Tyne Bridge repairs: Final funding confirmed after review
While the Department for Transport (DfT) provided an initial £35.2m towards the repair works, a further pledge was made by former Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak for an additional £6.2m to cover the full costs of upgrading the grade II* listed bridge and the Central Motorway.That extra cash was placed under review by Labour and there had been serious worries among Tyneside leaders that it was at risk of being cut, the Local Democracy Reporting Service said.
Politicians and business leaders from across the North East united in March this year to call on the government to hand over the promised funding, warning that a failure to do so would be a "spectacular own goal".The frustration added to anger over the scrapping of plans to dual the A1 in Northumberland and the cutting of £50m in transport funding for County Durham, with the government arguing it had inherited £2.9bn of unfunded transport commitments from the Tories.Labour ministers, including Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, had repeatedly refused to commit to delivering the cash needed to complete the Tyne Bridge repairs.
But on Wednesday the chancellor promised to provide £1.85bn to the North East Combined Authority in an allocation covering 2027 to 2032, a chunk of which will be used to extend the Tyne and Wear Metro to Washington.North East Mayor Kim McGuinness said: "The record £1.85bn funding for transport we announced for the region this week includes £6.3m that will allow Newcastle City Council to complete the restoration of our iconic bridge in time for its centenary in 2028."The council's deputy leader Alex Hay said the authority had "lobbied for years to secure this funding and stepped in with the council's own money to make sure the restoration could start when it needed to".Gateshead Council leader Martin Gannon said the bridge was a "symbol of the whole of the North East so it's vital we get it back to its iconic best".
Follow BBC North East on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
39 minutes ago
- BBC News
Ex-Debenhams store in King's Lynn could become homes in £20m plan
A town's former Debenhams could be turned into housing, according to the chair of a board developing plans for £20m of this year, the government confirmed King's Lynn, Norfolk, would receive the money to help with Etheridge, who heads the town's "neighbourhood board", said the funding could be spent on a wide range of areas, including health, skills, jobs, cutting crime and possibility was that some of it could be used on feasibility plans for disused, large buildings, such as the former department store which closed in 2020. "They're big and they're empty because they're costly to repurpose. We're not going to get John Lewis or Zara or a massive store taking over," she said."But we could look at turning some into housing, for example, or into other multi uses. Whether that might be leisure, dentists or NHS facilities."The neighbourhood board and King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council have to submit initial plans to the government later this the meantime, they said they were looking for local charities and community groups to help gather views from the wider community on how the investment could be BBC has spoken to some people in King's Lynn to see what they think the town needs. "King's Lynn is now starting to be rundown. It's full of charity shops, coffee shops – very few independent shops left – no markets left," said Robert wanted money to be used to help new local businesses open in the town centre, with facilities in other parts of the town also improved."The Fairstead and places like that – their play areas are looking rundown, so money could be spent on them," he said."Or the North Lynn community centre, that's rundown – I'd like to see money spent on them." Mother and daughter, Sharon and Danielle Bowman, said they "loved" King's Lynn – but Sharon was also disappointed with vacant units in town – blaming parking charges for a downturn in trade."That's a big thing when the shops start closing – I think it's very sad, [having] lived in the town all my life."The pair agreed that better health services were needed."We've got so many more houses being built, but you can't get doctor's appointments like you should be able to," said Danielle. "It was a real loss to King's Lynn when we lost our dental access centre," said former nurse Shaun Claxton."It helped an awful lot of people with their dentistry and was a real loss to the community."That helped people who couldn't get an NHS dentist, people who needed emergency work and it was a very good service."It would be lovely to see it return." Dominika Lukasevic, 20, said it was hard to develop skills locally."Either we're just too ignorant or there's not enough advertisement out there for experiences and opportunities for young [people] who just came out of school.""The big universities are [at least] an hour away," she Roper, who runs a cafe in the town centre, said better bus services could draw more people in."If they put a park and ride in, that'd help the community - use the bus lanes more and get a lot more footfall in," he said."One of the biggest things that people get frustrated about is – why go into town and struggle for parking when you can go to the [retail parks] and have an easier life with free parking?" Follow Norfolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Lord Kinnock urges Labour to scrap two-child benefit cap with ‘Robin Hood economics'
Labour must scrap the two-child cap on benefits to lift children out of poverty, the party's former leader Neil Kinnock has said. Rising levels of poverty 'would make Charles Dickens furious', Lord Kinnock said in an interview with the Sunday Mirror, in which he urged ministers to introduce a wealth tax. Lord Kinnock, who led Labour in opposition between 1983 and 1992, is the latest senior party figure to pressure the current government to end the two-child limit on benefits. Former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown recently said ending the two-child limit, as well as the benefit cap, would be among the most effective ways of reducing child poverty. Lord Kinnock acknowledged the government may not be able to scrap the two-child cap 'all at once'. He added: 'But I really want them to move in that direction because the figures are that if that did occur it would mean that about 600,000 kids fewer are in poverty.' Lord Kinnock suggested such a move could be funded by a wealth tax on the 'top 1 per cent'. 'I know it's the economics of Robin Hood, but I don't think there is anything terribly bad about that,' he said. He warned that over the decade and a half the Conservatives were in power child poverty gradually rose. The Labour peer said: 'In 15 years, starting from a position where beneficial change was taking place, we've got to the place that would make Charles Dickens furious. 'It's been allowed to happen because the kids are voiceless and their parents feel powerless. I defy anybody to see a child in need and not want to help.' The two-child limit has been long-criticised by Labour backbenchers as a driver of child poverty. Ministers are expected to set out plans to tackle child poverty at the budget in the autumn.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Independence won't come to a nation feart of itself
