£3,000 banners for Nottinghamshire road project that might not happen 'gathering dust'
Banners that cost Nottinghamshire taxpayers more than £3,000 are 'gathering dust' as the road project they were promoting remains uncertain. Nottinghamshire County Council spent £3,145 plus VAT to install 17 banners along the A614 and A6097 corridor between Ollerton and East Bridgford.
The banners promoted a major scheme to improve roundabouts and junctions across the corridor, but work on that project is yet to start amid continued funding uncertainty. The banners themselves were taken down after less than a year due to weather damage and the county council initially said they would be installed again this February.
Two months on, it has now been confirmed the banners will not go up again until after the county council election on May 1 and that the cost to reinstall them will be £2,210. Councillor Steve Carr, a Nottinghamshire County Independent Group councillor for Bramcote and Beeston North, said: "The fact that the Conservatives who run Nottinghamshire County Council have wasted thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money on roundabout banners along the A614 and A6097 corridor is appalling.
READ MORE: Plans to build 3,000 homes on Nottinghamshire farm are back on the table despite huge opposition
READ MORE: Criminal back behind bars for sneaky act he carried out while police waited for him to open door
"This project may never happen and the banners are now sat in Oak House gathering dust. £3,145 plus VAT for these banners might seem like small change to some but when you consider that the Conservatives have just wasted £40,000 on a rock sculpture near Yorkshire or £26.5million on a new Council HQ they may not even need – it is yet another example of the wasteful spending culture at the county council."
The county council has previously defended its financial contribution to the Scrooby Rock sculpture, saying it is attracting tourists and boosting the local economy. The Conservative-run authority also disputes the £26.5 million figure for the building of its new Oak House HQ - saying the cost was actually £19 million.
Councillor Sam Smith, Nottinghamshire County Council's leader, said: "The banners will go back up to advise road users that improvements are coming soon. It delivers on their priorities and it's important people know we are delivering on their priorities.
"Instead of focusing on the banners, the Conservative leadership at the county council continues to push the government for the twenty million pounds we've been promised after we managed to secure money from the East Midlands Mayor. The project remains shovel-ready and, instead of them focusing on banners, it would be good to have the support of the Ashfield Independents in lobbying ministers."
The Department for Transport has previously confirmed that it is reviewing the major £35 million scheme, which was first proposed back in 2019. The project was originally due to get underway in August 2024, but the general election last year threw promised government funding into doubt.
Nottinghamshire County Council previously said the overall scheme would cost £34.4 million, with the previous government pledging £24 million and the Conservative-run council investing £10 million. Yet the authority says every six months of delay on the project increases costs by £1 million.
The East Midlands Combined County Authority (EMCCA), led by East Midlands Mayor Claire Ward, recently announced £7.5 million of investment for the project which the county council hopes will act as a "catalyst". The EMCCA says its investment "will address a cost shortfall and thus enable the Department for Transport to consider the full business case and potentially allow the scheme to progress".
