Redrow Homes plans to submit a planning application for up to 170 new homes in Hauxton village, prompting residents to voice concerns about development on agricultural land

Readers of CambridgeshireLive have been weighing in on proposals for new housing, with many expressing concerns over the local impact, loss of green spaces, and whether the development will genuinely serve the needs of the community. Others have questioned how such schemes gain approval and what obligations developers must fulfil if construction begins long after planning permission is initially granted.

Property firm Carter Jonas has been appointed by developer Redrow Homes South Midlands to submit a full planning application for land situated south of High Street in the village of Hauxton, with proposals for up to 170 new homes.

Hauxton is a small village lying approximately five miles from Cambridge. While a formal planning application is yet to be lodged, full planning permission will be sought for up to 170 homes, along with access routes, open space and associated infrastructure. A screening opinion request has already been submitted to South Cambridgeshire District Council to determine whether an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will be required for the proposed development.

The new homes are earmarked for a 12.44 hectare site currently used as agricultural land. A significant proportion of the site is intended to be retained as open space, with new properties concentrated in development parcels across the central and western sections, while the eastern portion would be preserved as public open space. The proposed site sits adjacent to existing residential properties, allotments and Hauxton Primary School. According to a screening letter, pedestrian and cycle access would be provided via High Street, with a potential connection to Jopling Way currently under consideration.

One reader, Feelgood66 comments: “Right next to the line and east west rail will be, plus shutting off the road permanently. Like the road near me.”

Calumen Nomen says: “Ah, Hauxton’s turn to get ruined. Only fair that all should suffer.”

While over on our Facebook page, Tai S writes: “It feels that whatever developers propose, it seems to get rubber-stamped, under the last government and this one. One thing I learned from dealing with developers was this: they only need to build in accordance with the planning regulations in effect at the time the project was approved. So, if something was approved in 2014, but didn’t get built until now (as is often the case), the developers only need to apply the environmental/social features and conditions from 2014. This is how they get around installing solar, green spaces, providing lots of play areas, preserving nature and adding water-retention features and other blue/green building-infrastructure elements.

“I wouldn’t mind so many estates if they a) included long term, affordable family homes with gardens (like the 1930’s semi I was lucky enough to grow up in), b) included all modern eco fittings; heat pumps, solar panels, green roofs/walls, triple glazed windows etc and c) the developers were forced to create an adjacent conservation area equivalent to the size of the built-up area. The costs are high, but if the developers can’t afford to implement them, let them eat brick dust.

“Additionally, if buy to let, greedy landlords, second homes and housing bought up as capital were clamped down on, we would actually have enough existing housing stock for requirements, but that requires government will that doesn’t exist. Sadly, the ideal home-building scenario with people and the environment put first, as opposed to corporate profits, won’t happen and even if it did, without the government investing heavily on a national scale in energy, water, public transport and education infrastructure (which hasn’t happened in Cambridge while the developers concrete over everything) then the new urban areas are bound to fail as places worthy of being treasured as ‘home’.”

David M pleads: “Stop building on green fields – use other sites.”

Carolyn R adds: “Soon, there won’t be any green spaces left; the ones that are left will be covered in solar panels.”

Marvin H comments: “This is about private equity money flooding the property market. We have enough housing stock in this country; the majority of it is simply not accessible to the majority of people who desperately need it. House prices in places like Cambridge are out of reach for the majority of people. Rental properties in places like Cambridge are out of reach for the majority of people. “

Are you happy to see more homes being built? Comment below or HERE to join in the conversation.

The East West Railway Company has released an updated proposal for a new rail line connecting Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge

Cambridgeshire Live readers have voiced their opinions on proposals for a new rail line in the county, with many sharing strong views. Comments centred on whether the route is necessary, how it will be operated, and whether it is suited to future travel needs.

East West Railway Company (EWR Co) has released an updated proposal for a new railway line in Cambridgeshire. The new route would connect Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford, and Cambridge, with up to five trains per hour planned.

