Category: news

There are twenty seven County Council candidates in the four electoral wards strongly affected by the proposed route of EWR to Cambridge (Sawston & Shelford, Hardwick, Cambourne, Papworth & Swavesey). We have emailed the sixteen for whom we have contact details asking for a position statement on taking EWR to Cambridge. Here are the responses so far (in no particular order) and we aim to update this post if and when we get more input. So, check back as we approach the election on 1 May 2025.

Thank you so much to the candidates who have responded. Please join the conversation in the comments!

Richard Williams

Name: Richard Williams
Party: Conservative
Electoral Division: Sawston & Shelford (Shelfords, Newton, Hauxton, Harston Haslingfield)
 
Position Statement
 
“I do not support EWR. One of the main reasons I am standing for County Council is because the affected villages need clear, unequivocal and vocal support from their representatives in opposing the current EWR proposals. I don’t think that has been the case so far and I would genuinely be committed to representing local views passionately and without hesitation. I have been District Councillor for Newton for the last five years and in that capacity have always supported the village in its opposition to EWR’s proposals and have used my role on the District to argue for a much clearer and stronger line supporting the villages against the threats posed by EWR. The severing of local communities by the proposed line, as well as the disruption and damage caused to communities concern me a lot. I am unconvinced of the need for EWR.  We need to make the case that EWR is not necessary for successful growth in Cambridge and that there are much better ways to solve the need for better connectivity between new developments and the city. A new light rail (metro) network across Cambridge would provide a much better solution to transport problems, and the cost saving from stopping EWR could go a long way to funding a new integrated transport solution for the city area. These options, and other routes for an EWR line (although my strong preference is not to have one at all), need to be properly explored. The case for a different approach would be much stronger with the full backing of local councillors and I would use my role on the County Council to support the villages.“

Laurence Damary-Homan

 
Name: Laurence Damary-Homan
Party: Liberal Democrat
Electoral Division: Sawston & Shelford (Shelfords, Newton, Hauxton, Harston and Haslingfield)
 
Position Statement
 
“East West Rail, as a national infrastructure project, is something that will not ultimately be decided at the local level in its entirety but I hope that local representatives will have a strong voice and impactful influence in the process of shaping how it is delivered if it does indeed come forth. From speaking with residents in the division I am running in, I hear a range of opinions but it is common for many that will be affected to have concerns of varying degrees. I am not minded to expend my energy calling for things over which I have no realistic influence but, where I can (if elected), I will call for delivery of EWR to be as sympathetic to affected neighbourhoods and settlements as possible. Reducing the harms of the project is my top priority, closely followed by maximising benefits to communities. I hope to see EWR, if delivered, to have as low an impact as possible on the environment and local wildlife, day to day living of residents, and our beautiful countryside views. Where it does come forth, I would like to see measures to ensure that affected residents to have effective transport links (be it directly tied to the rail network of through other means), that construction is planned in a way that minimises disturbance to local people and wildlife, and that the lines come forth at maximum distances possible from dwellings and other sensitive locations where appropriate.“

Guy Lachlan

Name: Guy Lachlan
Party: Independent
Electoral Division: Cambourne (Cambourne, Bourn)
 
Position Statement
 
“From a local perspective, the ‘final’ EWR route from the proposed Cambourne station looping to the south makes little sense to me and is clearly a political fudge. I don’t see how it will ever be useful for freight traffic with the inclines and bottlenecks it involves, eg at Coldham’s Lane, Newmarket and Warren Hill Tunnel.
 
I’d rather see the route continue north of the A428 and crossing the A14 serving Cambridge North station for the following reasons:
 
Reduced Environmental Impact
Fewer current residents adversely impacted
Better support for planned Housing growth, especially Northstowe
Improved Freight Capacity. A northern route via Milton and Soham would bypass the southern bottlenecks, supporting a transition to rail freight
Cheaper and less complex Infrastructure upgrades
Better connectivity for Northstowe and Cambourne“

Chris Carter-Chapman

 
Name: Chris Carter-Chapman
Party: Conservative
Electoral Division: Hardwick (Harlton, Eversdens, Toft, Comberton Caldecote Hardwick)
 
