee includes Mill Road business and Camcyle and other people from the community including people and business from Petersfield. … This group is using/going to use the money to provide events for the community that were designed to bring people onto Mill Road in the hope that the added footfall would in turn bring more trade to Mill Road businesses. These events are collated by us with grants provided [from Govia Thameslink Railway] when they are needed. Mill Road businesses are entitled to apply to be part of this, including obtaining grants for their events. We have repeatedly invited Mill Road Traders to our meetings…
Matters of financial compensation for Traders through a loss of trade are not part of our brief.
Dave Baigent FIFire E. FHEA.BA Hons. PhD. Cambridge City Councillor for Romsey, Thursday 18th July 2019
County Councillor Linda Jones adds…
Govia stated that we could use up to £15k for community related events in [the] Petersfield part of Mill Rd and the same for Romsey.
Linda Jones Cambridgeshire County Councillor for Romsey, Thursday 18th July 2019
Just to add to the melée: events/promotion executed “here” with financial support from Govia that benefit BOTH sides of the Bridge include:— Mill Road map update— 6 ads in Cambridge Independent showing both sides of the Bridge, saying that Mill Road is open for business — Boot Sales open to all, including the wider Cambridgeshire audience of the Cambridge Independent. Pamela Wesson, Fantasia, Thursday 18th July 2019
Whilst arguments rage about whether surrounding roads will be overwhelmed with motor traffic, during the closure of Mill Road bridge, it is worth noting that fifteen sensors have been installed on Mill Road and surrounding streets to record the number of pedestrians, bicycles, cars and other vehicles. The data, to be analysed by the Smart Cambridge programme, will help the Greater Cambridge Partnership understand how people use the road network in the city. Read more.
As a society we accept that ‘rat running’ is bad and removing through traffic from residential areas is good. But we take the opposite view when the road in question has shops or is an ‘arterial’ route.
Plenty of research studies have shown that people who walk or cycle to a street spend more than those who drive there. And Mill Road isn’t really an arterial route: it only runs out as far as the outer ‘ring’ road. Would the impact of its closure be acceptable long-term? Let’s see: unlike mathematical models, real-life experiments give you real answers. Cameras have been set up to monitor changes in vehicle, cycle and pedestrian traffic on Mill Road and diversionary routes.
Was the closure or the signage (now amended) the biggest problem?
Many thanks to Sonia Hansen, Traffic Manager, Highways Service, Cambridgeshire County Council for ensuring that Businesses Open As Usual signage is installed at all access point to Mill Road, and to Glen Wakefield for following up problems with bus access.
There was considerable concern amongst Mill Road’s traders about the wording of the yellow and red warning notices on Perne Road, East Road and Gonville Place, which read:
MILL ROAD CLOSED NO THROUGH ROAD FOLLOW DIVERSION
and
ROAD AHEAD CLOSED
This, latter, was also the signage at the Coleridge Road junction.
Whilst these did the job of ensuring that vehicle drivers are warned against attempting to use the full length of Mill Road as a through route, they failled to make clear that:
the full length of Mill Road is accessible by foot and cycle (other than GTR’s planned total closure periods);
all Petersfield’s shops, cafés, restaurants and services are accessible, up to Devonshire Road, from the East Road junction;
the Gwydir Street car park is accessible from the East Road junction;
all Romsey’s shops, cafés, restaurants and services are accessible, up to Argyle Street, from the Perne Road junction;
the Great Eastern Street car park, the Mill Road Co-op car park and Cutlack’s car park are accessible from the Perne Road and Coleridge Road junctions.
Some traders were reporting a dramatic drop in volume of trade.
We enquired about what the Cambridgeshire County Council’s Highways Service could do to ameliorate this situation.
Many thanks to Sonia Hansen, Traffic Manager, Highways Service, Cambridgeshire County Council for ensuring that Businesses Open As Usual signage is installed at all access point to Mill Road, and to Glen Wakefield for following up problems with bus access.
We have received this forwarded email from Kobir Ahmed, Owner, Prana Indian Restaurant. It is the personal opinion of Kobir and does not necessarily reflect the view of Mill Road Bridges. It is published here to show the intensity of feelings about the ongoing railway and gas works.
We will of course publish any responses from public bodies, utilities and councillors.
I would like to formally bring to your attention my major concerns regarding the road closure, these views are supported by all traders that I have visited over the last couple of days, and can be seen on Twitter.
If things don’t improve, us traders will hold a protest rally, meaning blocking the road to all traffic and not allowing lorries to get to the bridge.
It’s all good and well closing a road for the benefit of others such as the council and contractors but this is a main road and shops depend on passing trade and also people not being told the road is closed.
The biggest impact on my business is trade has fallen by 50% since the road closure, as a small business I can’t afford to lose business like this, how to you expect me to pay rent, rates and wages at this rate? At first I thought things will be ok but now I am very worried if I can’t stay open in a few weeks!
There are other issues that is causing us traders concerns.
There is no proper communication, no one knows what happening, everything is a mess. There are bridge closures, gas pipes works it seems the council have allowed different works all happening at the same time! This makes the road more avoidable to passing traffic. It currently takes 20 mins to get from top of Mill Road to St Barnabas’ church due to extra traffic lights etc. Customers are avoiding Mill Road as they think Mill Road is closed! There needs to be more signage promoting businesses are open! And why has the gas works beenallowed to happen at the same time.
Since the road closure we are not getting passing trade, mill road is a tourist attraction the foot fall has fallen off massively and we are not attracting business. All business in reply in passing trade. We can’t just expect locals to visit us.
We are having potential customers calling us today to ask if we are open?
To remedy some concerns here are things we need to have looked at.
Rates: the council need to compensate traders. Should we be expected to pay full rates when the road is closed off?
Compensation for traders for lost trade. Who is taking responsibility for this?
The Gwydir Street car park needs to be free for the duration of the works. We need people to be encouraged to come to Mill Road. People are not aware that there is access to Mill Road and that they can park at the car park. It’s been empty all last week and this week.
Mill Road is open sign, we need more signage to say Mill Road is open.
Council to invest money in advertising Mill Road.