The revised proposals now factor in the new Universal Resort near Bedford and the heightened passenger demand anticipated as a result of the development. A station at Stewartby has been earmarked to serve the theme park.

Some readers questioned whether the demand exists to justify the line. Camssurvivor writes: “Five trains an hour? Brilliant. Over the past 60 years, freight transport on the railways has fallen by 63 per cent. If you look at cross-country passenger trains, there aren’t many passengers on them. Only the London commuter lines are busy.”

Alydavid comments: “We wait at our local level crossing every day, watching empty trains hurtle by. The actual plan is to build many more houses and further strain the overstretched poor infrastructure.”

Marlesherbes feels: “EWR has but a single problem. The Unions; there are still no trains between Bedford & Oxford as the unions refuse to allow trains unless there’s both a driver and a guard, the latter to operate the doors, which are automatic anyway!”

Creda1 adds: “Perhaps closer to Cambridge City centre would be a good idea and not nearly 2 miles out.”

Feelgood66 comments: “So five trains an hour plus the trains from Kings Cross coming in from Royston direction, plus the trains coming up from Stansted direction. All funnelling into Shelford. Wouldn’t want to live near that junction, it’s bad enough living next to the Kings Cross line as I do, right next to the area the lines will meet near Harston.”

Drdpy says: “With small trains running four times an hour, that is 231,840 people a week. The population of Cambridge is 157,697, and Oxford is about 165,000. Is it possible that there are insufficient trains running between the two cities? Is there sufficient parking for cars and bicycles if everyone in the city actually used the train? Is that why the new stations, South Cambridge and the proposed East Cambridge, have no car parks?

“There is no available land on which to build mass transport. That is why the newly proposed busway from Cambourne to Cambridge through Coton Orchard is stopping a mile outside the city. The University does not agree that the city needs better transport and has stopped development for decades. The new stations will have bike racks, but not enough for the number of passengers proposed. The city will need new pedestrian ways to cope with the numbers.”

Is there a need for this route? Comment below or HERE to join in the conversation.

England’s first cycle street has sparked fierce debate, with some questioning the investment while others welcome sustainable transport improvements

Cambridgeshire Live readers expressed strong opinions beneath our article about Adams Road being made England’s first ‘cycle street’. Many questioned the cost of the project, while others supported changes that facilitate walking, cycling, and bus travel.

The scheme aims to create safer cycling routes across the city and forms part of the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s (GCP) Comberton Greenway. Construction work to transform Adams Road into a cycle street began on Monday, October 13.

It is anticipated to take approximately 30 weeks to finish. The road has been closed to cars, with signage directing motorists to alternative routes, since work began.

Adams Road is amongst the busiest cycle routes in Cambridge, with roughly 3,000 cyclists using it during peak periods. The scheme seeks to enhance cyclist safety by reducing on-street parking to eliminate blind spots, redesigning junctions, and providing wider pavements.

One reader, Banthebikes, comments: “Ask everyone in Cambridge what they think about this and you will get a different answer, only a couple of people that live there say it’s good, but the majority of Cambridge people think it’s another waste of money and will not be used.”

Rhodabike believes: “Every street in Cambridge can be cycled on. Adams Road is not the first ‘cycle street’ here, let alone the whole of England. Who came up with this absurd claim?”

Freddly says: “It’s important that projects like this go into ‘poorer’ areas of the city too. The value of houses on Adams Street will go up; less wealthy citizens in other areas should also benefit from the car removal bounty, too. ‘The road has been blocked off to cars with signs providing drivers with diversions around the area.’ This is the key, and the rollout of programmes that increase the convenience of active and bus travel, while simultaneously increasing the *in*convenience of reaching destinations by car, is welcome.”