Position Statement
 
“During the 2024 General Election, I put the fight against East West Rail’s proposed southern approach at the very heart of my campaign to be elected as the next Conservative MP for South Cambridgeshire. Having held multiple meetings with EWR, its construction partners and local community groups, I was wholly convinced that the southern approach fails against every metric by which a project of this magnitude should be judged. It makes no sense economically and causes significant environmental damage, as well as directly harming the cohesion of our village communities. Whilst I was not successful in my efforts to be elected to Parliament, many people subsequently approached me and urged me to stand in the forthcoming County Council elections. They understandably feel that, with the Liberal Democrats supporting EWR, they do not have anyone in the room where decisions are being taken who is giving the opposing argument. If I am successful on the 1st of May, I will urgently convene a meeting for residents in Harlton, the Eversdens, Comberton, Toft, Hardwick and Caldecote to focus our efforts on the next stage of our fight. With emerging news suggesting even greater environmental damage resulting from EWR’s planned route, now is the time for us to make our stand.”

Miranda Fyfe

Name: Miranda Fyfe

Party: Green

Electoral Division: Sawston & Shelford (Shelfords Newton Hauxton Harston Haslingfield)

I’ve been very public about my opposition to the currently proposed Southern Approach for EWR, and my support for the Parliamentary Petition to “Pause and rethink” the route. During last year’s General Election campaign, the BBC unilaterally characterised my position as being that I want EWR “Stopped ASAP” which lacked nuance but that’s media for you. I am deadly serious about decarbonisation and public transport, because I’m passionate that as a society we urgently need to reduce our overall energy consumption in every way possible. So, in principle I love the idea of reconnecting Bedford and Cambridge by rail. Many people fondly imagine this whole project as a “re-opening of the old Varsity line”. But sadly, the Bedford to Cambridge section of the EWR project does not re-use a single mile of the old Varsity line, and has become a property developers’ charter, masquerading as public transport. That was how I’d characterised it last June (writing in the Cambridge Independent) and my assessment proved prescient when the House of Commons Select committee were told by a DfT senior advisor last December that: “EWR is essentially a jobs, growth and housing project”. Voters and politicians alike are being duped by the promise of much-needed “cheap housing”. This Emperor has no clothes! We can’t and won’t solve the housing crisis simply by building more and more homes; instead, we need to fundamentally change the way housing is treated as an investment vehicle. Which of course is not within the powers of the humble County Councillor. As your County Councillor then, I would continue to advocate passionately for the far less environmentally destructive Northern Approach to Cambridge for EWR, while also working with colleagues to explore other quick-win transport solutions (such as more direct buses, avoiding central Cambridge – maybe now a real possibility under Franchising). And despite my overall objection to the Southern Approach, I would of course take time to interrogate the details of plans at the forthcoming Statutory Consultation in order to advocate for my residents in Haslingfield, Harston, Hauxton, Newton, and the Shelfords, who all stand to be severely affected if the plans go ahead.

Alison Elcox

Name: Alison Elcox

Party: Reform

Electoral Division: Cambourne (Cambourne Bourn)

I’m Alison Elcox and I’m standing as the County Councillor for Cambourne and the surrounding villages.  This puts me in a slight predicament as EW Rail would be brilliant for Cambourne, but detrimental to basically anywhere between Cambourne and Cambridge.  So what are my thoughts?  If I get the chance I would prefer to dump the Southern route into Cambridge in favour of the Northern route, as it’s cheaper and less destructive to the countryside.  If the Southern route ‘has’ to be used, though for the life of me I don’t know why, I will push for it to be underground.  Do I actually think it’s ever going to happen? No! The business case is not strong enough.  This is an ongoing saga.

Chris Morris

Name: Chris Morris

Party: Liberal Democrat

Electoral Division: Hardwick (Harlton Eversdens Toft Comberton Caldecote Hardwick)

East West Rail is understandably a cause of significant concern for many in the villages of Hardwick Division, who largely stand to gain little themselves and who have already had to endure more than a decade of exceptionally poor communication from successive governments and EWR executives who have taken us for granted.

Many local residents continue to have questions regarding both the robustness of the overall business case and the evidence on which the Southern Alignment has been selected. Indeed, some question whether this is the current government’s preferred route as was the case with the Conservatives – or if further changes may be made. This is fuelling significant distress and mistrust, and improved transparency is desperately needed.

