Cambridge Approaches

Here is our final response to the EWR 2026 NSC submitted by email 9-6-2026. Councils including parish councils have until 26 June to complete their responses, so do share this with them if you think it would help. The response deals with seven subjects as set out below.

1. Business Case
2. Alternatives to the SATC
3. Environmental Issues including the Eversden and Wimpole Woods SAC and the Barbastelle Bats
4. Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory
5. Farming
6. Construction
7. Carbon

Well, yet another consultation and this one of the last one planned before the Development Consent Order Process. We are informed that will start in the summer of 2027 for CS2 and CS3 with an expectation of getting approval from the Secretary of State for Transport some time at the start of 2029. General election year.

The CA team have been preparing documents for our response on different topics and intend to add them below as they become available. They all come under Q17 Other Feedback since the other consultation questions are about stations or are out of the Cambridge Approaches area.

Business Case Objection

Carbon Assessment Objection

If EWRCo. insist on taking their heavy railway to Cambridge here are two alternative routes. One much reduces the impact using a long tunnel the other increases the benefits and reduces the costs.

One of the key problems with the Southern Approach To Cambridge is to demonstration that it would have no impact on the Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory. I have always thought this is a nigh on impossible problem unless you go for some serious tunnelling. As with the E&WW Barbastelles, EWRCo. also have to prove a negative which is a tough ask.

(Editor: Here is another news update from CA’s own Graham Turnbull.) 

The East West Rail Fiasco

When the i Paper compares East West Rail (EWR) with HS2 with its woeful saga of mismanagement, and asks ‘What’s It For’ it’s safe to assume it is a national question, and not a NIMBY issue limited to villages south of Cambridge threated by the tunnels and the embankments of a new railway. The i headline was New bat tunnel controversy and millions on unused trains: The East West Rail fiasco; in summary, a story of wasted money and poor design.  

The 1906 Fishguard rail line was the last time two passenger destinations were linked by a significant new stretch of the UK rail passenger network. (Forty years ago the East Coast Main Line 22km Selby diversion simply enabled a new coal mine.) Now EWR proposes an expensive 50km new line between Bedford and Cambridge (Connection Stage 3) which makes it a once-in-a-century scheme.  (David Hughes, CEO at EWR Co. modestly said once in a generation.)

While EWR is unusual it is not a unique scheme in technical terms, and lessons that could have been learned from HS2 and elsewhere have not been learned. The HS2  River Chess chalk stream experience is relevant to our chalk aquifer and obviously bats are roosting on EWR the preferred route. Resurrecting abandoned or underused rail routes is not uncommon and EWR Oxford to Bedford is one recent example.  However, EWR Bedford to Cambridge is a different order of magnitude compared to such reuse of existing track beds in terms of cost, challenging terrain and geology.   What EWR proposes for the Bedford to Cambridge route is a  very expensive  venture and it needs to be managed with appropriate care. 

Unfortunately, EWR is handling the whole EWR Oxford to Cambridge project in isolation, and with undue haste, rather than appropriate care. This is evident in the £1.3bn Connection Stage 1 (CS1) Bicester  London Road level crossing closure and particularly evident in Cambridge where the intended passengers actually need to use all three Cambridge stations, not just two. Any once-in-a-century scheme means building for the future, and in Cambridge that must include serving the city’s northern fringe now undergoing major economic expansion and it certainly does not mean routing heavy freight trains through the heart of Cambridge as EWR currently proposes.

Turn-Backs

The proposed EWR (CS3) route to Cambridge terminates in Cherry Hinton, permanently isolating Cambridge North station and the intended turn-back siding buffers are likely there to stay for many years.   What happens at the other end of CS3 at Bedford is where the £8bn cost begin. (Editor: This cost estimate is for CS2 and CS3, see also our recent analysis of turn-back options)  The very recently updated EWR plans to drastically remodel Bedford town centre are both unpopular and, as we now discover by its own admission,  unnecessary. What happens in Bedford is important to Cambridge because it affects the purpose of EWR and very importantly the route and the funding. 

