£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
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Welsh FM accused of doing ‘nothing' to protect pensioners from winter fuel cut
The First Minister of Wales has been accused of doing 'absolutely nothing' to protect pensioners, following a UK Government U-turn on winter fuel payment cuts. Darren Millar, leader of the Welsh Conservatives, called for Eluned Morgan to apologise to the pensioners affected by the change last winter, arguing the Welsh Government should have stepped in to support those in need. Speaking during First Minister's Questions on Tuesday, Mr Millar said the cut had forced vulnerable people to choose between heating and eating. Baroness Morgan, leader of the Welsh Labour Government, said she was 'absolutely delighted' that the UK Government had reversed the cut for many. The payment, worth up to £300, will be restored to the vast majority of pensioners, with anyone with an income of under £35,000 a year now getting the payment automatically. The decision last July to restrict the winter fuel payment to the poorest pensioners was intended to save around £1.5 billion a year, with more than nine million people who would have previously been eligible losing out. Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, announced the partial U-turn on Monday, following significant backlash from charities, opposition MPs and the Government's own backbenchers. Speaking in the Senedd, Mr Millar said: 'Yesterday we saw a screeching U-turn on the winter fuel allowance by Rachel Reeves, after considerable pressure from the Conservative Party. 'You will know that over half a million Welsh pensioners were deprived of their winter fuel payments last year, leaving some very vulnerable people with the unenvious choice of having to choose between heating and eating – it's an absolute disgrace. 'You are meant to stand up for Wales but what did you actually do in terms of this winter fuel allowance? You did absolutely nothing.' Mr Millar argued Baroness Morgan should have implemented a Welsh winter fuel payment or stood up to Sir Keir Starmer and demanded the payment be restored sooner. Baroness Morgan responded that she was 'absolutely delighted' that Sir Keir Starmer had listened to pensioners in Wales and across the country. 'I'm really pleased that because we have made representations to the Prime Minister on this issue that he has changed his mind and that will make a difference to hundreds of thousands of pensioners across Wales this winter, in a country where we do have more older people and housing which is more difficult to heat. 'I don't think that it's bad to listen to people and then to make sure that you respond to them.' Baroness Morgan had previously pushed back against the cut, having called for a 'rethink' in early May, saying it was something 'that comes up time and again'. At the time, the Government said there would 'not be a change to the Government's policy'. On Monday, Ms Reeves suggested that the 'stability we've brought back to the economy' meant the Government was able to change the eligibility threshold for winter fuel payments.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Voices: Wes Streeting has won the spending review – but will he blow his winnings?
If Rachel Reeves did the spending review like a game show, she could invite her cabinet colleagues to 'come on down' the catwalk between the two red lines in the Commons, to music and strobe lights, to take their seats on the front bench. She could announce the winners of the competition for public funding over the next three years in reverse order, with David Lammy, the foreign secretary – who has lost a big chunk of his foreign aid budget – going first, followed by Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, and Steve Reed, environment. The last to be summoned, as the ABBA soundtrack switches from 'Money, Money, Money' to 'The Winner Takes It All', would be Wes Streeting, the health secretary, who has been allocated spending increases of 2.8 per cent a year more than inflation over the three years from next year to 2029. Arms in the air, in a sequinned jacket, as glitter falls from the ceiling, Streeting would take his place next to John Healey, the defence secretary, at the top of the line of winners and losers. Sadly, the announcement of spending plans for the rest of this parliament will be less showbiz. Reeves will try to generate a bit of excitement, and maybe even some waving of order papers, by spinning the big and welcome increase in capital investment – although she has already cannibalised some of her good news stories with her transport infrastructure announcement last week and the go-ahead for Sizewell C nuclear power station today. The problem with the capital projects, though, is that they will not start until 2027 at the earliest, so they won't have delivered anything except feelgood press releases before the next election. Whereas the big increase in day-to-day spending on the NHS is the kind of vote-winning largesse for which Labour MPs are desperate. In the absence of glitter and balloons, the waving of order papers will be compulsory on the government benches at this point. But wait: who is this, coming to spoil the party? It is the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), performing its constitutional role of puncturing inflated government claims. Labour, having used the IFS to attack the Conservatives at fiscal events over the previous 14 years, will find that the tables have turned (even if the Treasury insists that this is not a 'fiscal event' – it is merely allocating a spending total set at the Budget). Max Warner and Ben Zaranko of the IFS have written a paper for the Oxford Review of Economic Policy entitled 'Future challenges for health and social care provision in the UK'. It contains some startling facts, such as that, by the middle of the next decade, the NHS will employ 10 per cent of the entire workforce of England. It also contains a striking table showing the increase in the number of doctors and nurses employed in the NHS since 2019, and the increase in treatments. There are 18 per cent more consultants, 32 per cent more resident doctors (who were called junior doctors in the old days, a year ago) and 23 per cent more nurses and health visitors, which are huge increases in just five years. But the outputs from such dramatic increases have been disappointing. Hospital admissions have risen by just 9 per cent (except A&E admissions, up 2 per cent), and outpatient appointments have increased by just 12 per cent. The IFS authors comment: 'The large fall in NHS hospital productivity since the start of the pandemic complicates the picture.' They say there are two scenarios for the future: 'The optimistic view is that there is substantial scope for 'catch-up' improvements in productivity: merely returning to pre-pandemic levels would represent a considerable improvement. The more pessimistic view is that the pandemic has permanently lowered NHS productivity, because of the ongoing impacts of Covid-19 on patient health and complexity and changes to working practices or expectations.' They tentatively conclude that there are recent signs that NHS productivity is recovering, but the loss of capacity is still alarming. Despite the huge amounts of extra spending devoted to the NHS since the election, and promised for the next three years, no one in the think tanks that specialise in the health service thinks that Labour's targets will be hit by the next election. Will Streeting, the lucky winner of the spending review showdown, be able to convince the voters that he has spent their money well?
