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.