The train companies will make £billions while we lose out. Cambridge council would have received £thousands for this road closure, where is this money going ? Why aren’t locals and traders having a say? The council would also get hefty fees for the gas works at the expenses of business.
We need answers and actions, I hope you can rally our anger, as it looks like no one is listening
We need business friendly policies not anti-business policies.
I hope you can channel this to your stakeholders as things unfortunately will only get worse.
There does seem to be confusion over who is responsible for what. There were problems with communications form Triio to Stagecoach over closing the Gwydir Street bus stop which I, personally, observed.
Kobir claims that “The train companies will make £billions while we lose out.” What is the case is that GTR, for whose depot development the bridge is closed was implicated in the disastrous mess of the May 2018 timetable change and (see elsewhere in this post) has provoked anger amongst the Mill Road community for poor communications.
Kobir claims that “Cambridge council would have received £thousands for this road closure”. Would that there only the one (unitary) authority for the Greater Cambridge region. (See Smarter Cambridge Transport’s graphic, below.) And would that GTR’s largesse stretched to £thousands in the city’s coffers.
Whether the residential council tax payer should fund a cut in business rates for these traders is a moot point. Certainly GTR should be pushed to compensate traders for proven losses.
Similarly, making the Gwydir Street car park free, might seem attractive, until we consider whether the spaces would be snapped up by rail commuters who wish to avoid charges at the station car park.
We are, again, indebted to Sonia Hansen, Traffic Manager, Highways Service, Cambridgeshire County Council for clarifying many of these matters, in an email to Piero d’Angelico, of Mill Road Traders.
A Traffic Manager explains…
Dear Mr D’Angelico,
I really appreciate your frustrations. In response to your queries –
Business rates are dealt with by the City Council and I have forwarded your email to them as they would be the ones to advise if there are any circumstances in which rebates can be applied for.
You would need to contact the works promotors directly regarding compensation schemes.
Gwydir Street Car Park is City Council so you will need to contact them directly. I have copied in Sean Cleary who manages City Car Parks.
We have changed the Variable Message Signs around the city to say ‘Mill Road closed at Bridge’ as opposed to ‘Mill Road Closed’ and I have requested that ‘Businesses Open as Usual’ signs are put out and I have seen these in place.
The County Council does not have a budget for advertising Mill Road. It may be something that the City Council or Visit Cambridge could advise you on.
Permit fees paid by utilities are used to administer the permit system and coordinate the works. Fees for road closures cover the costs of advertising and administering the order. We do not profit from permit fees and road closure orders. Letters were sent to all business and residents of Mill Road by Cadent on 16th June 2019 informing them of the works and need for access to premises to reconnect supplies. There were community meetings held in the run up to the works.
I do apologise for any inconvenience that you are experiencing during these essential works.
I hope this helps to clarify your queries.
Kind regards,
Sonia Hansen Traffic Manager Highways Service Cambridgeshire County Council
County Councillor Linda Jones adds…
Many thanks Sonia, a helpful and clear response – and I think Piero’s email reflected specific frustrations at the time.
We have now had more problems in Petersfield with the terrible fire in Gees electrical store so are all feeling a bit battered!
However, we have worked with traders and residents throughout as Piero can testify and Triio and Cadent are getting really good at communicating with traders in a timely way. Just as important, Govia [responsible for railway works] Mill Road Depot staff, [gas grid operators] Cadent, [Cambridgeshire County Council Highways] Streetworks and [gas engineering contractors] Triio are talking to each other because all the works impact on others. I met with them all yesterday and we worked out a sequence that takes advantage of the closure due to the fire and gets some gas works done while allowing room for Mill Road depot lorries to enter/exit.
[County Highways officers] Ben Ely and Bob Turner were there and really helpful in facilitating a positive outcome.
I went to check this morning and the traders had been given a briefing from Cadent/Triio.
So good news too – out of the disruption…
All the best, Linda
Linda Jones Cambridgeshire County Councillor for Romsey, Thursday 18th July 2019
Following Cllr Dave Baigent’s negotiations with GTR, they agreed to reduce the days the pedestrian/cycle access would be unavailable. Currently the last total closure dates have now taken place.
During the planned pedestrian closure on Friday 5th & Saturday 6th July 2019 08:45 – 20:45 – there was no advisory pedestrian/cycle route signage to direct people via the Carter Cycle Bridge, mid-morning.
One pedestrian who had walked up Devonshire Road from the station, with the intention of crossing the Mill Road Bridge to Romsey, was less than pleased to learn that she would need to retrace her steps.
We contacted officers from Cambridgeshire County Council’s Highways Service, asking, “Could GTR/Spencer we asked to urgently install pedestrian/cycle route signage at Devonshire Road, and the cycle bridge in Petersfield, and at Argyle Street, Stockwell Street, Cockburn Street, Charles Street, Greville Road and the cycle bridge in Romsey?”
We would like to record our thanks to Sonia Hansen, Traffic Manager and to Ben Ely, Street Works Inspector for taking action.
If GTR and their contractors, Spencer Group, were doing their jobs properly, there would be no need for this confusion.
GTR Deceit – or Two Men in a Van, Sucking Through Teeth?
Despite having a temporary footbridge in the 1980s when Mill Road bridge was rebuilt as part of the 1980s electrification programme, to accommodate the overhead electric line equipment, it’s apparently to possible nowadays.
Govia Thameslink had agreed to provide a footbridge for pedestrians during the closure of Mill Road bridge and had stated that the footbridge would be closed for one week and ‘occasional closure’. Govia has, at the last minute, increased the closures to affect four weekends.
Previously announced closure dates/times
Friday 5 July until Monday 8 July – from 8.45am until 8.45pm each day
Thursday 11 July until Saturday 13 July – from 8.45am until 8.45pm each day
Sunday 28 July until Wednesday 31 July – from 8.45am until 8.45pm each day
Saturday 3 August until Monday 5 August – from 8.45am until 8.45pm each day
Local City Councillor, Dave Baigent is ‘shocked’ at this last-minute change. Asking the rhetorical question: “Should we be surprised at Govia’s change in closure arrangements?” adding, “This last minute change, without any discussion, effectively cuts Romsey off from Cambridge City.”