Universal

The big news about EWR is that in its ill-judged haste to push ahead, and dismiss all local concerns along the entire route, the organisation in charge (EWRCo) did not understand that the biggest economic growth prospect along the entire Ox Cam corridor this decade and the next is the wide area around the old Bedford brick works. Actually the economic impact of the  Bedford Universal Theme Park tourist attraction probably dwarfs any other single site development on the Ox Cam Arc this side of 2050.  Cambridge will continue to grow within the limits of its congested roads, overpriced housing, constraints on water and now sewerage and worn out infrastructure, but Bedford is where the big money will get spent by developers, by tourists and by Government. International visitors using Heathrow or the expanding Luton Airport can arrive by train to an enlarged Thameslink station at Wixams on the east side of the Park and a very short 35 per-hour-shuttlebus journey to the Theme Park with its hotel.

EWR in its haste to show progress published plans in 2024 to rebuild Stewartby Station on the Marston Vale Line and close Kempston Hardwick Station. Unfortunately for EWR, Universal acquired the land in 2023, held public consultations through 2024 and had long decided Kempston Hardwick Station is to be the only public entrance on the west side of  the Theme Park. According to Universal’s 2025 planning application ‘Consideration was given to including the new EWR Station within this planning proposal. However, as the station would be delivered by East West Rail it was considered preferable for it to be consented separately.’ (paragraph 3.5.2.) It is now up to EWR to obtain the necessary consents and deliver a new larger Kempston Hardwick Station and an EWR rail passenger service by 2031.(Travel Plan)

If EWRCo can’t meet that opening date Universal intends to run a 14 per-hour-shuttlebus service from Milton Keynes to the Park. That is a lot of additional road miles when Universal want around 40% of visitors to travel by rail, with coaches and taxis accounting for 20% and the remaining 40% by family car.  Those shuttlebus numbers point to Kempston Hardwick EWR passengers comprising 28% of rail passengers to the two Theme Park stations, so EWR does  need to be ready with that rail passenger service.

EWRCo has ignored what was known across Government Departments for some time. The excuse that in 2024 there was no approved redevelopment for the Bedford brickworks site is incredible. EWR just pushed ahead spending considerable sums of public money devising inappropriate plans for the CS2 Marston Vale Line. This is reminiscent of HS2 with the managing company, EWRCo, lacking clear understanding that the current nationally important objective is opening the Universal Theme Park in 2031 including travel routes. (Editor: EWRCo.’s current message to parish councillors is that Universal would not have invested without the commitment by government to take EWR to Cambridge. We are informed by Bedford Borough Councillors who have met Universal that they never made this a condition for their investment and that EWRCo.s assertion is ‘utter bollocks’. EWRCo. seem to be joining any bandwagon available to justify their project. Their previous excitement about biotech companies seems to have diminished, as Sir John Bell (Professor of Medicine at Oxford University) recently stated on Radio 4’s Today Program this week ‘he’d spoken to several bosses of major companies in the past six months and they are all in the same place, that is, they are not going to do any more investing in the UK’).

Rail Minister Tells Us What it’s for

That brings us back to the question facing the EWR route: ‘What’s It For?’.  Lord Hendy, the Rail Minister, in February this year described EWR to Rail Magazine  ‘as a quite intensive medium-length passenger service to significantly grow the economy, build houses, and create jobs between Oxford and Cambridge’ and said “nobody designed East West Rail to be a major route for freight”.  The Treasury Permanent Secretary at the Public Accounts Committee in June said  “Is that a railway project with East West Rail? Is it a housing project with Cambridge, Oxford and a potential new town? Is it a business project that is generating growth, labs and all of that? The answer is that it is all those things”.   So what happened to potential commuters to Cambridge from along the line justifying EWR, and what exactly is the purpose of the Bedford to Cambridge section of EWR?