Brexit498 asks: “First, what is this costing? As for the climate argument, the existing tarmac (in good condition) was torn up (a lot of energy) and replaced with new tarmac. How is this good for the climate? Or is the climate researcher working for the contractor’s PR department? Then we have the spin doctors’ favourite, up to 3,000 cyclists per day: Google showed six in the pics. Let’s see a full statistical analysis of use by time of day.”

Sedis disagrees: “The existing road surface was absolutely not in good condition. Whilst I think a lot of the work should not have been a priority and the money would have been better spent elsewhere, the road surface did need attention.”

Calumen Nomen writes: “Enjoy waiting a lot longer for the ambulance /police/ fire brigade when it’s your turn to need any of them. Nobody with any sense is ‘into’ cycling. That’s why we invented things like cars.”

Sedis says: “Cars can still use the road and there are parking bays, so I don’t know why this is being called a cycle street. The footpath is wider in places, but the benefits of this are somewhat nullified, as where the parking bays and ‘rain gardens’ will be, it is just as narrow as before. Some of the rain gardens and bays are adjacent to lamp posts, which seems like poor planning. This project has very little to do with active travel and is just further gentrifying what was already a very nice area.”

Julianhancock thinks: “By all means. The city would, however, either cease to function or see many services move out, given the percentage of workers who have to commute in because they can’t afford to live in or even near the city. And no, better public transport, park and rides etc would not be the answer, given that very many people don’t actually work in the city centre and/or work shifts.”

Would you like to see more ‘cycle streets’ across Cambridge? Comment below or HERE to have your say.

CambridgeshireLive readers have shared strong views on tree replanting and traffic issues after an MP branded the A14 a ‘real mess’

Cambridgeshire Live readers have shared their thoughts about the replanting of thousands of trees along the A14 and the road’s day-to-day operation. Several comments centred on traffic flow and safety concerns, while others questioned National Highways’ strategy and the timing and maintenance of the new planting.

Thousands of trees are set to be replanted along the A14, as an MP described the condition of the road as a “real mess”. In 2021, a council report revealed that nearly one million trees had died after being planted on the A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon.

National Highways acknowledged a “high failure rate” in 2023 and shared its intention to replant 160,000 new trees by March 2024. During a parliamentary debate on March 26, 2026, Huntingdon MP Ben Obese-Jecty described the road as a “real mess”.

He added: “The land has simply not been maintained after the environmental land-management schemes were put in place, so it is reassuring to hear that the trees will be replaced.” Simon Lightwood, MP for Wakefield and Rothwell, also described it as an “absolute scandal” that approximately “90% of trees died at that particular scheme”.

National Highways has acknowledged once more that it has “not been good enough”, and confirmed plans to replant 50,000 trees. A spokesperson said: “The A14 scheme delivered major economic, safety and environmental benefits, but we recognise that our performance on tree planting has not been good enough.

“After identifying losses caused by several factors, including rootstock selection, weather conditions, soil nutrient levels and aftercare, we have launched a 50,000 tree trial to test new measures and inform our future planting regime for all our schemes.”

Opinions remain divided on whether the route has proved beneficial. One reader, Weneedqueenmeghan comments: “The whole road has been a disaster, nothing but crashes and jams all day. Solved nothing.”

Whynot2 disagrees: “Traffic moves along quickly and smoothly, better than the old part of the A14, yes, there are RTCs, but there were on the old road. Or do you want the original routes going through populated areas?”

Freddly comments: “Typical of the contemptuous approach National Highways takes towards mitigation measures, which it is the first to trumpet in glossy websites when it is trying to ensure its schemes remain in the government’s Roads Programme. National Highways is a gravy train. Big salaries, big pensions for second-rate work.”

Polishedhelmet writes: “Great to see National Highways are taking responsibility and fully committing to replacing all their dead trees. I’d hate to think they were taking liberties by merely ‘planning a trial’ to replace only a fraction of them.”

