Public Spaces Protection Order - Babraham Road Park and Ride

Noise nuisance was by far the main issue raised. Respondents repeatedly described loud engine revving, racing, tyre squeals, backfiring, and very loud music/bass, often lasting for hours late into the night and into the early morning. Many said it disrupts sleep, keeps children awake, affects rest and relaxation at home, and can be heard over a wide area even with windows closed or from further away in places like Fulbourn, Cherry Hinton and Stapleford.

Respondents from nearby Arthur Rank hospice, which included hospice staff and leadership, said the disturbance causes distress to patients, visitors and staff, undermining the peaceful environment needed for end-of-life and symptom care.

People said the large gatherings, racing vehicles and groups of mainly young men make them feel unsafe or intimidated. This means they avoid the Park & Ride, nearby roads and walking routes close by, especially in the evening. Some said they no longer walk dogs there or feel nervous returning to parked cars after work.

Dangerous driving was mentioned very often alongside noise. Respondents referred to speeding, wheelspins, overtaking, wheelies, erratic driving and racing on surrounding roads such as Babraham Road, Hinton Way and Granham's Road, with repeated fears that someone will be seriously injured or killed.

Many responses described wider impacts on wellbeing: stress, anxiety, fear, headaches, affecting their right to quiet enjoyment of their home, and in a few cases severe effects on mental health and family life. Several said the noise sounds like gunshots.

A smaller number mentioned other issues such as emissions/environmental harm, damage risk to infrastructure, and antisocial spillover into nearby residential streets.

Only one respondent said they did not think the activity had a negative impact, because it happens late at night and “they keep to themselves”.

Most respondents supported action, mainly because of the persistent noise, antisocial behaviour and safety concerns they pointed to in their first answers. Many described regular weekend or evening disruption, sometimes several nights a week, affecting residents even some distance away.

Respondents wanted the site to feel safe for park and ride users, especially people returning to their cars after dark. Some gave examples of feeling uneasy walking back to vehicles at night. Many also raised the risk of crashes, injuries or fatalities from dangerous driving, stunts and racing.

A frequently mentioned issue was the impact on nearby homes, the hospice, children, gardens and general quality of life.

Several respondents said current policing or signage has not been enough, and supported a PSPO as a practical extra power or deterrent, provided it is enforced. A few suggested related measures such as better lighting, barriers, ANPR, monitoring or broader action at all park and ride sites.

A smaller number were unsure or opposed. The main reasons were lack of clarity about what the PSPO would actually do, with concern about bureaucracy, privacy or simply shifting the problem elsewhere. Others were concerned any security measures would be vandalised. A few said they had never witnessed any car-related ASB there and a very small number were more sympathetic to car meets so long as they were not causing harm.

Respondents overwhelmingly support a broad PSPO covering all the proposed measures, especially bans on engine revving, racing/dangerous driving, loud music, powers to disperse people, and fixed penalty notices. A few explicitly said “all of the above” or anything that can be enforced should be included.

Many respondents said that any restrictions should be backed by firm, immediate enforcement rather than delayed action. Respondents repeatedly called for on-the-spot intervention, fines, and stronger consequences for repeat or persistent offenders, including court action.

Another frequent suggestion is to strengthen monitoring and site control through ANPR, CCTV, barriers, and more security presence at night. Some also proposed physical deterrents such as speed bumps and better use of existing barriers.

Several respondents want the site’s use tightened so it is clearly only for park-and-ride purposes, not for loitering or socialising. One respondent supported powers to remove people only where there is defined antisocial or criminal behaviour, rather than a blanket power. One also noted motorcycle engine revving should be explicitly covered.

Only 16 respondents explained their concerns.

The concern raised most often was enforcement: several respondents said a PSPO would only work if there is a visible, consistent police or on-site presence, and worried that without this it would be ineffective. One respondent also said the current online reporting process is too cumbersome to be useful.

Another theme was displacement: a few respondents worried the behaviour would simply move from the Park and Ride to nearby residential streets or other sites, rather than being solved.

A smaller number focused on possible negative impacts of the order itself, including it being overly authoritarian, targeting the wrong people or younger people in particular, abuse by enforcement officers, and discouraging legitimate use of the Park and Ride.

Some practical concerns were also mentioned: possible difficulties for hospital workers parking there, the cost of introducing and running the order and whether alternative measures such as closing the site to cars at night or running buses later might help reduce antisocial behaviour.

Most respondents focused on stronger practical enforcement rather than alternatives to a PSPO alone. The most common suggestions were:

-Restrict or close vehicle access in the evening/night: many wanted the site to become exit-only after a certain time, with barriers, gates or drop-down bollards once the last bus has left. Some stressed this would need exemptions for hospital staff, hospice visitors and emergency workers.

- More surveillance: frequent calls for CCTV and ANPR, often specifically to identify offenders, record number plates and support prosecutions.

- Visible policing and patrols: many asked for regular police presence, patrols at unpredictable times, and more active monitoring/enforcement.

- Stronger penalties using existing powers: several said authorities should enforce laws already in place, including fines, arrests, prosecutions, vehicle seizure/confiscation, bans from the site, and checks on tax/insurance/noise compliance.

Another suggestion was to change the layout to make the site less suitable for racing/stunts, for example with speed bumps, physical barriers, stone bumpers or other traffic calming.

Some respondents suggested a managed alternative venue or official car meets to give enthusiasts somewhere safer to go.

A few raised cautions or questions: whether there is enough evidence of crime, how any PSPO would be monitored, whether it would simply displace the problem elsewhere, and whether restrictions could affect patient care or access for legitimate users. A handful said no alternative action was needed beyond the PSPO.

Most respondents supported the PSPO and wanted action quickly, often saying it is overdue and should be introduced as soon as possible. Noise from car meets was a major concern, especially at night, with people saying it can be heard far from the site, disrupts sleep, has an impact on the local hospice, and makes the area feel unsafe.

Many said the PSPO will only work with proper enforcement and police support. Some suggested extra measures such as closing the Park & Ride after certain hours, however some workers at the hospice cautioned against this as it would impact those who work shifts.

Another common concern was displacement: respondents feared the behaviour would move to surrounding roads or other Park & Ride sites. A few suggested extending controls across all Cambridge Park & Rides or even county-wide, while one suggested providing an alternative off-road site for organised car meets rather than simply moving the issue elsewhere.

Only a small number raised reservations. One respondent felt the proposal was unclear and did not support giving more powers without clearer evidence. Another said enforcement might be unnecessary late at night if gatherings are peaceful, and warned that trying to stop them could make matters worse. A few comments were outside the immediate proposal, such as calls for a clean air zone or PSPOs in other parts of Cambridge.