This is a national infrastructure project and I believe these questions need to be answered by the government directly, not by EWR alone, and that they must be addressed in the context of a joined up and deliverable approach to development and transport planning across the region, not in isolation.

I think it is essential that if central government remains steadfast in its support for both East West Rail in general, and the Southern Alignment in particular, whilst making our deep concerns clear, we also speak up loudly to ensure that all mitigations are maximised and that we demand local benefits for the many residents of our villages who otherwise face an “all pain no gain” scenario.

If elected I am committed to working tirelessly alongside our MPs Pippa Heylings and Ian Sollom to ensure the best possible outcome for the villages of Hardwick Division.

Hugh Thorogood

Name: Hugh Thorogood

Party: Reform

Electoral Division: Papworth & Swavesey (Childerley Boxworth Knapwell Elsworth Papworth Caxton Eltisley Croxton)

From my perspective the East West Rail project raises significant concerns for our local communities, particularly regarding its financial viability and the sizeable adverse impact it will have on the local community. It will cause the loss of valuable agricultural land, people’s homes, and also some established businesses. I worry that housing pressures in our already constrained area will be exacerbated making small villages like Caxton get devoured and become part of Cambourne. I think it will have a negative impact on our environment and damage the natural aesthetic of our Cambridgeshire landscape. We need to ask serious questions concerning EWR’s viability and whether less impactful alternatives were fully explored here.

Terry Mannock

Name: Terry Mannock

Party: Reform

Electoral Division: Hardwick (Harlton Eversdens Toft Comberton Caldecote Hardwick)

I am somewhat concerned and confused as to how EWR believe they have the authority or the power to propose the construction of housing for 213,300 people to run alongside the EWR .

If these houses were to be built who would be the residents of these properties.

Is this whole scheme yet another instance of the property and construction industry running roughshod over the wishes of the residents of these beautiful Cambridgeshire villages seriously affected by these proposals.

It would indeed be very interesting to put into the public domain the names of the Companies and individuals that are making large donations to EWR in order that this railway is completed.

Although I have some sympathy for a rail connection between Oxford and Cambridge, I believe in its current form it will incredibly damaging to the environment, huge amounts of quiet residential villages would be impacted forever.

Therefore all further construction should stop and a full and complete investigation should be carried forward with the involvement of a selected group of local residents working with officials from EWR to examine in detail the full implications of this important infrastructure project.“

Tagl

Name: Tagl

Party: Green

Electoral Division: Papworth & Swavesey (Childerley Boxworth Knapwell Elsworth Papworth Caxton Eltisley Croxton)

“I have yet to be convinced of the need for any proposal by EWR for either the northern or the southern options.

The plans seem to be guided by the greed of property developers rather than by local need.

If new rail links were deemed to be necessary for local travel, then light rail would be the most economically and environmentally viable option.

The current needs of the people here are generally already met by current public transport access in the larger towns, but the smaller villages are very underserved.

To be sure, local and wider integrated transport needs are a massively complicated and involved issue, and it requires clear reasoned thinking. But the aim must always be to the greater benefit of the public, not profiteers.“

 

Background

There is an election for the Mayor of Cambridge and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) on 1 May 2025. This role has considerable influence on transport in Cambridgeshire and while other parts of local government are to be re-organised / consolidated over the next few years, the Westminster government are talking up the importance of the Mayors.

We think it’s important to understand the position of the candidates on East West Rail. Although it is a central government project, the attitude of the CPCA Mayor should have a significant influence on EWR.

It would have been good to have met all the candidates, but one way or another we at Cambridge Approaches only managed to meet two of them. We met Lorna Dupré, the Liberal Democrat candidate on 28 February 2025 for an hour and half in Ely and briefed her on what we have found out about the financial case for taking EWR to Cambridge. We also met the Conservative candidate Paul Bristow in Haslingfield on 7 March 2025 and went over the same material. We recently asked for a meeting with the Labour candidate Anna Smith but are still awaiting a reply. We have not yet asked for meetings with Bob Ensch the Green candidate or Ryan Coogan the Reform candidate although we have exchanged emails with them as explained below. We would like to meet them too.

The Cambridge Approaches position on EWR has not changed for a while and is explained here. We drew the attention of all candidates to that.

