From a track leading towards Cherry Hinton, to today’s thriving High Street for the Petersfield, Sturton Town, Romsey Town and Coleridge areas, Mill Road has evolved and is still evolving. See our post from August 2018 – Mill Road – the high street of a small town within Cambridge city?
It would be pointless to attempt to replicate the work of others on the changing use of buildings, the establishment and subsequent disappearance of now long-forgotten shops.
With the implementation of a modal filter on Mill Road Bridge, its subsequent removal and its imminent re-implementation, arguments have raged about the effect on businesses and other organisations on and around Mill Road.
Back in October 2013 the then Mill Road co-ordinator, Ceri Littlechild, compiled a list of businesses on and around Mill Road, for the nascent Mill Road Traders’ Association. What’s changed in eleven years?
With a bit of voluntary effort, an October 2024 update is now available with all shops, businesses, consultancies, and charitable premises on and around Mill Road listed and compared with what was there in 2013.
We’ve lost a betting shop at each end of the main shopping area – William Hill at Nº8 and Ladbrokes at Nº 262 – and gained places to eat and drink – Tu Casa tapas restaurant at Nº 8 and Relevant Records café at Nº 260 – with a hairdresser – Salon 262 at Nº 262.
The Sally Ann charity shop has moved from 44A Mill Road to 5 Tenison Road, whilst the Co-op has opened a second Mill Road branch in 44A, which once housed…
A Fine Fare supermarket!
Elsewhere, small business units have been redeveloped (Hope Street Yard) or refurbished (The Courtyard, Sturton Street). Cafés and restaurants have mostly occupied the same premises but with new owners and different menus, though there have been a few additions (as well as the two mentioned above).
All of this information and more is available in a spreadsheet for you to download and peruse. It is available in two formats: Apple Numbers (best for iPhones, iPads and Macs) and xlxs (for PCs and Android devices).
Download Mill Road Traders, Businesses, Charities and Other Organisations – 2013 & 2024 (V1 2024.10.11) here:
Of course there may be errors and/or omissions. Let us know, and we’ll update the spreadsheet!
Please note: the xlxs version is an ‘export’ derived from the Numbers original. It has been checked in OpenOffice (Mac) but lacks some grid lines. If there are issues in viewing it, please get in touch. It may be possible to make improvements.
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.
The march/dance arose out of frustration that, although 72% of respondents to the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s consultation (on behalf of Cambridgeshire County Council, the highway authority) were in favour of introducing restrictions, there have been delays owing to legal challenges.
Traffic Regulation Order – Background
On Tuesday 7th March 2023 members of Cambridgeshire County Council’s Highways and Transport Committee voted to reinstate the Mill Road bridge closure to all motor vehicles, except buses, cyclists, emergency services, taxis and blue badge holders, following a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and an extensive public consultation by the Greater Cambridge Partnership, where 1,986 online and written responses were received and saw 72% of respondents supporting restricting motor vehicles from crossing Mill Road bridge.
Cllr Alex Beckett, chair of the Highways and Transport Committee, said: “We had a very good debate, heard from all sides and listened to the concerns raised. This was not an easy decision with very strong opinions, but on balance reinstating the bus gate whilst making improvements to pedestrianised areas was agreed.”
Cllr Neil Shailer, vice-chair of the committee, said: “We have listened to the public feedback and decided to go ahead and prevent the majority of motorised vehicles travelling over Mill Road bridge. This will encourage safe, sustainable transport and access to shops at the heart of our community.”
There was also a wish to see the environment enhanced along Mill Road including improving the public realm and walking and cycling provision. Various funding opportunities are still being explored for this project, which we plan to develop in discussion with the local community. It was anticipated that, subject to funding, design and engagement work will begin in 2023/24.
from Cambridgeshire County Council news release, 07 March 2023
A recently-formed group, Friends of Mill Road Bridge, are taking legal action against the implementation of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). From their published literature it is unclear on what basis this group are challenging the legitimacy of the TRO. What is clear is that this group are opponents (in the 27% of consultees who did not support the restrictions).