Development Consent Order Process

The EWR scheme was branded ‘transformational’ by Government and has a protected life amid repeated claims that a cost-benefit analysis simply is not possible for schemes that change people’s lives or give a boost to the national economy.  (Editor: EWRCo. estimated the Benefit to Cost Ratio for EWR CS2 and CS3 at 0.3 in May 2023) Eventually however, EWR will submit an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) and that brings scrutiny, rules about due process and the required supporting evidence.  For Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects such as EWR the Planning Inspectorate   consideration is comprehensive, including how the project aligns with national policy and planning guidance, including principles of climate, people, places, and value. The Inspectorate assesses the proposal’s impacts and benefits, ensuring the applicant has followed the consultation process, and evaluate the adequacy of their proposed mitigation measures. [Notice the words value and benefits.] The Inspectorate makes recommendations within the strict framework of National Policy Statements (NPSs) and Section 105 of the Planning Act 2008 sets out what the Secretary of State must have regard to in making his or her decision. 

The Inspectorate ultimately provides a recommendation on the development consent to the relevant Secretary of State. That recommendation is the carefully considered rational judgement, but the Secretary for State can make a contrary ruling as happened for the Luton Airport expansion. However the Minister’s discretionary powers are limited for a railway by the 2024 National Networks NPS ‘that sets out the need for, and government’s policies to deliver, development of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) on the national road and rail networks in England.’  Significantly, applications ‘will normally be supported by a business case.’ (Editor: We are told by EWRCo. that EWR will be the first NSIP to follow the new planning rules currently going through parliament in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and for example the statutory consultation expected to start in March/April 2026 will be in phases).

If the Minister approved EWR Bedford to Cambridge without solid evidence in a business case it would be a very brave decision. (Editor: Note that the Department for Transport is on record saying that publication of even the concept level Strategic Outline Business Case is not in the public interest. How can £2.5billion of public money be allocated to this project when they are still working on the rationale for it?).

EWR has now started the DCO process by submitting a formal pre-application scoping document to the Inspectorate that includes ‘Building brand new railway infrastructure between Bedford and Cambridge’. Barrington Parish Council made a submission to the Planning Inspectorate stating ‘that the Scoping Report is inadequate‘. 

How can EWR create a DCO application for the EWR railway scheme that is justified by dependant new housing and employment (or alternatively predicted passenger numbers) when,  as yet, those benefits and the business case cannot be stated in even the broadest terms?  And broad terms won’t meet the DCO criteria below. 

NPS Requirements

Applications for rail projects such as EWR  are governed by the  National Networks National Policy Statement (NPS) which states 

• ‘National road or rail schemes that have been identified in relevant Road or Rail Investment Strategies will have been subject to an options appraisal process ……… and proportionate consideration of alternatives will have been undertaken as part of the investment decision making process. ………… The Examining  Authority and the Secretary of State should satisfy themselves that the options appraisal process has been undertaken'( §4.21)
• applications ‘will normally be supported by a business case’ (§4.6 ) 
• ‘The purpose of the economic dimension of the business case is to identify the proposal that delivers best public value to society, including wider social and environmental benefit’ (§4.6) 
• ‘The information provided on the economic, environmental and social impacts of a development that underpins the business case will be proportionate to the development’ (§4.7) 
• ‘An assessment of the benefits and costs of schemes under a range of scenarios should reflect future uncertainty, in addition to the core case. The modelling should be proportionate to the scale of the scheme and include appropriate sensitivity analysis to consider the effects of uncertainty on project impacts'(§4.9) 

That the EWR options appraisal process (§4.21 above) was not evidence-based and was curtailed at each stage of the schemes development with insufficient analysis of practicability, inherent cost differences and degree of benefit has been a source of repeated criticism. Consultants for EWR identified an approach route to Cambridge that avoided challenging terrain and cost less, yet was disregarded in favour of the current proposal. The reason given by EWR was down to ‘the benefits predicted through the Theory of Change by serving the Cambridge Biomedical Campus‘. The supporting EWR Logic Map for a proper Theory of Change analysis which states specific objectives and measurable outcomes, if it exists, has not been made public unlike the nearby A428 Black Cat road scheme. The proposed route into Cambridge has not been justified and is transformational for the wrong reasons. (Editor: It’s not just us that feel this way: Vectos, transport consultants to Universal Studios recently reviewed EWRCo.s November 2024 consultation and concluded: ‘This note has set out our substantive concerns from a technical aspect on EWR Co’s non-statutory consultation. Whilst we recognise that this is an early stage of consultation, because of the absence of technical detail or evidence to substantiate the information provided, together with a lack of explanation of alternative options considered, it is considered impossible to provide complete comments at this stage.‘)