On 10 April 2025* we formally emailed all five candidates asking for their public position on taking EWR to Cambridge asking for a response by close of play on 17 April 2025. We also chased them for a response once. *We formally emailed Bob Ensch 11 April after getting some help with his contact details from Miranda Fyfe.

Well it’s the 18th April 2025 and this is what we have received!

Candidate Positions

Paul Bristow – Conservative

“I want to build light rail in Cambridge. That opens up a new option for East-West rail, which is still predicated on the need for a station at Cambourne. Light rail can connect Cambourne to Cambridge years before East-West rail could arrive. Instead of going via Cambourne, the mainline could take a quicker and cheaper route, much further to the south. This is a potential win-win solution for everyone. It removes the need for the planned route on high embankments through villages like Hardwick and Comberton, while still allowing East-West rail to go directly to Cambridge South. Because it saves money and time, it’s also a credible option for the Government, Network Rail and the EWR Company to consider. As Mayor, I will get this option investigated from day one. With the ambition for things like light rail, we can get solutions and get moving.“

I wanted to know what was meant by the route “much further south” and asked him if he meant the route in the sketch below (but there was also a railway from Bedford to Hitchin closed in 1964):

Paul Bristow clarified: “Without wanting to be publicly explicit, as the feasibility work needs to be done, yes – this isn’t a call to revive option A.“

Bob Ensch – Green

“I have said publicly in my campaign several times that if EWR is to be built, it should go north of Cambridge rather than south of it.  The Green Party locally agrees with Cambridge Approaches assessment that routing it north of Cambridge would be “cheaper, less environmentally damaging, easier to construct, and better for freight at all levels”.

It is understandable from CBC’s perspective that they’d like the route to connect with Cambridge South Station.  However, the argument for getting freight off the A14, is more compelling in my view, especially given that commuters to CBC could still get from Cambridge North to Cambridge South in only a few minutes if the connections are made to work.

These decisions should be made based on long-term benefits for the wider community, not short-term profits for developers!

You have my support.“

Anna Smith – Labour

We did receive acknowledgement of the request for a statement on EWR from Anna Smith after chasing. However, we have yet to receive a statement from her. If we get anything before the election we will aim to update this post.

*** Update *** We received this statement from Beth McKinlay and confirmed by email from Anna directly on 19 April 2025. “I believe that East West rail has the potential to deliver investment and create new opportunities for Cambridge and Cambridgeshire.

Connecting Cambridge with Oxford, Bedford and Milton Keynes, is a key part of developing the Oxford Cambridge Growth Corridor – creating jobs, homes and opportunities across Cambridgeshire. I believe that as Mayor, it would be my job to ensure that East West Rail works for us here in Cambridge. 

I’m pushing for EWR to be fully electric from day 1, and for every effort to be made to make sure those living near the route experience as little impact as possible.

That means that the stations are in the right places for where people live and work and that stations are properly connected to the rest of our transport network.”

Lorna Dupré – Liberal Democrat

We have not yet received a statement or acknowledgement from Lorna Dupré. Again, if we get anything before the election we will aim to update this post.

Ryan Coogan – Reform

“To Whom It May Concern,

RE: East West Rail Link to Cambridge – Ongoing Engagement and Strategic Considerations

I am writing in relation to the ongoing dialogue surrounding the East West Rail Link to Cambridge. As you are undoubtedly aware, this project represents a complex and multi-layered initiative that sits at the confluence of regional connectivity, long-term economic growth, and integrated transport solutions.

I fully acknowledge the breadth of views expressed from all corners of the community, and indeed beyond, as we continue to reflect upon the multiplicity of factors that must be taken into account. In such matters, it is imperative to maintain a holistic perspective—one that is as inclusive as it is forward-looking.

While it is still premature to comment on any one definitive pathway, we remain committed to a rigorous and transparent process that gives due consideration to all possibilities, no matter how wide-ranging or nuanced. In doing so, we are mindful of the evolving nature of infrastructure priorities in the current landscape, and how these must be balanced with the diverse aspirations of the communities we serve.

It is not simply a question of engineering or route alignment; rather, we must recognise the broader tapestry of regional development, intermodal potential, and long-term sustainability. It appears the current routing has issues failry broadly and we need to look at addressing those, As we continue to engage with stakeholders at every level, from parish councils to strategic transport forums, the dialogue remains both ongoing and iterative. I am committed to a fully integrated, sustainable, economically viable mass transit system for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.