As a result of the high court challenge, all work on safety, and on enhancements to the public realm, have been suspended.
Rain did not stop play
Despite rain, over 200 people marched/danced from Donkey Common (by Parkside Pools) to Great Eastern Street car park in Romsey. Colonel Spanky’s Love Ensemble played numbers from the year 1972 to reflect the fact that 72% of the 1,986 online and written responses to the consultation were in favour of introducing restrictions.
A bit of rain didn’t stop people turning out in numbers to ask why Mill Rd has not been improved yet with the bus gate they have asked for pic.twitter.com/jANFuQ2KYl
Ironically, July 1972 was the date of publication of the Cambridge Transportation Plan: The final Report of the Cambridge Transportation Study by R. Travers Morgan and Partners, with 1973 seeing the first local campaign to stop through traffic on Mill Road. Read more on Antony Carpen’s Lost Cambridge blogpost The Cambridge transportation plan 1972-73.
Better for the whole community or a ‘cynical money-grab’?
Organisers of the march/dance believe that when these restrictions are implemented, Mill Road will become safer and less polluted, and that buses will be more punctual. Indeed, Cambridge Area Bus Users, together with other members of Cambridge Sustainable Travel Alliance, will be meeting with senior management of Stagecoach East, shortly, to lobby the bus operator to improve the frequency of the citi2 route if/when Mill Road’s notorious congestion is eased by the implementation of the Traffic Regulation Order.
However the Friends of Mill Road Bridge make entirely different claims:
The [Greater Cambridge Partnership] and County Council want us to drive a long way to avoid the £70 fine, which just creates congestion on Coleridge Road, Coldham’s Lane, Devonshire Road…
Mill Road only has moderate traffic now, except maybe twice a day during school terms.
We feel this toll is a cynical money grab disguised as ‘green’ and ‘active travel’.
Where this case leads, will influence freedom of movement in our city.
Promotional poster, displayed on Friends of Mill Road Bridge website
Readers who think they may recognise the ‘cynical money-grab’ phrase may have heard it in ‘War on motorists‘ protests about speed cameras and existing bus-lane cameras.
… the AA [was] formed in 1905 with the specific goal of helping drivers dodge the law, using bicycle-riding “scouts” who would warn about speed traps.
Op cit
Mill Road – a street for people, a group of local residents and business people, have a Myth busters! blogpost, summarising the concerns which are raised by people arguing against ideas for reducing traffic on Mill Road. And why they believe those arguments do not hold water.
The [Greater Cambridge Partnership] has had nothing to do with the proposal other than managing the consultation as they were asked to do by the County Council in order to move things forward.
We have data from a 2019 closure for bridge work, i.e. not during the pandemic. It shows that while traffic rose on surrounding roads for a couple of weeks, it then dropped back to normal levels, as more people cycled and walked.
The street is frequently congested, and not only during rush hour. It only takes one large delivery vehicle blocking a lane for large amounts of traffic to build up. And when it’s not congested, it is plagued with speeding vehicles.
Cambridgeshire County Council advertised, on Monday 28 November, a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to close Mill Road bridge to all motor vehicles, except buses, cyclists, emergency services, taxis and blue badge holders. The public have until midnight on Friday 6 January, to make comments and objections on the TRO. A TRO is required to implement the traffic restrictions.
Click the image to visit the Cambridgeshire County Council Mill Road bridge TRO page
Another consultation?
Wait… There have already been two consultations? Three? All of which were overwhelmingly positive regarding the modal filter on Mill Road? And now we need another consultation? What am I missing here?
The TRO is part of the legal process so open to public comment but not a consultation in the same way. It asks people for objections and other comments relating to the order. All objections must specify the grounds on which they are made.
Between June 2020 and early August 2021, Mill Road bridge was temporarily closed to most vehicles under an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO). The closure was part of a government-funded scheme to help people socially distance and encourage walking and cycling during the Covid pandemic. When the order was removed and the bridge re-opened in summer 2021, the Highways & Transport Committee asked the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) to review and consult on options for Mill Road to promote active travel and tackle air quality and congestion.
