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.
Pavement clutter might seem trivial, but it is a serious problem.
It can make getting around hazardous, especially for disabled people, older people and those with young children. If we really want our streets to be safer and easier for walking, it’s time to tackle this.
Living Streets
The Living Streets Cambridge group are campaigning at a local level. Blogger, vlogger, local historian, community reporter and all-round good egg, Antony Carpen, has filmed this short video highlighting some of the issues. Mill Road Bridges is happy to support this week of action.
Video by Antony Carpen for Living Streets, Cambridge
Antony produced this video without charge for Living Streets Cambridge. (Maybe we should say ‘pro bono’, this being Cambridge). If you would like to support his work please consider visiting Antony’s Ko-fi crowd-funding page and making a donation.
In an earlier blogpost – Pavements for Pedestrians – we have highlighted the hazard posed by the misuse of Mill Road’s pavement by vehicles parking, loading and unloading, together with the failure of Cambridgeshire County Council to exercise their powers to prevent this, at no additional cost to council tax payers. (And it’s not just a problem for Mill Road.)
Living Streets (nationally) is calling for local authorities to prioritise clearing footways and pavements through measures including (but not limited to):
Banning all A-board advertising on the pavement
Putting in place plans and budget to remove excess or unused street furniture (eg signs and poles, guard rail and utility boxes or phone boxes)
Providing guidance to businesses using pavement space for outdoor entertainment that they must maintain a 1.5m pavement width
Ensuring maintenance of trees and hedges that encroach on pavements
Making a commitment that EV charging points and cycle storage will only be placed on pavements where 1.5m clearance width for pedestrians can be maintained; where there is insufficient space on the footway road space should be reallocated eg through the use of well-designed build outs.
Ensuring that rental e-scooter parking is placed on the carriageway, and not on pavements – there is no need to sacrifice pedestrian space in order to support micromobility.
Living Streets
Some poor (and good) practice along Mill Road
Traditional street furniture
Traditional bus stop replaced by passenger information board… But the old pole remains, and the siting of the control box is out of line with the new pole.
Litter and recycling bins by Cho Mee stores, Mill Road. But why here? This doesn’t seem like a litter hot-spot.
Wheelie-bins block the pavement on a side-street
A Rogues Gallery of vehicles along Mill Road’s pavements
Delivery van on Mill Road pavement
Car on Mill Road pavement
Cars on Mill Road pavement
Taxi on Mill Road pavement
Delivery van on Mill Road pavement
Cycle stands
Cycle stands by Tu Casa obstruct the whole of the footway. The area to the left is, legally, Tu Casa’s forecourt. And, if they would like to have some outdoor seating, what then?
Cycle stands on a shop forecourt are better, but cycles may ‘drift’ onto the footway.
The display-boards seen behind the cycle stands are on shop forecourts, but how many pedestrians know the difference?
The cycle stands in the slideshow below, however, are much better sited, being off the footway and well to the side of any pedestrian desire-lines.
The Greater Cambridge Partnership is consulting on Mill Road and its potential future and want to hear from residents, people who visit, work on, or use Mill Road, and people who own businesses on and near the road, as well as people who travel through the area.
The consultation closes at midday on Monday 21st March 2022.
Click on the image to visit the consultation page. Click here to view/download the Mill Road Spring 2022 booklet (PDF)
The Greater Cambridge Partnership is the body set up under a ‘City Deal’ in agreement with (then) Chancellor, George Osborne, with a budget of over £500 million.
Image courtesy of Smarter Cambridge Transport
This consultation (and the related on-line ‘workshops’, run by Involve, UK’s leading public participation charity) are initial stages where the Greater Cambridge Partnership are asking the public for their views on a range of options for Mill Road. Read more about the consultation in the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s explanatory booklet (PDF).
Local groups welcome consultation
Camcycle (Cambridge Cycling Campaign), Mill Road Traders’ Association and local campaigning group Mill Road – A Street For People, issued a joint statement (PDF) welcoming a new round of consultation on improving Mill Road, recognising differences of views about how Mill Road could see improvements to safety, attractiveness of trade and an improved environment, and agreeing that the consultation must be carried out in an effective, fair and inclusive way. They did, however, express some reservations about the focus group ‘workshops’ mentioned above. As a result, an additional Sunday workshop session has been arranged. See below.