Note: Mill Road Bridges is not politically aligned. Currently all Cambridge City Councillors and Cambridgeshire County Councillors in Romsey and Petersfield are Labour. We seek to work with whosoever are out elected representatives.
Mill Road poet and tweeter Carol Ann Wood speaks for many many in the #MillRdCamb with her belief that: “they [GTR] had planned on no footbridge to start with.”
And did 2 men get out of a white van with a few tools & a measuring tape, whistle through their teeth & say ‘no guv, can’t do that.’ My arse. Some bigwigs sat in a remote office & said ‘that’s going to cost too much. Anyway, people can drive the long way round.’
Meanwhile, ageing #MillRdCamb trouble-maker Trouble Up t’Mill Rd ponders how GTR might be disrupted…
Those of us who remember the demonstrations and protests over the – now-abandoned — Peak Time Closure Points, wonder what sort of legal, peaceful disruption we could cause to GTR.? ✊?
— Trouble Up t’Mill Rd (@trbl_up_tmillrd) 27 June 2019
Mill Road Summer
BRIDGE CLOSED STREET OPEN!
Whilst Mill Road Bridge was closed to vehicles, a variety of events were planned.
We contacted Cambridgeshire County Council. A County officer was also kind enough to remind us that:
Cadent Gas are taking the opportunity to carry out essential works to replace the gas main whilst the closure is in place and they will be working under temporary traffic signals. Their works will start either side of the bridge working towards each end of Mill Road.
Sonia Hansen, Traffic Manager, Highways Service, Cambridgeshire County Council
This was already reported on here on the Over Mill Road Bridge website.
Local trader Piero sent us this update 22 May 2019, at 16:21, which contradicts what we were told at the most recent ‘consultation’ meeting with GTR. Others, however, insist that this has been superseded by the current plans for a temporary footbridge…
I have spoken to the Project Director at Cambridge and can confirm that the Mill Road Bridge will be totally closed to ALL vehicles for the 8-week closure.
There is a new plan for a temporary footpath across the bridge which will mean using the existing footpath at one side and then moving this to the other side when the works move across. The original idea for a footbridge wasn’t feasible when it went through the design stages due to the pinch point being too narrow to allow people to pass each other safely.
I hope this helps and I will let you know if I hear of any further developments, but please do contact me if I can be of any assistance.
Diane, GTR coordinator
What is clear, however, is that from the very first GTR ‘consultation’ meeting, in Mill Lane, on Thursday 1 November 2018 we have been seriously concerned about the lack of effective communications from GTR with the local community.
Updates for bus services
During the traffic closure period of Mill Road Bridge to provide an enlarged arch for an additional tracks, shuttle bus services will be provided on both sides of the bridge. The ‘main’ citi2 route will be diverted via Coldham’s Lane.
In order to serve all existing stops, short wheelbase vehicles will be used. On the Petersfield side of the bridge, it’s planned to loop through Gwydir Street and Kingston Street. The Romsey shuttle is planned to use Argyle Street and Stockwell Street.
Transport campaigner and Mill Road resident, Susan Jourdain, reports that the shuttles will have a 20-minute frequency throughout current hours of operation.
Cambridge Area Bus Users informs us that the company is bringing in three short wheelbase vehicles – one for each shuttle and a spare for maintenance/breakdowns. These are 15-seaters with space for a wheelchair. By using such small vehicles all existing stops, either side of the bridge, can be served.
However, the drawback is that the vehicles would not have the capacity to serve the Birdwood area and onwards to Addenbrooke’s.
A 15-seat Mercedes-Benz Sprinter, of the type to be used on the shuttles
Is this good enough?
Whilst the Petersfield shuttle might be adequate, as onward connections to Addenbrooke’s can be made from the adjacent stop in Emanuel Street, Romsey have got a poor deal, losing direct services to the hospital, with all buses terminating at Brooks Road Sainsbury’s. Cambridge Area Bus Users informs us that Stagecoach stressed the difficulties in obtaining extra vehicles and, crucially, planning for extra driver duties. Others have suggested that GTR specified the shuttle service, without consulting bus users or local residents. Certainly no-one from Mill Road Bridges was consulted by GTR.
Full timetables and route maps for the diverted citi2, the 2A (Petersfield) and 2B (Romsey) shuttles are now available on the Stagecoach East website.
Some supplementary service is needed. For example, a Romsey resident who has a GP appointment in Petersfield or vice-versa. Moreover, there is no single service for Romsey or Petersfield residents to get them to Addenbrooke’s. The Over Mill Road Bridge website reported (19/052019) “We have been in discussion with Cambridge Dial-A-Ride about the possibility that their service could help to plug the gaps in the Stagecoach provision.”
More on the Over Mill Road Bridge website: Bridge Closure – Update #1 (Note: Over Mill Road Bridge is a campaigning organisation set up in 2018 by Romsey & Petersfield Labour Party.)
Dial-a-Ride
We are now indebted to Mill Road trader Piero d’Angelico for the GTR ‘Final Update’ which clarifies:
While the Mill Road Bridge is closed, GTR have made arrangements with Cambridge Dial-a-Ride scheme to assist residents who would otherwise find it difficult to use the revised public transport provisions.
Dial-a-Ride operates a door to door service, and, for the duration of the bridge closure, this will be AVAILABLE WITHOUT CHARGE to residents who are unable to use the revised bus service and will be adversely affected by the closure. How to apply to use the service.
From the very first GTR ‘consultation’ meeting, in Mill Lane, on Thursday 1 November 2018 we have been seriously concerned about the lack of effective communications with the local community.
Last Public Meeting
A public meeting was held on MONDAY 29TH APRIL 2019 at 18:30
We only learned about this public meeting on Friday 26th April 2019. There was nothing on-line. No email alerts. Just a few leaflets through some letterboxes. GTR’s communications were dreadful. Despite this – or possibly because of some energetic emailing and tweeting there was a decent turn-out.
Total closure to vehicles is scheduled for 1st July to 25th August 2019
There was considerable anger expressed about the poor publicity, and the fact that the many local residents and groups who had signed up for email updates at the meeting held at the Earl of Beaconsfield in November 2018 had never received any communications whatsoever. GTR Slides are linked here.