Over on our Facebook page, David B comments: “What happened to the other 50,000? The contractor’s inability to manage them means they should replace all of them. It should have been in the contract that they have to maintain them & regularly water them for at least 12 months.

“Also, why are they planting them now rather than in their winter dormant period. They would have stood a better chance of being planted in a wet winter. Now we will be coming into a possible dry spell (the ground is already very dry) they will need significantly amount of watering & feed.”

Peter Palmer writes: “The most important thing is to plant them at the correct time of year.”

Are National Highways doing enough by replanting these trees? Comment below or HERE to join in the debate.

CambridgeshireLive readers share strong views on plans to link Cambridge, Oxford, Bedford and Milton Keynes by rail, with concerns over costs, delays and local impact

CambridgeshireLive readers have been sharing strong views on the latest plans to link Oxford, Bedford and Cambridge by rail. The comments below were posted under our earlier report. They show worries about cost, delivery, and local impact. Some ask for different priorities closer to home.

The latest details on a “once-in-a-generation” project to link Cambridge, Oxford, Milton Keynes, and Bedford have been revealed. East West Railway Company (EWR Co) has announced details of its last route-wide consultation on the latest designs for the scheme.

East West Rail plans to construct a railway line between Oxford and Cambridge. Proposals include upgrading an existing section of railway between Oxford and Bicester, bringing back a section of railway between Bicester and Bletchley, and building brand new railway infrastructure between Bedford and Cambridge.

EWR Co has confirmed that an eight-week consultation will run from April 14 to June 9. Communities along the route will be able to have their say on the proposals before a Development Consent Order is submitted in 2027.

One reader questioned who would benefit. Weneedqueenmeghan comments: “It’s a private railway for the university. Nobody else will use it. They should pay for it themselves.”

Camssurvivor says: “I travelled on the last train from Bletchley to Cambridge nearly 60 years ago. If the line wasn’t considered financially viable and essential then, it certainly isn’t now. Governments have thrown money around like water.”

Feelgood66 asks: “How many people have looked at what is being proposed, the actual plans, road closures, permanent. Where’s the benefit to the villages? There is none. Just years of pollution to look forward to. Destruction of the countryside.”

Calumen Nomen quotes: “‘Communities along the route will have an opportunity to have their say on the plans.’ Hilarious. Communities along the route have been vociferous in their condemnation of this eye-wateringly expensive white elephant for years now. In particular, the decision to build the country’s largest new town and then route a new (and their only) railway fifteen miles due south is black-belt mindlessness. We closed the old varsity line because no one used it. We have just cancelled half of HS2 because of its cost and general pointlessness. And yet this hapless and untalented administration carries on, like a super-tanker with a tree-sloth at the helm.”

Windypants simply says: “Delusional project.”

While over on our Facebook page, John M comments: “They’ve held this three or four times. The line from Oxford to Bletchley finished a year ago, but no trains yet as we can’t agree who shuts the doors on trains. There are no plans to have stations in local communities between Cambridge and Bedford, only two, one at Cambourne and one in a new unbuilt town.”

Alan W says: “All the time, as the months go by, the price increases by millions. I wonder, if they think they have endless meetings, whether this is a distraction from the fact that there may not be simply any money to pay for the section to Cambridge.”

Silvia KT writes: “This has been in the pipeline for a few years, and still nothing has been done about the Cambridge to Bedford bit, and then the whole thing from Cambridge to Oxford. They have held lots of meetings, but still no proposed route from Cambridge to Bedford or from Cambridge to Oxford.”

Carole CB feels: “Better links to Fulbourn would be a better idea.”

While Jeremy B adds: “Wish they could reconnect Huntington to Cambridge via train.”

Scott Peacock comments: “Another consultant meeting. You will get the same whining nimby’s objecting to the railway. Just look at the mess they made of the countryside when constructing the extension of the A428 near St Neots. You can’t make an omelette without the eggs.”

