Petition against the new TRO for Mill Road Bridge announced Friday 9th August 2024

PLEASE SIGN YOUR APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION AGAINST THE NEW TRO TO CLOSE MILL
ROAD BRIDGE (AGAIN)

THE COUNCIL ARE RUSHING TO PUSH THIS THROUGH AS FAST AS POSSIBLE
YOU HAVE UNTIL 13th SEPTEMBER TO SIGN ONLINE

The reasons given by the Council are in the attached Statement of Reasons as uploaded. There are many
reasons why we object to the implementing of this TRO, here are just some of them:

1 - CAMBRIDGE DIDN'T ASK FOR THIS

The Statement of Reasons identifies the government's “commitment to a radical change in the provision
of walking and cycling infrastructure”. That commitment does not include shutting off a main arterial road crossing a railway. It has been known as an arterial road by local estate agents for years and years. This is not like some Low Traffic Neighbourhood, that the Councillors and campaigners are trying to label it as. It is a vital artery of
Cambridge roadways, and the Council is trying to remove the public's right to travel over a railway bridge
permanently.

The greater population of Cambridge and Cambridgeshire has never asked for this. Except for members of
Camcycle and Mill Road 4 People there were no calls for such dramatic action to close one of the three
crossings over the railway that exist in Cambridge.

2 - WILL MAKE CONGESTION WORSE

The Statement of Reasons states that “Air pollution and a poor road safety record are directly related to
these issues.”

The closure will increase noise, pollution and congestion of the remaining two crossings over the railway
at Hills Road and Coldham's Lane. It will also increase pollution in the various side roads where traffic
will be displaced, as evidenced by the pollution monitoring Nitrogen Dioxide along Tenison Road
provided to the Council during the 2022 consultation (resubmitted*).

The Council has not produced any data countering this pollution data, and has never been able to prove
that air quality would be improved in the side roads where traffic will be displaced to or anywhere else as
a result of closing the bridge.

Furthermore, as the transition to Electric Vehicles by 2035 takes place the pollution will gradually
disappear anyway.

3 - WILL NOT IMPROVE ROAD SAFETY

“Air pollution and a poor road safety record are directly related to these issues.”

There is no data produced by the Council that supports any worse record of safety along Mill Road or
along the bridge itself than any other road in Cambridge.

Generally campaigners for the closure have made outlandish claims, such as children being killed on the
bridge. No record shows anyone killed on the bridge and the data also shows that the accident clusters are
up and down the road, as they are all over Cambridge, not on the bridge itself.

There are no records of accidents or fatalities on the bridge, as is often claimed as the reason for the need
to close the bridge.

4 - NOT SUPPORTED BY A MAJORITY

When the last TRO was approved in March 2023 and quashed by the High Court in August 2024, there
was deliberate misinformation by the Council and used by all the campaigners and repeated in news
articles in the local press that 72% were for the closure. THIS WAS INCORRECT.

In regard to the matter of consultations, there have been many more than the one relied upon by the
Council with this “72%” claim. The first consultation was agreed by the committee to be so flawed it had
to be voided and done again. The second consultation only represented one side of the argument. The
statutory consultation in November 2022 (actually the third consultation in total) received 690 objections
and 291 supporting comments which the council overruled because of the results of the second
consultation.

Previous to any of these consultations, there were 2 petitions conducted in 2020 to keep the bridge open,
one digital and one handwritten, which together were signed by 4736 people that was submitted to the
Council in December 2020 and subsequently ignored. There was also a survey conducted by the Mill
Road Traders Association showing overall opposition to the closure by traders (all resubmitted*).
Those are the statistical facts in regards to the supposed “majority” of opinion.

5 - THIS IS THE FOURTH CONSULTATION OVER THIS

This is in fact, the fourth consultation for the same purpose of closing the bridge and NOT to obtain
genuine feedback, because the feedback, as shown above, is IGNORED by the Councillors, Officers and
the Committee.

We wonder how it was possible for this fourth consultation announced 9th August to begin with a four-
week short deadline to be authorised. It was presumably in a secret backroom of the Council where certain Councillors decided to withdraw from the High Court case, some 6 weeks previously, and we wonder if it is legal to secretly authorise a fourth consultation without a Committee formally sitting and deciding on it.

We wonder whether it is the intention of the Council to have endless consultations that have not been
authorised until they have worn down all opposition, and achieved what they wish despite having no
evidence to support it. This is not transparent, open or accountable democracy.

That 4 week deadline of course does not allow enough time for us to get the 5000 signatures again, which
it took us 3 months to obtain before. That is the deliberate tactic of the Council, whether Councillors or
Officers, or both. And it's during the summer holidays, which they've acknowledged by allowing an extra
week from the statutory 21 day process. It's simply not enough time.

6 - THE REAL REASON FOR THE TRO IS FOR MONEY

Below are extracts from the approved judgement of the High Court Judge, James Strachan KC [serial
number], which record the real reason for the bus gate is to obtain funds from the Department for
Transport, which has been kept out of any Statement of Reasons, and which details of exactly what sort of
funding have never been published, and also show certain Committee members' clear predetermination
about closing the bridge:

A – Paragraph 176 of Judgement:

'The Claimant relies upon the comments of the Defendant’s officer, David Allett, at the Committee meeting
on 7 March 2023 that “based on the DFT feedback we’ve had, we do consider that the modal filter will improve our likelihood of attracting future Sustainable Transport funding”, and the fact that this
statement was then referred to by Councillor Maguire and Councillor McDonald, and Councillor Shailer
explicitly referenced the need for departmental funding as a reason for reinstating the bus gate. The
Claimant also relies on the Council Minutes of the meeting of the 7 March 2023. These also record
reference to the potential for departmental funding, should the Order be reintroduced.'

