OPINION: Common sense is needed ahead of Orwell Bridge works
Earlier this week, it was confirmed that the Orwell Bridge faced seven weeks of repairs, which would result in a partial closure of this critical piece of infrastructure for the majority of the summer.
The repairs to an ageing Orwell Bridge are necessary, and the proposals represent the least worst option available.
Nonetheless, they will cause huge disruption for residents and businesses in and around Ipswich, and I know how frustrated and worried people are.
We need a common-sense approach as we face this disruption.
That is why I urged Suffolk County Council to implement short-term mitigations to avoid the very worst excesses of this summer chaos, by postponing all non-emergency roadworks whilst the Bridge is partially closed.
This includes their proposed schemes on Nacton Road, Woodbridge Road and the Hospital to Waterfront Route.
It is my hope and expectation that my requests will be accepted.
I have also had a positive meeting with Cadent regarding their work on Woodbridge Road.
However, while the repairs to the Orwell Bridge may be unavoidable, the likely impacts will be amplified by a lack of an adequate alternative route.
In fact, barely a week goes by when the Orwell Bridge, the wider A14 and the road networks in and around don't grind to a halt.
The Orwell Bridge is set to undergo repairs (Image: Sonya Duncan) All this is the result of years of indecision, and the blame for this damaging situation lies squarely at the feet of those who have repeatedly advocated for a 'do nothing' approach and blocked the delivery of the only real option on the table.
People in positions of leadership, but showing none.
Five years ago, the Conservative-run Suffolk County Council, with whom this decision-making power lies, stopped all work on a Northern Bypass while failing to produce a credible alternative.
So, yet again this summer, Ipswich and the surrounding area will be asked to shoulder the burden for the Conservative failure.
Local residents will have the school run, the commute to work, and the trip into town disrupted because the Suffolk Conservatives have decided to kick this into the long grass.
Local businesses lose at least £1 million every day the Bridge is closed, yet this is the price the Suffolk Conservatives are happy for us to pay.
Thousands of jobs and billions of pounds will be at risk unless the infrastructure connecting the Port of Felixstowe is upgraded, but the Suffolk Conservatives are happy to gamble with the future of our local economy.
People's day-to-day lives and livelihoods are thrown into chaos.
Event after event was disrupted, all because of the negligence and disinterest shown by the Suffolk Conservatives towards our county town over many years.
Ipswich, Felixstowe, and, indeed, Suffolk as a whole, have continued to suffer as a result of short-term political expediency being put ahead of the long-term interests of our town and our county.
It is time to choose.
We can drastically reduce congestion in and around Ipswich, improve the lives of local residents and give certainty and stability to local businesses.
We can protect jobs and investment, not just at the Port of Felixstowe, but right across our local economy.
We can modernise our road network, prepare for life after the Orwell Bridge, and show the vision and ambition we need to set our direction for the coming decades.
Or will the same 'do nothing' approach prevail?
Will Ipswich and the surrounding area keep grinding to a halt over and over again?
Will the Port of Felixstowe continue to be left without the infrastructure it needs, meaning businesses will relocate, jobs will be lost, and our local economy will be kneecapped?
Will the Orwell Bridge hurtle towards retirement, with no plan for what comes next?
The choice is clear: it is bypass or bust.
I have made my choice.
It is time the Suffolk Conservatives made theirs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Spending review could mean cuts in Wales
Some public services are likely to face cuts if the NHS swallows extra funding announced for Wales in Chancellor Rachel Reeves's spending review, experts have said. There is a warning that "tough choices loom", even though the budget is expected to grow over the next three years. Labour said it was investing in public services by boosting the Welsh government's budget. But Plaid Cymru accused Wales' First Minister Eluned Morgan of "asking for very little and getting exactly that". The Welsh government can raise taxes, but most of what it spends comes in a grant from the Treasury. Its funding will be £22.4bn a year on average over the next three years as a result of the spending review. Key points at a glance from the Spending Review New stations in £445m 10-year Wales rail plan Reeves boosts NHS and housing as some budgets squeezed The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), an independent think tank, said funding for the day-to-day running of public services would grow about 1.2% above inflation. "While an increase overall, that will likely require tough choices and indeed real terms cuts for some services," the IFS's David Phillips said. "Increases in funding for the Welsh NHS could easily absorb most, if not all, of this increase." He said Welsh Finance Secretary Mark Drakeford will "have to decide carefully which areas to prioritise and which to cut back". About half the Welsh government's budget is already spent on healthcare. Waiting times for hospital treatment have risen to record highs in recent years. On Wednesday, the chancellor announced a real-terms increase of 3% to day-to-day funding for the NHS in England. That will result in extra funding for Welsh ministers to spend as they wish. However, Guto Ifan from the Wales Governance Centre warned: "If the Welsh government decided to transfer that