Where do you believe urgently needs a rail connection with Cambridge? Comment below or HERE to join in the conversation.

Cambridgeshire County Council has scaled back enforcement after on-street checks identified issues with the clarity and placement of signs in the Milton Road Resident Parking Scheme

Cambridgeshire Live readers have been discussing how parking enforcement on streets around Milton Road in Cambridge has been scaled back. It comes after council checks revealed that some parking signs were either unclear or incorrectly positioned.

Cambridgeshire County Council confirmed that on-street inspections have uncovered problems with “the clarity and placement” of certain signs connected to the Milton Road Resident Parking Scheme. The scheme’s original design sought to reduce the number of signs, particularly along longer stretches of road with multiple marked bays.

The authority has acknowledged that a marked bay lacking the necessary upright signage could be interpreted by motorists as an unrestricted parking area. On-street inspections have since confirmed that this approach has caused confusion in certain locations.

The parking scheme covers approximately 27 roads within the Milton area of Cambridge. It requires residents to pay for permits costing between £35 and £105 per year in order to park in that part of the city.

A notice published on Cambridgeshire County Council’s website stated: “The County Council is carrying out a detailed ground survey to identify where additional signage is required and where changes to existing signage are needed to improve clarity and legal compliance.

“This may include installing new signs, as well as moving, replacing, removing or updating existing signs to ensure correct spacing and that the correct restrictions are clearly displayed. This work will ensure the scheme is clear, consistent and fully enforceable. At this stage, the Council is not able to provide a definitive timeline for completion.

“While this work is being completed, the scheme cannot be fully enforced in all areas. During this period, enforcement will be limited to double yellow lines and single yellow lines during their signed hours of operation.”

The announcement prompted a fierce response from readers in our comments section. One reader, Calumen Nomen comments: “Can’t these out-of-their-depth placeholders do anything right? Really, it’s about time prospective councillors, etc., were given tests for basic economic literacy and management before they are allowed to take office. Wasting everyone else’s time and money like this should be a crime – or a sackable offence at the very least.”

Brexit498 adds: “Now is a good time to remind people that at the farcical consultation, 76 per cent objected to the scheme/scam. ‘Once the scheme meets all legal requirements, residents will be invited to apply for permits again.’ For most, it’s not an invite, it’s a compulsion.”

Skipper says: “The council already extorts unbelievably large sums of money from people in the form of taxes. It is completely unreasonable that it should be able to extort additional sums from residents or visitors to park their cars.”

Freddly feels: “One strongly suspects that drivers were well aware of the new regulations, but of course, happy to find a loophole. However, I don’t have a problem with the refunds. ‘Once the scheme meets all legal requirements, residents will be invited to apply for permits again.’ The cost of a permit should, in the meantime, increase to reflect the increased cost of infrastructure related to the scheme.”

Rhodabike writes: “Yet another mess up from the Milton Road ‘improvements’. Added to the overspending, overrunning, increased journey times for all users, excessive traffic lights, unsuitable materials, mismanaged consultations, poor drainage, shoddy workmanship (potholes are already forming), and various other issues. Is there a single part of this scheme that the council/GCP actually got right?”

Hoopoe says: “This was the fault of the GCP, who were granted a huge amount of our money. This self-congratulating bunch were responsible for the ridiculous and totally unnecessary roundabout and the changes to parking outside the shops on Milton Road. Histon Road, another of their improvements, already has problems with two drain covers which are sinking.”

Have you been caught out by the unclear signage? Comment below or HERE to join in the conversation.

The bridge in Waterbeach forms part of an off-road route between Waterbeach and Cambridge

Cambridgeshire Live readers have mostly welcomed news that a new bridge for pedestrians, cyclists, and horse riders across a major road in Cambridgeshire has officially opened. The bridge forms part of an off-road route connecting Waterbeach with Cambridge.