There were, however updates in a powerpoint display which you can download as a PDF above.
There are severe deficiencies in the proposed shuttle bus services (see p11 of the GTR/Spencer slideshow). This will need to be addressed.
We understand that slide 11 is an ‘indicative’ map. Detailed examination suggests that it is ‘indicative’ of poor research.
The indicative citi2 diversionary route – via Coldham’s Lane is reasonably accurate, although no account is taken of the ‘short turns’ at Brooks Road Sainsbury’s.
The indicative shuttle bus route 2A in Petersfield shows wrong-way running in Kingston Street, ignoring the one-way system. Even a Gwydir-Hooper-Kingston loop would be difficult given the tight junction at Hoper St / Kingston St and the narrowness of Kingston Street.
The only practical Petersfield solution is a Tenison Road – St Barnabas Road loop with a temporary stop by St Barnabas church. Even then, Stagecoach would need to use a shorter vehicle, such as an Optare Solo midibus.
We now have more information of the vehicles to be deployed, see above.
A stand-alone shuttle might be acceptable, as Petersfield passengers could change to the citi 1 or 7 for Addenbrooke’s, in Emanuel Street. There is, however, a big question mark over the proposed frequency of this service.
The only practical Romsey solution is a Hope Street – Argyle Street – Cockburn Street loop with a temporary stop by Tesco. Even then, Stagecoach would need to use a shorter vehicle, such as an Optare Solo midibus.
We now have more information of the vehicles to be deployed, see above.
The unacceptable feature of this indicative service is that it would appear to propose that Romsey residents are to be provided with only a shuttle link to Brooks Road Sainsbury’s, where they would be required to change buses for the city centre or for Addenbrooke’s. Guaranteeing connections would be well-nigh impossible.
Romsey residents are already annoyed at the service reduction (from a 10- to 20-minute frequency) to Addenbrooke’s. Similarly, whilst Birdwood Area Residents’ Association will retain the (already reduced) frequency to Addenbrooke’s and to the city centre, they will loose all links to Mill Road Broadway’s independent shops and cafés and to the new mosque.
An acceptable service would be for the diverted citi2 ‘short turns’ to continue from Brooks Road Sainsbury’s to Mill Road Broadway and for alternate buses from Mill Road Broadway to travel to Addenbrooke’s via the usual route.
Stagecoach, as a commercial bus operator, cannot be expected to fund the additional services – including the hiring-in of extra vehicles, and the additional driver duties – needed because of the closure of Mill Road Bridge. These costs should be met by GTR at whose behest Mill Road Bridge will be closed.
Mill Rd Traders Association members against the closure of Mill Rd, from left Shapour Meftah, Piero D’angelico, Pamela Wesson and Abdul Arain. Picture: Keith Heppell. (6148942)
Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) has promised to instal the footbridge to allow pedestrian access between the areas of Romsey and Petersfield when Mill Road Bridge is closed for railway works beneath it in 2019.
And following weeks of protest from traders on Mill Road worried the closure would discourage shoppers, GTR has agreed to move the works from springtime to July and August, when many residents are on holiday, to lessen the impact on businesses. Read more…
A comment from a local resident
To The Editor.
I welcome the recent news that ‘Govia Thameslink Railway and Network Rail’ have agreed a temporary footbridge during the Mill Road Bridge closure. The seeds for this agreement were sown at their initial public meeting in the ‘Double Tree by Hilton Hotel’ in Granta Place on 1st November last year, where the proposal was put cogently and sensibly by representatives of the ‘Mill Road Traders’ Association’ and ‘Camcycle’, together with several residents of the Mill Road Area.
The ‘Thames Govia’ Managing Director, accompanied by a Chief Engineer for the project, listened attentively and recorded the contributions; and at subsequent open meetings in Mill Road the Company took on board further ideas for the construction, positioning and design of a temporary bridge in that location.
It is good to know that a balanced democratic approach has worked so well and, in my opinion, would have probably achieved this welcome result without making it into a Local Party Political Issue!
The idea of reducing the amount of motor vehicle traffic on Mill Road has been much discussed in recent years. Benefits could include reduced pollution, safer cycling and walking, more reliable bus services and a more pleasant environment in which to live, work and shop. But we’re all conscious of the potential downsides – eg the impact on traffic in surrounding roads, the inconvenience for private motorists in particular for disabled drivers and the elderly, and logistical problems for bulk deliveries to the shops and business on Mill Road. The financial cost (or benefit) of reduced traffic on local shops and businesses is also unclear.
So given that the bridge has to be closed to vehicles for at least 8 weeks in 2019, there’s clearly an opportunity to better understand the impact of reducing traffic on this key Cambridge thoroughfare.
Petition and other updates
Over Mill Road Bridge, set up by Romsey & Petersfield Labour Parties, created a petition website.
They report:
Sophie Barnett one of our Romsey City Councillors has invited Network Rail to a meeting with Romsey and Petersfield Councillors. She is waiting for a response. The Councillors will want to ask how Network Rail and Govia Thameslink can address resident and business concerns about the impact of the Bridge closure.
Noel Kavanagh, Cambs County Councillor for Romsey, has asked about the process Network Rail will follow to get permission to close the Bridge. They will need to apply for a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO). Cambs County Council will publicise the Order, but there is no public consultation. So there is no direct consideration of public objections to the closure. We’ve asked Noel if he can find out how Cambs County Council will assess the TTRO application. We’re assuming the application will need to meet some criteria – what are they?
Drop in meetings – Earl of Beaconsfield Tuesday 27th November 13:00 – 20:00 – Report-back.
Mill Road Bridges Treasurer, Richard Wood, attended one of these sessions, at which he was able to speak to GTR’s Kevin Parker, Head of RailPlan2020, a representative of Network Rail and of the contractors, Spencer Group.
Closure to motor-traffic
Reference was made to the rebuilding of Mill Road Bridge as part of the 1980s electrification programme, to accommodate the overhead electric line equipment.
During that rebuilding, from May to November 1980, the bridge was open to (signalled) motor traffic, whilst pedestrian/cycle access was maintained on a temporary bridge, adjacent to the north. [Source: Capturing Cambridge – Mill Road Bridge]
The bridge from Great Eastern Street looking towards Petersfield. Courtesy of John Hullock and the Suzy Oakes Collection.