All are united in urging local residents, and everyone who travels or trades along Mill Road, to respond and share their views.
There will also be a Greater Cambridge Partnership East Community Forum (on-line) meeting, on Monday 21st March 2022. Projects that will be discussed include Cambridge Eastern Access, Chisholm Trail phases 1 & 2, Mill Road and the Greenways. Find out more and register here – Greater Cambridge Partnership East Community Forum meeting.
Wasn’t this issue settled in the summer of 2021?
The earlier Experimental Traffic Regulation Order, was brought in by Cambridgeshire County Council, at the behest of central government, with a degree of urgency, in response to health needs at that time. There was a consultation, during the experiment, whose outcome was unclear, owing to some people submitting multiple responses to the survey.
At the time a Cambridgeshire County Council spokesperson said: “…an open survey format was used. Unfortunately, this meant that the system was open to mischief-making – but duplicate entries and patterns can be spotted, as they were in this case.” New controversy over data on Mill Road bridge consultation in Cambridge By Gemma Gardner, Cambridge Independent, 27 October 2021.
At this point Cambridgeshire County Councillors on the Highways and Transport Committee voted to allow the road to reopen to general traffic, with the plan to ask for public views on the future of the road. In November 2021, the Highways and Transport Committee voted to ask the Greater Cambridge Partnership to carry out a further consultation on behalf of Cambridgeshire County Council.
The latest consultation, which closes at midday on Monday 21st March 2022, is an initial stage to assess views on the future of Mill Road. When the Greater Cambridge Partnership, in collaboration with Cambridgeshire County Council’s Highways and Transport Committee have firm proposals there will be a full (statutory) consultation, ahead of implementation of any permanent Traffic Regulation Order.
Aren’t there a number of other issues?
Yes…
But the present blogpost might stretch into eternity if these were considered here. The questions below, and related issues, are considered in a related blogpost, currently in preparation – More thoughts on Mill Road’s future. (This link will work as soon as the associated blogpost is published.)
Many people appreciated the greater safety for foot and cycle traffic during the earlier bridge restrictions, others complained about the limitations to the use of motor-vehicles. Whatever your opinions, do click through to the Greater Cambridge Partnership Mill Road consultation page to make them known.
And please make full use of the three narrative responses to give the Greater Cambridge Partnership the benefit of your comprehensive views.
Most of Mill Road Bridges’ blogposts are open to (polite) comments. This one is not, in order to collate comments in the related blogpost– More thoughts on Mill Road’s future.
The Greater Cambridge Partnership is consulting on the potential future of Mill Road, and wants to hear from residents, people who visit, work on, or use Mill Road, and people who own businesses on and near the road, as well as people who travel through the area.
This post explores a number of related issues.
Click on the image to visit the consultation page. Click here to view/download the Mill Road Spring 2022 booklet (PDF)
The earlier Experimental Traffic Regulation Order was brought in by Cambridgeshire County Council, at the behest of central government, with a degree of urgency, in response to health needs at that time. There was a consultation, during the experiment, whose outcome was unclear, owing to some people submitting multiple responses to the survey.
At the time a Cambridgeshire County Council spokesperson said: “…an open survey format was used. Unfortunately, this meant that the system was open to mischief-making – but duplicate entries and patterns can be spotted, as they were in this case.” New controversy over data on Mill Road bridge consultation in Cambridge By Gemma Gardner, Cambridge Independent, 27 October 2021.
At this point Cambridgeshire County Councillors on the Highways and Transport Committee voted to allow the road to reopen to general traffic, with the plan to ask for public views on the future of the road. In November 2021, the Highways and Transport Committee voted to ask the Greater Cambridge Partnership to carry out a further consultation on behalf of Cambridgeshire County Council.
When and if the Greater Cambridge Partnership, in collaboration with Cambridgeshire County Council’s Highways and Transport Committee have firm proposals they are obliged to undertake a full (statutory) consultation, ahead of implementation of any permanent Traffic Regulation Order(s).
There are also related on-line ‘workshops’, run by Involve, UK’s leading public participation charity.
