Council agrees to pick up £2.7m flood project bill
A council has agreed to pick up a multi-million bill for a major flood protection project that will help to safeguard a key road.
Suffolk County Council's cabinet approved a further £2.7m on top of £2m it had already pledged to the Benacre Flood Risk Management Project.
Under the scheme, two new pumping stations, drains and embankments between the A12 and the coast and 82 hectares of intertidal mud flats and salt marsh will be constructed.
Paul West, the council's lead for highways and flooding, highlighted the importance of the project and said "doing nothing was not an option".
"If this scheme were not to proceed we would be facing regular and prolonged closures caused by flooding of the A12, with all the cost and disruption that would entail," he said.
"Our further financial contribution presents council taxpayers with excellent value for money and secures this section of the A12 for the future."
The £59.1m project was largely being funded by the government and Sizewell C.
According to the council, if it were not to go ahead it could cost £235m over the next 50 years and compromise not only the A12, but also 200 properties and businesses nearby.
The council agreed on Tuesday to underwrite the project up to £2.7m during the construction period up to 2029.
Follow Suffolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Council could pick up £2.7m bill for flood project
Sizewell C commits £25m to A12 flood defence work
Emergency coastal defence works to protect A12
Suffolk County Council
Sizewell C
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Cash-strapped council 'not out of the woods'
A council that overspent by £5m last year said it would be "crucial" to avoid a repeat occurrence this time around. Peterborough City Council said it exceeded its £220m net revenue budget in the 2024 to 2025 financial year due to challenges such as high interest rates and delays in selling off assets. In a report being presented to councillors on 17 June, the authority said the coming financial year was going to be "difficult and challenging". It said: "Despite the improvements made, the council isn't out of the woods yet." The authority is currently in the process of selling assets to pay off debts, having already sold a football stadium, shopping centre and farmland in recent years. It expected to bring in £23.7m from asset sales last year but only received £10.3m after a delay involving the sale of a "large asset". The report said the council had been working to reduce spending last year by reviewing how it used agency staff and only spending where essential. It highlighted "significant pressures" in some areas, including in children's social care, where a £3.2m overspend was put down to a significant rise in the number and cost of placements. It said there had been a rise in the number of homeless people needing temporary accommodation, costing £1.7m more than expected, with 117 people in B&Bs in December 2024. Leisure services contributed to a £1.7m overspend and high interest rates, coupled with delays in selling off assets, added £1.9m to borrowing costs. These areas were partially offset by other areas where the council underspent or made savings, but still left a £5m gap. The council warned that its reserves were lower than required as a result, meaning it would be less able to respond to "financial shocks or an emergency". Reserves have dropped from £70m at the end of 2023 to £20.6m at the end of 2025. The council said it had made improvements in a number of areas including in-sourcing services and reviewing or closing council-owned companies. Councillors have been asked to note the council's financial position at the meeting on 17 June. Follow Peterborough news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X. Council sells £50m worth of assets to repay debts Nepalese community centre to reopen in city Council approves 316 homes as part of development Peterborough City Council
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
King Charles' shoemaker awarded royal warrant
A Northamptonshire-based shoemaker which made the shoes King Charles III wore at his Coronation has received a royal warrant. Gaziano and Girling, based in Kettering, also provided a number of bespoke shoes to the King, who made an official visit to the firm's factory in 2019. The warrants were granted as a mark of recognition to people or companies who have regularly supplied goods or services to the royal household. Dean Girling, who founded the business with Tony Gaziano, said it was "an honour" to be able to display the royal crest on its products. Shoemaking has been taking place in Northamptonshire for hundreds of years, but Gaziano and Girling was founded in a garage in 2006. It specialised in bespoke shoes, which can range in price from £2,500 up to £20,000 a pair, with its products particularly popular with customers in the United States and Asia. The company said each pair of shoes it made involved 96 hours of labour to create, with the King's shoes for his 2023 Coronation costing about £3,500. According to the royal family, there were currently more than 800 royal warrant holders. Mr Girling said the King had been "very interested" in how shoes were made during his 2019 visit and displayed a real interest in "keeping the craft alive". He said: "You have to be seen to be offering a product for five years before you can apply for it [a royal warrant]. Now we're able to put the full crest up and put it on our product stationery. "We're still relatively new kids on the block. People said we were crazy for setting up our business in 2006, but here we are, and we're still going strong." Chelise Porter, an assistant supervisor who has been with the firm for 11 years, said: "We're all really proud about it [the royal warrant]. "Just to be recognised in this way is an honour really. We all work really hard to make the best shoes that we can." Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X. 'Amazing' to make shoes for King's 'delicate' feet Gaziano & Girling
