Long-awaited £35 million scheme to slash traffic on key Nottinghamshire route 'under review'
The Department for Transport has confirmed that it is reviewing a major £35 million scheme to ease congestion along a key Nottinghamshire route. Funding uncertainties have blighted a project to upgrade roundabouts and junctions along the A614/A6097 corridor between Ollerton and East Bridgford, which was first proposed back in 2019.
The Government has now confirmed that it has received Nottinghamshire County Council's full business case for the scheme and that this is "currently being reviewed". The major project was originally due to get underway in August 2024, but the general election last year threw promised government funding into doubt.
Nottinghamshire County Council previously said the overall scheme would cost £34.4 million, with the previous government pledging £24 million and the Conservative-run council investing £10 million. Former county council leader Ben Bradley has said every six months of delay on the project was costing £1 million and stretching the project's viability.
READ MORE: All of Nottinghamshire's secondary schools ranked in our Real Schools Guide
READ MORE: 'Unforeseen delays' in bringing national retailer to empty Broad Marsh units
Councillor Neil Clarke, the cabinet member for transport and environment at the county council, therefore says the overall project could now cost between £45 million and £50 million. The Department for Transport says it does not recognise this figure.
"We continue to work closely with Nottinghamshire County Council and will make any announcements in due course", the Department for Transport said. Councillor Clarke now hopes new investment by the East Midlands Combined County Authority (EMCCA), led by East Midlands Mayor Claire Ward, will act as a "catalyst".
The EMCCA says its investment "will address a cost shortfall and thus enable the Department for Transport to consider the full business case and potentially allow the scheme to progress." Nottinghamshire Live previously revealed the county council had spent over £3,000 on banners to promote the project before government funding for it had arrived.
The county council then took all 17 of the banners down in late 2024 after they had been damaged by weather conditions. The authority said it was hoping to reinstall the banners in February, but they are yet to reappear and the council has still not confirmed whether it will still put them back up.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
17 hours ago
- Business Insider
Cathie Wood Adds Elon Musk's Neuralink to ARK Fund as Trump Alliance Crumbles
ARKX just added Neuralink. Cathie Wood reposted it. And now the Musk- Trump feud has another wrinkle. Confident Investing Starts Here: On June 5, ARK Funds publicly announced that its ARK Venture Fund — ARKVX (ARKVX) — has invested in Neuralink, Elon Musk's brain-interface company, as part of its Series E funding round. The post, shared to X and reposted by Cathie Wood herself, ranks Neuralink as the fund's #2 holding, right behind SpaceX and ahead of OpenAI, xAI, and Anthropic. Neuralink is labeled 'NEW' on the portfolio chart. But what's not new is the growing friction between Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Support for Musk as Trump Turns Cold? Cathie Wood didn't say anything when she reposted ARK's announcement, but the timing is hard to ignore. The Trump-Musk split has dominated headlines for days, with Trump reportedly calling Musk 'crazy,' threatening to cut federal contracts, and even considering selling his red Tesla as a public break with the billionaire. At the same time, here's one of Musk's most high-profile supporters, Wood, amplifying news of her fund backing Neuralink, an Elon-run company often viewed as his most speculative moonshot. So, is this a portfolio move — or a power statement? It's worth noting that Neuralink's Series E round hasn't been officially disclosed in terms of size, valuation, or lead investor. But ARK's decision to highlight the company so prominently, especially in the top three alongside SpaceX and OpenAI, sends a message: they're still betting on Elon. The Holdings Breakdown SpaceX Neuralink (new) OpenAI xAI Hammerspace Anthropic Lambda Labs That's four Elon-affiliated ventures (SpaceX, Neuralink, xAI, and OpenAI — he was a co-founder) in the top seven. And they're ahead of Anthropic and Lambda Labs, two rising players in the AI arms race that often compete directly with Musk's initiatives. No one's saying Cathie Wood is choosing Musk over Trump. But with Neuralink now sitting in ARKVX's #2 slot — and with Wood herself boosting the news — the investment world may be saying plenty without a single word. Investors can track Elon Musk on TipRanks. Click on the image below to find out more.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
NCAA's House settlement approved, ushering in new era where schools can directly pay athletes