money to the health service in Wales, which would still be below the historical growth in health spending, it would mean difficult settlements for everything else in the budget. "I would imagine that the Welsh government would have to make cuts to services outside health under this settlement." Reeves' spending review reveals how much funding will be available after next May's Senedd election. She also announced £445m for new rail projects in Wales, following years of complaints that Wales has not had a fair share of spending. She backed plans for five new stations in Cardiff, Newport and Monmouthshire, and rail upgrades in north Wales. First Minister Eluned Morgan said: "Wales will see significant extra investment in rail infrastructure, coal tips safety and Welsh communities will see real benefits that improve lives and create opportunities." Treasury minister Torsten Bell said there would be "record levels of spending happening in the Welsh government" and said previous Conservative governments "consistently let down Wales" on capital spending which pays for infrastructure. Opponents said the cash fell short of what Wales needed and criticised a ten-year timeline for the scheme - Labour sources said most of the cash would be spent much sooner. Plaid Cymru finance spokesperson, Heledd Fychan, said: "Public services, already teetering on the brink in Wales under Labour face further cuts as a consequence of Labour's First Minister asking for very little and getting exactly that." Welsh Conservative Senedd leader Darren Millar said the amount of rail funding was "shameful". "Today's rail spending announcement is an insult to the people of Wales," he added.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The treaty Gibraltar wants, for the future we all need
For over five years, Gibraltar has been at the centre of one of the most complex, technical, and geopolitically sensitive negotiations undertaken by the United Kingdom and the European Union since Brexit. The process has consumed me. It has occupied close to half of my time in elected office, taken over almost every waking hour of the last five years, and, in truth, deprived the people of Gibraltar of their Chief Minister in the way they are used to having him, that is, from fixing housing and parking complaints to defending their sovereignty in the international arena. For much longer than I would have wanted, I have been behind closed doors, in physical or virtual boardrooms, working through the details of a document that will shape the next generation of our people. It has been a relentless, exhausting endeavour. Throughout this time, the UK and Gibraltar teams have worked together seamlessly, 'hand in glove', without a flash of daylight between us. We have worked in close partnership with both Conservative and Labour prime ministers and foreign secretaries; from Dominic Raab, Liz Truss and James Cleverly to David Cameron and now David Lammy. What we have negotiated is not the product of fragmented agendas, but the position of a unified British family determined to find a solution worthy of our people. Without a treaty, Gibraltar could be staring down the barrel of a hard border, marked by endless queues, disrupted supply chains, and a deeply uncertain future for many of our businesses. Our hospitals and elderly care homes would face chronic understaffing, and the surrounding region would suffer the almost certain loss of employment for many of the 15,000 cross-borderworkers who depend on Gibraltar's economy to support their families. The services we deliver to our people would all come under strain. Our public finances would be pushed to the brink. The self-governing Gibraltar we have built would be diminished, replaced by something poorer, more isolated, more inward-looking, and ultimately less able to thrive as a proud, British European Territory. Instead, we now stand at the threshold of something remarkable, and not just for Gibraltar, but also for the United Kingdom, for Spain, and for Europe and our people. Something bold. Something forward looking and hopeful. Something that finally breaks free of the negative inertia that has defined too much of our recent past. This is politics at its most elevated. The service-led principle of working for our people's benefit and not the performative personal antagonism that too often infects public life. Real, hard graft that overcomes challenges to deliver progress. This is the kind of result our people demand when they voice distrust and decry the political 'establishment'. Our Spanish and EU counterparts, for their part, have brought to the table a seriousness of purpose that also reflects the gravity of the moment. They, too, have recognised that this treaty is not merely about fluidity of movement, but about unlocking human and economic potential across borders. Make no mistake: the treaty that is now within reach is not one that the Gibraltarians have been forced to accept. Our people voted for us to have a mandate to turn our New Year's Eve agreement of 2020 into a UK/EU agreement/treaty. So we say 'yes' to this agreement, but not because we don't know how to say 'no' when we have to. We did so, emphatically, in 2002, when we triggered a referendum to reject Jack Straw's proposal of joint sovereignty with Spain, and I am just as adamant today that this treaty will not in any way compromise British sovereignty over Gibraltar. That will be set out, black upon white, in the treaty when it is published. It is a legal undertaking given by both sides in clear and unequivocal terms. So to be clear: in this treaty we have not ceded any control of Gibraltar to any authority. Just like today, only Gibraltar will decide who enters Gibraltar – exactly as we agreed in 2020 when Dominic Raab was foreign secretary and Boris Johnson was prime minister. This treaty unleashes