 The first rule of mitigation, as the University of Cambridge explained to EWR this year, is do not encroach on a protected zone and EWR has twice ignored that principle, once  in the case of the rare bat species (as did HS2) and again by routing the track through the protection zone of the Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory (MRAO).  

The above NPS rules together provide a yardstick to measure the once-in-a-century scheme EWR proposes: business case, best value, social and environmental benefit.  It probably is cost effective for EWR to upgrade the Marston Vale Line to Kempston Hardwick and a turn-back facility at the existing Bedford sidings site as EWR proposed and that upgrade could be a stand-alone application by EWR to the Planning Inspectorate. There is a  business case (passengers to the Theme Park), and it offers high value and has social benefit.  In fact the Marston Vale part of EWR should be a separate DCO, it is rejuvenation of existing track at a trivial cost compared with the £8bn for Bedford to Cambridge CS3. Combining the two into one DCO puts a minnow as equal in size to a whale. 

However, if at any time EWR adds in the cost of its planned rebuilding of the two Bedford city centre railway stations and demolishing 47 properties there is a substantial problem. EWR described its plans for an enlarged Bedford Station as ‘ambitious and transformative‘ but to residents the plans are highly controversial. 

Ashburnham Road Destroyed to Save Time.

In August, Bedford Borough Council vowed to fight the EWR’s newly announced plans to demolish multiple flats, a GP surgery  and long-established local businesses at 2-20 Ashburnham Road close to Bedford station. This adds 10 more properties to the 37 already on the EWR demolition list in Bedford’s Poets Corner to provide space for additional rail tracks for EWR  trains north of Bedford station. 

A recent information request to EWR revealed ‘Our updated plans now include additional land for the construction compound, which would allow for the safer and more efficient construction of the upgrades to Bedford station, reducing our construction programme significantly.’ If EWR cannot demolish these homes it could extend the project by a further two to three years according to Councillor Nicola Gribble.  EWR could, if it wished, avoid demolishing so many properties if it kept the construction compound to the original planned size needed to redeveloped Bedford station. Demolishing homes and businesses to hasten that station redevelopment is unnecessary, since the additional facilities required for the EWR service to Cambridge cannot be used by passengers before mid-2030’s according to EWR.

Again this is evidence that EWR devised detailed plans for the Marston Vale Line in isolation without effective consultation with the community and the Borough Council and curtailed the evaluation of alternative routes. Recently the Planning Inspectorate has advised Bedford Borough Council to withdraw its current Local Plan and work on a new plan incorporating the Theme Park and all its implications. The impact of the Theme Park on Bedford and the local economy is huge and the Borough Council needs additional skilled manpower, and time, to rework the Local Plan and ensure the local infrastructure can supply the additional electricity, sewerage and water for about 23,000 daily visitors. EWR wants to steam-roller its preferred plan through and dictate the shape of the entire town centre by re-routing roads, demolishing houses and businesses, rebuilding the two Bedford stations and putting a multistorey car park on hospital land. The nature of Bedford town centre should be the responsibility of the Borough Council and its Mayor not EWRCo, and its owner DfT, according to Government devolution plans.

Remodelling the centre of Bedford as EWR propose is contentious in Bedford for the same reason the proposed EWR route into Cambridge is contentious – the benefits to the inhabitants aren’t worth the disruption and losses to the two communities, it’s the wrong route and the £8bn cost is not justified by the passenger traffic predicted by EWR. The DCO process will expose these deficiencies in the EWR plans.