The GCP consultation, which included focus groups of key stakeholders and two public workshops, showed that there was a desire to see traffic reduced while maintaining access for those who need it, including people with disabilities and taxis. There was also a wish to see the environment enhanced along Mill Road, including improving the public realm.
After reviewing the consultation, the Highways & Transport Committee at its meeting on 12 July this year agreed to introduce a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to reinstate the modal filter on Mill Road. The Committee was clear the TRO should include new exemptions, allowing blue badge holders and taxis over the bridge.
Statements of support, or objections to the proposal, together with the grounds on which they are made or any additional comments, must be sent in writing to: Steve Cox, Executive Director: Place and Sustainability c/o Policy and Regulation Box Nº D8E Huntingdon Highways Depot, Stanton Way HUNTINGDON PE29 6PY or by email to policyandregulation@cambridgeshire.gov.uk by midnight 6th January 2023 quoting reference PR0872
Mill Road trader says proposed bus gate ‘won’t solve congestion’By Fareid Atta, Cambridge News, 2 Dec 2022 Shapour Meftah, the Chairman of the Mill Road Traders’ Association, has said that if the bus gate were to be installed it would only “add” to pollution, and create more traffic on the roads.
Mill Road in Cambridge […] could be fantastic. It used to be fantastic. But these days it is just […].
As a destination it should be a vibrant, exciting, diverse place where people visit, shop, can spend time on the street, and enjoy the cultural and culinary influences of dozens of nationalities and ethnicities represented there. What it is instead is a car sick urban canyon, narrow, noisy, chokingly polluted, and too dangerous to walk or ride on.
And the kicker is, nobody drives between shops there. There’s a car park at Parkside, another at Gwydir Street but nobody can possibly drive between the shops. The traffic that destroys Mill Road isn’t bringing money to the local traders, it’s taking money through Mill Road to the City Centre. Traffic on Mill Road exists at the expense of traders there.
In the real world the relationship between cause and effect can be difficult to trace but that is the task that Cambridgeshire County Council’s Highways and Transport Committee faced in deciding the future of Mill Road Bridge.
Nobody doubts that Mill Road Traders experienced hard times during the pandemic, but was their hardship the result of restricted access to Mill Road Bridge? Or could it have been part of a wider decline in trade, which caused huge retail giants such as John Lewis and others to teeter, with Debenhams, Top Shop and others vanishing from our High Streets and shopping centres?
The Highways and Transport Committee’s decision to reopen the bridge, which was passed by the acting Chair’s casting vote on Tuesday 27th July appears to endorse this correlation. A connection between poor respiratory health prior to lockdown and pollutants that exceed those levels considered acceptable by the WHO, was not endorsed by that majority of one.
The positive aspect of this decision is that there will be a consultation on the experiences of residents and traders and the impacts that removing the restrictions on the bridge will have on health, collisions and an upturn in trade. These are trends that must be monitored.
Meanwhile, there is a question mark over whether the abrupt ending of the scheme could have financial implications for Cambridgeshire County Council’s future central government (DfT) funding for active transport schemes.
Funding for infrastructure upgrades, changes to The Highway Code and new requirements to ensure that active travel schemes’ effects are properly assessed.
In a sign of the growing frustration within government at some councils, both Conservative and Labour, which have removed active travel schemes in the face of sometimes noisy objections, transport minister Chris Heaton-Harris is formally writing to the leaders of all English local authorities with transport responsibilities.
Cambridge Labour Party have published a short survey to measure public opinions about the future of Mill Road.
Image: Over Mill Road Bridge
Whilst Mill Road Bridges have no political affiliations, we would be wrong not to draw this survey to local residents’ attention. It is noteworthy that the Vice-Chair of the Cambridgeshire County Council Highways and Transportation Committee is now Councillor Gerri Bird (Labour, Chesterton Division). It would seem likely that Councillor Bird will have the results of the survey drawn to her attention.
Please fill itin – the result is likely to influence the way that Labour councillors vote in the Highways Committee on this issue.