"We continue to work closely with Nottinghamshire County Council and will make any announcements in due course", the Department for Transport previously said. Councillor Smith confirmed slots are now being booked in for the reinstallation of the banners in May.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Colombian presidential candidate in a critical condition following assassination attempt
BOGOTA, Colombia — Miguel Uribe, a conservative Colombian presidential hopeful, was in critical condition on Monday after being shot in the head from close range during a rally at the weekend. In a statement, doctors said the 39-year-old senator had 'barely' responded to medical interventions, that included brain surgery, following the assassination attempt that has had a chilling effect on the South American nation.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What salary sacrifice changes could mean for your pension
The government has insisted recent reports indicating that it is considering changes to salary sacrifice pension schemes are "purely speculative". It comes off the back of research published by HMRC in May that suggested the government was exploring reducing the tax and national insurance advantages by changing pension contribution schemes for workers. While the research was commissioned by the Conservative government in 2023, the timing of its publication raised eyebrows because of it's proximity to Rachel Reeves's spending review on 11 June. The spending review is when Reeves will lay out all government departments' budgets for the coming years. It could also be a strong indication as to whether the government will need to announce any increase to taxes later this year in the autumn statement. Experts have told Yahoo News why the prospect of targeting salary sacrifice schemes would be so appealing for the government - and who would most likely miss out. A salary sacrifice scheme is a formal agreement between an employee and employer in which the employee agrees to reduce their gross salary in exchange for a non-cash benefit - like a bicycle through the Cycle to Work scheme - provided by the employer. In turn, as the employee pays for this through their salary, they not only pay less income tax, but their employer pays lower national insurance (NI) on the person's remaining take home-pay. As national insurance is one of the main revenue streams for the government, this means that when an employee enrols in a scheme, the Treasury misses out on the extra tax. When you use salary sacrifice for your pension, you agree to take a lower salary, and your employer pays the 'sacrificed' amount directly into your pension. Like with any other salary sacrifice, because your official salary is lower, both you and your employer pay less in NI, and you pay less income tax on your earnings. Salary sacrifice schemes are very popular, with 70% of UK pension schemes using them as the default method for contributions. If the salary sacrifice scheme was limited or cut for pensions, the government could remove or limit these tax and NI savings. For example, you and your employer might have to pay NI on the amount you sacrifice, or there could be a cap on how much salary can be sacrificed before the benefits are lost. "Salary sacrifice along with income tax relief makes it very attractive to save into a pension," Stuart Price, Partner and Actuary at Quantum Advisory told Yahoo News. "For a lower rate tax payer £1 invested only costs them 72p, and for a high rate tax payer £1 invested only costs them 58p. "If the provision of salary sacrifice is removed and hence national insurance relief is no longer provided these numbers increase to 80p for a lower rate tax payer and 60p for a higher rate tax payer," he added. By removing or scaling back the tax and National Insurance (NI) exemptions that benefit employees and employers benefit from through salary sacrifice, the government could boost its revenue. 'Salary sacrifice along with the annual allowance often appear top of the list of options when the government needs to save money," Helen Morrissey, head of retirement analysis at Hargreaves Lansdown told Yahoo News. The move would therefore be an attractive prospect for HMRC because it would generate "significant income". "I would expect that they would be in favour of the removal of salary sacrifice on pensions," John Mullaly, a group risk and healthcare consultant from actuary Cartwright Employment Awards, told Yahoo News. This may be even more significant as the government is just days away from its spending review, the process the government uses to set all departments' budgets for future years. 'The government may be tempted to turn its eye to salary sacrifice... particularly given the amount it costs in lost national insurance revenue," Martin Willis, a partner at independent consultancy Barnett Waddingham explained to Yahoo News. While the government might benefit, employees earning the least would be the hardest hit. "High earners may be insulated from any potential shift; the real impact would be on lower and moderate earners - particularly those using salary sacrifice to top up pension contributions," Waddingham said. The move could also be an additional blow for businesses after the government's hike on national insurance rates for employers in the last Budget. "Removing it now could disproportionately affect basic rate taxpayers and employers who've only just faced a rise in national insurance costs," Willis added. Morrissey echoes this. "At a time when employers are battling higher wage and NI bills, salary sacrifice might be seen as one way of reducing these costs – making changes will add an extra burden to struggling employers.' While both employees and employers benefit from salary sacrifice arrangements, Mullaly said employers "do not pocket all of the savings." "Quite often they use it to fund additional benefits to be used to attract and retain employees," he added. Additionally, if salary sacrifices adversely affect pension pots, savers could be discouraged from putting away enough into their pension — which is unwelcome news when the figure for a comfortable retirement continues to rise. According to the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA), to live a comfortable retirement in the UK, the estimated annual retirement income needed in 2025 is around £43,100 a year. "There does seem to be a trend of focusing on increasing tax revenue at the expense of all other considerations, rather than focusing on the underlying social reasons for having things like a pension," Price said. "The result of all of this is less money will be saved by employees towards their pension. Not a great thing when as a nation we are nowhere near saving enough for our retirement." Added to this, the change in uptake could affect how and where pension funds invest their money. "Many of the largest pension funds invest in our high streets, shopping centres and other real estate," Mullaly explained. "With many high streets already under threat, any reduction in investment is only going to make the situation in this area worse." While salary sacrifice reduction may be a highly attractive prospect for the government, it is clear that it would be far from popular. The Society of Pension Professionals has already warned the government against salary sacrifice changes, writing in a statement that it would affect earners "very selectively". Added to this, there would be some serious logistical hurdles to tackle to implement it. Firstly, Willis said implementing these reforms after the new financial year has started "would likely be far from straightforward". "Currently, salary sacrifice reward structures are set by employers, so implementing changes could be very messy, especially when it comes to capturing salary decisions for new hires or changes mid-year," he told Yahoo News. "Today salary sacrifice is largely used to support improved pension saving, and is limited since the system was already tightened in 2017." A government spokesperson said: 'These claims are totally speculative. HMRC regularly commissions independent research on all aspects of the tax system, and this research was commissioned under the previous government. 'We are committed to keeping taxes for working people as low as possible which is why, at last autumn's Budget, we protected working people's payslips and kept our promise to not raise the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, employee national insurance or VAT."
