Cambridge city councillor asks if Mill Road bridge traffic order can be ‘postponed’ until there’s evidence of impact

A Cambridge city councillor has asked if a proposed traffic order to close Mill Road bridge to private motor vehicles could be postponed until evidence can be shown of the impact on residents, businesses and active travel.

A consultation is running on a new Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to create a ‘bus gate’ that would close the bridge to all vehicles, except buses, bicycles, emergency services, taxis and Blue Badge holders, who could apply to register up to two vehicles on a permitted vehicles list.

But Cllr Katie Thornburrow (Lab, Petersfield) said she was asking Cambridgeshire County Council officers for data that proves the benefits of the closure.

And she has asked whether any traffic controls could be brought in as “experimental measures” to see if the changes make the situation better or worse before making the bus gate permanent.

Cllr Thornburrow said in a blog: “We want to ensure that changes will help improve things. Sometimes this can take a long time, but we all want to get it right, and the county council pushing through a TRO to restrict traffic on Mill Road bridge all day, every day, may not be the right answer.”

She added: “As a ward councillor my main concern at the moment is whether the proposed TRO (will) make things better for Petersfield and how will we know if it is better?”

She has asked the county council whether there is any evidence about “how people currently walk and cycle throughout Petersfield”.

Cllr Thornburrow writes: “The county council website says that the proposed TRO is intended ‘to promote active travel and tackle air quality and congestion’, and ‘in addition, the council is planning to improve the public realm’, but that isn’t enough detail for me.”

She asks: “Where is the data about how we drive to, from, or through the ward? How do the movement issues impact on those who live, work and enjoy these streets, and does this change throughout the year?

“School and university term times and holidays see huge changes, while day and night travel have different issues. If we’re going to promote active travel, how will we know that this is working?”

She met with residents and traders from Petersfield last week to hear their worries and said she heard “a clear demand for more data from the county council about current movement patterns throughout Petersfield and the potential impact of the proposed traffic restrictions”.

She writes: “As the city council representative, I’m going to be asking for information from the county council and also asking them whether they are willing to explore options, like postponing the TRO until there’s evidence and a model of the impact.”

In an update posted on 4 September, Cllr Thornburrow said that she was not asking for the TRO to be halted but wants “to see data on the likely impact of the proposed TRO and for the county council to consider it”.

Concerns were raised about an increase in taxis using the bridge and more of them using Devonshire Road or Tenison Road as a rat run to the train station. There were also fears that cyclists crossing Mill Road at Kingston Street would not be safer after the bridge closure. Ideas including only closing the bridge during certain hours were discussed.

Cambridgeshire County Council launched a consultation on Friday, August 9 and plans to run it until Friday, 13 September – a period the council said had been made longer than the usual 21 days to allow people to respond after the summer holidays. It follows the High Court’s quashing of the council’s previous TRO for a bus gate on Mill Road bridge, which was challenged by the campaign group Friends of Mill Road Bridge.

The group successfully argued that the council had contravened regulations by failing to “provide adequate reasons for making the order” when asked for them, sending only links to a council officers’ report and a summary of the decision in March 2023 to approve the bus gate by councillors.

The council said it accepted this argument to prevent further court costs. It meant the High Court quashed the order without other challenges made by the group needing to be determined. The council was ordered to pay the group’s £26,799 court costs.

Supporters say the move will improve the road for cyclists and pedestrians and clean up the air.

In an opinion piece for the Cambridge Independent, Liz Walter, of Mill Road 4 People, addresses the concern around displacement, arguing: “Data from the bridge closure in 2019 (for repairs) show that after an initial rise for around two weeks, traffic levels on surrounding roads went back to normal. Monitors showed a substantial modal shift from driving to active travel or public transport.”

Frank Gawthrop, chair of South Petersfield Residents’ Association, remains concerned about the knock-on impacts and was “not optimistic” that the council would pause the TRO. However, he said it had made promises when it first introduced the TRO to “improve the public realm” of Mill Road and to monitor traffic that would be affected by the bridge closure – but complained that since then “nothing has materialised”.

He said: “We’re very concerned about Tenison Road in particular, which is a bit of a nightmare and actually carries thousands of cars. We feel that if traffic is going to go around and use Coldhams Lane, East Road and then go back up Mill Road, again, no thought has been given to the question of the displaced traffic.

“In July 2023 when they made the bridge closure decision, they made a promise that they would look at this issue, they would monitor the traffic. But we’ve had absolutely no feedback on that at all.”

A petition to keep the bridge open has now gained 1,450 signatures, which campaigners point out is more than the number of people voting for closure in the previous consultation.

Abdul Arain, of Mill Road Traders, who also attended the Petersfield residents’ meeting with Cllr Thornburrow, said: “If we're going to be embarking on the project, we need to understand where we are, where we’re heading, and the consequences of what we’re going to be doing. Are we actually heading in a better, sunnier place? Are we going to end up in rocky waters?

“I think the time after the judicial review was an opportunity missed to find this evidence and work together, because there’s always been a willingness in the various groups that exist to find a way through this. However, it just seems that it’s all about bulldozing through now.

“I live in this environment as well as work here so why wouldn’t I want what’s good for the place? There’s always a balancing act, and the balance has to be where you carry people with you, as well as take care of economic and social realities.”

A Cambridgeshire County Council spokesperson said: “We welcome all responses to our ongoing Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) consultation on Mill Road bridge. Councillor Thornburrow’s comments will be included in the analysis of all representations made during the consultation, which will inform the highways and transport committee’s decision on the TRO.”

Meanwhile, Cllr Naomi Bennett (Green, Abbey) said the Green party have asked “for a review six months in if the Mill Road Bridge restriction goes ahead”, adding: “We have also raised some detailed concerns over the impact on disabled residents, carers and small businesses.”

See the petition against closure at shorturl.at/ZFWgY.

Read Mill Road 4 People’s opinion on why the TRO should proceed here.

See the consultation and respond at consultation.appyway.com/cambridge or visit Cambridge Central Library to view the documents. You can also email Policy.andRegulation@ cambridgeshire.gov.uk to respond.