Ayr town centre set to receive £16 million facelift from Levelling Up funding
South Ayrshire Council has been awarded £16 million by the UK Government as part of their Levelling Up Fund.
Ayr town centre is set for a £16 million investment after South Ayrshire Council were awarded Levelling Up funding from the UK Government.
Burns Statue Square could now see a range of improvements over the next few years after the funding was secured.
Three main streams for developing the town centre square have already been identified including the general regeneration of the area, a shopfront improvement scheme and an active travel route linking the town centre with Prestwick Airport.
South Ayrshire Council aim to start construction work in summer 2026 and it is hoped the project could be completed by summer 2028.
Detailed proposal are being drawn up and include plans for new public spaces, events areas and information points.
Businesses on Burns Statue Square and within the town centre could also benefit from the scheme to help revitalise tired shopfronts.
A number of public consultations on the plans are set to take place over the next year once more detailed plans have been announced.
Cllr Bob Shields, South Ayrshire Council's portfolio holder for developing South Ayrshire, said: 'We need to make more of this part of Ayr. There has been some progress with the new Astoria Cinema generating footfall and we need to build on this momentum.
'We will be looking at how traffic currently accesses the town, we'll also be promoting active travel and how we can work with partners to develop a transport interchange where trains, buses, and taxis could all operate from one central location.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Scotland's energy revolution must belong to its people
From Peterhead to Fraserburgh, from Buckie to Macduff, I've seen first-hand how energy has shaped my constituency. Generations of workers have kept the energy flowing to the UK from the North Sea basin. And even now, as the conversation rightly shifts toward renewables, as our North Sea basin is depleting, our region still stands at the forefront with world-leading offshore wind, green hydrogen innovation, and carbon capture potential like no other. But here's the hard truth: while Scotland generates the energy, we don't get to control the strategy. Westminster holds the purse strings and sets the rules. And as we saw again this week, that's holding us back. READ MORE: Taxing the rich is never on the agenda when politicians talk about being 'tough' The UK Government's latest announcement on carbon capture, the Acorn project at St Fergus, should be good news. And on the surface, it is. Acorn has the potential to transform our region into a global hub for net-zero innovation. It could create thousands of high-quality jobs, anchor supply chains in the north-east, and help the UK meet its climate targets. But there's a catch. The fine print of the announcement shows it's not the green light many hoped for. Final investment decisions are years away. It's development funding, not delivery. And we've been here before. The Acorn project is not just for carbon capture, but for producing low-carbon hydrogen that could power homes, transport and industry across the UK. There are also early-stage plans for a sustainable aviation fuel plant at the site, which could anchor hundreds of local jobs while turning waste into clean jet fuel. And crucially, St Fergus is set to become a key hub in the proposed UK hydrogen pipeline network. Once again, our country is doing the heavy lifting, and it deserves the power to shape what comes next. Scotland has been waiting patiently, while other carbon capture clusters in England were prioritised ahead of us. Despite our infrastructure being shovel-ready, and our skilled workforce standing by, decisions were delayed. Now, suddenly, we're being told to celebrate the UK finally noticing our potential, but without any real power to shape or accelerate the outcome. Let me be clear, I welcome any investment in our region. But we're no longer in the business of cheering handouts. We are a country that deserves agency, not just announcements. As an MSP representing a coastal constituency, I know what a just transition really means. It's not about cutting off the oil and gas industry overnight. It's not about abandoning communities that have carried the weight of energy production for decades. It's about careful, credible, compassionate planning. It's about looking workers in the eye and saying, you'll be part of what comes next. We need to bring the workforce with us, not leave them wondering where they fit in. That's why I've always supported CCUS (carbon capture, utilisation, and storage) as part of the solution. It bridges today's industry with tomorrow's ambition. It offers continuity as we pivot toward renewables. And crucially, it allows communities like mine to stay rooted in what we do best in leading the way. READ MORE: SNP leadership must bite the bullet on independence or step aside And there's another question I hear time and again from people in my constituency, not just about the future of industry, but about the future of their bills. Because what's the point of being energy-rich if households still feel poor? The reality is Scotland produces more electricity than we consume, and more than 110% of that comes from renewables. Yet families in the north-east are still paying punishing prices while energy companies profit and pricing systems favour the south. That's why recent comments from Octopus Energy's CEO struck such a chord. He said that if the system were properly reformed, people in Scotland living near abundant renewable generation could effectively see free electricity at times. His