The concerns of traders were raised. All of Mill Road’s independent traders have considerable custom arriving by foot and cycle, however some sell £100s of their speciality goods to customers using motor vehicles.
The point was made that ‘This is Mill Road, Cambridge’ – we’re all only a couple of degrees of separation from somebody with engineering expertise. If Mill Road bridge is to be closed to motor traffic – disrupting all deliveries and some trade to shops, and severing our bus service – GTR and Spencer Group will need to show us precisely why the bridge cannot be kept open through the works, in a way that can be closely scrutinised by those in the community with the relevant skills. Otherwise Mill Roaders will assume that the wool is being pulled over our eyes.
Things do appear to have moved on since the meeting on Thursday 1st November, in – ahem – Mill Lane.
Time of the Works
GTR are now looking to do the works later in the year July/August 2019, taking account of the feeling amongst traders that this would have less effect on trade than May/June. Local parents pointed out that July/August would be less disruptive to parents/pupils of (particularly) St Mathew’s and St Philip’s primary schools, and to pupils/staff of Cambridge Academic Partnership – responsible for secondary schools at Parkside, Coleridge and Trumpington. Our understanding is that GTR promised to consult local schools and to take account of school term/holiday dates.
Foot and cycle access
In the leaflet (reproduced above) GTR say, “We are looking to provide planned periods of pedestrian access throughout the period,” which implies a lack of commitment to continuous pedestrian access and makes no mention of cycle access.
Our understanding is that GTR and Spencer Group are currently planning the design and installation of a pedestrian bridge. It is not clear, at this stage, if cyclists will need to dismount. It appears to be the case that such a bridge will be open through any closure of the bridge to motor-traffic, save for short periods where it cannot remain open for reasons of engineering and public safety.
Public Realm Enhancements
Cambridge Cycling Campaign would like to see temporary enhancements to the public realm, during any closure to motor-traffic. In particular, hiring and installing pre-assembled ‘parklets’. See their vision for Mill Road with no through-traffic. Our understanding is that GTR will be meeting with Cambridge Cycling Campaign to discuss there ideas and their concerns.
Bus services
Mill Road Bridges Treasurer, Richard Wood, joined with Cambridge Area Bus Users Secretary, Richard Wood, in stressing the importance of providing substitute bus links in the event of closure of Mill Road bridge to motor-traffic. We were assured that GTR are in discussions with Stagecoach East over providing a substitute service. Our understanding is that any proposed timetable will be open to public consultation.
The usual diversionary route for citi2, when Mill Road is closed (eg for Mill Road Winter Fair) is via East Road, Newmarket Road , Coldhams Lane and Brooks Road, resuming its normal route to Addenbrooke’s Hospital via Perne Road and Birdwood Road.
Below are personal suggestions.
On the Petersfield side, a previous bridge closure has seen a link bus service routed city centre – Mill Road – Tenison Road – St Barnabas Road and return, with Gwydir Street inbound and outbound stops suspended. With the bridge closed, a temporary stop on Mill Road outside St Barnabas Church (city-bound) would be feasible.
Both Tenison Road and St Barnabas Road are, technically, wide enough to take any standard HGV or bus, although a smaller vehicle (eg Optare Solo) might be more manageable. Because of congestion in Emmanuel Street, it is a moot point whether such a service should terminate in the city centre, or continue on the remainder of the route to Cambridge North Station via Chesterton.
On the Romsey side of Mill Road a Hope Street – Argyle Street – Cockburn Street loop might be possible. Again, a smaller bus might be advisable, and some parking suspensions might be required in those side streets. Mill Road Broadway inbound and outbound stops would need to be suspended and replaced with a temporary stop outside Mill Road Tesco.
A 20-min frequency Romsey Town – Perne Road – Birdwood Road – Addenbrooke’s, service would match the existing service to Addenbrooke’s. This might be supplemented with a 20-min frequency Romsey Town – Brooks Road Sainsbury’s – Coldhams Lane – Newmarket Road – East Road – city centre – Chesterton – Cambridge North Station.
The schedule might be completed with a a 20-min frequency Addenbrooke’s – Birdwood Road – Brooks Road Sainsbury’s- Coldhams Lane – city centre – Chesterton – Cambridge North service.
The timing of the meeting had been controversial with Mill Road’s traders, as it was in the week leading up to Mill Road Winter Fair on Saturday 1st December 2018 – probably the worst time for Mill Road’s Traders.
On 9 Nov 2018, Diane Rowe wrote to Piero d’Angelico of Mill Road Traders:
Dear Piero,
I hope you are well.
We have managed to secure a room at the Beaconsfield Arms on the 27th November. Many apologies – I know you said it was too close to the Christmas Fair but the room had been sourced and it was the only day that everyone could do. It will be in the form of a drop-in from 13:00 through until 20:00, which hopefully will mean people will be able to pop in at a time convenient to them.
I wonder if you have a list of the members of the traders association? We will try as much as possible spend local and it would be useful to know who the local suppliers are and who to contact.
Many thanks,
Diane Rowe Customer Relationship Manager Spencer Group One Humber Quays Wellington Street West HULL HU1 2BN
Shapour Meftah replied:
Dear Diane,
Thank you for your email which was sent to Piero, I am very glad that we are working on some sort of solution. As you may not be aware, we are at this moment in time in the run up to preparations for the Mill Road Winter Fair which is a very important event on our annual calendar and for our local community. As discussed on previous occasions the date initially suggested of the 21/22 of November was suitable but that has now been changed by you and after discussing this with a number of traders the suggested date of the 27th by you is not convenient for the traders, we would prefer to postpone the meeting until after the Mill Road Winter Fair and if possible at a more appropriate venue.
I’d like to suggest either St. Barnabas Church or The Salvation Army on Mill Road as an alternative venue.
Whilst we accept that you have the right to hold the meeting whenever you want, we would rather you don’t include the traders in the programme or literature of the drop-in session.