the potential to usher in a new era. One in which we move beyond the tired narratives of the past on constant sovereignty disputes, towards a future defined by hope, cooperation and shared prosperity. It will pave the way for better jobs, more investment and lasting stability for Gibraltar and the wider region. It can deliver more harmonious human relations and a better quality of life for all our people. When you read it, I ask that you to look up from the pages of this treaty and see that better reality as it peers back at us from the future. This will be the treaty Gibraltar wants. It will be a treaty the UK and the EU can be proud of. And it will be a treaty that will propel us all to the better future politicians are elected to deliver. When the time comes, back Gibraltar and its proudly British people by backing the Gibraltar treaty. Fabian Picardo is the chief minister of Gibraltar Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Business leader says BC Ferries' hiring of Chinese shipyard is 'informed decision'
VICTORIA — A business leader on ferry-dependent Vancouver Island says BC Ferries made a "strongly informed decision" in hiring a Chinese shipyard to build four new major vessels. Both the NDP government and B.C. Conservative Opposition have criticized the choice of Chinese state-owned China Merchants Industry Weihai Shipyards to build the new ferries. Bruce Williams, CEO of the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce, said the Chinese contract in the best interests of all who rely on BC Ferries, adding that BC Ferries needs more capacity to meet growing demand. "So, this is very timely, and it's a good thing to have this happen," Williams said. The decision is also making waves in Ottawa, where Conservative MP Jeff Kibble, whose riding neighbours Victoria, asked Transport Minister Chrystia Freeland whether Ottawa would make a $33-million federal grant to BC Ferries conditional on buying Canadian-built ships. Freeland said she "absolutely" shared concerns about procurement at all levels, but noted that the ferry agreement was not a federal contract. Williams said few companies around the world have the capacity to build vessels of such size, and BC Ferries did "due diligence" for years in a global procurement process that did not receive any Canadian bids. "So, at this point, I think it's in the best interest of all the people, who rely on BC Ferries … especially up and down the coast in communities that are very reliant upon it," he said. Williams said he would like to see a fifth vessel added to the contract to meet growing demand. The independent BC Ferry Commission rejected a request by BC Ferries earlier this year to add a fifth major vessel to the contract, saying it is "neither essential nor affordable." "It's too bad the fifth one hasn't been approved by the Ferry Commissioner, but it's great to see this, because the fleet is aging," Williams said. Dan McGreer, an adjunct professor in UBC's Faculty of Applied Science, previously worked for a firm that did some of the early concept development for the new ferries, but he wasn't involved in the contract. McGreer couldn't say why BC Ferries chose that shipyard. "But I suspect that the advantage the Chinese shipyard had is a lower cost," he said, noting Chinese wages in the shipbuilding industry are "significantly lower" than in Canada. "I know that BC Ferries did evaluate their capability … and I believe they were comfortable that the shipyard could build the ships," McGreer said. McGreer said their quality from Chinese shipyards "is reasonably good," but construction needs to be "carefully" monitored. "I think some of the European (shipyards) do have a longer experience and a higher reputation for quality, but I think the Chinese yards do deliver a product with reasonable quality." Canadian shipbuilder Seaspan said in a statement after the request for proposals was issued last year that shipyards and their suppliers in Canada can't compete with countries that have low wages and lower safety and environmental standards. The B.C. Conservatives have called on Premier David Eby's government to cancel the contract that was announced on Tuesday, while accusing the premier of abandoning Canadian workers. Opposition transport critic Harman Bhangu said in a statement that the "deal is fully within the government's control" because BC Ferries board chair Joy MacPhail is a former NDP cabinet minister. 'Premier Eby put on a big show of not stopping in China on his trade mission to Asia,' Bhangu said. 'Then the NDP sends billions of dollars to a state-owned shipyard in China.' Transportation Minister Mike Farnworth said Tuesday that he raised concern with BC Ferries about the contract, but notes that the operator is an independent company that makes its own operational decisions. The provincial government is the sole preferred shareholder in BC Ferries and it receives public funding, and Williams said the purchase decision was not a government decision. When asked about Farnworth's comments, Williams said his organization is "politically agnostic" in reserving comment. "But I think that the most important thing to remember is that BC Ferries will have a team on site … in China, overseeing the project," he said. The four new major vessels will offer 52 per cent more space for passengers and 24 per cent more space for vehicle compared to the vessels they are replacing. The ferries will also feature diesel-battery hybrid propulsion systems that could fully run on electricity in the future, propellers that minimize underwater noise that impacts at-risk whales. The first of the four new vessels is scheduled to enter service in the spring of 2029. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 11, 2025. Wolfgang Depner, The Canadian Press Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