proposal, for what's called zonal or regional pricing, could lower bills in areas like mine, where clean power is generated and exported to the rest of the UK. In other words, Scots shouldn't just power the nation, but we should benefit from it. Of course, others in the energy sector have raised concerns about the complexity of implementing such a system, and it must be done carefully. But the core idea is sound. And it reveals something deeper, that the current system isn't working for ordinary people, especially in energy-producing communities. That must change. This year offers us all an opportunity to shape the conversation about where Scotland is headed. Energy should be at the heart of that. Not just as a climate issue, or an economic one, but as a democratic one. Who decides what happens to Scotland's resources? Who benefits? Who's accountable? These are the questions we should be asking. Because if we want a future where energy works for people, reducing bills, creating jobs, and protecting the planet, then we need to be honest about what's holding us back. READ MORE: Scottish fishing body accuses David Attenborough of 'propaganda' over new film We have already laid strong foundations. Public investment in clean energy. A just transition fund. Support for hydrogen, offshore wind, and local infrastructure. But time and again, progress is held back by powers that sit elsewhere. Energy strategy, infrastructure funding, pricing systems, taxation – all major levers remain at Westminster. So, let's make sure energy is not just a technical debate for experts behind closed doors. It belongs on the front page. It belongs in living rooms and community halls. It belongs in every conversation about Scotland's future. Because this isn't just about industry. It's about justice, economic, environmental, and democratic. If we want to see the full benefits of our energy wealth, lower bills, secure jobs, and a thriving green economy, then we need more than resources. We need the power to decide how they're used, and a government that fights for Scotland to get its fair share. Until then, we'll keep generating the energy, while others call the shots.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
What's behind the drive to cut public spending 'waste'?
Why does the Scottish Government need to cut spending in this way? Mr Sousa explained: "The Scottish Government is not allowed to borrow cash to fund any day-to-day spending, so it must make sure that its spending matches its funding. "This includes the block grant, as well any additional tax revenues from devolved Scottish taxes (including income tax) and the transfer of funds for social security devolution. "The Scottish Government's more generous pay policy in recent years means that the average wage of public sector employees in Scotland is about 5% higher than the UK average. READ MORE: "Coupled with Scotland's larger share of employment made up of public sector workers, this creates significant pressure for the Scottish Government. "The Scottish Government's social security system is also forecast to cost £2 billion a year more than the block grant adjustments [from the UK Government], between both devolved payments and payments without an equivalent outside of Scotland. This must be paid from a Budget that is only modestly growing year-on-year. "If we project recent growth rates for expenditure on some of the largest areas – pay, procurement, funding for local government – and even under conservative paybill arrangements relative to recent years, spending would exceed the projected funding (using data from the SFC and applying that to the Spending Review settlement) by well in excess of £1 billion. "And that's before we take account – for example – of any grants to third sector organisations or subsidies to public and private companies in charge of delivering transport." How can the Scottish Government cut back on 'public sector inefficiencies'? Mr Sousa: "If the Scottish Government doesn't want to change social security or tax, that would mean discretionary [or reduced] spending. "It could mean fewer public sector employees – be it through redundancies or not filling vacant posts, although that runs the risk of not having the right skills to deliver the Scottish Government's priorities. "It could also mean a less generous public sector pay policy, although that of course means more difficulty in avoiding industrial action. It could also mean cutting back on procurement spending, which has been growing – even if we abstract from the pandemic peak – by 7% a year in cash terms in recent times. And it could also mean less funding available for councils – although given the pressures in local government, that might mean difficulties in delivering services and pressure on council tax." Is the Scottish Government's objective to cut waste by up to £1bn a year by 2029/30 doable? Mr Sousa: "Every government always want to cut inefficiencies and not impact on service delivery. "And of course there are things that could be better. Last week, the Fraser of Allander Institute highlighted that the UK Government's targets on efficiency stretch credulity in the Spending Review, and the Scottish Government's appear headed the same way. "It's inconceivable that the exact same services will be delivered by spending £1 billion less. Rather, the Scottish Government will need to prioritise what really is important. "To govern is to choose, and choices will be coming down the track. In some sense, the limits on borrowing the Scottish Government is subject to will make this hard to avoid by the end of the decade. The timetable doesn't seem impossible – but it'll take time to implement, and no doubt will mean real decisions about what to do and crucially what not to do."