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Dozens of MPs back campaign to revive playgrounds
More than 70 MPs are backing a campaign to revive England's playgrounds as pressure grows on the government to do more to tackle community decline to fight Reform UK. Labour MP Tom Hayes has tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would ensure playgrounds lost to development are replaced. Politics Live: Mr Hayes told Sky News it is a personal subject as he grew up in poverty, caring for two disabled parents, and without his local playground "they wouldn't have been able to afford any sort of leisure activity for me". "Talking to parents these days, with the cost of living crisis going on, they just don't have play areas on their doorstep like they used to. What they have instead is rusting swings or boarded-up playgrounds." The Bournemouth East MP said this speaks to a "wider hopelessness" that people are feeling about "littering in their streets, graffiti on their walls, potholes in their roads". "It just makes people feel like nobody really cares about their area. That's at a time when people are feeling hopeless about the possibility of change and Reform, obviously, are trying to capitalise on that." Under the last Labour government, Ed Balls and Andy Burnham launched England's first and only play strategy, which aimed to create 3,500 new play spaces across every local authority - backed by £235m of funding. It was abandoned by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition two years later and facilities have been in sharp decline since then, according to Play England which has developed the amendment Mr Hayes is tabling. The amendment would require councils in England to assess play provision and integrate "play sufficiency" into local plans and planning decisions - similar to a law that already exists in Scotland and Wales. It would also require developers to deliver and fund adequate play infrastructure, with a focus on inclusive play equipment for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Mr Hayes said this would not cost the Treasury anything and "is such a simple thing" the government can do quickly for children and young people "who have been shafted for so long". It is backed by 71 MPs from across Labour, the Conservatives, the Lib Dems and the Greens, with many supporters hopeful it could also reduce screen time Pressure on government over left-behind areas Amendments by backbench MPs are not usually agreed to but can be used to put pressure on the government, with the issue to be debated in the House of Commons this week as the planning bills enter the report stage. Mr Hayes said his playground campaign was just the start as he backed the resurrection of Sure Start centres, following calls from Rother Valley MP Jake Richards last week. Read More: There is growing momentum among Labour backbenchers who want to see the government give more of a priority to social infrastructure to deliver tangible change to communities and fend off the threat of Reform UK. MPs and policy insiders have told Sky News they are concerned Downing Street's ambition to grow GDP with long-term transport and infrastructure projects will not make a difference in places that look and feel forgotten, even if achieved. As Sky News has previously reported, several Red Wall MPs have , which has identified 613 "mission-critical" neighbourhoods in need of a cash boost to ensure people in left-behind areas can benefit from growth. The commission, chaired by Labour peer Hilary Armstrong, highlights the need to regenerate neighbourhoods with facilities like libraries, parks and community centres for voters to feel a difference. Any money for such a project will be set out in Chancellor Rachel Reeves's , when she will allocate funds for each department over the coming years. One of ICON's supporters is Blackpool South MP Chris Webb, who has also signed Mr Hayes's amendment. He told Sky News playgrounds "will make a real difference to families in Blackpool, which has the most mission-critical neighbourhoods in the country". "I'm committed to fighting for policies that benefit our community, and I'm thrilled to be working with Tom Hayes MP, the play sector and Play England to make this vision a reality." Sky News has contacted the government for comment.
