New legal battle launched against traffic restrictions on Mill Road bridge in Cambridge

A new legal battle has been launched against the county council’s plan to close Mill Road bridge in Cambridge to most motorised traffic from December.

But so far Cambridgeshire County Council is determined that roadworks due to start on the bridge will go ahead on Monday (11 November).

Last month, councillors voted to approve a bus gate for Mill Road bridge following a protracted process that has already included one High Court battle.

The decision, which followed majority support in consultations, means the bridge is due to be closed to all motor vehicles, except buses, pedestrians, cyclists, emergency services, taxis and Blue Badge holders’ registered vehicles, with the aim of improving the environment, air quality and safety for cyclists and pedestrians.

But a new campaign group, chaired by Emma Rose, 47, from Romsey, has sent a ‘letter before action’ to Cambridgeshire County Council, outlining four grounds on which they believe the decision could be overturned.

Ms Rose, who is a care worker with an asthmatic teenage daughter, says the council does not have enough evidence to show closing the bridge would meet its stated aims to “reduce congestion and associated air and noise pollution, improve road safety and encourage active travel”.

She fears that the closure would divert traffic onto neighbouring roads, sending congestion and pollution skyrocketing.

Now the council has two weeks to respond to the letter and to decide whether to fight the legal action or overturn the Traffic Regulation Order to install the bus gate.

Ms Rose said: “I have lived in Romsey and Coleridge wards for my whole life. I work as a carer for the elderly and live on Coleridge Road with my two children. During the latest consultation I asked repeatedly for data as regards to the air pollution on neighbouring roads should the bridge close, since outside my door there was nose-to-tail traffic whenever the bridge closed on previous occasions.”

She learned there had been a report in 2019 looking at a traffic sensor trial that took place during a previous bridge closure when construction work was taking place on the bridge and the railway beneath.

One of the conclusions of that report was that “while traffic numbers on the road fell, traffic in the surrounding areas increased proportionately”.

Ms Rose said: “This is exactly what the residents in the affected areas have observed. Very few people would be happy to improve the ambience of Mill Road at the expense of the health and the wellbeing of their neighbours.

“The county council has stated that they will monitor the situation once the bus gate is installed, but this is quite simply not acceptable, since the period of monitoring requires residents to essentially become human guinea pigs and potentially have their health compromised to vague assurances of action further down the line. Clearly, this is not acceptable.

“I say this as the mother of a daughter with asthma and my concern for her health, as well as that of my neighbours, has forced me to take action and to join the newly-formed Friends of Mill Road Bridge 2 as the chair. It is with their help and donations from concerned members of the public that I am able to embark on what I fear will be a difficult journey and I would like to thank anyone who has been so kind as to donate already and also to ask others to please help financially if they possibly can.

“The pre-action letter was received by the council on Monday morning, stating the grounds of my objection to the TRO. It remains to be seen whether the council will act responsibly and halt the works that have been timetabled to begin on the bus gate or whether they intend to press on, gambling our money by installing it, only to potentially have to put everything back as they found it.”

The four proposed grounds of her legal action are:

- 1. That it is “unreasonable to make the TRO for reasons that are unsupported by evidence”. The letter states that the council has provided “no evidence” that the outcomes outlined in its statement of reasons for the TRO, which included that the bus gate would “reduce congestion and associated air and noise pollution, improve road safety and encourage active travel”, would actually happen.

- 2. Failure to provide legally adequate reasons.

- 3. The county council “erred in failing to take into account the petition conducted by the Mill Road Traders’ Association”. The letter states that on 9 August 2024, the Mill Road Traders’ Association conducted a petition, which contained 1,650 signatures against the 2024 TRO, but the petition was not considered by councillors during the special committee meeting to decide on the TRO.

- 4. The county council “granted the TRO for an improper motive or purpose”. The letter raises details of a commitment made by mayor Dr Nik Johnson, of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, to pursue the closure of Mill Road bridge as a condition of being granted £4.29million ZEBRA bus funding.

This will be the second time a Cambridge resident has taken legal action against the council in a bid to prevent the bridge closure. Earlier this year, the High Court quashed the council’s previous Traffic Regulation Order 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 was ordered to pay the group’s £26,799 court costs.

The council almost immediately launched a consultation for a new TRO, which ran from 9 August to 13 September.

The decision to install a bus gate on Mill Road bridge was made by members of special highways and transport committee at the county council on 4 October.

The members considered responses received in the recent statutory notice period for the proposed TRO.

The council received 1,894 objections (46.5 per cent) from people who said they either wholly and partly objected to the TRO, and 2,155 comments in support (52.9 per cent) of the proposals from people who wholly and partly supported them.

The closure is due to be implemented as a bus gate, enforced by ANPR cameras, and Blue Badge holders will need to register up to two vehicles for exemption via an application form online.

Will Bannell, of Friends of Mill Road Bridge 2, has set up a new GoFundMe page to raise the £15,000 needed for legal fees at gofundme.com/f/KeepMillRoadOpen.

On it, he says: “The works are supposed to begin on the 11th November, and if the council doesn't respond and tell us which powers they are relying upon to carry out the roadworks, we are seeking an injunction to put a hold to the works until after the conclusion of the hearing.

“There will be another hearing in the High Court at some point soon, to determine the legality or lack thereof of the council’s continued determined effort to close Mill Road bridge against all the evidence and lack of supporting data, and manipulation of the process to speed-run this thing to completion.

“If we succeed this time, it might kill the thing completely for many years.”

A council spokesperson said: “We have reviewed the pre-action letter, indicating a potential challenge to the Mill Road Bridge Traffic Regulation Order. The special highways and transport committee made their decision on 4 October, we have followed the statutory process, and we will be proceeding with the work on Monday (11 November).”

A spokesperson for Mill Road 4 People, a campaign group that supports the bus gate, said: “We are disappointed that a small, unaccountable group of people has launched another legal challenge against the Mill Road bus gate after the failure of their previous attempt. Sadly, local council tax payers will now be faced with yet more costs to defend a decision that has been shown in not one but three consultations to be the wish of local people.

“We call upon the county council to continue with its published schedule of works to install the bus gate. We are confident that a challenge based on misinformation and innuendo will not meet the criteria for a legal injunction.

“It is also important to note that the scheduled safety work near the bridge, such as the installation of a traffic island and widening of the pavements, is not part of the bus gate Traffic Regulation Order. This work has already been agreed and cannot be halted by any legal challenge, as has already been made clear by a High Court judge.”