Local residents were among the first to cross the bridge on foot and by bike, with the formal opening planned for May once landscaping work is completed. The route is intended to a safer, off-road alternative for travelling between Waterbeach and Cambridge. It passes landmarks such as Cambridge Science Park and Cambridge Regional College, before continuing into the city centre.

Fiona Reardon-Rose, Communications and Partnership Manager for the Waterbeach development, said: “The new bridge encourages active, low-carbon travel for residents and the wider community, whether commuting, exercising, or exploring with the family over the Easter break.

“It also makes journeys significantly safer by removing the need for pedestrians, cyclists, and horse riders to cross the A10 at road level. There has been a lot of excitement about the bridge, and now that installation and safety checks are complete, we wanted residents to start using it right away. We look forward to the official opening in the coming weeks.”

Commenter Freddly thinks: “This seems not only a useful and attractive asset, but also appealing because spending on active travel means the money wasn’t available for the endless demands of the motoring lobby. It’s a small win compared to the billions spent on them, but a win nonetheless.”

Gabriel B writes: “With the town set to have over 11,500 homes once complete, and a connection to the new park and ride by the bridge, it’s bound to be well used.”

Michael F agrees: “It’s set to be a fantastic asset for cyclists, walkers, and horse riders alike. I can’t wait to try it and see how it brings everyone together while making journeys safer and more enjoyable.”

Linda B complains: “Another thing for cyclists, I doubt pedestrians will use it, given how recklessly some of these cyclists ride.”

Michael F retorts: “In Cambridge, pedestrians use all the shared cycling and pedestrian bridges without any real problems. Aside from a very small minority, most cyclists are considerate, giving plenty of space and waiting patiently for pedestrians to cross safely.”

Squeaks33 thinks: “It definitely needs some lighting for safety, especially for early mornings, evenings, and during the darker months, to ensure it’s usable and secure for everyone.”

Meanwhile, Skipper says: “Meanwhile, potholes keep multiplying with insufficient funding, causing damage to people’s cars. Will CCC now run a month-long survey to check how much this bridge is actually used and by whom, to determine if the spending was justified? The bridge seems wide enough for cars, so it could be converted for vehicle use if push bikes rarely use it. From the photo, it doesn’t look heavily trafficked.”

Windypants retorts: “Car owners have worn out roads, pavements, and cycleways with their overweight vehicles, yet don’t pay enough tax to fix them. Better suspension could help.”

This new bridge seems like a great boost for cyclists, walkers, and horse riders. Would this make you ditch the car for short trips? Have your say in our comments section.

The Brazilian midfielder has impressed fans in his final season at United, and some are calling for him to stay

Casemiro’s future at Manchester United has become clearer after a contract decision was made that all but seals his departure at the end of the season – but some fans in the Manchester Evening News comments section say that his form speaks for itself as they call for the club to let him stay for one more year.

United have agreed to waive a clause that would trigger an automatic contract extension if the Brazilian midfielder started 35 Premier League games in his final season. This is to allow the 34-year-old to start for the remainder of the season without both parties committing to a fifth season in red.

Casemiro has already announced his departure at the end of the season back in January, and is thought to be lining up a new club for the summer. He has emerged as a key part of this United team for Michael Carrick, but the club are highly unlikely to reverse course and will be planning to spend money on a replacement in the summer transfer window, when they will be hoping to use the lure of Champions League football to lure in a top talent again.

Some fans would resist calls to re-sign Casemiro based on his short-term performances. Reader Redajax says: “He has been very good in some games but his age and fitness are starting to cause problems. He should be released at the end of the season as we need to completely rebuild the midfield and a couple of other positions, particularly left-back. Shaw is slow and injury-prone but when fully fit was a great player.”

Get MEN Premium now for just £1 HERE – or get involved in our United WhatsApp group by clicking HERE. You can also join our United Facebook page by clicking HERE and don’t miss out on our brilliant selection of newsletters HERE.