Telegraph
13 hours ago
- Telegraph
Scottish pensioners to get ‘at least the same' winter fuel payment as England
Pensioners in Scotland are to receive at least the same winter fuel payment as those in England, John Swinney has promised. The First Minister previously said that all Scottish pensioners would receive a payment of at least £100 ahead of the 2025-26 winter, regardless of their wealth. But in a big reversal last week, Rachel Reeves said all pensioners in England and Wales with an income below £35,000 a year would receive a higher sum. The Chancellor announced that households with a pensioner aged under 80 would get £200, while those with someone over 80 would get £300. However, those with an income of more than £35,000 would receive nothing. The announcement prompted Labour to demand that Mr Swinney review his plan to ensure that 'no struggling Scottish pensioners will be left out of pocket'. The First Minister used a speech on public service reform and preventative public health measures on Monday to confirm Scottish pensioners would not receive less than their English counterparts. However, he failed to provide further details. Speaking in Glasgow, Mr Swinney said: 'Keeping the winter fuel payment looks after our pensioners, but it also looks after our NHS. That is the sharp financial reality of the prevention principle in action. It is one of the reasons we were so quick to step in to protect pensioners in Scotland as best we could from that wrong decision by the UK Government. 'And now they have seen the error of their ways, my government will once again do right by Scotland's pensioners. I'm very happy to confirm today that no pensioner in Scotland will receive less than they would under the new UK scheme. 'Details will be set out in due course by my government, but the Scottish Government will always seek to do what is best for Scotland's pensioners.' Asked to confirm whether pensioners with income of more than £35,000 would still receive £100 in Scotland, he said further details would be revealed 'in due course'. But Liz Smith, the Scottish Tories' shadow social security secretary, said: 'The SNP followed shameful Labour's lead in axing universal winter fuel payments last year. 'And, like Keir Starmer, the Nationalists have been forced into a humiliating U-turn because of the huge public backlash. If cutting fuel payments to pensioners was the false economy John Swinney now claims it was, why did he copy Labour by ditching it in Scotland?' The Labour Government announced last July the introduction of a means-tested cap to the payment for pensioners in England and Wales. This meant that millions of pensioners were no longer eligible. Although control over the benefit is devolved, Mr Swinney argued that he had no choice but to follow suit as the cut south of the border led to a £147 million reduction in the SNP Government's funding through the Barnett formula. The payment of between £100 and £300 went to 130,000 Scottish pensioners in receipt of pension credit and other means-tested benefits last winter – 900,000 fewer than the previous year. Mr Swinney then used the record Budget settlement the SNP Government received from the Chancellor to announce that all pensioners would receive a payment of at least £100 ahead of the 2025-26 winter. Only those on certain means-tested benefits were scheduled to receive a higher amount of either £200 or £300, depending on whether they were aged over 80. Ms Reeves used last week's spending review to hand the Scottish Government an extra £9.1 billion over the next three years. A UK Government spokesman said: 'It is right that support for fuel costs is targeted. 'The Scottish Government will receive an uplift in their funding to support pensioners this winter.'
