
An order to introduce access restrictions on Mill Road bridge in Cambridge has been approved again, after a legal challenge saw the first order quashed. Cambridgeshire County Council has approved a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to introduce a modal filter on the bridge.
This means the bridge will be closed to all motor vehicles, except buses, pedestrians, cyclists, emergency services, and blue badge holders registered vehicles. The restrictions have proved divisive, while some have said the change will improve the “noisy, dangerous, and polluted street”, others have shared fears it will lead to businesses closing and barriers put in the way of carers.
A special meeting of the highways and transport committee was held this week (October 4) to decide whether to approve the TRO for the access restrictions. A previous TRO to introduce access restrictions over the bridge was approved back in March 2023. However, it was challenged in the courts, which ultimately ended in August this year when the order was quashed.
Read more: Multi-million-pound project to build a new Cambridge busway takes step forward
Read more: Project to move Cambridge park and ride takes step forward
Work then began on a new order to implement the restrictions and a new consultation was held to gather views. Of the 4,072 people who responded, 1,960 said they wholly supported the modal filter, with 195 partially supporting it. However, 1,831 people said they wholly objected to the order and 63 said they partially objected to it.
Some of those in support of the TRO told councillors that Mill Road was a “noisy, dangerous, and polluted street” and called for the order to be approved so it could be turned into a destination rather than a through route for drivers. Matthew Winter Holt said he had initially opposed any access restrictions on the bridge, but had changed his mind after seeing the impact of the temporary restrictions a few years ago.
He said the temporary restrictions had “brought life to the road”. He said: “Installing a bus gate is not just about limiting traffic, it is about creating a safer and more welcoming environment for all of us. I have seen too many accidents at the bottom of the bridge, I dread crossing it.”
Tina Richers told councillors that she lives close to Mill Road and has asthma. She said her asthma was “at its worst” when she walked or cycled along Mill Road. She said at times she could “taste the pollution” in her mouth and said it was “so bad you can almost chew it”.
Ms Richers explained that in the year of the temporary restrictions traffic had “dropped significantly” and said her asthma had “significantly improved”. Elizabeth Whitebread, from Cambridgeshire families for sustainable travel, read out statements she said were from children living in the area, including from Martha aged 10 who said: “Mill Road scares me when busy. I want to see fewer cars and bigger pavements so I feel safe.”
‘Congestion will only be made worse if you close the bridge’
However, strong objections were also made to the proposed restrictions. Margaret Collins said she lived on one side of the bridge and that her disabled son lived in supported living accommodation on the other side. She told councillors that she spends around 50 hours a week providing direct and indirect care to support her son.
Ms Collins raised concerns that the two car limit for blue badge holder exemptions would cause problems getting carers for her son who needs 24/7 care. She also raised concerns that a blue badge was hard to get, explaining that her son had qualified for one since he was five, but the latest renewal took 40 hours and an appeal. She said: “It is very hard work and as a carer and I need this like a hole in the head.”
Officers at the county council said the blue badge exemptions could be applied for online, and added that they had tried to make the process as simple as possible. Shapur Metfah, from the Mill Road Traders Association, said he had asked 90 traders along Mill Road the day before the meeting whether they supported the TRO.
He said 85 traders said they did not want the bridge closed to most vehicles and said many had shared worries they may have to close if the TRO was approved. He also told the committee that he was at his shop everyday and had not seen an accident in the road.
Councillor Mark Ashton (Labour), ward councillor for Cherry Hinton at Cambridge City Council, raised concerns about traffic being pushed on to surrounding streets. He said some of them were narrower than the bridge and questioned the safety implications for those roads. He also claimed congestion would “only be made worse if the bridge is closed”.
Neil Mackay highlighted recent reports that government funding was provided to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority on the “pre condition that the Mill Road bridge bus gate is reintroduced”. Officers said only the county council had the power to introduce a TRO and had made no commitment to the Department for Transport regarding funding being linked to the TRO decision.
‘This is supported by a substantial majority of local people’
When the committee came to debate the proposals a number of councillors questioned the details of the proposed exemptions for blue badge holders. Officers said blue badge holders would be able to apply for two vehicles to be exempt, and said this could include for carers.
However, questions were asked about exemptions for care agencies and organisations that provide transport for people with disabilities. It was highlighted that some people need to have multiple carers see them in a day. Officers proposed there could be some flexibility for carers and said organisations could talk to the county council about their particular circumstances.
Councillor Sebastian Kindersley (Liberal Democrat) said a “strong case” had been made by the many speakers at the meeting to support the TRO. He said a “substantial majority of local people” supported it and therefore said he would support it. Councillor Anna Bradnam (Liberal Democrat) said she believed it would make Mill Road a “considerably nicer place to live and shop if there was not so much commuter traffic going through”. She said: “I look forward to the opportunity the bus gate will provide to enable further work in future on the public realm.”
Councillor Stephen Ferguson (Independent) said he would make his decision based on data. He said studies had shown road traffic restrictions led to a reduction in traffic in the road and nearby roads. He said they also showed they led to less emissions. However, some councillors opposed the introduction of the restriction on Mill Road bridge.
Councillor Steve Count (Conservative) said he recognised there were benefits for local people, but claimed there were a “basketful” of issues. He said he was not in favour of things that placed “restrictions on freedom of movement”. He also said he was concerned that some businesses had said they would be disadvantaged by the restrictions.
Cllr Count added that Mill Road would still be a narrow road and have narrow pavements if the restrictions were introduced, and said any improvement would not “allow free and easy access that you envisage”. Councillor Bill Hunt said it was “mainly just the people in the Mill Road area” who wanted the change, but said the “people in the countryside do not want it”. He said: “It looks like to me it’s a done deal, or at least a stitch up. I cannot support it.”
The TRO was approved by the majority of the committee with nine councillors voting in favour and five against.
‘There needs to be a full investigation into what went wrong’
The county council approved the TRO for a second time after the previous TRO was quashed following a legal challenge. Councillor Richard Howitt (Labour), county councillor for Petersfield, called for a review into what had happened. He said the process over the last two years had been “extremely costly” for the county council, including the legal fees.
Cllr Howitt said he believed there needed to be a “full investigation” into who was responsible for “getting it wrong” and said there needed to be “full accountability for that”. Officers said they always review decisions that are made.