Cambridge Labour
If, however, you would prefer to contact your local Cambridgeshire County Councillor directly their contact details may be found here:
This blogpost is also open for (polite) comments. We will contact Councillors Howitt and Shailer to ask that they monitor the post for comments, though we cannot guarantee that your comments will be seen, councillors being busy people not full-time public employees.
Cambridge Independent report – in the 14th July2021 edition – that campaigners connected to Mill Road Traders’ Association intend to ‘block the bridge completely’ on the morning of Saturday 24th July.
Piero d’Angelico is quoted as saying, “We will block the whole bridge and not even a bus will be allowed through this time.”
A protest in summer 2020 against the restrictions on Mill Road bridge (Image: Local Democracy Reporter, on the Cambridge News website)
Last ditch attempt to try and persuade councillors to reopen Mill Road bridge to cars is being organised by the Mill Road traders whose livelihoods have been affected by the closure.
Show your support for Local independent shops and join them on the 24th July 2021 @ 11am – 2pm.
Mill Road independent shops are at risk of closure if this bridge continues to be closed. Please share this event with your friends and family members.
Don’t Kill Mill Road Facebook page
It is not known whether the protesters will attempt to physically prevent pedestrians and cyclists from using the bridge, or only the limited range of vehicles currently permitted to use the bridge.
These details are published here to enable those who support the aims of the protesters to join the protest. If you oppose the protesters, it might be better to avoid the bridge at the time of the protest and make your feelings known elsewhere.
This post is open for (polite) comments, whatever your view.
Is the Mill Road community an undifferentiated block, who agree on everything? Far from it. That’s why we adopted (borrowed) the phrase Community of Communities. Gather half-a-dozen Mill Roaders in a meeting and you’ll generate a score of differing opinions.
We are pleased to see the establishment of a new website and group trying to create a positive vision for the future of Mill Road.
Mill Road – A Street for People is a group of Cambridge residents working on a non-partisan basis to seek consensus to get the best Mill Road for everyone.
Note Mill Road – A Street for People is not controlled by, nor aligned to Mill Road Bridges. We exist to foster debate about Mill Road and will draw attention to all websites, protests, opinion surveys and events concerning Mill Road which come to our attention, on whatever ‘side’ of any ‘argument’ they stand.
It is a site which hosts a variety of (sometimes overlapping, sometimes conflicting) ideas.
There are endless discussions on Nextdoor, Facebook and Twitter, but not everyone has (or wants) an account on those social media. This site is open to all, as is Mill Road – A Street for People.
And what of the future?
Since June 2020 there have been restrictions on what traffic can lawfully use Mill Road Bridge – see Wider footways, barriers and bridge restrictions. Some claim that the restrictions are ‘killing’ Mill Road. Others point to the new businesses starting up in Mill Road as signs of change and growth. These include the Harvest Organic Supermarket, and the Eclipse Bakery on Romsey Broadway; whilst, on the Petersfield (city) side, Finn Boys Fish Butchery restaurant, a new Co-op, The Lads Piri-Piri, and another restaurant – Fancett’s – at 96A (Fabio’s former premises) have recently opened or are about to open.
Some want all restrictions on bridge traffic removed, to bring ‘passing trade’ back to Mill Road. Others insist that passing motor-traffic is just that. Passing. Not stopping. Not shopping. Would the return of the previous traffic congestion, air pollution and road traffic accidents be worth it for the alleged benefits to traders?
Access for Blue Badge holders? Difficult as the Blue Badge is a parking permit, linked to an individual (driver or passenger) not a vehicle. But could a means be found?
Delivery vehicles to traders? Which ones? What times?
Some blame any drop in trade to the current restrictions on Mill Road Bridge, while others point out that Covid-related restrictions on shopping, eating out, and socialising have hit businesses across the city and the country.
If you haven’t seen the two programmes, they are well worth a watch, with (spoiler alert) Sayeeda Warsi a worthy winner, and Rev Richard Coles a commendable runner-up.
No wonder the Cambridge Central Mosque was built on Mill Road – an ideal place for a beautiful building and a continuing debate about the best future for the ‘Mill Road community’.
