Your Voice Your Vote: Shrewsbury's North West Relief Road
"Professionally, I drive an HGV and often need to get around Shrewsbury and face similar problems [to those travelling in the town centre]... it is impractical to drive through town," said Mr Longmuir, who lives in Shawbury."So, if there's an accident or heavy traffic, especially around holidays, then it costs a lot of time."He frequently drives through the town centre to visit his wife's parents in Copthorne or take his young son to the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital."The centre of town is often the shortest and quickest route [in a car], despite the congestion. Building the relief road would make life a lot simpler and safer for everyone," Mr Longmuir added.
'More cars will come in'
However, there are various reasons why people are opposed to a new road, linking the A5 to the west of the town with the A5124 to the north east at Battlefield.Environmental campaign groups claim it would destroy the countryside, create excessive greenhouse emissions and result in veteran trees being felled.Others like Debbie Carvell, who runs a clothing shop in Shrewsbury, thinks the road would not solve the town's traffic problems.
"If you build more roads, then you just create more traffic and I think it would be a really bad decision to do that," she said."More cars will come in, instead of using the Park and Ride [or] bikes or walking into town."The cost of the project is another reason why many people, especially outside the county town, object to the road.The latest estimate puts the total cost of the project at £215m - more than treble the 2019 price tag of £71m.It is one of the reasons why the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green groups on the council wrote a joint letter to the government in February to say they would cancel the funding application as "a first priority" if they take control on 2 May.The letter, signed by Labour leader Rosemary Dartnall and Liberal Democrat Roger Evans, criticised the relief road for offering "no credible solution to the current and future traffic problems Shrewsbury and Shropshire face".
It means the road is almost certainly doomed if the Conservatives do not maintain their majority of councillors.National polling and the decline of Tory support at the last general election suggest it will be challenging for the party to hold on to power after next week's vote.Reform UK's national leader, Nigel Farage, mocked the price of the road during a recent visit to Shropshire.The party, which has candidates standing for all 74 seats available, said it was "pro-road" but very concerned by the rising cost of the project.
'Shrewsbury clogged'
The Conservative group on Shropshire Council said the relief road would take a considerable amount of traffic out of the town centre, improving air quality and the local economy.The party's concerns about traffic problems are shared by local businessman Tony Bywater, who is chairman of the caravan and motorhome dealership Salop Leisure, based near the busy Emstrey Island.
"Shrewsbury is clogged and it's not good for our businesses," he said."Our staff are having to leave home half an hour earlier than normal just to get to work on time. It seems to be getting worse every day."Shrewsbury is a fantastic place to live and work and the onus is on Shropshire Council to ensure that the town continues to prosper."You can find a full list of candidates standing in Shropshire Council elections on 1 May here.
Follow BBC Shropshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
20 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Majority of public back housing and developments in their area
The poll of 2,005 people conducted by Public First in July found that 55% of respondents would 'generally support new buildings or developments or buildings being built in my local area'. The research found that Labour backers (72%) and young people aged 25-34 (67%) were most likely to be 'Yimby' (yes in my backyard). Reform backers (44%) and people in the East of England (44%) were the most likely groups to say that they generally oppose development in their locality, the poll found. Overall, 33% of people said that they would generally oppose development. Sir Keir Starmer has pledged to put 'builders not blockers first' and 'overhaul the broken planning system'. In December, the Prime Minister announced new mandatory targets for councils when it comes to housebuilding. He said at the time: 'Our plan for change will put builders not blockers first, overhaul the broken planning system and put roofs over the heads of working families and drive the growth that will put more money in people's pockets.' In its report, The Quiet Yes, released on Thursday, Public First argued that a 'more representative planning system' is needed. The policy research organisation recommended that councils bring in changes to surveys and research on public opinion on building plans and questions about how residents would want councils to spend certain money earmarked for development. Jack Airey, director of housing and infrastructure at Public First, said: 'Most people instinctively support new development, yet their voices go unheard. 'Our research finds the public understand the housing shortage and back new homes, but the planning system doesn't reflect that reality. 'Councils and Government should build on this majority view, creating a representative planning system that unlocks support for new homes and the infrastructure communities need.' Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary Angela Rayner has said that Labour are 'overhauling the broken planning system'. She said: 'With investment and reform, Labour is delivering the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation, unleashing a social rent revolution, and embarking on a decade of renewal for social and affordable housing in this country.'
