84% of small business owners oppose Cambridge road charging, survey finds

Small business owners fear road charging in Cambridge will deter investment, drive up costs and give rival cities a competitive advantage.

A survey by the Federation of Small Businesses found that a staggering 89 per cent of respondents said they did not agree with proposals for a Sustainable Travel Zone, with 84 per cent against road-based user charging.

FSB members have instead put forward seven recommendations that they would like to see included in the plans.

They argue that no business should face serious financial hardship as a result of the plans – and call for support to ensure no business is forced to cease trading or undertake redundancies.

Richard Gapper, FSB East of England regional policy lead, said: “Two years of economic contraction have resulted in a small business economy that is increasingly fragile, yet smaller businesses are often required to bear a higher burden of costs of trading compared to large enterprises.

“From the energy crisis and the ever burdensome business rate system, each policy negatively impacts this vibrant sector, adding to their burden.”

The Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) is consulting on the proposals which would be introduced in 2026-27 and involve car drivers paying £5 per day, while van drivers would pay £10 and lorry drivers pay £50.

The GCP says the money raised would help fund a dramatically upgraded bus network, with flat fares of £1 within the city or £2 from outside, up to a maximum of £4.

Mr Gapper continued: “For many the STZ as currently presented could prohibit trading within the city. Pursuing an agenda for cleaner air is something very few businesses could – or would – argue with and most would agree that ambitions to reduce congestion is a laudable policy objective. Raising the money to implement such a scheme should not unfairly be shouldered by the small businesses operating in and around the city.”

The survey also found that more than two-thirds of businesses said they could not operate without access to vehicles. FSB members are upset that the proposals are to fund an improved bus service alone and not a move to improve air quality, as electric vehicles will still face the charge.

One member said: “We have estimated that the proposed charge of £50 for HGV vehicles will cost us between £100,000 and £200,000 per annum. If we are unable to pass these costs onto customers, it will endanger our business continuity.”

Several responses also pointed out that their entire business models relied on them delivering agile and responsive services within the city.

About 24,000 consultation responses were received by the GCP during a consultation on the plans held last year.

Last week, the Cambridge Independent revealed the results of a YouGov poll on the issue, commissioned by the Cambridgeshire Sustainable Travel Alliance, which found that 59 per cent of respondents oppose the proposals, compared to 39 per cent in favour.

FSB’s 7-point plan

• Efforts to increase awareness must be redoubled and done in such a way that the vast majority of businesses are aware of the changes, and what they need to do to avoid the penalty.
• The proposal harms Cambridge city as a destination for business, in which to do business. It will deter investment, drive the cost of doing business, and inevitably give rival cities a competitive advantage. The efficacy of the STZ needs to be reconsidered and looked at more holistically in terms of wider impact and the unintended consequences.
• If the STZ goes ahead it should at the very least reevaluate the timeframe for implementation, and also consider carefully how exemptions for the worst-affected businesses are agreed. It should also look at whether this type of scheme is fair or adds any real value to congestion reduction.
• GCP should look to other cities’ efforts at improving bus networks and cycle schemes with a view to creating a scheme that is both effective but less damaging to businesses, and without a cliff edge moment harmful to the local economy.
• Local authorities need to take a case-by-case approach to the penalty and whether a business should pay if it were to cause the business serious financial hardship. Businesses that can demonstrate they are more severely affected by the changes, to the point that it would force them to cease trading, should be given extra time to comply and additional financial assistance. No business should be forced to cease trading, no employee should face redundancy, or a reduction in salary because of a retrospective change in regulation.
• The charging and collection of money model has to be relaxed and made more businesses-friendly. There appears to be a consensus that other, better models currently exist, such as the Dartford Charge, which allows businesses to operate an account with registered vehicles and works on an automated footing for those that need it. Failing that, businesses would at least need a month to pay manually and a system that could be bulk paid, rather than individually on a vehicle-by-vehicle basis.
• For the first year of operation, enforcement should be taken with a ‘light touch’ approach to help businesses bed in, and so as not to create an avalanche of complaints