Cambridgeshire County Council’s 20mph programme aims to make village streets safer, but the rollout raises questions about equity and prioritisation. While some villages benefit from full, village-wide zones, others are left with limited measures, creating optics that give the programme a whiff of a middle-class rip-off.
In the 2024/25 programme, 25 villages – mainly in South Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, and around Cambridge City – are receiving full coverage, including signage and enforceable limits. Villages such as Cottenham, Linton, and Great Wilbraham have progressed from design to completion, funded by County Council allocations and grants like the Transforming Cities Fund.
By contrast, eastern districts, including Fenland and East Cambridgeshire, see far less investment. In Fenland, only Elm is part of the formal programme, while Whittlesey benefits from wider 20mph zones implemented outside the current funding round.
Towns such as March and Wisbech are restricted to school-area measures, and smaller East Cambridgeshire villages, like Soham and Littleport, see only piecemeal interventions. Even in the east, affluent towns like Ely have full 20mph coverage, but most villages remain under-served.
Support for 20mph schemes in eastern areas is often lukewarm. But whether a community actively requests a scheme should not determine who receives public funding for road safety.
Many eastern villages only receive partial school zones, and these measures do little to address the broader hazards that exist across the area. Safety improvements — signage, crossings, minor traffic calming — should be equitable, regardless of local preference.
Affluent villages often succeed because they are organised and vocal. Less affluent areas, even when equally in need of safety improvements, are less able to advocate for themselves.
The resulting allocation, whether intentional or not, favours communities with more resources, giving the programme a perception problem: it looks like a “middle-class rip-off.”