I greatly value all contributions to this important conversation and would like to reassure you that every view plays a vital part in informing the shape of things to come. Indeed, it is only through such robust and meaningful engagement that we can hope to arrive at a solution that is not only technically sound but also socially resonant.

In conclusion, we appreciate your continued interest and understanding as we work towards an outcome that, while not yet fully defined, remains firmly within our collective vision for a better-connected future.

With warm regards,

Ryan Coogan“

Please add your thoughts in the comments and vote wisely!

P.S. We are also working on some responses from County Council Candidates and aim to publish those soon.

Date: 26th March 2024
Time: 20:00-21:30
Online (see below for how to register)

As we lead up to the planned EWR statutory consultation in June, the CA Working Group will be holding an online Zoom meeting on the 26th March 2024 from 20:00, consisting of several short presentations (see agenda topics below) followed by a discussion. This meeting is targeted at local residents along the proposed route from Highfields Caldecote to Trumpington and others concerned about the justification and construction of this railway, green field housing and loss of green belt land etc. The more the merrier. It is not intended for employees of EWRCo. lovely though they are.

Here is the current agenda (we might tweak it bit before the meeting).

Timing	Who	What
2000-2005	William Harrold	Introductions
2005-2015	Leigh Carter	History
2015-2025	William Harrold	Economics
2025-2035	Annabel Sykes	Cambridge Biomedical Campus
2035-2045	David Revell	Construction Impact
2045-2055	Frank Mahon	Experience in Buckinghamshire
2055-2130	All	Discussion

Leigh has been following the EWR story for years and will give an introduction to the history for people not familiar with the topic starting in 2021.

I (William) have been trying to understand the economic justification for building the Bedford to Cambridge section of the railway and some of the wider implications of the project. I also attended the Transport Select Committee oral hearing on EWR on the 6th March 2024 and wrote about my reflections on that here. Its fair to say that I am not entirely convinced about the case for building it.

Annabel has been closely involved in discussions on the proposed development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and it’s further expansion into the Cambridge green belt. This turns out to be very relevant to the case for EWR (such as it is). Unfortunately, she cannot attend live, but we hope to record her presentation beforehand.

David is a civil engineer and will give a talk about what we could expect during the construction of the railway and on the great wall of South Cambridgeshire. See our previous posts (here and here) on this from 2021. These were before we had really thought about what it would look like during construction.

Frank is a councillor from Buckinghamshire who has experienced EWR construction over the last several years and he will share his thoughts. He met the CA working group recently and told us that “he would not wish it on his worst enemy”.

To take part in the meeting you will need to register in advance:

1. Sign up for a free Zoom account here.
2. Click this registration link and register for the meeting by providing your name and email address. We would appreciate it if you use your real name so that we know who is speaking in the discussion.
3. You should then receive a link to the meeting in an email sent to the email address that you registered. You can also join by phone on the phone numbers provided in your registration email.
4. What could possibly go wrong?! email info@cambridgeapproaches.org if you are stuck.

Meeting etiquette: The plan is to run through the presentations and then have a discussion at the end. Please stay on mute unless you are speaking. It’s a good idea to register early and arrive for the meeting on time because our zoom subscription limits the number of participants.

Recording: We plan to record the presentations so that you and others can see them later, but not the discussion.

There was a great turn out from local people to both these events. Good effort from EWRCo. for putting them on. Some of the staff were more knowledgeable / forthcoming than the low base of last year’s “no new information” event in Haslingfield. One thing I did notice was that EWRCo. staff never took any notes of what had been said to them, either they have good memories or perhaps the input is filed in the bin. Tick box exercise or consultation with the public? You decide.

Figure 1 Cambridge Approaches Protest in the Eversdens 22nd June 2023

Figure 2 Cambridge Approaches Protest in Harston 26th June 2023 (front page on the Cambridge News and the Independent)

There was also a good turnout from local politicians. We even had the Lib Dem MP candidate for the next General Election acknowledge the poor business case that the railway has in a tweet shortly after the event. Her opposite number also appeared in a puff of blue smoke and told the assembled crowds that “personally, he was against the railway” to great applause.  Democracy in action for the politicians.

In contrast, EWRCo. continued like the Titanic, completely unsinkable.