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
OPINION - The City wanted Labour to succeed, but the goodwill has been rapidly squandered
In April 2024 the boardrooms in the City of London and some from industry and commerce were buzzing with excitement at the prospect of Labour taking over from a rudderless Conservative administration. In the previous four years, the Tory government never recovered from the damage inflicted by Covid, coupled with indolent leadership from three Prime Ministers in double quick time. This was Labour's time. The mood was upbeat. 'Fear initially knocked at the door, faith answered; no one was there.' The smoked salmon bagel breakfasts hosted for combinations from Messrs Starmer, Reeves, Reynolds and Siddiq were very encouraging. The PM in waiting and his colleagues had charmingly reassured their board table hosts that Labour was the party for business and growth. Business had nothing to worry about. Labour was very much 'on-side' and knew unequivocally that to achieve growth, incentives to invest must be encouraged. All Labour's ducks seemed to be set up cleverly in a row. It took only six months for the reassured to start having considerable doubts, such was the damage inflicted on business by an increase on employers' share of National Insurance Contributions. There were also very little in the way of incentives to encourage inward investment, despite the formation of the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank to support Labour's ambitious plans for massive infrastructure projects. Confidence in the new government started to fall like a stone. Global investors seemed very reluctant to support some of our aspiring SMES, especially the fin-tech operations. Many market activists have blamed Brexit, which had only been delivered in name only. What was so frustrating was the ineptness of the Conservatives, which failed to deliver a gold-plated certainty – the increased prosperity of the 'City' – the quintessential cash cow. The financial sector in the UK was already delivering £75 billion of revenue per annum to the HM Treasury's coffers and there could have been so much more to come. The previous Government failed to capitalise on the value of the City. Brexit should have been a 'slam-dunk' for the City. Sadly, no exciting tax incentives for companies to set up in the UK were put into place. Regulation was far too onerous and cumbersome. Also, if the UK aspired to be the world's leading financial centre, charging stamp duty on trading shares was unrealistic financial nonsense. Also spiteful legislation towards 'non-doms' just exacerbates the negative perception of the UK's ability to create growth. The '80's were the halcyon years for the City, triggered by the abolition of exchange controls in 1979, followed up in 1986 by 'Big Bang', which saw international investment banks such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank and UBS rub shoulders and then usurp many of the grand old merchant banks of the day such as SG Warburg, Morgan Grenfell, Schroders, Samuel Montagu and Barclays Capital. The introduction of the LIFFE futures market in 1984 and the explosion of derivative trading triggered the expansion of capital markets and a tsunami of IPOS and privatisations. London still remains a major financial hub. However, there is some alarming unappetising data to reckon with. In 2007, the UK had 252 Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) on the London Stock Exchange. This represented a decrease from the 367 IPOs the previous year, with overseas IPOs attracted 86 companies from 22 countries. Last year was a poor year for IPOS, mainly due to a dip in confidence and geopolitical issues – just 17 in total here in London and 18 so far this year. There have been 58 IPOS in New York since January 2025. What is very worrying is that in the last year 88 companies have delisted in London. The delisting started with ARM, which left London supposedly valued at $32 billion, is now valued at $138 billion! Flutter and DarkTrace - fallen to US private equity- plus many others have followed. It is generally acknowledged that US fund managers have access to many more investors and consequently greater liquidity has contributed to a 25% valuation premium there. A lack of confidence and enthusiasm in the UK economy have encouraged moves to New York. Recently, Revolut served notice to establish a new Western Europe HQ in Paris and earlier last week 'Wise' said it will be delisting in London and heading for New York. It is alarming to note that only 4% of the LSE'S annual income is derived from stock exchange business. The rest comes from technology (Refinitiv). The LSE needs to raise its game, as does AIM. Aquis Exchange have hosted 4 IPOS so far this year and the outlook, under fresh ownership of 'Six' looks encouraging. Monzo, Starling Bank, Virgin Atlantic, ASDA and Boots are in the mix of companies that may seek public quotations this year, but much depends on market conditions. Hong Kong's Shein's IPO remains in doubt. If the Government believes in growth, then its emissaries, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds, Economc Secretary Emma Reynolds and investment minister Baroness Poppy Gustafsson need to wake up and smell the coffee? Business's risk appetite is at a low ebb. Confidence and sentiment are stagnant. Investors are vital. They must be encouraged with incentives! Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