B – Paragraph 95 of the Judgement referring to Council minutes:

'Following the decision of the Committee at its July 2021 meeting, the Council lost funding as a result and
the Department for Transport had advised that it would welcome the reintroduction of the closure.'

C – Paragraph 191 of the Judgement referring to certain Councillors' positions before the committee
meeting:

'The Claimant notes that Coldham's Lane is a road situated to the north of Mill Road in Cambridge and
the RA is a residents’ association for those living on or near Coldham's Lane, Cambridge. At the time of
the Defendant’s 7 March 2023 meeting, Councillor Shailer was the appointed Treasurer of the RA, and the
Defendant’s Committee Chair, Councillor Becket, was a member of the RA. The Claimant submits it is
clear from the discussion of the Order in the RA’s committee meeting dated 24 July 2021 that it had an
interest in the Order and the Claimant relies on:

(a). a comment of Councillor Baigent to the effect that if “M[ill] R[oad] is opened then nobody will get
anything”.

(b). a statement made by Councillor Beckett in the RA meeting of 24 July 21 that “Need to have low-
traffic neighbourhoods for residents. There'll be some pain, but people will adapt quickly" [HB/411].

(c). a WhatsApp message from Councillor Shailer to the RA WhatsApp group stating that “We will get it
back”, referring to the ETRO on Mill Road that had just been removed.'

7 - COUNCIL SPINNING THE STORY AND AVOIDING A DAMNING COURT CASE

Since the Judge signed the Order quashing the TRO and the simultaneous announcement that the Council
decided to start a fourth consultation for a new TRO to close the bridge again, the Council has been
spinning the story so that it appears as though their reason for conceding to the court case was to save
time and money, and the campaign media and press have been able to misrepresent the Friends Of Mill
Road Bridge action as being a waste of tax payers' money.

This is wholly untrue and a completely malign accusation. The truth is that the Council withdrew from the
case weeks before the announcement for the reason that it was going to lose the third and final hearing in
October and it had already spent well over £50,000 of tax payers money on this case.

With regard to wasting tax payers' money, and deciding to apply to “Strike Out” the claim, the Council
were even warned in an unusual Court Order to:

D - Paragraphs 9, 10, 11 of the Judgement:

9. That said, in making the order dated 1 December 2023 providing for the listing of [the Strike Out], Mr
Dan Kolinsky KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) observed that in making such an application,
the Defendant is asking the Court to consider the grounds of challenge against a lower threshold than if
the Court were determining the claim at the substantive stage. The Deputy Judge observed that there are
risks in taking that course. If the application fails, even in part, there is a danger that additional costs will
be incurred and more time spent, as compared with the matter proceeding to a substantive hearing
directly.

10. The Deputy Judge therefore suggested that the Defendant may wish to reflect on whether, in such
circumstances, it wished to pursue the application, rather than proceeding directly to a substantive hearing, and that if the Defendant changed is position, the parties could agree directions as to how the
matter should proceed directly to a substantive hearing.

11. In the event, the Defendant did not change its position. The application came before me for
determination at a hearing listed for 2.5 hours (reflecting the time estimate given by the Defendant
originally). That time estimate proved to be significantly inadequate. The parties' submissions extended
significantly beyond that time. It left no time for the giving of judgment, particularly given the other cases
in the list. Given my conclusions on the Defendant’s application itself, coupled with the other elements of
the procedural history dealt with below, the risks foreshadowed by the Deputy Judge have manifested
themselves.'

The Council persisted in the pursuing the Strike Out rather than proceeding directly to final hearing as the
Judge had suggested, which resulted in more costs. This totally disproves the campaigners' claims since
the Judgement that the Claimants are the ones who caused unnecessary costs and wasted taxpayers'
money.

By the way, on the matter of wasting taxpayers' money, the total cost for the 2022 consultation alone was
over £70,000, and one of those online workshops cost around £12,000, so it is a bit rich for the Claimants
to be accused of money wasting (these figures were obtained from the FOI documents obtained earlier in the process). Think of how many potholes could have been filled with that.

PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION AND TELL THE COUNCIL YOU WANT TO KEEP THE BRIDGE
OPEN - WE HOPE THIS PETITION GETS DEBATED BY THE COMMITTEE WHEN THEY ARE DECIDING TO IMPLEMENT THIS TRO, AS THE PREVIOUS ONES WERE NOT

(* Note on the references – this letter has also been submitted to the Council's consultation and the
sources referenced in this text have also been uploaded and supplied to the new consultation. They are:
– The NO2 monitoring report for Tenison Road submitted during 2022 consultation
– The 2020 petitions with 4763 signatories
– The 2020 Mill Road Traders' survey
– The High Court Judgement written by James Strachan KC [AC-2023-LON-002285 Pamela
Wesson v Cambridgeshire County Council]