College athletics is officially entering a new world. A California judge on Friday granted approval to the NCAA's landmark settlement of three antitrust cases, often referred to as the 'House settlement,' ushering in an era where schools are permitted to share revenue with athletes within a new enforcement structure led by the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC. Advertisement Claudia Wilken, the 75-year-old presiding judge in California's Northern District, granted approval of an agreement between the named defendants (the NCAA and power conferences) and the plaintiffs (dozens of suing athletes) to settle three consolidated cases, all of them seeking more compensation for athletes. Unsuccessful in so many legal battles recently — most notably a 9-0 loss in a 2021 Supreme Court decision — the NCAA and its richest, most influential conferences decided last spring to strike a revolutionary agreement by settling these cases instead of risking a court defeat that might cost them as much as $10 billion. The House settlement will pay thousands of former athletes — playing from 2016-2024 — a whopping $2.8 billion in backpay from lost name, image and likeness (NIL) compensation. Even more groundbreaking, the settlement paves the way for schools, for the first time ever, to directly compensate athletes in a system that features an annual cap and a new enforcement entity that is expected to more heavily scrutinize booster-backed payments. While paychecks can begin to be distributed from schools to athletes on July 1 — the official start date of settlement implementation — the new enforcement entity, the College Sports Commission, an LLC operated mostly by the power leagues, immediately takes effect with Wilken's approval of the agreement. Advertisement It means that any new contract struck between an athlete and a third-party entity, such a business, brand, booster or collective, is now subject to the new Deloitte-run NIL clearinghouse. The clearinghouse, dubbed "NIL Go," is charged with evaluating NIL deals between athletes and third parties to determine their legitimacy. It puts an end, perhaps, to schools hurriedly signing current players and transfers to new contracts before the approval of the settlement in deals that frontload a majority of the compensation. Contracts signed before the settlement approval and paid out before July 1 were not subject to the clearinghouse or cap, leading to a 'mad dash' in the basketball and football portal. Power conference leaders are targeting a Major League Baseball executive to manage the College Sports Commission as CEO, multiple sources tell Yahoo Sports. Bryan Seeley, a former assistant U.S. attorney who has served for more than a decade as MLB's vice president of investigations and deputy general counsel, is believed to be the preferred candidate for the CEO role of college sports' new enforcement entity. Despite plenty of hurdles in the settlement's years-long approval process, those who negotiated the deal have long expected it to be approved because of the sheer numbers involved. More than 85,000 athletes have filed claims for the backpay and just 600 have opted out or objected to the agreement — a paltry number that did not phase the judge. Advertisement Wliken's decision, coming XX days after the final hearing in Oakland, California, puts an end to what was thought to be one of the last looming hurdles of a deal: roster limits. In a concept authored by the power conferences, the settlement imposes new limits on sports rosters, many of which had not previously existed. In a recent filing, the NCAA and power leagues agreed to revise settlement language to permit schools to grandfather-in athletes on existing teams or those who have been cut this year, as well as recruits who enrolled on the promise of a roster spot. College sports is about to enter a whole new era. (Taylor Wilhelm/Yahoo Sports) With its approval, the settlement ushers into college sports a more professionalized framework but one, many believe, that is ripe for more legal scrutiny. Already, attorneys are gearing up for future legal challenges over, at the very least, the new NIL clearinghouse, Title IX and the capped compensation system — much of which can be resolved, legal experts contend, with a collective bargaining and/or employment model that college executives have so far avoided. Advertisement The settlement's approval is only the first in what many college leaders describe as a two-step process to usher in stability in the college sports landscape. Step 2 may be even more difficult: lawmakers producing a congressional bill to codify the settlement terms and protect the NCAA and power conferences from legal challenges over enforcement of their rules. Five U.S. senators have been meeting regularly in serious negotiations over legislation, but no agreement has been reached. Here's an explainer of college sports' new world delivered by the settlement's approval: Revenue-share pool Each school is permitted — not required — to share up to a certain amount of revenue annually with their athletes (the cap). Per the settlement agreement, the