Mill Road bus gate – and the £4.2m

A Fable For Our Time!

One of the myths that has gained traction in recent months is that the Mill Road Bus gate was only approved because it was a condition of £4.2m of funding from the Dept for Transport for electric buses. ‘Friends of Mill Rd Bridge 2’ have gone so far as to state that it will be one of the grounds of their threatened legal action.

There have been many incorrect not to say myth-making assertions on this topic. But all the facts are set out in these FOI documents, which include a letter from the Department for Transport to the Mayor Nik Johnson, a freedom of information request from William Bannell, and the answer to that request.

Below are some of the common falsehoods we have seen circulating, and the evidenced correct information in each case.

Myth 1: The County Council only started considering the bus gate after the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) received a letter from the DfT making it a condition of the bus funding.

Truth: This is untrue. The DfT letter is dated Jan 2022. There had already been:

This is all a matter of public record.

The first consultation showed a majority in favour of the bus gate, despite widespread fraud, predominantly from opposers of the bus gate. Then Cllr Bird used her casting vote in the July Committee meeting to get the bus gate removed so that her concerns around disabled driver access could be addressed.

Yet even today (16.11.24) in a reply to the FOI response William Bannell still describes the DfT letter as “providing another confirmation that the decision had indeed been made before any consultations or committee votes”.

Myth 2: The DfT and/or the Mayor pressurised councillors to vote for the bus gate at the October 2024 meeting.

Truth: The reply to Mr Bannell’s FOI request makes it clear that “… since the project’s [i.e. the purchase of the electric buses] completion in July 2023, the Department has not requested CPCA to fulfil any outstanding delivery commitments.”

In other words, no pressure was exerted by central government before the decision taken by the Highways and Transport Committee in October 2024.  A vote against the TRO at the October 2024 meeting would have had no impact on CPCA’s funding; so the mayor had no financial motivation to try to influence the committee.

Myth 3: The DfT pressured the mayor into forcing the Mill Rd bus gate through. This assertion is based on this sentence in the original DfT letter to the CPCA: “In particular, CPCA should commit to progress the reinstatement of the bus gate on Mill Road, with access also for Blue Badge holders, as committed to by the Mayor in late September.”

Truth: The answer to Mr Bannell’s FOI request makes it clear that the original letter referred to promises that “… it [the previous government] considered had already been made [our emphasis] by relevant local politicians”. In other words, the DfT did not come up with the idea; they referenced it because they thought it was already happening.

The CPCA Mayor could certainly commit to supporting the implementation of traffic reduction measures on Mill Road. But he could not commit to actually implementing them. Only the authority with statutory responsibility for highways, Cambridgeshire County Council, could decide to implement such a scheme.

It is also entirely normal (and desirable) that any funding body would seek assurances that the body to whom they were giving such a large amount of money was committed to their overall goals.

Myth 4: The Mayor supported the bus gate solely in order to gain £4.2m funding – this is undemocratic.

Truth: Opponents of the bus gate seem to forget that both the Mayor and our County Councillors were voted for in democratic elections.

Labour and Lib Dem County Council candidates stood on a platform of increasing active travel and working towards net zero. In the run up to the election Nik Johnson said that he wanted to implement a “fully integrated, greener transport system”.

People in Cambridgeshire voted for this – it did not come at the whim of the Mayor. There is nothing improper in any politician supporting a measure consistent with their pre-election pledges.  This is how we should expect our politicians to behave!

Myth 5: The Mayor pressured the County Council to back the bus gate because he was worried about having to pay the £4.2m back.

This is false. There was never any question that the money would have to be paid back, no matter the outcome of the vote on the bus gate. See Myth 2 above.

Myth 6: The £4.2m was needed to put in the bus gate.

Truth: The response to Mr Bannell’s FOI request covers this explicitly: “ZEBRA funding was not allocated specifically for the purpose of installing a bus gate on Mill Road.”

Myth 7: The bus gate project has been pushed forward secretly by a person connected to Camcycle or Mill Rd 4 People.

This barely needs refuting, but the response letter does so: “Ms Matthew wrote to CPCA in her capacity as a senior official relaying the Government’s views and does not have any relevant personal connections. During the assessment of CPCA’s ZEBRA bid, a thorough assessment was taken to identify any conflicts of interest, and no such conflicts were declared by officials, including Ms Matthew.”