Conclusion

EWR promise a DCO application after a Statutory Consultation, probably some time in 2026. The detailed consultation documents will be widely examined by local authorities and the public and challenged in order to place on record errors and omissions that will, in turn, be notified to the Planning Inspectorate when EWR makes its DCO application. The EWR scheme changes at the DCO stage from being politician driven (Ministers and Treasury mandarins) to an independent legally defined assessment (the Planning Inspectorate).  For such a significant, and expensive, once-in-a-century scheme as the Bedford to Cambridge rail route the scrutiny will be proportionate and rigorous and will be seen to be so in the Inspectors published report.

Many thanks for CA’s own Graham Turnbull for this news summary.

East West Rail and its effects on Greater Cambridge is not one simple story driven by a (cunning) plan and the latest announcements haven’t provided clarity. 

The recently announced £2.5b for EWR in the Government Spending Review, to be spent during this Government, sounds like a firm commitment to progress the Oxford to Cambridge EWR rail link. A commitment, but for what and when? 

Back in January Government promised a new station on the East Coast Main Line at Tempsford to serve a new town by providing a service to King’s Cross which handles many suburban rail services including Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City, and Letchworth Garden City. New rail stations are slow to build and expensive as Cambridge South illustrates, so that is a chunk out of the £2.5b for a very complex cross over station on two levels. Uninterrupted ECML traffic north has priority and EWR  supposedly passes below with interconnected platforms serving passengers for Bedford and Cambridge. Or above, possibly, one day. As yet there are no plans or timescale and Network Rail has to be in control because of the Main Line, not the East West Rail Company.

There is a second new rail station promised by Government, this time to serve the Bedford Universal Studios Theme Park which Government says ‘will bring an estimated £50bn boost for the economy and create around 28,000 jobs in total across creative, hospitality and construction industries.’ It is set to open in 2031 so the hurry is on to achieve that date.  This development is of huge importance to the region around Bedford and a bright light for the Government to campaign on in the next general election in 2029 when its construction should be well advanced.

The chosen site for the 478 acre park includes a 500 room hotel and retail complex and could attract 8.5 million visitors in its first year.  Appropriate rail services are vital to avoid the region’s road system being overwhelmed.

Universal Studios has said there will be  a new station on the East West Rail Marston Vale Line replacing   Kempston Hardwick station adjacent to the resort and upgrades to the Wixams Railway Station on the Midlands Main Line connecting to Luton Airport where expansion has also been approved.

At Bedford the EWR plans are to relocate Bedford St Johns station and completely rebuild Bedford Station.  

Editor: It’s important to note that Universal Studios have made no demands on government to provide an EWR link to Cambridge.

This adds up to three brand new railway stations at Bedford and transferring the costs of upgrading Wixams Rail Station to four platforms from local government to Whitehall in addition to the Tempsford Station.  That £2.5b needs to cover those costs and the upgrading of the EWR Marston Vale Line to Bedford. Editor: Note that the upgrade of the line from Bicester to Bletchley (CS1) cost £1.2billion.

Chiltern Railways has been selected to operate the first phase of the East West Rail (EWR) service which will run between Oxford and Milton Keynes and presumably that organisation will extend the service to the Marston Vale Kempston Hardwick Theme Park station when the track is ready. For that station to be open in 2031 the existing route from Bletchley to Bedford has to be refurbished and interim arrangements made for Chiltern trains to terminate in Bedford from 2031.

Those  interim arrangements for Chiltern Railways need to operate from opening of the attraction in 2031 for perhaps five or more years. Between 2031 and 2035/6/7 Chiltern Railways need  turn-back and depot service at Bedford or close by.  The EWR proposal is to make space for the rail tracks in the approach to Bedford Station by relocating the existing Jowett Sidings, where Thameslink trains are parked and maintained when not in use. The sidings would be relocated to a site near the existing Cauldwell Depot which is on the Midland Main Line approximately 1.2km (0.7 miles) south of Bedford Station.

At the existing Jowett Siding site EWR propose to retain and repurpose some of the sidings infrastructure for use by East West Rail which would in turn minimise any need for development of an alternative stabling site. EWR state that this opportunity will be explored further with more details provided at the statutory consultation.