Figure 3 Is EWR Unsinkable?

As always there were interesting conversations with EWRCo. staff inside the hall. Here are some of them. Do add more in the comments. I have changed the names to protect the innocent! (with apologies to Douglas Adams).

“I spoke to a business case guy, Marvin, who had been at EWR a year. He said he had never worked on a project with a lower BCR than this one.  He also encouraged me to keep fighting the project(!) and didn’t make it sound like the northern approach was off the table.”

There was a recorded video of Beth West at the end of the room. It seems that someone had been sick over the video screen. Afterwards Trillian explained “Sorry, but my son vomited over the Beth West video screen”. I suspect it was at the point where Ms West was explaining that Tempsford is a brown-field site, even though RAF Tempsford is outside the 2km catchment for the station. Unfortunate, but understandable – the vomiting that is.

“I spoke to Zaphod on the business case side. He did not know that the local plan was held up by the water infrastructure. ‘Yeah, someone else told me that, just now’” I mean EWRCo. has only spent £150 million over the past two years studying the problem, you can’t expect them to know about our water infrastructure problems can you?

Zaphod also said, ‘we’re going to have to work hard on the business case because we have chosen the most expensive route. Yes, we also need to look at the local plan. I asked about there being only 20% of Cambridge commuters from Cambourne using the railway and would that not make the roads busier. He said ‘yes, rail is not a dominant mode [of transport]’. He also said, ‘it’s about houses, it’s always been about houses’.”

I challenged the Will Gallagher on the point that the jobs target for Cambridge in the local plan is an independently assessed demand estimate and that the local plan already has the interventions necessary to support those jobs. 57,000 houses supported by GCP’s various transport schemes. Either the 28,200 jobs that EWR is trying to support is additional the local plan – in which case why was the independently assessed forecast wrong? Or it is part of the local plan numbers in which case which part of the local plan needs to be undone? After a bit of dancing around he said, “it’s a fair challenge” and followed up with “in the end the chancellor will decide”. Resistance is futile.

“I spoke to Ford Prefect on the business case side and explained that lack of water infrastructure was a serious risk to his business plan, he replied that this was an environmental problem and that I should speak to an environmental person. I explained the concept of “responsibility dispersion” in the context of a railway project which was 95% about housing but the transport organisation proposing it took no responsibility for signing off on that housing and nor so far did anyone else. He thanks me for teaching him a new term. Responsibility dispersion, he’ll probably find it useful.”

“So, I spoke to an environment person, Wowbagger, who gave a great explanation of how biodiversity net gain would work. After an assessment of the number of units of biodiversity lost (the unit for biodiversity is called the “unit”), they would acquire land, ideally alongside the railway and create replacement habitats. In some cases, ten times the land area would be needed for the replacement as was lost in the first place. I asked if that meant they needed 2x or 10x the land for the railway and the housing developments to achieve the object. Wowbagger didn’t have an estimate, but it would not be that much.”

“I spoke to one of the local farmers at the event and he confirmed that he had been asked to sell them more land than was strictly required for the railway. He told them where to go with that.”

If you have more feedback from the event do add it to the comments.

EWRCo. held their “no new information” drop-in event in Haslingfield, and they delivered as promised. There was indeed no new information about the proposed railway which has been blighting our communities since April Fool’s day last year.

Here at Cambridge Approaches we put in a lot of effort in to publicise their event (7,000 leaflets, 1,000 bin posters, social media campaign etc). We also invited the press along to see what was going on. This was the first chance most people have had to meet EWRCo. staff face to face. Why didn’t EWRCo. do any of that? The event was well attended and EWRCo., reported 550 attendees. Not bad on a working day for an event advertising no new information.

Local farmer Edd also kindly parked his cherry picker outside the venue and set it to a height of 10m as specified in the latest Great Wall proposals from EWRCo., we also marked out the width of their proposed embankments to 70m. Seeing the height of it, the EWRCo. spokesperson was clearly in denial and was heard to say “it will never be that high”. We advise her to read her own consultation document.

In case they were in doubt about what we would like from them, hundreds of people had put out “Show Us the Business Case” on their bins along all the main roads through the surrounding villages and in Haslingfield.