Leader Live
31 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Badenoch urges Tory councils to challenge asylum hotels in court
In a letter to Tory councils, Mrs Badenoch said she was 'encouraging' them to 'take the same steps' as Epping Council 'if your legal advice supports it'. Labour dismissed her letter as 'desperate and hypocritical nonsense', but several of its own local authorities have already suggested they too could mount legal action against asylum hotels in their areas. Epping secured a temporary injunction from the High Court on Tuesday, blocking the use of the Essex town's Bell Hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers on planning grounds. The decision has prompted councils controlled by Labour, the Conservatives and Reform UK to investigate whether they could pursue a similar course of action. These include Labour-run Tamworth and Wirral councils, Tory-run Broxbourne and East Lindsey councils and Reform's Staffordshire and West Northamptonshire councils. But Labour's Newcastle City Council and Brighton and Hove City Council have both ruled out legal action. Tuesday's High Court decision has also caused a potential headache for the Home Office, which has a legal duty to house destitute asylum seekers while their claims are being dealt with. If planning laws prevent the Government from using hotels, ministers will face a scramble to find alternative accommodation, potentially in the private rented sector. In her letter, Mrs Badenoch praised Epping Council's legal challenge and told Tory councils she would 'back you to take similar action to protect your community'. But she added that the situation would 'depend on individual circumstances of the case' and suggested Tory councils could pursue 'other planning enforcement options'. She also accused Labour of 'trying to ram through such asylum hotels without consultation and without proper process', saying the Government had reopened the Bell Hotel as asylum accommodation after the Conservatives had closed it. The hotel had previously been used as asylum accommodation briefly in 2020 and then between 2022 and 2024 under the previous Conservative government. A Labour spokesperson said Mrs Badenoch's letter was a 'pathetic stunt' and 'desperate and hypocritical nonsense from the architects of the broken asylum system', saying there were now '20,000 fewer asylum seekers in hotels than at their peak under the Tories'. The letter comes ahead of the publication on Thursday of figures showing how many asylum seekers were being temporarily housed in hotels at the end of June this year. Home Office figures from the previous quarter show there were 32,345 asylum seekers being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March. This was down 15% from the end of December, when the total was 38,079, and 6% lower than the 34,530 at the same point a year earlier. Figures on those staying in hotels date back to December 2022 and showed numbers hit a peak at the end of September 2023, when there were 56,042 asylum seekers in hotels. Data is not released on the number of hotels in use, but it is thought there were more than 400 asylum hotels open in summer 2023. Labour has said this has since been reduced to fewer than 210.
Leader Live
32 minutes ago
- Leader Live
UK military chief meets US counterparts for Ukraine talks
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin met senior US defence officials alongside other European military chiefs in Washington DC on Wednesday to discuss military options to secure peace in Ukraine. He later attended a virtual meeting of Nato's military committee, described by its chairman Italian Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone as 'candid'. On Tuesday evening, Admiral Radakin, the chief of the defence staff, had dined with his US counterpart General Dan Caine. The meetings come amid renewed planning for a 'coalition of the willing', led by the UK and France, that would guarantee Kyiv's security in the event of a ceasefire. Earlier in the week, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron co-chaired a meeting of the coalition, in which members of the group also discussed the possibility of further sanctions on Russia. Western security guarantees, strongly resisted by Moscow, are one of the central issues for any peace deal for Ukraine, which fears Russia could otherwise use a ceasefire to regroup and launch a renewed invasion. So far, only the UK and France have indicated they could commit troops to a peacekeeping force in Ukraine. In an interview on Tuesday Donald Trump ruled out an American ground contribution but suggested the US could be willing to provide some form of air support. His special envoy, Steve Witkoff, had earlier suggested the US could offer Ukraine a mutual defence agreement similar to Nato's Article 5, without Kyiv formally joining the alliance. Renewed talks among the 'coalition of the willing' follow last week's summit between Mr Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska as the US president continued to push for an end to a conflict he had promised he could finish on his first day in office. Those talks appeared to result in little progress towards a deal, but sparked concern among some in Europe that Mr Trump could seek to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into accepting a deal without sufficient security guarantees. On Monday, Sir Keir and Mr Macron joined other European leaders in travelling to Washington in a show of support for Mr Zelensky during a meeting with Mr Trump. Meanwhile, the UK and Russia traded sanctions as London sought to increase the pressure on Moscow to end its invasion. Europe minister Stephen Doughty unveiled sanctions on a series of organisations linked to Kyrgyzstan's financial services sector, saying they had been involved in Kremlin attempts to 'soften the blow of our sanctions by laundering transactions through dodgy crypto networks'. Russia in turn sanctioned 21 individuals, including former Labour MP Denis MacShane, several journalists, and the Government-appointed independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall.