MattBusbysAces writes: “Not that many players over the years that become a real fave of mine. That type of player who is just exceptional at what he does. Casi is one. Etched in my mind is against Chelsea, and Garnacho losing the ball and making no effort to win it back. Casi busts a gut to stop the attack and then pulverises the ex-Red. Shades of Keano. Just wish he was 24.”

Maledictustrump says: “I think it wouldn’t be wise to give him another year, except on the basis he would be no more than backup. That said, a contract of £350k a week for a squad player is a waste of money. Utd exited both cup competitions early & no European football, plenty of rest between matches has benefited him.

“Next season, if Utd do qualify for Europe would be a different ball game, would Casemero have the legs to deal with the intensity & frequency of the matches? I doubt it. I think alot of fans are getting too carried away with this. Utd need strengthening in a number of positions and it’s going to cost. What we need is the ready made article, players with a proven track record who can handle playing at the highest level.

England’s 2026 World Cup kits

This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more

Various Prices

England Official Store

Buy Now on England Official Store

England and Nike have launched the new home, away and goalkeeper kits to be worn at this summer’s FIFA World Cup. You can get free delivery on all orders with the code: ENGFREEDEL

“The squad as it is now would not be competitive in Europe, arguably they are still some distance from challenging for the PL title. Casemero has probably had his best season for Utd, but we have to stop being so emotionally attached, he’s had his day, many thanks, but Utd have to move forward, it’s that simple.”

Others would still consider keeping on the ageing Brazilian. Kamu2355 writes: “It may be a big surprise if Casemiro and Manchester United have a rethink and decide on a 1-year extension with reduced wages of £200,000 weekly!

“It could be a win-win situation for the club and player. There will still be a savings of ~£7.5m, if that happens. With more Brazilian players and other new recruits, he could prove to be a good mentor to guide them along.”

On our Facebook page, Okereke Cyprian says: “Casemiro still has a lot to offer Man Utd. The board should rather sell one of the flops that Ten Hag bought and extend Casemiro’s contract for another year. He is a huge asset to United.”

Fumen David writes: “We love him, renew his contract please.” Tolu Lopez adds: “Sell Ugarte instead and keep Casemiro.”

Using the comments section below, tell us what an acceptable wage packet would be, if any, for you to consider letting Casemiro stay at United.

A Cambridge University worker has criticised dangerous potholes and damaged pavements on Sidney Street, St Andrew’s Street and Downing Street

CambridgeshireLive readers have joined with a local resident who has urged Cambridgeshire County Council to find long term solutions to the city’s “dangerous” roads and pavements. Francesca Re Manning, who works at Cambridge University, said getting around can be difficult because of their poor condition.

She said the issue became clear when she had to use crutches after surgery. “It was tricky to get around. I also struggled with a pushchair and sometimes had to step into the road to avoid damaged pavements. It’s not safe, but it can feel unavoidable.”

Mrs Re Manning said many potholes are “huge”, posing risks for cyclists and drivers. “I know someone who fell off her bike because of a pothole and broke her hip. They’re even more dangerous in the rain because water hides how deep they are.” She also highlighted badly damaged pavements, pointing to Sidney Street, St Andrew’s Street and Downing Street as some of the worst.

Many slabs, she said, are “loose and cracked”, with pieces missing or poorly fixed, leaving them unstable. She fears some elderly people may avoid certain streets because they are worried about tripping. “I hear lots of people complaining,” she said. “Many say it’s a disgrace that Cambridge has such a problem with its roads and pavements.”

She believes the council should focus on lasting repairs rather than repeated patching. “The same problems keep coming back. Streets need proper resurfacing with materials that last.”

Cambridgeshire County Council said safe travel is a key priority and confirmed it has invested £43 million in additional highways maintenance since 2023. A spokesperson said Cambridge’s roads and footpaths see exceptionally high use and are regularly inspected. Residents are encouraged to report problems through the council’s website.