cap is calculated by taking 22% of the average of certain power school revenues, most notably ticket sales, television dollars and sponsorships. Advertisement In Year 1 — July 2025 through June 2026 — the cap amount is projected to be $20.5 million. While each school is charged with determining how to distribute those funds, most power conference programs are planning to distribute 90% to football and men's basketball, as those are, for the most part, the only revenue-generating sports for an athletic department. In Year 1, that's about $13-16 million for a football roster and $2-4 million for men's basketball, with the remaining amount shared with women's basketball, baseball, volleyball and other Olympic sports. While the 22% cap will remain the same through the 10-year settlement agreement, the cap money figure will rise based on built-in escalators (4% increase in Year 2 and Year 3), scheduled recalculations (after each third year) and additional cash flows into athletic departments, such as when conferences enter into new, more lucrative television deals or/and begin receiving new College Football Playoff monies. Advertisement Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork told Yahoo Sports this summer that he expects the cap to break $25 million by the time the Year 4 recalculation happens. There are exceptions, though, that can artificially lower the annual cap, most notably up to $2.5 million in additional scholarships that a school offers. Enforcement entity A new non-NCAA enforcement entity — an LLC predominantly managed by the power conferences — will oversee and enforce rules related to the revenue-share concept. The company, College Sports Commission, is expected to be headed by a CEO as well as a head investigator for enforcement matters. The entity is charged with assuring that schools remain under the cap and that third-party NIL deals with athletes are not the phony booster-backed deals so prevalent over the last four years. Advertisement An enforcement staff is expected to be hired to investigate and enforce rules related to cap circumvention, tampering, etc., and are charged with levying stiff penalties. Violators may be subject to multi-game coach suspensions, reductions in a school's rev-share pool as well as reductions in allowed transfers, and significant schools fines. However, the biggest looming uncertainty of the settlement agreement involves a Deloitte-run NIL clearinghouse that must approve all third-party NIL deals of at least $600 in value. The "NIL Go" clearinghouse is using a fair market value algorithm to create 'compensation ranges' for third-party deals. Deloitte is expected to approve or disapprove deals in as little as one day, and athletes can resubmit rejected deals at least once with alterations suggested by the clearinghouse. For example, Deloitte deems a submitted $100,000 deal between an athlete and third party to actually be valued at $50,000. The player can alter the deal to align with the clearinghouse's suggested figure or the school can cover the difference by accepting a reduction against their revenue-pool cap. Deals rejected for a second time are referred to the CEO and enforcement staff and are then processed through an appeals system via court-overseen arbitration. Arbitration rulings are expected within 45 days, according to the settlement. Advertisement Athletes who lose arbitration cases and still accept compensation in the rejected deal are deemed ineligible. Rev-share contracts Starting with the fall basketball and football signing periods, schools began readying for this new era. Some even signed players to revenue-sharing agreements that begin to make payments on July 1 or later, contingent on the settlement's approval. Other players signed contracts with school booster collectives that featured a clause assigning the contract to the school on July 1. For the most part, the contracts grant schools permission to use a player's NIL rights — a reason for the compensation — but these agreements feature language often found in employment contracts, including buyouts, athlete requirements and prohibitions as well as the freedom for schools to reduce the players' compensation based on their academic standing and performance. Advertisement Already, the agreements are a subject of legal scrutiny. In January, Wisconsin defensive back Xavier Lucas left the university to enroll at Miami despite signing a revenue-share contract with UW. In public statements, Wisconsin has suggested it will pursue legal action against Lucas and/or Miami, which, it suggested, tampered with an athlete under contract. Lucas' representatives believe the contract is not enforceable as it was contingent on settlement approval when signed. The situation is a potential landmark case on settlement-contingent revenue-sharing agreements.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Government struggles to cut foreign aid spent on asylum hotels