How far are you supportive or unsupportive of the following three options for Mill Road? Please refer to pages 6-8 of the brochure. Theme 1: Do nothing Theme 2: Improve the quality of place Theme 3: Changes to traffic and access in the medium and longer term
Each ‘theme’ is outlined in full, and each can be answered on a scale of ‘Strongly support’ , through ‘Neither support nor oppose’, to ‘Strongly oppose’. What is “too restrictive” in that? See the slideshow below. Reading the detail will be clearer by viewing/downloading the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s explanatory booklet (PDF).
Moreover there are three open questions, each enabling an extended narrative response:
Do you have any other comments on the future of Mill Road?
Please comment if you feel any of the proposals would either positively or negatively affect or impact on any such person/s or group/s. [Relating to the potential impact on people of differing ethnic or religious groups, genders, people with disabilities, etc.]
Do you have any other comments about our proposals for Mill Road or how the road could function in the future?
Quite how these questions are “too restrictive” is difficult to understand.
But I still find the questions unhelpful; I want to state my own views
If you really don’t like the questions, and would prefer to email your thoughts on the future of Mill Road, email consultations@greatercambridge.org.uk with the subject line “Mill Road Consultation spring 2022” or something very similar. Put as many paragraphs into your email as you wish and state your personal view. Add either your full address or all of your postcode except the last two letters. Your views will be recorded.
Shouldn’t Mill Road take a ‘fair share’ of through motor-traffic?
This seems to be the view of Ian Sandison, CEO of Cambridge Business Improvement District.
We need to take a holistic view of city access and thus cannot just include one road, or even one bridge on one road. It is not surprising many Mill Road residents were happy with the closure – less traffic, cleaner air, and a nicer environment to walk and cycle. However, once the city did open up and visitors, workers and goods could not easily access the city, then the folly of a single-street solution became clear and it was demonstrated how unequal this approach is.
Mill Road can’t be viewed in isolation By Ian Sandison, CEO of Cambridge Business Improvement District, Sponsored feature, Cambridge Independent, 17 February 2022.
Sandison also writes:
Buses seem to be a popular solution and, to be fair, many workers would happily travel into Cambridge by bus if they were quick, available early and late at night, affordable, clean and green and the network was more comprehensive. This would make the city more attractive to workers and visitors who can be deterred by the current congestion issues. To really incentivise people to use buses we need them to be funded upfront so they have a positive alternative to their car.
ibid
That seems fair enough but, beyond any up-front ‘seedcorn’ injection of public funds, better bus services will require revenue schemes beyond farebox receipts. However, Sandison is on record for opposing a congestion charge which could provide exactly such a revenue stream.
Workers in the retail hospitality and leisure industries are towards the lower end of the pay scale. They often cannot afford to live in our beautiful city. They spend too long each day commuting, usually by car, since their home is poorly served by an inefficient and unavailable, at the right times, public transport system.
I was thus taken aback to read of the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s plans to introduce a congestion charge…
Good COP or bad COP? It’s hard to tell By Ian Sandison, CEO of Cambridge Business Improvement District, Sponsored feature, Cambridge Independent, 18 November 2021.
Indeed Sandison is in favour of allowing commuters to park in our residential areas, adding to traffic congestion and obstructing the existing bus services.
Many … workers park on the public highway for free in the residential streets around the city…
Maintaining … on-street free parking and not having a congestion charge are essential if the city wishes to still be able to attract workers in this sector. I would ask those in favour of more residents’ parking schemes to consider this.
Improved bus services and lower fares would help the least affluent residents and workers – those who cannot afford cars nor the petrol to fill their tanks, nor shiny new electric vehicles. But, how is it possible to improve public transport without reducing the volume of traffic passing through the city?
It is astonishing how (even in the midst of a climate crisis) there are those who imagine that poverty can be eased by further facilitating private motoring.
Why does the CEO of Cambridge Business Improvement District use advertorial, to comment on Mill Road, an area of the city which is outside their remit? Should they be permitted, as a body, rather than as individuals, to influence the current Mill Road consultation?
Unfettered access to the city centre by private vehicles might be in the interests of Cambridge Business Improvement District – though, arguably vastly improved public transport would be of better benefit – but could seriously disadvantage Mill Road as a shopping destination.
And there is no sign of Cambridge Cambridge Business Improvement District seeking to remove restrictions on vehicular access to St Andrew’s Street, Sidney Street, Bridge Street, Magdalene Street, St John’s Street, Trinity Street, King’s Parade and Market Street in the historic city centre, nor to Fitzroy Street and Burleigh Street in the Grafton Quarter.