Kind Regards,
Shapour Meftah Chair of Mill Road Traders’ Association
Friday 2 November 2018 was the deadline for submission of objections to the Govia Thameslink Railway and Network Rail planning application. Our treasurer submitted an objection Mill Road bridge works 18:1372:CAP18 objection (PDF 49 KB) asking that conditions be imposed on the applicants to ensure maximum access from the Romsey ward to the east of the railway bridge to the Petersfield ward to the west at the bridge location. Easy access for pedestrians and cyclists is the most essential for the viability of the independent traders for which Mill Road, Cambridge, is justifiably famous, and of which the community is justifiably proud. The greatest volume of sales from Mill Road’s shops is to customers who arrive on foot or by pedal-cycle.
Public meeting at the Double Tree Hilton at 6pm on 1 November
Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR), Network Rail and its contractors hosted a public meeting at the DoubleTree by Hilton, Granta Place, Mill Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1RT at 6pm on Thursday 1 November 2018 to discuss the proposed eight-week closure of Mill Road bridge in Cambridge from May 2019.
Why it was not held at a venue on Mill Road we do not know. Was it to make things difficult? Or did no-one at GTR realise that Mill Lane and Mill Road are not adjacent locations?
The meeting was announced in Rail Business Daily, on-line.
Our treasurer raised his frustrations at the poor responses from Network Rail and Govia Thameslink Railway to our request (see below) to be kept informed. Whilst Network Rail did contact him, he had no response from Govia Thameslink Railway.
Neither they nor Network Rail informed him of this meeting.
The Mill Road community asked if the bridge could remain open for pedestrians and cyclists? What linking bus services could be provided along the two sections of Mill Road? What would be the impact on Mill Road’s independent traders?
The bridge will have to close for two months to allow work to expand the railway below, which will require modification of one of the bridge’s arches.
The work will allow an additional railway line to run beneath the bridge, but will make the bridge unsafe for traffic while this is taking place.
A GTR spokesperson said: “We are planning a £30 million extension of the Cambridge railway depot to help increase the number of Thameslink services to and from the City.
We have contacted Network Rail and Govia Thameslink Railway asking to be included in all consultations.
The text submitted on the various web contact forms is as follows:
We understand that Mill Road bridge in Cambridge is scheduled to be closed to all motor traffic from May to July 2019, in connection with installing an additional rail line beneath the bridge for access to an expanded maintenance depot for GTR trains.
Please ensure that our community organisation – Mill Road Bridges – is included in all consultations. Our main concern is that the bridge will remain open for pedestrians and cyclists between the two sections of Mill Road in Petersfield ward to the west of the railway and in Romsey ward to the east.
Failure to ensure pedestrian and cycle access at all times will impact severely on the independent traders for which Mill Road, Cambridge is justifiably famous, and of which the community is justifiably proud.
Throughout the closure, we would like to see the Greater Cambridge Partnership fund impact studies:
Traffic counts on other routes to the city centre and Grafton Quarter to measure the actual (rather than projected) traffic displacement
Surveys of traders on the impact on their takings and on deliveries
Surveys of pedestrians, cyclists, bus users and local residents using Mill Road on how their journeys have been affected
This will be essential data for planning a positive outcome for more permanent traffic reduction along Mill Road, a reduction of congestion, an improvement in air quality on the Mill Road corridor, safer cycling, amore pedestrian-friendly environment, bus service reliability, whilst minimising disruption to traders and residents.
On Monday 17 September 2018 two of our committee members (and one ex-member) were honoured to have a guided tour of the new, nearly-completed Cambridge Mosque in Romsey Town.
The new mosque was designed by the late David Marks MBE, a Jewish architect who, along with spouse Julia Barfield, invented and designed the London Eye. One has to say that Dr Winter, being the son of an architect himself, has recruited a professional who has created a stunning gem for Cambridge.
Inside the mosque. looking through the framework of the soon-to-be-installed glass screen to the portico
To each side of the main entrance, which will look out onto gardens, into which the whole community will be welcome, will be a community meeting-room (to the west) and a café (to the east).
The timber deliberately – and effectively, in the view of this honoured visitor – evokes trees in a forest.
The structural timber ‘trees’ in the main prayer-hall.
Natural daylight floods the main prayer hall from the ‘forest canopy’ of the structural timber trees. This is in tune with the desire to create a world-class eco-mosque of which all of our communities – Cambridge’s Muslims of many traditions, the wider Cambridge community, and the Mill Road ‘community of communities’ can be justifiably proud.
Whilst female and male worshippers pray separately, in practice the degree of separation in different traditions has considerable variation, explained Islamic scholar and academic, Dr Winter. Some sisters do not want to be on view by the brothers whilst praying, others wish to be in the sisters’ own area but feel no need to be obscured. Whist there will be a sisters’ gallery, building permanent physical separation in the main prayer hall, would take no account of variations in different Islamic traditions, nor of potential future variations in the proportion of sisters vis-à-vis bothers worshipping.
The Cambridge Mosque Trust will not follow or expect adherence to any particular school of Islam and will welcome worshippers from every part of the Muslim family, of both genders. [from Cambridge Mosque Trust’s Mission Statement]
The solution? A beautiful, intricately-carved, moveable wooden screen will be constructed, which will delicately taper from above 2 m in height by one wall to reach ground level at some point across the prayer-hall. Any sister, from any tradition should, thus, be able to find a prayer-space with which she is comfortable.
The octagonal windows, high in the wall, and the arched windows of the dome will have an extra layer of coloured glass in islamic patterns.
Daylight streams through the arched windows of the dome
Well, the dome, clad in gold-effect copper-anodised zinc, would look spectacular from an open-top tourist bus.
On the less-visible parts of the roof will be eco-friendly, sustainable energy equipment – photovoltaic arrays and air-source heat-pumps* – together with rainwater harvesting apparatus.
[*Whilst ground-source heat-pumps have some advantages over air-source – particularly at low air-temperatures – the large underground car-park and the height of the water-table on the site ruled this out as an option, Dr Winter explained.]
Entrance to the underground car-park with spaces for around 80 cars
One can see how the sustainable energy installations will go a long way towards fulfilling the plan to be Europe’s first eco-mosque.
