Response to Request for Information
Schemes regarding the junction of St Andrew's Street and Downing
Street in Cambridge
Would you please release any information held on any scheme currently being considered
to change the junction of St Andrew's Street and Downing Street in Cambridge, and any
proposals to change parking restrictions on Downing Street in the vicinity of this junction.
If such any changes are being considered I would expect the response to this request to
include any request/application for the works to be carried out, any plans or description of
the proposed works, any assessments made of the proposals, any timetable for a decision
and subsequent works, consultation materials, consultation responses, and correspondence
with councillors etc.
Plans for changes to the Downing St junction with St. Andrew’s Street are still in draft format. We
have discussed the draft proposals with local members and at the Cycling Stakeholder meeting
which includes representatives from Camcycle, Cycling UK, the County Cycling Champion (Cllr
Kavanagh) and staff from the transport teams at Addenbrookes and the University
At the moment proposals include the removal of the traffic island at the entrance to Downing St,
associated changes to signing, changes to the signal phasing so that the pedestrian crossing green
comes after the Downing St exit green to try and reduce conflict with cyclists and holding the
southbound St. Andrew’s St green for a few seconds to give more time for right turning cyclists into
Downing St and possibly deepening the Advance Stop Line for the same reason. We are also
proposing to add double yellow lines and no loading signing and lining –it is prohibited to drive in the
mandatory cycle lane but this is a not a civil offence and so cannot be enforced through our Civil
Enforcement officers, unlike no loading and parking restrictions.
Once proposals are confirmed, with further consultation of stakeholders, we will formally advertise
the TROs associated with the changes and put out publicity about the scheme and put the plans on
our website. We are planning to reach this point later this year. If there are objections to the TROs
they will be considered by the Greater Cambridge Partnership board.
At this stage, we consider the initial drafts circulated and discussions around them to be exempt
from disclosure under Regulation 12(4)(d) of the Environmental information Regulations.
“A public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that … the request relates to
material which is still in the course of completion, to unfinished documents or to incomplete data”.
The class-based exception applies as the materials are at an early draft stage and currently being
worked on ahead of the process in which a proposal is published on our website. The application of
this exemption is subject to a Public Interest Test.
In favour of disclosure:
General assumption of release of information under EIR.
Specific interest in transparency with regard to the development of proposed changes
Specific interest in transparency to al ow discussion on proposed changes to junctions.
In favour of excepting/withholding the draft documents:
• General interest in preserving the integrity of the process allowing ideas to be thought
through and redrafted.
• Specific interest in fol owing the established process around the consideration of such plans
and that their publication is designed to meet the public interest in transparency and to
al ow al interested parties to comment on them.
• Specific interest in limiting the potential impact of responding to queries and questions
about draft plans that have not yet been ful y worked through and are being changed,
allowing the process to be taken forward efficiently.
• Acknowledgement that the general public interest can be met through the provision of a
summary of the ideas being considered and that disclosing specific materials that will be
subject to change would be of limited usefulness.
Having considered the relevant factors, we have concluded that the public interest test lies in favour
of applying the exception to disclosure in this case.