Britain's ‘cheapest seaside town' set for shipping container VILLAGE and new ‘beach base' in huge £25m revamp
THE UK's 'cheapest seaside town' is set to undergo a £25 million makeover, including a "shipping container village."
The north Yorkshire town, where homes sell for just £20,000, was allocated the huge sum by the Tory government four years ago, with all projects set to be completed by next year.
2
2
Amongst the exciting new projects coming to Redcar, is a new family entertainment centre events space and state of the art town library, on which £17.4 million is being spent.
In order to make way for the new facility, the former M&S and Goodwins buildings are being demolished, with work reportedly nearing completion.
Unfortunately, due to high inflation Catherine Clennett, who chairs the Redcar Town Deal board has revealed that some planned projects have had to be scrapped, in order to cut costs.
One project that will no longer be taking place is the painting of houses on Newcomen Terrace in bright pastel colours, to give the road a 'Balamory' feel.
However, it is hoped that funding may become available for this and other projects in the future.
In an annual report published on behalf of the board, it was revealed that the family entertainment centre should be completed by early 2026.
The report read: "The venue will attract residents and visitors into Redcar town centre all year round, significantly increasing the number of people using the area.
'This will, in turn, increase business for the many town centre shops and other organisations and add a new dimension to the area to enhance the retail offer.'
A total of £2.4 million of the funding has also been used to create a 'clean energy education hub' which will provide young people with the skills to gain work opportunities at Teesworks, the UK's largest industrial zone.
A new shipping container village, described in the report as a "beach base" received £880,000 of the funding and opened last August.
BBC's The Mighty Redcar shows what life is like for young people in the town
The 'village' has plenty of food and drink opportunities and is also intended to be a hub for watersports.
Another £4.9 million is being spent on giving the town clock, which sits at the end of the high street a "major facelift."
The revamp will include new paving, stylish seating and the addition of plants and trees to the area.
Councillor Alec Brown, leader of Redcar and Cleveland Council, who is on the Town Deal board, said: 'We all want to see a fantastic Redcar for the future which provides families with a better quality of life and the Town Deal projects will help provide this.'
Workington, Cumbria is another seaside town that has been given £25 million in investment, in a bid to boost job opportunities and revamp the area.
Cumberland Council has revealed its latest plans for the Port of Workington, just a few miles from the Lake District National Park.
These include millions of pounds worth of investment into real estate, infrastructure and roads.
Leader of the council, Councillor Mark Fryer, said: 'The Port of Workington can be a catalyst for growth in Cumberland; it is a strategic location in west Cumbria with a huge amount of untapped potential for job creation, green energy production and more.
'Want to partner with other organisations and the private sector to help unlock the potential for this site and we're actively talking to parties at the moment to bring in that crucial investment
"A huge amount of work has already been done, or is underway, to improve vital infrastructure at the port and we believe it is ideally placed for the right businesses to come on board.
"If you are a business who is interested, come and talk to us.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Chocolate lovers rush to Aldi as supermarket launches £3.99 dupe of viral ‘Dubai chocolate'
CHOCOLATE fans are dashing to Aldi as the budget supermarket unveils a £3.99 version of the viral 'Dubai-style' chocolate bar. Now available in Aldi stores across the UK, the 100g bar promises a rich and indulgent experience—without the luxury price tag. The treat features creamy pistachio layers and crunchy kadayif pastry, all wrapped in silky milk chocolate. Inspired by a viral hit that exploded on social media, the chocolate has already caused a stir online. AldiUK teased the launch on Facebook, writing: 'THIS IS NOT A DRILL. The Dubai Style Chocolate Bar lands in store tomorrow! Will you be picking one up.' Fans flooded the comments with excitement. One wrote: 'More temptation.' Another added: 'You knocked it out of the park with this. Absolutely amazing.' A third asked: 'Hey dear Aldi, are these a special or permanent fixture? Xx' The chocolate is part of Aldi's Specialbuys range, meaning once it's sold out, it may not return. With no buying limit, shoppers are expected to stock up quickly. This isn't the first time retailers have tried to cash in on the Dubai chocolate craze. Lidl's JD Gross version flew off shelves, and Waitrose offers a similar pistachio white chocolate bar for £2.75. Morrisons stocks its own version—Bolci Dubai Chocolate—for £5. The trend shows no signs of slowing down, as chocolate lovers continue to seek out these premium-style treats at lower prices. If you're keen to try one, it's worth getting to your local Aldi early to avoid disappointment. As word spreads, demand is expected to spike. To get the best deal, savvy shoppers are encouraged to compare prices using online tools like PriceSpy, Google Shopping, or Idealo. These platforms let you check price histories and spot deals across retailers. SAVE MONEY AT ALDI Grabbing hot Specialbuys like this chocolate bar is just one way to save at Aldi. The discount chain frequently tops Which? rankings for the cheapest supermarket, offering consistent value for everyday essentials. In April, a typical basket of 79 items cost an average of £135.95 at Aldi—cheaper than rivals including Lidl and Tesco. Bargain hunters should also keep an eye out for Aldi's red sticker items, usually marked down in the morning. These offer major discounts on products close to their sell-by date