Shrewsbury relief road costs set at £215m as budget talks loom
The cost of completing a ring road around Shrewsbury has been calculated at £215m, Shropshire Council has revealed.The authority set out the costs of the Shrewsbury North West Relief Road (NWRR) ahead of next week's budget meeting, and the implications of continuing with it, or cancelling.Council chiefs said the government or the council could cancel, but whoever did so would become liable for £39m of money already spent.Councillors have heard building the road would add £6m annually to day-to-day spending, but it would be better than cancelling.
James Walton, Shropshire Council's top finance officer, said from a purely financial point of view, "it would be better to build it."Councillor Gwilym Butler, cabinet lead for finance, said: "It is vital that councillors fully understand, and carefully consider the implications of the various possible outcomes."
'Election issue'
It comes as the council heads towards local elections in May and council leader Lezley Picton denied that the move to release the figures was a political decision.She said she remained committed to the scheme and this was the year when final decisions had to be made. Picton said she believed the scheme aligned with the government's growth agenda.If the Tories lost control of the council in May, any new political leadership would face the same issues, she added.Three opposition parties have said they will scrap the scheme if they win in May, it was revealed earlier this month.
The NWRR comprises two road schemes, the Oxon Link Road and the North West Relief Road.It is the largest infrastructure scheme ever undertaken by Shropshire Council.One of the options is to progress with the Oxon Link Road and cancel the relief road, but that move was estimated to come with a further £46m costs and £32m sunk costs, with a total liability of £78m.Planning permission for the overall NWRR scheme was given in 2023, subject to agreements between the council and a developer.Once that is in place, a business case can go to full council and then, if approved, the Department for Transport.
Follow BBC Shropshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Labour has improved its welfare bill. I still won't be voting for it
Reading the news you could be forgiven for thinking a week of drama in Westminster had finally concluded on Friday morning, with a deal between the government and some of the Labour MPs who signed the proposed reasoned amendment to the universal credit and personal independence payment (Pip) bill. No doubt the changes will be sufficient for some colleagues, but having considered the concessions offered, I'm afraid that as things stand I – and a large number of other signatories – cannot support what is being proposed when voting takes place on Tuesday. This isn't something I do easily. The Labour party is my home. I was born into a family of Labour activists and joined as soon as I was able. I was a student activist, a councillor and then an MP for Crawley. I have campaigned in every election from Neil Kinnock to Keir Starmer and I didn't spend 14 years fighting to return Labour to government just so I could cause trouble. However, 14 years in local government taught me a few things, not least the utter devastation to households and neighbourhoods directly caused by the Tories' cuts to social security. I am loyal to my country, my constituency and my party – that is precisely why, on this bill, I cannot be loyal to the government. I accept that the concessions are an improvement. By making it clear that those already in receipt of Pip will continue to receive it, there is a hope we can avoid the tragic loss of life that followed the last set of disability cuts. Yet at its core, the bill remains a cost-cutting exercise. No matter the level of involvement of disability groups in co-producing a scheme for new applicants, to save money the proposed changes will inevitably result in people with high levels of need losing the support necessary to wash themselves, dress themselves and feed themselves. From the start, I have tried to use the routes available to MPs to improve what was on offer, beginning with the No 10 engagement meetings immediately prior to the publication of the green paper and ending last week with visits to very senior figures and the whips' office. I made it clear to them that they did not have the numbers and that pushing the vote would only damage the government – and I proposed an alternative path. So, what is the alternative? The government estimates Pip for working age people will cost by 2030. According to the latest statistics, 40% of recipients have psychiatric disorders, which include mental health issues such as mixed anxiety and depression. Waiting lists to diagnose and treat these conditions are huge. Research by the charity Rethink Mental Illness shows that people are eight times more likely to wait more than 18 months for mental health treatment than for physical conditions. The solution is obvious: a short-term boost in funding to clear the backlog. This would mean more social workers, psychologists, specialist pharmacists, psychiatrists, therapists and counsellors to treat people and in turn support them into work. Of course, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) presents a challenge, having previously discounted the potential impact of various medical or employment support interventions in getting economically inactive people into the workforce. It explains that this is because the Treasury fails to provide it with the evidence necessary to justify savings conclusions, including for the £1bn of work incentives set out in the bill. In practice, this means that cuts rather than support are favoured in government policy. The Treasury has to do better if public service reform is to succeed, working with the OBR to develop the evidence base that interventions will deliver outcomes, and factoring this into its economic predictions. To that end, they should make use of the Integrated Data Service, which includes information on what medical interventions are helping to support people back into work. Throughout my many conversations with decision-makers, I have repeatedly set out the case for alternatives and had them ignored. As a Labour MP, if I am going to remove the support disabled people need to undertake the basic activities of life, I need the government to demonstrate why that is the best option available. So far, that case has still not been made. Peter Lamb is the Labour MP for Crawley Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
The National
4 hours ago
- The National
We investigate the state of the welfare state – read our new series
Some 80 years after Labour's 1945 electoral victory on a platform of "great national programmes of education, health and social services", the UK's welfare state is in bad shape. We have been planning this new series for several months. It is purely coincidence that we are publishing it in a week where Labour MPs will vote to strip benefits from disabled people after next year. Fourteen years of Tory austerity brought the welfare state to its knees, leaving a legacy of benefit sanctions and a record number of food banks. Enter stage left; a Labour Government which would sicken its predecessors of 1945, committed to removing even more state support from the most vulnerable in society. Food bank use reached record levels under the Tories Meanwhile the Scottish Government is forging a different path. We heard just this week in a Big Issue report that Scotland is leading the way at reducing child poverty while kids in other parts of the UK are increasingly struggling. We want to show that Scotland could do more without being tied to the sinking ship of the UK. Our investigation from Monday to Sunday will show how Westminster governments systematically sought to remove the protections of the welfare state, while Scotland tried to chart its own path and help those in need. It'll feature expert commentary, deep dives into the data, livestream Q&As with key figures, personal essays reflecting on how the UK Government treats people who are unemployed and living with disabilities, and much more. As we mark this key anniversary of Labour coming to power with promises of a fairer, more secure future for UK citizens, it's time to reflect on what went wrong. We hope you'll find the series informative and, hopefully, infuriating. Read online or in print from Monday to Friday. Take advantage of a subscription from just £1 to get access to the full investigation.