Reflecting Islam’s contribution to contemporary debates over sustainability, the mosque will incorporate significant design features which will minimise carbon emission and emphasise the role of faith in promoting responsible management of the earth’s resources. [from Cambridge Mosque Trust’s Mission Statement]
The edges of the roof will be finished with crenellation stones cut in an English quarry, to be fitted by an Irish company.
The international sourcing of the mosque will be completed inside with marble flooring from Spain, and oak panelling from Northern Ireland, whilst service access grilles will be comprised of wooden decorative panels.
Site Manager Stephen Rodgers shows one of the evaluation prototype grilles
Two evaluation prototype grilles side-by-side
Exterior walls will be finished off with tile cladding evoking Cambridge’s Victorian bricks – whites with red detail – and the alternating red and white brick and stone elements of (eg) the Mosque of Cordoba, in beautiful patterns of Islamic calligraphy.
A prototype section of tile cladding, above the car-park entrance for evaluation of colours and design. This will soon be removed and re-tiled.
Site Manager Stephen Rodgers remarked that a number of Belfast construction workers are about to become the province’s leading experts on Islamic calligraphy. He probably wasn’t joking: any tiling errors would need to be dismantled and re-clad!
The mosque is due to open in January 2019. (This visitor was relieved that this would be well before the Brexit deadline caused any potential hiccoughs – or worse – to supply chains and the availability of specialised workers.)
If you are equally impatient to see the wonders of the new Cambridge Mosque. Take a look at the Cambridge Mosque Trust’s photographic gallery.
The recent closure of Mill Road bridge for railway works has prompted a debate about removing unwanted through traffic on a more permanent basis. Join the debate.
Mill Road should be a thriving place, with tens of thousands of residents around it, and a fantastic range of shops and community facilities. Yet traders are often struggling. Why is this?
What’s the one thing that almost everyone agrees is bad about Mill Road? The traffic. So isn’t it time something was actually done about it?
These two are strongly linked. Mill Road is currently a place that many people, myself included, either avoid completely, or visit and then leave as quickly as possible. It’s too unpleasant, polluted and noisy. All the trade from people who might actually stay for a while, or would be more likely to walk/cycle through if they didn’t have to battle the cars taking up all the space, is lost.
Mill Road has all the conditions for a popular, even trendy, location: central, cosmopolitan, offering something unique. Yet trading is still marginal. Get rid of the cars simply passing through, and the street can be opened up – to people actually visiting – and spending money and time there.
Some people think removing traffic would make trade suffer. Look at Bridge Street, and the bollards installed in 1997. Before the closure, there were 700 cars per hour passing through. Now, it is a thriving place, with the streetscaping in 2000 providing an even more pleasant environment. Who would return to all that traffic now?
Pretty much all the problems of Mill Road that people complain about can only be solved by getting rid of the through-traffic – it is both the cause and the solution:
If you want Mill Road to be a place where people actually want to visit and stay a while, you have to get rid of the through-traffic.
If you want lovely new ‘parklets’, where people can hang out and enjoy a coffee outside shops/cafes, without breathing in polluted air, you have to get rid of the through-traffic.
If you want traders to have space for delivery bays, getting vans off the pavement, with access 24/7, you have to get rid of the through-traffic.
If you want buses to run on time, and be more regular, you have to get rid of the through-traffic
If you want to walk and cycle safely, you have to get rid of the through-traffic.
If you want to get rid of pavement parking, where people feel they shouldn’t block other passing cars, you need to get rid of the through-traffic.
If you want places to park your bike, you need to get rid of the through-traffic.
If you want new space for public art, you need to get rid of the through-traffic.
If you want wider pavements, you need to get rid of the through-traffic.
If you want to be able to drive in and out, to access your house or the car parks, you would still be able to still do this, at any time – we are not calling for pedestrianisation.
This would be achieved by a closure to private vehicles at the bridge. Buses, cycles, emergency vehicles, and (out of necessity) taxis would be allowed through. People can still drive to every part of Mill Road, just not through. Delivery drivers sometimes already exit the same way they came in, or via selected side roads. It’s workable.
We know that most of it is through-traffic, because in July, a sinkhole had appeared near the Co-op. But calm and tranquillity broke out. You could hear people talking across the street. It was at last safe to cycle. People could still drive in and out. Mill Road felt like a place again. Just for two days.
With parklets, and all kinds of other changes like those listed above, Mill Road could be thriving, far more pleasant and safer, permanently.
I’m a CamCycle volunteer helping out with our Mill Road campaign.
I am pleased to see that you have published Martin Lucas-Smith’s article about our vision for Mill Road with no through-traffic, which would allow more room for pedestrians, cyclists and delivery vans, reduce congestion, improve air quality and make the street a more pleasant destination. We think the closure of the bridge next summer is a great opportunity to trial elements of our vision. We would love the Mill Road community’s input, and would appreciate Mill Road Bridges being involved in this process.
We are holding two drop-in public consultations over the coming weeks to gather the views of residents, traders and visitors to Mill Road.
Romsey Labour often discuss the possibility of how Mill Road can be made safer and this was raised again at the last meeting. At that time opinion was balanced in favour but this is a moving feast and it was decided to have it as an agenda item at the next ward meeting.
What follows is a view in favour
This action follows a very positive response to the unexpected blockage of Mill Road by a road collapse 27th-28th June – this has reopened the debate about if we could have a trial stoppage of through traffic. A trial closure at Mill Road Bridge monitored by CCTV could mean:
all private vehicles would be stopped from crossing the bridge
all of Mill Road would still be accessible
deliveries could be 24/7 and this would help traders.
buses could have a traffic free route and be on time
Of course there remain people who are against this because it will interfere with their car journeys – there are also concerns about pushing traffic onto other roads. The traders have also indicated that they remain opposed.
Cambridge Cycling Campaign on the other hand are enthused and they have raised the potential of introducing ‘parklets’. Seen below these would be used to widen the pavement and allow shops to extend their frontages – to allow ‘pop up cafes’ for example. They believe that trade would be increased for traders if the road was closed to through traffic and with parklets there would be further gains.
These ‘parklets’ would be relatively cheap to construct and make so much difference to the narrow parts of pavement on Mill Road.