or with minor packaging damage. Aldi's budget-friendly alcohol selection is another way to save, with own-brand options often coming in much cheaper than big-name labels. Don't forget about Too Good To Go 'Surprise Bags', available in selected stores. These offer a low-cost mix of near-date groceries that would otherwise go to waste. How to save money on chocolate We all love a bit of chocolate from now and then, but you don't have to break the bank buying your favourite bar. Consumer reporter Sam Walker reveals how to cut costs... Go own brand - if you're not too fussed about flavour and just want to supplant your chocolate cravings, you'll save by going for the supermarket's own brand bars. Shop around - if you've spotted your favourite variety at the supermarket, make sure you check if it's cheaper elsewhere. Websites like let you compare prices on products across all the major chains to see if you're getting the best deal. Look out for yellow stickers - supermarket staff put yellow, and sometimes orange and red, stickers on to products to show they've been reduced. They usually do this if the product is coming to the end of its best-before date or the packaging is slightly damaged. Buy bigger bars - most of the time, but not always, chocolate is cheaper per 100g the larger the bar. So if you've got the appetite, and you were going to buy a hefty amount of chocolate anyway, you might as well go bigger. 2
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Why £100,000 is the worst salary you can earn
Last week, Money reported on the plight of the Henrys — High Earners, Not Rich Yet — and how Britain's tax system leaves those earning £100,000 feeling the pinch. Anyone earning above £100,000 a year after pension contributions (their 'adjusted net income') starts to lose their tax-free personal allowance of £12,570, at a rate of £1 for every £2 of earnings. It means those earning between £100,000 and £125,140 face a marginal tax rate of 60 per cent. At the same time, parents earning £100,000-plus lose 15 hours of free childcare a week and the government's tax-free childcare scheme, worth up to £2,000 a year per child. We asked readers for their experiences of being caught in the £100,000 tax trap, and what they did to mitigate it. Here are some of your stories. 'Extra NHS shifts would cost me more than I would earn' Louise Adams*, 46, an NHS consultant from southeast England I've been an NHS consultant for about six years. My pre-tax income is about £105,000 after my NHS pension contributions. My professional memberships (I can deduct from my taxable income) cost me another £3,000, and then I pay a bit extra into a self-invested personal pension to get my adjusted income down to £99,500, to avoid that £100,000 cliff edge. There's an awful lot of us in the same position. Pretty much anyone who's been appointed as a consultant in the past five years if they have children who are not yet at school will be in the same situation. If you have more than one child, it's even worse. It's one of the significant reasons for the waiting list and out-of-hours cover problems in the NHS, as it's not financially viable to do any extra shifts. I'm a single parent with a three-year-old daughter, so all the costs and care fall on me. I get 30 hours a week free during term time for about 38 weeks a year, plus the tax-free childcare is worth another £2,000 a year. I have someone who comes in at about 6.30am and looks after her until 7pm when I get home, then she goes to nursery two and a half days a week. Outside of the free hours, childcare costs me about £17 an hour, which totals about £40,000 a year. Frankly, I'm very lucky, I've got lots of family around and my parents also make contributions towards the paid-for childcare. I would be paid £100 an hour for any extra shifts, or £125 if it were outside 7am to 7pm. But I would lose my personal allowance, I would lose free childcare hours and my tax-free childcare, and I would have to pay for childcare for my daughter when I was working. So it would cost me more money to work extra shifts than I would earn, it's bananas. During the recent strikes when I came in, it actually cost me money to help keep my department safe. There are always extra unfilled shifts, someone might be ill, or there's a clinic on evenings and weekends in a bid to reduce waiting lists. More people would do those, but it's not financially worthwhile. It's a slightly valid criticism that I shouldn't complain as much about childcare costs as I'm a single parent by choice, but it doesn't negate the fact that I would do more work and help the NHS out if the system didn't leave me worse off for doing so. 'It feels like a disincentive for people to work more' James Preston, 57, an occupational health doctor from north London James Preston said it's not worth volunteering for more work JAMES PRESTON I'm not pleading poverty. I am in a very fortunate position. I'm single with no children, so I don't have the same financial pressures of some of my friends who have children and are still recovering from things like paying school fees. But the £100,000 rule just feels like a cliff edge. The fact that the marginal rate goes up to 60 per cent and then comes down again feels unfair and arbitrary. I have no problem with being taxed proportionately if you earn more money, but there is already a system in place for that with the 20 per cent, 40 per cent and 45 per cent for the highest tax bracket. To lose the personal allowance that is given to everybody feels like you are targeting a very specific demographic. I've had a salary just below the £100,000 mark, and when I was self-employed, I worked flat out to take my earnings above £100,000. If you earn over £100,000, you do just think: 'Why am I volunteering to add work to my diary if I am going to take substantially less in pay back home with me?' I've definitely made a conscious decision in the past to not earn over £100,000 to avoid paying the marginal rate. It's a concern for me that this is a disincentive for people to work. There is a shortage of people with skills and particularly marketable skills that command a higher income. It's a disincentive for these people who have the luxury to turn down work to keep under £100,000. 