Ian Sandison says that providing a better Mill Road in a single-street solution is unequal. In what way is this so? In a densely populated area with significant numbers of multi-occupancy homes, with many householders that use bikes and foot as their primary means of travel, in a city with relatively low ownership of cars, why shouldn’t priority be given to the Mill Road area to become the first low traffic neighbourhood?
Paul Lythgoe, Mill Road 4 People
Moreover, the extent to which motor-traffic is displaced onto other roads when a road is restricted and the degree to which that motor-traffic ‘evaporates’ (ie vehicular journeys are no longer made) is a moot point. Fortunately there is Cambridge City Smart Sensor Traffic Count open data which monitors this.
Weekly motor vehicle volumes on Mill Road, Coldhams Lane and Cherry Hinton Road, from June 2019 to October 2021. Click here to view a larger version, in a new tab.
Counterintuitively, the evidence is clear – the 2019 bridge closure for railway works and the 2020-21 bridge restrictions had no sustained impact on traffic levels on Coldham’s Lane and Cherry Hinton Road. Read more, here – traffic displacement: myth or reality?
But hasn’t Mill Road ‘always been an arterial route’?
No. Despite what is alleged on some social media, Mill Road has not ‘always been an arterial route’, neither is it designated as a primary or secondary distributor road. Look closely at this video of a present-day OpenStreetMap fading to an Ordnance Survey 1″ 7th series map. Check the east end of Mill Road before the construction of Barnwell Road.
Video created from National Library of Scotland’s Explore Georeferenced Maps page. The link should allow you to drag the slider (bottom left) to explore the maps yourself.
The use of roads in shopping and residential areas is always evolving. In the 1960s, the A10, A45 and A604 ran through central Cambridge, with Regent Street, St Andrew’s Street, Sidney Street, Bridge Street, Magdalene Street, St John’s Street, Trinity Street, King’s Parade and Trumpington Street all designated as trunk roads.
The Greater Cambridge Partnership are currently reviewing Cambridge’s ‘Road Network Hierarchy’ under which Mill Road would be designated a ‘Local Access Street’. Should Mill Road wait?
So, what makes Mill Road special, and different from other routes into the city?
Mill Road is very much a destination for people seeking to source specialist foods and to sample cuisine from around the globe. It has a higher proportion of independent shops, cafés & restaurants than any other Cambridge street.
Travel beyond Reality Checkpoint on Parkers Piece and you might see that Mill Road is a fairly unique place in Cambridge. There is a vibrant street life from end to end with independent cafés, restaurants, and shops. The bridge restriction made the road a safer place to be for all. Active travel to destinations within Mill Road and as a through route to the city was encouraged. Mill Road 4 People have surveyed and talked to local residents and visitors. We know how it was changing people’s lives and helping them choose active modes of transport.
Paul Lythgoe, Mill Road 4 People
Mill Road is also the proud home of the beautiful Cambridge Central Mosque, its advanced eco-design giving it a near-zero carbon footprint. It will soon be home (again) to a carved stone archway. Saved after it was removed from a former Hindu temple, it could be installed in the garden of Ditchburn Place, a sheltered housing community, and former maternity hospital, subject to planning approval. Read more here: Hindu temple arch looks set for Cambridge garden home By Alex Spencer, Cambridge Independent, 25 February 2022.
However, not only is Mill Road a high street it is also a residential street with over 200 front doors opening onto the street behind which there live over 1,000 residents.
Nearly all premises along Mill Road are residential in whole, or in part, with over a mile of front doors and front windows situated less than 5 metres from the carriageway. This distinguishes Mill Road from all other approaches to the city centre from whatever direction, particularly roads which were developed later, with wider footways, verges and, in many cases, long front gardens separating most residential accommodation from the carriageway.
This makes residents particularly vulnerable to illnesses caused by pollution and to road accidents. Stepping outside their homes can cause injury, as mounting pavements is deemed to be the acceptable norm by passing motorists and by some cyclists avoiding the heavy motor traffic.
We support active travel initiatives across the city but we say that we have been endlessly consulted and promised change – specifically in Mill Road which is always kicked down the road in favour of a ‘holistic’ approach – which may or may not be delivered.