Spectator
12 hours ago
- Spectator
Starmer's ‘one in, one out' migrant plan will end in failure
Britain and France believe they have found a solution to the small boats crisis. According to reports, Keir Starmer and President Emmanuel Macron have agreed to implement a 'one-in, one-out' system whereby Britain will return to France illegal migrants who have crossed the Channel in small boats. Britain, for its part, will accept migrants who have a legitimate case for joining family already resident in the UK. A government source told the Times: 'It'll start as a pilot but it's to prove the point that if you pay for your passage on a boat, then you could quite quickly find yourself back in France.' Under the scheme, Britain and France would process migrants using biometric details and separate those who have a valid claim for family reunification in Britain from those who do not. The latter would be returned to France. The French know a thing or two about 'gimmicks' when it comes to the migrant crisis The scheme could be officially unveiled as early as next week so Starmer has something to celebrate as he marks his first year in power. But is it a deal worth celebrating? This is not the first time Paris and London have solemnly pledged to work together to combat the scourge of illegal immigration. In 2002, Home Secretary David Blunkett and his French counterpart Nicolas Sarkozy announced a deal to close the Sangatte migrant camp at Calais. 'We will also put an end to a symbol – a symbol which was like a magnet for immigrants who thought that by coming there they would find a way into the UK,' declared Sarkozy. The deal did little to stop the migrants, so in 2014 another deal was signed, in which Britain handed over €15 million to France. A year later another treaty was hammered out, this one signed by Theresa May and Bernard Cazeneuve. The pair put pen to paper on 20 August. Eleven days later Angela Merkel threw open Europe's borders to more than one million refugees and migrants with her now infamous cry of 'Wir schaffen das!'. As The Spectator remarked a few days later: 'She has exacerbated a problem that will be with us for years, perhaps decades.' Between 2014 and the end of 2022, Britain paid France £232 million to better manage their shared border. In March 2023, Britain handed over an additional £500 million, money well spent, according to the then prime minister Rishi Sunak. 'Working together, the UK and France will ensure that nobody can exploit our systems with impunity,' he declared, promising that the money would 'put an end to this disgusting trade in human life'. Nearly 37,000 people arrived in England illegally on small boats in 2024, 7,000 more than in 2023. So far this year, more than 18,000 have crossed (a 42 per cent increase on the same period in 2024) – a figure that is likely to surge over the summer as the traffickers take advantage of the good weather. The Tories were quick to criticise this latest scheme. Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said that 'the French are failing to stop the boats at sea…and now instead of demanding real enforcement, Labour are trying a one in, one out gimmick'. The French know a thing or two about 'gimmicks' when it comes to the migrant crisis, as they do about broken presidential promises. The French people long ago stopped believing a word Emmanuel Macron says about solving their own migrant chaos. In July 2017, for example, two months into his presidency, Macron declared that he wanted: Administrative processing everywhere, from the very first minute, to determine whether an asylum application can be made or not, followed by a genuine policy of deportation. There was no processing, however, and as vast numbers of migrants continued to arrive in France, Macron came up with a new wheeze: instead of returning them whence they came, illegal immigrants would be dispersed in the provinces. The announcement of this plan, in 2022, was a political gift to Marine Le Pen's National Rally, and helps explain the party's electoral success in recent years. According to the Times, under the one-in, one-out scheme, illegal migrants will be 'returned to locations across France, away from its northern coast'. Le Pen's party will oppose such a project, as will the centre-right Republicans. The coalition government under Francois Bayrou is teetering on the brink after talks over pension reform collapsed earlier this week. The left have filed a vote of no confidence in Bayrou but Le Pen has said her party won't endorse it. The right are propping up the government, for the time being, but their support could easily be withdrawn – over a migrant relocation scheme, for example. This latest plan to solve the small boats crisis will play out like every other since 2002: a firm handshake, a media fanfare and a complete failure.