Thing is, water doesn't really do borders. Seemingly, this (and much else) seems to have escaped the US president, who thought he could make the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of America with a swift stroke of a handy Sharpie. (Such is his legendary vindictiveness; he subsequently banned a news agency from White House press conferences following their refusal to sign up to this geographical lunacy!) In truth, land borders are always more problematic. Just ask Ukraine. Or Canada, for that matter, given Donald Trump's sudden enthusiasm for turning an entire country into nothing more than a US state. READ MORE: Tree-planting is not climate change fix, report urges And land borders became rather more difficult for Scotland when, despite voting Remain – as did Northern Ireland – we found ourselves adjoining a non-EU country in the shape of England. The difference with NI obviously is that they are now adjoining an EU country in the south unlike our being yoked to EU refuseniks; what Rishi Sunak rather infelicitously labelled 'the best of both worlds'. Indeed, Rishi. Meanwhile, the three Baltic states nervously eye their combined 543-mile-long border with Russia, protected, sort of, by their membership of Nato. Protected too by their somewhat belated withdrawal from an agreement which meant they accessed electricity from Russia rather than the EU. And also meant Moscow called the electric shots. However, they have had to contend with a whole spate of sabotage incidents damaging pipelines and cables under the Baltic Sea. Not a peep from the Kremlin, of course, but Vlad the bad would seem to have his fingerprints all over these incidents which, oddly, only occurred after the Baltic states did a new deal with the EU. When they indicated they were leaving the Russia/Belarus one, there was also a sudden spate of social media posts alleging huge price rises and supply shortages. Neither of which came to pass. What differentiates ourselves from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is the widespread enthusiasm for independence they enjoyed at the time of severance. Mind you they already thought themselves independent at the end of the First World War until the then Soviet Union contrived to annex them. But they managed to maintain their culture and their ambitions and so Lithuania declared full independence in March 1990, while Estonia and Latvia followed in August 1991. One of the highlights of their independence movements was a giant linkage of hands across all three countries and one of the most moving, the sight of Lithuanian weans singing their anthem word perfectly despite decades of suppression. Some of these activities were labelled 'The Singing Revolution'. Would that we could orchestrate something similar. According to the current First Minister, his plan is the only one which would confer international legitimacy on declaring ourselves a separate state. Some 43 SNP branches choose to differ. It will be, to quote his party, a huge 'democratic deficit' if the annual conference body swerves a proper debate on ALL the options. The longer the wait goes on, the more impatient I become for a Scottish government to stop being super cautious and risk-averse. READ MORE: Kate Forbes: Scotland's stories are being lost as tourists focus on aesthetic posts Meanwhile, amid the publishing furore accompanying Nicola Sturgeon's memoir, not many people have cottoned on to the reasons she gives for our not having Baltic-style smeddum. She traces it back to the referendum of March 1979, when a London-based Scottish MP came up with the notorious 40% rule which said that only if 40% of the entire electorate voted Yes, could it succeed. Not only would a simple majority not suffice (although, at 51.6%, one was obtained) but effectively everyone who couldn't be bothered to vote was assumed to be a No. Sturgeon wasn't old enough to have a vote herself at that juncture but she declares in Frankly: 'The effect of this on the Scottish psyche is hard to overstate. It's always been part of the Scottish character – or at least the caricature of it – that we talk the talk much better than we walk the walk. We are full of bravado but, when push comes to shove, lack the gumption to follow through.' There will be those who would turn the same judgement on her, given the various trigger points ignored during her term of office. But the point is well made. In various tests of resolve Scotland has proved too feart to take the ultimate plunge. Maybe we won't until, Baltic-style, we construct a huge and enthusiastic majority. If we needed further proof that Scotland is indeed a goldfish bowl for frontline politicians, we need look no further than the media furore surrounding the publication of the Sturgeon memoir. How much of this is down to the publishers extracting maximum coverage for their much-anticipated book launch, and how much is self-inflicted we might never know. What is undeniable is that every jot and tittle of the former First Minister's thoughts have been minutely scrutinised and analysed. Every time she opens her mouth these days, it seems to prompt another media feeding frenzy. It was the late Margo MacDonald who declared that if every indy-minded person convinced just one other voter, the 2014 poll would have spelled victory for the Yes camp. She wasn't wrong then; she still isn't. It won't be an easy ask. There are those who are implacably opposed to breaking the Union, and nothing and nobody will dissuade them. Their views can and must be respected but, to quote a certain PM, they are not for turning. Not ever. However, there is a soggy centre who can be won over with an honest appraisal of the benefits independence might bring. Not to mention an honest look at how the statistics are continually pochled and never in our favour. There must be a similarly frank flagging up of the downsides; few countries have made an entirely seamless transition to determining their own destinies. The bumps in the road will soon enough appear. Then again, no country has ever concluded that reverting to servile status is an option. I've just been reading a book about Scottish timelines which puts all of our significant milestones into both a UK and a global context. Among much else, it reminded me what an ancient and proud nation we have been, one which long preceded the Unions of the Crowns and Parliaments. Obviously, one of our milestones was the 1707 Act of Union, which rarely, these days, feels much of a union and certainly not a partnership. In those days, the electorate consisted of feudal nobles, lesser nobles with feudal rights, and representatives from royal burghs (with varying electorates). Even so, with Jock Tamson's bairns only able to look on impotently, the majority was a mere 43. That all led to a British parliament in which 150 Scottish peers were graciously permitted to anoint 16 of their own to the Upper House, 30 MPs were to represent the counties, and a whole 15 covering all the burgh districts. As ever, the establishment looked after its own. Thus were the most powerful recipients of feudal favours able, rather modestly, to shape the new parliament. Of course, we still await the answer to the question often posed but never answered; if this is an alleged partnership of equals, how can this alleged partner extricate themselves? Not that the breath is being held.