It is absolutely time that something is done and done now to make Mill Road a safer and better place. It will be an exemplar for other initiatives across the city, and following the link through to the north of the city along the Chisholm Trail to Mill Road it will be easily and quickly accessible to so many more.
Paul Lythgoe, Mill Road 4 People
What Lythgoe asserts about Mill Road waiting, and waiting is amply illustrated by this 1973 clipping from the Cambridge Evening News. Presumably, this being before 1974’s local government reorganisation into two-tier councils, the report will have been on the priorities of the Highways Committee of the Borough of Cambridge. Perhaps Cambridge Town Owl, Antony Carpen, can confirm or correct this.
Mill Road welcomes destination traffic, by foot, cycle, bus and motor vehicle. Motor traffic needs to be facilitated by clear signage to existing parking facilities, and by more on-street (but off-pavement) short-term parking.
Will the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s Cambridge Road Network Hierarchy Review solve the problem?
The two maps, below illustrate the basic idea. If they alternate too quickly, press the pause button.
This work forms a key component of the City Access work to achieve City Deal objectives of improving public transport and active travel opportunities, reducing traffic and vehicle emissions, and contributing to the net-zero agenda. A review of the road network hierarchy would be the subject of a public consultation in summer 2022.
Cambridge Road Network Hierarchy Review Report to Greater Cambridge Partnership Joint Assembly 17th February 2022
For those who’d like to read the full detail of the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s draft network hierarchy, the papers, from the Thursday 17th February 2022 Joint Assembly agenda pack, can be viewed/downloaded in full, here (pp 36-53).
I would like to highlight an important issue for consideration when discussing proposals for your Cambridge Road Network Hierarchy Review on 17th February.
As you will be aware, road safety is a key theme in my Police and Crime Plan. As a former police officer, I personally dealt with far too many serious injuries and fatal incidents and saw for myself the devastation these avoidable incidents can have on loved ones.
For the 3 years pre-pandemic, there were an average 69 Killed or Seriously injured (KSI) casualties in Cambridge city every year – 62% of these were cyclists and a further 16% pedestrians, making nearly 4/5 of all KSI casualties in the city pedestrians or cyclists.
I am sure you are all committed, as I am, to supporting the county’s Vision Zero Strategy to eliminate road deaths. I would therefore urge you to consider making road safety a more explicit priority or objective within the core of the Review document. I appreciate that there is some reference to it already and a number of measures already included could be interpreted as contributing to safer roads. However, given that this is such a serious issue, I strongly believe that any strategy or policy documents relating to our roads should explicitly include ‘safer roads’ as a priority. With that comes an ability to deliver outcome metrics based on safety which in turn can look at contributory funding.
I urge you to take my recommendation forward and would welcome further discussion.
Darryl Preston, Police and Crime Commissioner Email to Greater Cambridge Partnership members, ahead of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Joint Assembly Thursday 17th February 2022
And Mill Road’s safety…
It is worth noting that, following a Freedom of Information request, data from Cambridgeshire Police named Mill Road as the worst-affected single road for injuries over the past three years. Read more: Mill Road named most dangerous road in Cambridge by Krystian Schneyder, Varsity, Monday January 31 2022.
Further detail on Mill Road’s collisions, using Data from DfT/police STATS19, from 1999-2020, is mapped in this link. (Thanks to Martin L-S.)
Will the ‘Cambridge Eastern Access Project’ resolve matters for Mill Road?
The project will, will include Mill Road, but it will be a be a long time coming.
The Greater Cambridge Partnership held an eight-week public consultation on the Cambridge Eastern Access Project, which closed to comments on 18th December 2020. On 1st July 2021 the Executive Board approved the Strategic Outline Business Case that confirmed there is a strategic case – and public support – for improvements to public transport, cycling and walking for those travelling into Cambridge from the east. The Thursday 17th February 2022 Joint Assembly agenda pack, shows this project to be in the ‘Early Design’ stage, with a ‘Forecast Completion Date’ of 2027. Reference here (p93).
One argument that is often put forward against traffic restrictions on Mill Road is that it should be done in the context of city-wide traffic reduction measures.
On the face of it, this is a seductive argument – who wouldn’t want to see lower traffic and pollution over the whole of the city? But in our view, that goal is totally compatible with starting work on Mill Road at the earliest possible opportunity.
