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.
Katie Hawks, from Mill Road 4 People
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.
An update on the Mill Road Traffic Regulation Order and legal challenge, Cambridgeshire County Council, 06 August 2024 (Read the council’s full statement by clicking the link, above)
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.
A good place to start would be the Frequently asked questions section on the County Council’s Mill Road bridge TRO webpage. For a fuller understanding, you could read the council’s Statement of Reasons (PDF).
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!
People opposing the Mill Road bridge TRO, may be interested in this Petition to the County Council from Mill Road Traders’ Association. (Note that only a minority of Mill Road traders are members of this association.)
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.
There is strong support from many residents in the side roads of Romsey Town but what is so often forgotten is that Mill Road is a residential street, particularly along the Petersfield stretch, and the width of pavements on the northside are well below the width advocated by disabled charities.
Submission to Cambridgeshire County Council on the Mill Road bus gate…
This is my opinion on the matter: We have a positive vision for a Mill Road Cambridge that is vibrant, attractive, safe, and healthy
What, another one??? Yes, it does seem incredible that the Cambridgeshire County Council is consulting yet again on a modal filter for Mill Road bridge that local people have already said loudly and clearly that they want.
Read my full opinion piece, published in CambsNews, 29/08/2042, via the link above.
At this rate it will be 2042 by the time anything happens…
Lucy if you’re referring to roads like Tenison, residents of that road in particular do report that bridge restrictions cause some increase in traffic. In fact due to the porous nature of a number of South Petersfield streets, post filter Mill Rd on the Petersfield side does not see the same degree of traffic reduction as Romsey (although it does see some). A MR4P post about the impact of a bus gate in Petersfield from 2021 is here: Petersfield deserves better…
But Tenison and similar roads are very far from being a tranquil haven of peace and quiet without the filter. They are already taking far far more traffic to and from Hills Road and the station than is reasonable for residential streets, and THAT is the problem that needs to be resolved. Councillors are well aware of the issue but seem unprepared to take on vested interests in order to deliver benefits to residents. Until South Petersfield residents organise and unite to demand change, some South Petersfield streets will continue to be clogged with through traffic with or without a filter on the bridge.
Regarding Tenison Road. The 2 County sensors on that street show that during periods of bridge restrictions, motor traffic levels reduced (see chart). Re Coldhams Lane, see this piece traffic displacement: myth or reality? [Mill Road 4 People 11/11/2021]
Lucy you’re asking for a “proper traffic assessment and evaluation” before proceeding – how could that assessment gather evidence in a way that was any more convincing than the evidence we already have from previous periods of bridge restrictions? In effect you are arguing for the status quo to remain. Meanwhile local people have been demanding change on Mill Road for at least 50 years.
Webeditor’s note: Click on the image to expand and view with greater clarity.
In other words: “nothing will happen until everything will change all at once”. Which is totally unrealistic. That is a recipe for never improving healthy living, air quality, or active and sustainable travel.
It is unrealistic because there are too many motoring lobby groups, such as the Friends of Cars on Mill Road, and the Cars-only Residents Group (CRG), etc., who will frustrate any change, however sensible, at every turn.
Even despite this question of how change should be made, your overall position essentially amounts to saying that, irrespective of surrounding roads, 12,000 vehicles a day is an acceptable level of traffic for a C road intended for people to shop safely on. That is really not the view of local people, as expressed time and time again electorally. No-one would plan a street like this were we starting now. It is simply an unacceptable situation. At no point has this level of traffic we now experience ever been consulted on.
However, to allay your fears, we should look what happened in the city centre, known as the Core Scheme. Bridge Street was done first, but it was many years before the following stages. That didn’t cause excessive knock-on effects, and in fact made it easier to do the following stages because the success of the first was demonstrated – more people were able to take the bus, cycling became safer, shopping was more pleasant and indeed is now a thriving area, and traffic in surrounding areas returned to the same levels as before.
If, like me, you are concerned with the traffic problems on Glisson Road and Tenison Road, well, those have always had a large amount of taxi rat-running, which has always needed to be dealt with in its own right. The way to deal with that is to reconfigure the station area so that buses are much nearer than the taxis, and the bus information is substantially reworked – there is a huge amount of people taking taxis simply because they don’t realise the buses exist (they are barely even visible from the station entrance!) or actually go into town.
The post by Wookey explains about the longer-term effect of traffic reduction we will see.
The closure will make people like me (aged 87) drive much further (six or seven times as far) to reach things on the other side of the bridge. It will also cause an increase in CO2 emissions as traffic on Coldham’s Lane and Cherry Hinton road builds up and long queues build up. The people making this decision do not really seem to have thought it through.
Filtering like this in fact reduces CO2 emissions, because it makes it possible for many more people (especially the 8 and 80 year-olds) to cycle, scoot, walk, wheel or get the bus. Some people who really need to drive will go around. Very few of those will actually be making significantly longer journeys. but emissions and traffic are almost always reduced overall.
Oddly enough this stuff has actually been thought about over the several years this saga has been going on.
Traffic counts from previous periods of bridge restrictions show that, while some journeys are made longer for some people, the overall impact is a substantial reduction in motor traffic and a corresponding substantial increase in active travel and the use of more reliable public transport. Also taxis will still be able to go over.
[…] anyway. The new “consultation” is a meaningless exercise and the Council are already preparing their propaganda in response to the expectation that many people are going to write in with objections, which will outweigh the […]
As usual this long-winded piece from Will misleadingly implies that consultations are some kind of referenda. Nor, remarkably, does he seem to understand that a TRO is a legal objection process, clearly never having bothered to read the law.
Consultations seek to identify various issues or details, but they don’t override policy. The council coalition parties stood on a policy of lower traffic. They were the people who got elected, so that is the policy being carried out. (Unlike people such as Will who seem unable to accept a democratic result having been comprehensively rejected…)
At least his lot have now given up any pretence of trying to imply local support for the traffic, following his disastrous election result. They’re now resorting to spamming forums of villages far away and unaffected. Drivers from Mildenhall for instance can simply make an earlier turn if they really need to drive through south-east Cambridge.