'We lose about £7,000 of childcare help for our twins' Erica Jackson*, 36, from southeast London, who works for a sustainable food company We have one-year-old twins and because my salary is above £100,000, while my partner earns £70,000, we get none of the tax-free childcare benefits or the free hours from the government. My children go to a childminder, who they love, for just three days a week. Our yearly childcare bill is still £24,800, and would probably be about £18,000 if we got the free hours and other benefits. We are very fortunate, we earn well and I am really aware that there are lots of people in more difficult positions than us. But it shouldn't be one size fits all, and the £100,000 rule shouldn't be set in stone if you have two or three children going through childcare at the same time. I think it's unfair; we have friends earning £99,000 and they are much better off because they get the hours. • Why a £2,000 pay rise can cost you £12,000 It's not just the childcare costs either — with twins, everything hits at the same time. For example, you can't buy a car seat and pass it down. You have to buy two at the same time, two high chairs, two cots. We just couldn't have any more children, absolutely not — the only way we could do it would be to wait until they were in school. Because I earn £125,000 it means that I miss out on the full £12,750 personal allowance. I wasn't aware of these rules and when I was younger, I was just always pushing for a higher salary. I didn't realise it could get more difficult. We rent at the moment and pay £2,400 a month to live in southeast London. We are trying to save for a home but we are now having to dip into these savings just to get by each month. 'I can't put more money into my pension — we need every penny now' Philippa Henderson*, 39, from Hampshire I'm frequently told: 'Just put anything over £100,000 into your pension.' But the reality is my pension is in good shape, and I need every penny of my income now. I have two young children, but because I earn £130,000 a year I have lost all my childcare allowances. At the same time, we've got a mortgage that costs us £3,500 a month and my commuting is £600 a month. I'm the higher earner in my marriage, and it's annoying that if my husband and I both earned £90,000 we would pay less tax overall and still receive childcare help. I do not mind paying tax — in fact, I wouldn't want to live in a society where rich people get away with paying very little — but the £100,000 threshold is not the level of wealth it seems. We do not have a flashy lifestyle. We drive a clapped-out old car and go to Cornwall once a year. We do have a cleaner but she recently dropped her hours because her benefits have gone up so she doesn't need to work as much. Meanwhile, I'm working 50 hours a week and paying for any help I can get. I tell myself it's just a phase and it'll get easier when our children go to school, because we're going to be using a state school so at least that will be free. 'I can't see a time I'll ever choose to earn a £100,000 salary' Darren John, 57, a pension consultant from London I now pay everything over £100,000 into my pension. I can't see a time when I'll ever take any pay greater than £100,000 as a salary. Working to pay 62 per cent of my income to HMRC is nonsensical. What makes it worse is when you see the government and others suggesting it's not fair that we get higher rate tax relief on those same pension contributions, even though we feel obliged to make them. It's a vicious circle created by a ridiculous tax system. I certainly don't have any issue paying my fair share but a tax rate of nearly two thirds cannot be fair in any reasonable person's mind. As an experienced pension consultant, I'm acutely aware of how we arrived in this position through successive governments, which makes me very cynical of the whole regime. Pensions are the one workaround, and these are now coming under attack by this government, which is greatly concerning. The temptation to move abroad is becoming an increasingly realistic option.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Biggest lottery prize in UK rolls over yet again after no EuroMillions winner
The biggest lottery prize the UK has seen could still be won after Friday's EuroMillions draw had no winners. Tuesday's jackpot will be an estimated £208 million and would be the largest prize awarded in the UK, National Lottery operator Allwyn said. The total prize money has now been capped, meaning prize pots in the next winning tier will be boosted. Andy Carter, senior winners' adviser at Allwyn, said: 'Tuesday will see the incredible £208 million EuroMillions jackpot still up for grabs. 'A win of this magnitude would create the biggest National Lottery winner this country has ever seen. 'Get your tickets early to ensure you're in with a chance of a massive life-changing win.' He added: 'The EuroMillions jackpot is now capped, so any money that would have gone into increasing the jackpot now boosts prizes in the next winning prize tier, meaning that we're seeing multiple UK players banking huge prizes for matching just the five main numbers and one Lucky Star.' In Friday's draw, five UK players became millionaires after matching five main numbers and one Lucky Star, winning £3.61 million each. The main EuroMillions winning numbers were 02, 28, 40, 43, 45 and the lucky stars were 03 and 07. It also saw 13 UK millionaires made through a special EuroMillions UK Millionaire Maker event. 'Contrary to superstition, Friday the 13th has proven the luckiest date in the calendar for these lucky UK players,' Mr Carter said. 'All UK EuroMillions players should check their tickets and contact us if they believe they are one of tonight's lucky winners.' No players won the £1 million HotPicks jackpot – which uses the same numbers as the EuroMillions draw. No players won the £500,000 Thunderball jackpot either. The five Thunderball numbers were 01, 02, 24, 33, 39 and the Thunderball number was 13.