Current EWR plans for Bedford involve a new St Johns Rail Station opposite the hospital; a new Midland Mainline station and demolition of homes in the Poet’s area of Bedford when a six-track configuration is built. For more details consult the BFARe website. Editor: There is an unresolved conflict between EWR plans and much needed hospital expansion plans at the site. These plans claim an economic boost for Bedford at the cost of prolonged disruption and many people pointing out better alternatives.  What is clear is that Bedford will now be the centre of urgent discussions if there is to be a Theme Park rail station on the Marston Vale Line to serve visitors along with the Midland Mainline Wixams Rail Station. Expect some lively arguments about new Bedford railway stations. The elephant in the room is how to provide Chiltern Railways with interim turn-back facilities.

The EWR passenger service to Cambridge is not on the same timescale as the opening of the Bedford Theme Park which claims a much earlier economic benefit, and maybe a greater economic benefit than extending EWR services to Cambridge.  The earliest completion date for a new Bedford to Cambridge EWR line is mid 2030’s (at best). The EWR Cambridge turn-back facilities for Chiltern Railways at Cherry Hinton are a distant prospect and can make no contribution to successful opening of the Theme Park in 2031 and those 8.5 million visitors in its first year. Editor: Will not Chiltern Railways have disappeared into Great British Railways by then?

Of great importance to EWR and to Greater Cambridge is the promised Government midsummer announcement – the New Towns list.  The New Towns Taskforce established in September 2024 was given a year to list the next generation of new towns for Government to develop in persuit of 1.5m new homes built during this parliament. These are developments of more than 10,000 houses and associated infrastructure and Tempsford has been widely trailed as a leading contender. If Northstowe is selected by Government for its New Towns List  it has a build-out rate that can be accelerated and the promised 10,000 homes mostly achieved within this parliament. This New Towns List announcement in midsummer is therefore very important to Cambridge and there are implications for EWR. Editor: Given the EWR timescales it hard to see how Tempsford could contribute to the housing target for this parliament.

If Northstowe is on the list of new towns getting Government support, then the centre of gravity for new developments and economic growth in Greater Cambridge is very clearly a swathe  around the north side of Cambridge. The area includes the University North West Cambridge Development that is the most significant capital project in the University’s history according to its Vice Chancellor. Eddington already sets new standards for housing developments.  Near Northstowe,   Waterbeach New Town has a relocated rail station. Trinity College is planning a new ‘Cambridge Science Park North’ at Histon by the A14 and also near Cambridge North Station the  original Cambridge Science Park is being modernised and further developed. Cambridge East is planned on the present airfield land.

The importance of these developments and which new towns feature in the New Towns List is that the present EWR plans serve only Cambridge South and Cambridge City Stations with no service to Cambridge North.  An EWR rail service to two out of three Cambridge rail stations looks tilted towards Cambridge Biomedical Campus to the neglect of the future of the city.  The new Mayor of Cambridge and Peterborough Combined Authority prefers light rail and the imminent reorganisation of Local Government tiers creates uncertainty about proposed new busways which are unpopular to some but do have preliminary funding. The local transport needs of Greater Cambridge aren’t going to be resolved in this Parliament. Editor: As already reported Mayor Bristow is also proposing an EWR route much further south because light rail could serve the needs of Cambourne sooner than EWR.

The recently announced £2.5b for EWR in the Government Spending Review looks less impressive when the cost of upgrading the Marston Vale Line and building completely new rail stations at Tempsford, Marston Vale Theme Park, Bedford St Johns and Bedford are taken in account together with the Wixam Station upgrade. Will Cambourne feature on the Government New Towns List?  Now the Bedford Universal Studio Theme Park is confirmed in terms of current planning and spending EWRCo have their hands full dealing with Bedford. Editor: The EWR driven ‘Local Opportunity Plan’ for Cambourne is also nearing completion so we will see a prediction of EWR driven housing growth there (if any).

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.