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Miliband has got his nuclear plans wrong. Here's what we should do
Yesterday, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband announced a new 'golden age' of nuclear energy. But with the wrong technology, unfit regulation and no real delivery plan, his golden age already looks tarnished. He's pinning his hopes on an already out-dated large-scale nuclear technology that has been plagued by construction problems in Finland, France and the UK and whose developer EDF is already moving on to a newer version. And while his commitment to small modular reactors (SMRs) is commendable, they are at best a decade away with no examples in existence in the West. While it is tempting to think you could simply hoist a submarine reactor onto a dock and call it a power station, this is unrealistic. Military reactors are designed for stealth, speed and war, not for civilian safety, grid connectivity or cost-efficiency. So Rolls Royce has had to develop an entirely new concept. In fact the current market leaders in Western SMR-design are GE-Hitachi whose small boiling water reactors recently began construction in Canada. However, given the imminent retirement of all but one of our existing large nuclear reactors, bigger is better for the nuclear ambition, and in this, Miliband's plan is woefully inadequate. Luckily, there is a solution ready and waiting: the Korean APR1400 design which has been successfully completed in both South Korea and UAE with eight units now in operation, built in an average of 8.5 years, at an average cost of $5-6 billion. Far cheaper than the £40 billion some analysts expect Sizewell C to cost. Around £6 billion is thought to have been spent already. The Korean design has been approved by both US and European regulators and should be a no-brainer for the UK: build what works. But to do this we need to take an axe to our overgrown thicket of nuclear regulation. The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) bizarrely reports to the Department for Work and Pensions, not the Energy Secretary, and sits beyond any meaningful strategic oversight. This well-intentioned separation has resulted in a regulatory regime akin to requiring 57 seat belts in your car – technically thorough, but practically unhinged. One requirement is that each new reactor design must expose workers to even less radiation than its predecessor. That might sound like progress, until you realise that radiation levels inside a modern nuclear plant are already so low they're hard to detect at all. The plant manager at one of our old Advanced Gas Cooled reactors (AGRs) once told me that the only time his radiation detector registered anything other than zero was when he left it on his desk and the sun shone on it. Nuclear workers are typically exposed to more radiation on the street than inside the plant. At this point, further exposure reductions offer no safety benefit. They just add cost, complexity and delay. The environmental regulators are as bad. The Sizewell C design is exactly the same as Hinkley Point C and the site is almost identical to Sizewell A and B. So why on earth were 40,000 pages of environmental statements required? This regulatory excess is expensive and draws out the process of approving new reactors beyond what is remotely reasonable. Britain risks running out of electricity. We had a near miss blackout event in January that was likely a factor in the renewal of the controversial biomass subsidies. We are also likely to see further small extensions to our ageing AGRs which are nearing the ends of their lives. But with a third of our fleet of gas power stations dating back to the 1990s and expected to retire in the next five years, Britain can ill afford delays to new nuclear plants. Particularly not the sort of avoidable delays our overzealous regulators have created. If Miliband is serious both about his golden age of nuclear, and more particularly, keeping the lights on in a decarbonised world, he needs to be far more ambitious. A truly serious plan would involve a programme of 5-6 large-scale reactors, and since the Koreans have the best track record, we should sign them up. He needs to get tough on the regulators. Abolishing ONR altogether and creating a new regulator, as part of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, with staff who are experts in risk management as well as nuclear safety, and severely curtailing the power of environmental regulators. One of the biggest benefits of nuclear power is its high energy density: it uses very little land to create a lot of energy. That should be taken into account, with regulators forced to look at the national picture rather than taking a strictly site by site approach. And he needs to stop wasting time with incentives for investors. They are not interested in the risk of our shambolic regulatory landscape. He should face this reality, and commit public money for the construction of the first two new reactors, re-financing once construction is completed. This would be a profitable strategy: the Government can borrow more cheaply than the private sector, the Korean design (with suitable regulatory restraint) can be built faster than the Hinkley design, meaning lower financing costs, and nuclear reactors are very profitable to run so investors will be very interested once the risky construction phase is over. He could even offer shares to the public in a 21st Century version of 'Just tell Sid' which remains the most successful public share subscription in UK history, and would perfectly align with Chancellor Rachel Reeves' ambition for UK savers to deploy their capital in the interests of national infrastructure. We need more than romantic notions of golden ages if we're to keep the lights on. It's time for hard-headed decisions, and a concrete, realistic and funded plan for success. 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.