What are the next steps? When will the scheme be reviewed?
Consultation
We invite comments on the closure of Mill Road Bridge to all vehicles except buses, cycles and pedestrians. Please send your comments by email to [redacted as the consultation is now closed – Web Editor]
The first six months of the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) are the consultation stage during which we record all feedback.
A survey runs between 12 noon on Monday 9 November until 23:59 on 24 December 2020 to offer an additional opportunity for people to have their say on the changes and their impact on Mill Road.
We will collate all feedback, whether from emails, letters or the survey and present it to the Highways and Transport Committee when they make their decision on whether to continue the trial, make the changes permanent or to re-open the bridge to motorists.
Note the closure date of the consultation; Christmas Eve. As Monday 28th is a public holiday; the earliest that all of the comments could begin to be considered and collated would be on Tuesday 29th December 2020.
Readers who have completed the survey themselves will note that there were quite a few sections with space for ‘free expression’ of ideas. These will take some time to assess and aggregate.
The Highways and Transport Committee will hold a virtual meeting on Tuesday 19th January 2021 at 10:00. Click here for meeting details. There is no further information at the time of writing but, if readers keep returning to it, they will, eventually, find a full agenda pack for the meeting published in PDF format to read/download. In amongst that will be a summary of all of the feedback on the Mill Road scheme.
As for members of the public ‘attending’ (virtually)…
To help people follow the debates at Cambridgeshire County Council we are live web streaming on YouTube our Council meetings. You can also follow along on Twitter with the hashtag #CCCmtgs.
We hope this information is of help, to all of our readers and subscribers, whether for or against the scheme, or (like most people) wanting some limitations but not these exact ones.
The former Travis Perkins site is coming up for redevelopment. It is a site earmarked for housing and, in advance of creating designs for the scheme, a series of Zoom consultations have taken place hosted by Finlay McNab of The Devonshire Gardens Team. They took place this week on Wed 2nd, Thur 3rd and Fri 4th December.
The purpose of these meetings is to identify design priorities which are in accord with local needs and aspirations. City Cllrs. Mike Davey and Richard Robertson together with County Cllr. Linda Jones participated. In addition there were half a dozen other interested people from local community groups. There were 3 sessions:
Sense of Place and character,
Liveability, Health and Open Spaces,
Cycling and walking.
Very soon the first meeting on Sense of Place and character started straying off-topic onto Open Spaces. It is not easy to identify what Mr McNab took away from the discussion although at one stage he asked whether he was right in assuming that the community was not interested in the physical style of the built environment but in how space was used. Several participants contested this, and stressed that physicality was important to the community and the use of traditional building materials is valued.
Participants also stressed that there was a strong sense that creating an ecologically rich environment is important to our community and this should extend beyond allocating open space for grass and providing play equipment for infants. Flower gardens with seating were identified as important, tree planting and possibly roof gardens were mentioned. A participant from Marmalade Lane co-housing community made two valuable observations.
Tarmac is an important material for infants, how else can children learn to skate or ride bikes?
Community gardens and food gardens would fit in well with Mill Road as the road is all about good food!
Thursday’s meeting concentrated on landscape design and the need for open space to provide benefit to a wide range of demographics. The discussion started from the agreed premise that open space is important for physical health and mental well-being; in addition there was a strong lobby who consider that the opportunity to cultivate is a basic human urge and the presence of plants mitigates the ill-effects of pollution.
Community participants stressed that teenagers often used open space more than other groups and that they often felt vulnerable in places where there are dead ends. There was almost a consensus that wild open space worked well on many levels, particularly if tree planting was accompanied by planted undergrowth which encourages bio-diversity.
There was strong support for providing moving water in public landscapes. Inclusivity was considered a priority which led the discussion on to management structures for community organised facilities such as cafés and gardens. A participant argued that 2 seater side-by-side benches where not good for social interaction and that movable seating should be provided. Other suggestions were mazes bordered by hedges which a) provide long runs and a sense of travelling in a really small area and b) satisfy or stimulate a sense of curiosity and adventure in all age groups.