And our request was answered. The business case appeared in the form of Nellie the pantomime EWR White Elephant with a price tag of £7.6billion. Interviewed in Radio Cambridgeshire, Nellie the pantomime white elephant welcomed EWR to the herd. She said, “Like all good white elephants, EWR is ridiculous and its costs greatly exceed its benefits.”

Steve also bought along a 3D map of the area so people could see what the effect of the railway would be locally. There was lots of interest from people attending the event.

Meanwhile the Pantomime Continued in the Methodist Church

I didn’t meet anyone that was in favour of the proposed route, but maybe there were one or two.  Many residents were pretty angry, but we did not get to the situation reached at the Wyboston Lakes EWR drop-in where residents of the Bedford Poets area were so angry that EWR Co. felt they had to call in the police to calm things down. 

The drop-in meeting was bound to be difficult, since the interests of residents and the EWR Co. staff were clearly different and hard to reconcile. This was exacerbated by the policy of no new information sustained now for 18 months; the lack of briefing on predicable questions given to the EWRCo. staff and their generally low level of knowledge about the project. Staff turnover seems to be high and there were many new faces.

We had a de-brief session amongst some of the people from our campaign to exchange experiences we had had with the drop-in session. Here are some of the things we found.

Deflecting Questions

The job given to the poorly briefed EWRCo. staff was to stand talking to angry/upset residents for six hours while giving out no new information. Tough one that. Deflecting questions was therefore the core skill. Here are some of the techniques/answers that were reported on the day.

1. I can’t answer that, I just want to build things.
2. I’ve just been with EWR for 2 months, I’ll ask a colleague
3. I wasn’t with the project then
4. We are studying that
5. Big infrastructure projects all do it this way, we’re following standard procedures
6. Qu. Will you disclose the business case? Ans. The DfT owns the business case – Qu. but I asked DfT and they won’t disclose it because they don’t want to upset EWRCo. Ans. What was their exact wording?
7. We’d like to publish the business case, but we are still progressing it
8. We are looking at lowering the very high embankments
9. On the subject of the route: “it has to go somewhere”
10. You will need to speak to X, but they are not here today
11. Qu. Can you find this out for me? Answer: “You need to use the normal contact point”.  Qu. “but I did two weeks ago and have not even received and acknowledgement.  Answer “Silence.”

Patronise

1. I’ll talk to you when you have calmed down, I’m human and understand your concerns.
2. There’s no point me answering that, you’re not going to listen to what I say. She then walks away and follows up with “Are you ready to talk?”
3. ‘It’s not like ‘the Apprentice’ you know, it’s not a quick thing…it’s really complicated.

More Deflection

1. We will compensate you if you have noise, vibration or mental distress. After [we build it] you will need to fill out a form to illustrate what is happening to your home and then we [will] evaluate it.
2. We have already lost 10-20% of the value of our homes, will there be any compensation for that? – silence.

Conflicting Information

1. On the question “Are you set on the southern approach to Cambridge? Answers included “yes”, “no” and “maybe”.

Waffle

These are best shown by example.

EWRCo. “We’ve made no decisions yet (route consideration). I wish I could tell you that but we don’t know. There’s business case with a capital B and C and business case with a small b and c. We don’t have passenger numbers but there are so many things to visit in the area we’re sure the railway will be used. Us: So the purpose of the line is tourism? EWRCo.: yes maybe..!”

On Radio Cambridgeshire the following morning, we were treated to the following. 

Dotty McLeod: “And in what way Hannah was it [the drop-in event] useful for you?”

Hannah Staunton: “It’s always helpful to be able to talk to the public, and really dial into some of the key topics and things that they’re interested in, that they could be concerned about as well. In some cases, it’s really helpful for us to be able to explain to people why some of the things that they are concerned about perhaps aren’t as concerning as they could be, or maybe talk to them about some of the benefits of the scheme that they haven’t otherwise heard. So, it’s really useful to gauge how people are feeling and what people are thinking, and then the team can go away and consider that as we go through the design and planning scheme.”

To be fair, we did not hear so much of the standard line “we are still going through the X billion pieces of feedback we received in the 2021 consultation and considering how every piece should influence what we decide” – or words to that effect. I guess even that does wear a bit thin after 18 months. In reality we are all waiting for the government to decide if they want to buy his white elephant.

Comment Please

Do join in with your experiences in the comments. If you actually learnt anything that would be even better.