Commenter Archer3747 thinks: “They’re not interested in public safety. The roads and pavements should have been properly maintained, and the consequences are plain to see. No doubt the extra costs will end up being passed on to motorists.”

Brexit498 agrees: “It is inconceivable that the county council does not know which roads are in a desperately poor condition. Indeed, the potholes on the half marathon route were highlighted in yellow paint. If the council needs to know of some roads that have potholes try: Leys Rd; Hobson St /King Street; Ferry Path; Victoria Avenue; Malcolm Street.”

Banthebikes points out: “It’s not just Cambridge, it’s everywhere, surely every council has a duty of care to keep people safe?”

Desperatedanno replies: “ All the GCP’s pet projects should be put on permanent hold until this problem is sorted. They had the gall to put in seven car-breaking speed bumps in the space of a quarter of a mile in Barton, apparently oblivious to the fact that all road users are already facing a constant slalom between potholes on every street in Cambridge and the surrounding area. And yes, we pedestrians and cyclists are paying the same price.”

Sinnikal complains: “Market Street is the worst road we’ve encountered in Cambridge, with kerb edges sticking up several inches. In St Neots, the roads and footpaths are just as bad. One footpath has been reported to the county council repeatedly over the years, but nothing has been done. I’ve fallen there once and my wife twice, the last time needing help from two nearby workmen. I’ve stopped reporting it. The council clearly isn’t interested.”

Splodger agrees: “I’ve reported the lake near Shelley Road at least ten times in the recent past. CCC replied that it will be fixed within 12 weeks. No mention is made of the year they propose the work to be done however.”

Cambridge residents say they’re forced into the road to avoid broken pavements and huge potholes. Do you think councils are doing enough to maintain local roads and footpaths where you live? Have your say in our comments section.

Huntingdon residents share their views on the high street, calling for more variety on shops, better transport links to Cambridge, and solutions to traffic restrictions

Readers of Cambridgeshire Live have been expressing their opinions on Huntingdon’s high street. Many believe the selection of shops is insufficient.

Others highlight issues with transport links, traffic, and the pull of online shopping. The following views are taken from a recent comments thread.

Residents feel that the high street in this Cambridgeshire town could “use a little more love”, as some perceive it to be “lacking” in terms of shop variety. Huntingdon is praised by people who live there as being “safe” and a nice place to raise a family.

Like many others nationwide, some individuals believe the high street could benefit from improvements. Sarah Gosling, who feels the town has a “nice family feel”, expressed that it would be “nice to have non-charity shops”.

She further commented: “It’s great to have them [charity shops], but we have a lot of them and it would be nice to have a lot of other stuff. Some of the restaurants are nice, but it would be good to have some more clothes shops.”

Sarah’s mother, Anne Monkman, also felt it would be “good to have more variety of shops.”

Barry Graves said the high street could “use a little more love”. He said: “We have a few down the street that are boarded up or empty. It makes it look sad. It feels like it could be a good opportunity to bring in a few different shops. Maybe some independent places, and then we could support local businesses.”

Some readers believe the retail mix has been inadequate for years. One commenter, Calumen Nomen comments: “Traffic restrictions = closed shops. Not difficult.”

While Welshknight believes: “There’s not enough people in Huntingdon willing to pay the premium in money or effort compared with online shopping. They want shops sitting waiting for them to browse for free and then buy online, not sustainable.”

Rootintootinredux says: “Frankly, the choice of shops in Huntingdon has always been woeful even before the era of online shopping. But hey unless you want women’s clothing, charity shops, vape supplies, dodgy fried chicken and shoes then Huntingdon has you covered I guess!”

Over on our Facebook page, Deniz O writes: “It needs a proper link to Cambridge. Crazy that it’s easier to go to London.”

Kerry-Jane Rose feels: “St Neots is worse for shops.”

In the comments section below, let us know what you believe Huntingdon High Street needs.