Liz Walter, Mill Road 4 People, Saturday 19th February 2022
Councillor Neil Shailer, Romsey County Division, Labour, speaking at the Greater Cambridge Partnership Joint Assembly on 17th February 2022 argued that Traffic Regulation Orders for Mill Road need to be prioritised within the context of city access, as accident statistics confirm that Mill Road is the most dangerous road in the city.
The special characteristics of Mill Road noted above suggest that Mill Road should be prioritised as this has the potential to improve the well-being of the greatest number of people. It would be impractical to deal with all of the city’s traffic and transport problems on a ‘big-bang’ citywide basis at exactly the same time as imposing all mooted measures across the city simultaneously would cause chaos. They need to be phased.
Camcycle’s position is that motor-traffic on Mill Road needs to be substantially reduced and that this is best achieved through a modal filter to prevent through motor-traffic while allowing cycling and walking journeys the full length of the road. It should be possible to exempt some motor vehicles such as those required for time-critical deliveries or to transport disabled people.
Like most of Mill Road Bridges’ blogposts this post is open to (polite) comments, relating to this post or to our earlier post – Mill Road Consultations (again).
Pavement parking along Mill Road is a menace, especially to people with disabilities (physical, visual, auditory or hidden) and to young children. It is also wrecking Mill Road’s pavements, which were not designed to carry vehicular traffic.
Many drivers feel entitled to park on Mill Road’s pavements. Indeed many drive aggressively onto the footway, honking their horn for you to move out of the way.
But isn’t it illegal?
At the present time, outside of Greater London, parking on the footway is not unlawful. But driving on the pavement is. Spotted the obvious logical flaw? Let’s see what the Highway Code says…
You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it. Parking on the pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments and people with prams or pushchairs. [Highway Code, updated 29th January 2022, Rule 224]
Only pedestrians may use the pavement. Pedestrians include wheelchair and mobility scooter users. [Highway Code, updated 29th January 2022, Rule H2]
‘MUST NOT, should not’… What’s the difference?
Many Highway Code rules are legal requirements, identified by the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. Other Highway Code rules (with advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’) may be used in evidence, in court. See Wording of The Highway Code. You can view/download the latest update of the Highway Code (PDF, free) here.
A Rogues Gallery of pavement abuse along Mill Road
Delivery van on Mill Road pavement
Car on Mill Road pavement
Taxi on Mill Road pavement
Delivery van on Mill Road pavement
Cars on Mill Road pavement
Taxi on Mill Road pavement
It’s not just Mill Road, though is it?
Absolutely. Take a look around the corner along East Road. Then check out the verges of Barnwell Road and Whitehill Road when Cambridge United are playing at the Abbey Stadium. As well as commenting below, why not get in touch with Living Streets Cambridge who are working with the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) and CamSight to tackle the problem of pavement parking in Cambridge. Check out their rogues’ gallery and/or email the group.
Can’t the police do anything?
Pavement parking, in Cambridge, is not unlawful, and Cambridgeshire Constabulary have suffered over a decade of financial cutbacks.
But Cambridgeshire County Council have had powers to deal with this for over eleven years.
What? Eleven years of council inaction! Really?
Councils with civil parking enforcement powers (including Cambridgeshire County Council) were given ‘special authorisation’ in February 2011 by the (then) Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Transport (DfT), Norman Baker, to prohibit parking on footways and verges, wherever they considered it necessary. This would be through a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) or Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO).
So why have Cambridgeshire County Council done nothing*?
It may be political. The civil parking enforcement zone only applies within the Cambridge City Council boundary, although Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) ‘tickets’ are issued by Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) ‘traffic wardens’ contracted to the County Council. Until the change in control at the May 2021 elections, no senior County Council committee member sat for any Cambridge County Division.
Now, however, Councillor Gerri Bird (Chesterton Division) is Vice-Chair of the County’s Highways and Transport Committee. Perhaps she, and our local county councillors could bring about some welcome changes.
So, if the County Council do make regulations will drivers just ignore them?
They might. But it would cost them – £70 for a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). And the regulations wouldn’t be limited to places with yellow ‘no waiting’ lines. Currently, Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) need to wait to see why a vehicle is waiting (eg lawful loading/unloading or unlawful ‘Just popping into the shop’ waiting). Drivers know that they can come out of a shop with something heavy and get away with this misuse of pavements, time and time again.