Nothing that has been suggested would remove access from any part of Mill Road. Deliveries could continue as before and because there was no through traffic the lorries would be unlikely to frustrate drivers, cyclist and pedestrians. This has got to be a way forward and people should contact their councillors to make their views known (for or against).
It may even be that the Greater Cambridge Partnership could be approached to fund this trial.
As a non-party-political community group, Mill Road Bridges would love to hear from councillors and/or activists of other parties about their vision for Mill Road. Come on Conservatives, Greens and Liberal Democrats!
Making space for people on Mill Road – Smarter Cambridge Transport
The closure of Mill Road while a sinkhole was repaired prompted people to wonder whether the road could be closed permanently to through traffic. Some have called for a trial closure and Camcycle is putting forward a vision for a Mill Road with wider pavements, improved streetscape with parklets, and more cycle parking.
The café tables on the pavement around 196 Cocktail Bar hint at what a vibrant street culture we could have if Mill Road were more hospitable for people, and less so for motor vehicles. As alocal, I’d love to see this. It’s exactly the vision that our local community should be aspiring to.
But, wearing my Smarter Cambridge Transport hat, I have two concerns: the first is about the practical impact of a closure point on vehicles needing to access homes and businesses. Even if Mill Road were opened up in the early morning for shop deliveries, at other times, motor vehicles of all sizes (other than buses) would have to be directed around loops through residential streets either side of the closure point.
A bigger concern is the effect of treating this part of the city’s road network in isolation. Mill Road is special, particularly to those who live around it, but…
At the start of July, Mill Road was closed to through traffic, as a sinkhole had appeared near the Co-op. Calm and tranquillity broke out. You could hear people talking across the street. It was at last safe to cycle. Mill Road felt like a place again. Just for two days.
We want to make this permanent. Mill Road has for too long been a conduit for traffic rather than a place for people – the result of cars cutting through it to get to/from the city centre.
Cambridge didn’t grind to a halt in July. Cherry Hinton Road did experience delays, but we believe this problem can be dealt with, as discussed below.
By taking out much of the through traffic, alternative travel becomes much more attractive. For instance, buses would keep to time, and services could be expanded to be much more regular.
However, it’s not enough just to stop through traffic. We’d like to see a whole range of changes. This change is not really an agenda for cycling: it’s about turning Mill Road back into a place again.
[…]
Traffic evaporation – what about surrounding roads?
It’s a common misconception that when streets are changed to stop through traffic all the traffic goes elsewhere. Not so – ‘traffic evaporation’ occurs. People change their behaviour, resulting in a lot of car journeys simply disappearing.
In the case of Mill Road, cycling would at last be safe, bus journeys become practical, and walking without breaking into a cough from the poor air becomes possible.
Of course, some traffic will be displaced, and it’s important that Cherry Hinton Road in particular has action taken on it. Cherry Hinton Road is wide enough for a proper cycleway in many places, again providing an alternative to driving, and ought to be a pleasant tree-lined boulevard. Combined with the proposed Workplace Parking Levy and/or a Toxicity Charge – both of which are needed in Cambridge – traffic in the surrounding area can be minimised.
Mill Road is a much narrower road and, unlike much of Cherry Hinton Road, is a high street, densely lined with shops and other facilities. Pedestrian and cycle traffic is much higher on Mill Road, and 18,000+ people live off Mill Road – a very densely-populated area.
Adjudged by The Times in March 2013 as 26th out of ‘The 30 coolest places to live in Britain’, over twenty-five thousand people live in the three Cambridge city wards – Coleridge, Petersfield and Romsey – which surround Mill Road.
Click the image to view/download a PDF.
Our community outnumbers the population of Wisbech, that of March, of Huntingdon, of Ely and of St Ives.
The Mill Road community of residents and traders are fiercely proud of their mile of independent shops, cafés and restaurants; we view Mill Road as our High Street, our Town Centre.
Cambridge is renowned for quality architecture and open spaces. But are we seeing this on Mill Road’? Two recent planning applications — Mickey Flynn’s site in Petersfield and The Labour Club in Romsey — both support the claim that buildings are being parachuted into the street scene without respect for the surrounding area.
Mickey Flynn’s
Recently submitted plans for this site have failed to respect the City Council’s advice that new developments should ‘Maximise the unique characteristics of the site to create a sense of identity’ and ‘Make a positive contribution to the character of the surrounding area’ (Design Guide. 2011). This site could and should be designed to enhance the surrounding area (perhaps opening onto a pavement café), but the plans only made a nod towards this option. The new proposed development rises above the pavement, while the building line comes forward towards Mill Road, reducing the existing welcome sense of space for pedestrians.
Development of this site is a one-off chance to enhance this area, bordered by one of Mill Road ’s distinctive historic buildings — the Bath House. The plans fail to recognise or add to the partial improvements made 15 years ago. These established a base-line by using high quality materials — recycled granite bollards; a special lamp column; Judas Tree; ground cover planting; and underground soakaway. The redevelopment of this former snooker hall should be the completion of this scheme — creating a ‘public square’ in Petersfield and bringing the ‘Cambridge’ quality into Mill Road. Revised plans awaited.
Romsey Labour Club
Over the bridge, plans have now sadly been approved by the City Council for the redevelopment of a piece of local social history — the Romsey Labour Club. Although ‘retaining’ the original facade, the old building will be dwarfed by a block of student flats. This mockery of the historic frontage reduces the important story that it tells about Romsey and is unsympathetic to the Conservation Area. The inappropriate use of materials shout at pedestrians, while the height will block out light from the surrounding streets.
Mill Road is at the centre of a Conservation area. No other arterial road in the city has this designation. The road’s history is central to the story of Cambridge. It is a ‘High Street’ in its own right. It serves the population of a small town in the surrounding catchment area, with the highest pedestrian footfall of any main road outside the city centre, but the City Council has no ‘Plan’ for Mill Road.
Developers exhaust planning officers and residents by first submitting applications that ignore planning guidance. They then return with plans that are marginally improved, and which are accepted. Too often plans lack aspiration and fail to reflect local knowledge. But what is built will be here for 100 years, and it is important that it is not ‘just good enough’, but ‘the best’. So, is it time to have a ‘Mill Road Plan’?