The government is struggling to cut the amount of foreign aid it spends on hotel bills for asylum seekers in the UK, the BBC has learnt. New figures released quietly by ministers in recent days show the Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) this financial year - that is only marginally less than the £2.3bn it spent in 2024/25. The money is largely used to cover the accommodation costs of thousands of asylum seekers who have recently arrived in the UK. The Home Office said it was committed to ending asylum hotels and was speeding up asylum decisions to save taxpayers' money. The figures were published on the Home Office website with no accompanying notification to media. Foreign aid is supposed to be spent alleviating poverty by providing humanitarian and development assistance overseas. But under international rules, governments can spend some of their foreign aid budgets at home to support asylum seekers during the first year after their arrival. According to the most recent Home Office figures, there are about 32,000 asylum seekers in hotels in the UK. Labour promised in its manifesto to "end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds". Contracts signed by the Conservative government in 2019 were expected to see £4.5bn of public cash paid to three companies to accommodate asylum seekers over a 10-year period. But a report by spending watchdog the National Audit Office (NAO) in May said that number was expected to be £15.3bn. Asylum accommodation costs set to triple, says watchdog Asylum hotel companies vow to hand back some profits On June 3, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told the Home Affairs Committee she was "concerned about the level of money" being spent on asylum seekers' accommodation and added: "We need to end asylum hotels altogether." The Home Office said it was trying to bear down on the numbers by reducing the time asylum seekers can appeal against decisions. It is also planning to introduce tighter financial eligibility checks to ensure only those without means are housed. But Whitehall officials and international charities have said the Home Office has no incentive to reduce ODA spending because the money does not come out of its budgets. The scale of government aid spending on asylum hotels has meant huge cuts in UK support for humanitarian and development priorities across the world. Those cuts have been exacerbated by the government's reductions to the overall ODA budget. In February, Sir Keir Starmer said he would cut aid spending from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% by 2027 - a fall in absolute terms of about £14bn to some £9bn. Such was the scale of aid spending on asylum hotels in recent years that the previous Conservative government gave the Foreign Office an extra £2bn to shore up its humanitarian commitments overseas. But Labour has refused to match that commitment. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy at the Bond network of development organisations, said: "Cutting the UK aid budget while using it to prop up Home Office costs is a reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government. "Diverting £2.2bn of UK aid to cover asylum accommodation in the UK is unsustainable, poor value for money, and comes at the expense of vital development and humanitarian programmes tackling the root causes of poverty, conflict and displacement. "It is essential that we support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, but the government should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul." Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said the government was introducing "savage cuts" to its ODA spending, risking the UK's development priorities and international reputation, while "Home Office raids on the aid budget" had barely reduced. "Aid is meant to help the poorest and most vulnerable across the world: to alleviate poverty, improve life chances and reduce the risk of conflict," she said. "Allowing the Home Office to spend it in the UK makes this task even harder." "The government must get a grip on spending aid in the UK," she said. "The Spending Review needs to finally draw a line under this perverse use of taxpayer money designed to keep everyone safe and prosperous in their own homes, not funding inappropriate, expensive accommodation here." Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: "Labour promised in their manifesto to end the use of asylum hotels for illegal immigrants. But the truth is there are now thousands more illegal migrants being housed in hotels under Labour. "Now these documents reveal that Labour are using foreign aid to pay for asylum hotel accommodation – yet another promise broken." A Home Office spokesperson said: "We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and continue to take action, restoring order, and reduce costs. This will ultimately reduce the amount of Official Development Assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. "We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4bn by 2026." Is the government meeting its pledges on illegal immigration and asylum?