However, where a pavement parking prohibition is in place, it is breached the instant a vehicle mounts the footway, for whatever reason. CEOs could issue an immediate PCN.
What about Romsey side-streets where the pavement is the only place to park?
In London, parking is allowed on the pavement where local boroughs have set out marked bays half-on, half-off the pavement and put up signs, just like there are in Mill Road’s Romsey Town. A ban on pavement (and verge) parking elsewhere wouldn’t affect Romsey side-streets.
And how much more council tax would we have to pay?
Potentially nothing. Zero. Nil. Zilch. There should be no ongoing cost to council tax payers. Enforcement should be self-financing as penalty charge revenue would help to pay the salaries of the existing enforcement officers.
How can we make our feelings known?
Whatever your view, as long as it is expressed politely, you can contribute to our comments section at the foot of this blogpost.
If you feel strongly about this issue, why not send a polite email to Councillor Neil Shailer (Romsey) and Councillor Richard Howitt (Petersfield) with Councillor Peter McDonald Councillor (Chair, Highways & Transportation Committee) and Gerri Bird (Vice-Chair) copied in? Click here to open an email to them.
The Greater Cambridge Partnership has launched (Monday 21st February 2022) a period of public engagement on parking issues in Cambridge. The engagement period will run for four weeks and will close at midday on Monday 21st March 2022. Although pavement parking is not on the list of the kind of on-street parking issues and problems the Greater Cambridge Partnership would like to hear about. They do point out that there may be other parking issues in your area that you may wish to comment on.
Where else has a scheme like this, outside London?
Peterborough, which is a Unitary Authority* brought in a city-wide Traffic Regulation Order prohibiting pavement parking in 2017. Although this is a Conservative-led authority, it was proposed by Labour councillors and gained multi-party support. The clever thing which they did was to bring in a overarching Traffic Regulation Order and leave implementation to be a matter for discussion where local communities, or the emergency services requested it, or it was otherwise seen as essential.
*A Unitary Authority means that Peterborough City Council have all of the responsibilities which, in Cambridge are split between Cambridge City Council and Cambridgeshire County Council.
Peterborough City Councillor Richard Ferris, Labour member for Park Ward, said:
“It’s unusual when you get cross-party support like we did at the meeting. It’s a massive issue in Park ward. It’s up there as one of the top half-a-dozen issues people contact me on.”
Shouldn’t there be a national ban on pavement parking?
This was discussed by the House of Commons Transport Select Committee in September 2019. The Chair at that time, Lilian Greenwood MP, said:
“Pavement parking has a huge impact on people’s lives and their ability get around their communities. […] evidence to our inquiry revealed the impact on those with visual and mobility impairments and people with children.
“We are deeply concerned that the Government has failed to act on this issue, despite long-standing promises to do so. This is a thorny problem that may be difficult to resolve to the satisfaction of all, but the Government’s inaction has left communities blighted by unsightly and obstructive pavement parking and individuals afraid or unable to leave their homes or safely navigate the streets.”
House of Commons Transport Select Committee, September 2019.
Should Cambridgeshire County Council wait for a national ban? The DfT granted them their own powers – over a decade ago. What are they waiting for?
Time passes…
On 12th March 2020 it was announced: The Government is to run a consultation about a national ban on pavement parking following the Transport Committee’s 2019 influential inquiry and report. [parliament.uk]
The Chair of the Transport Committee, Huw Merriman MP, said:
“I am pleased the Government has taken on board the previous Committee’s concerns about the very real difficulties presented by pavement parking and our proposed solutions. […]
“However, we have to now deliver this change. The Government promised to look into the issue in 2015 but consultations, roundtable events and internal reviews failed to lead to any actions to improve the experience of the public. This Government has signalled an intent to finally deliver change. We now need a detailed timeframe from the Department for Transport to ensure this happens.
“In publishing today’s Response, we are putting the Government on notice that we will be monitoring progress carefully. We look forward to reviewing progress on each of the pledges and our Committee has committed to a further evidence session in 12 months’ time to drive real change.”
And here we are, two years on… So, where is the DfT’s Pavement Parking Ban? Nowhere to be seen. But there is no need to wait; the DfT granted Cambridgeshire County Council their own powers over a decade ago.
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.
