Shropshire Star

North West Relief Road for Shrewsbury remains a priority - council

Shropshire Council today insisted that the £80m North West Relief Road is a "priority", and that it is pressing ahead with the scheme.

Published
Last updated
An artist's impression of the proposed relief road

It comes after the government wrote to local authorities across the country outlining its plans to cut back on the spending on roads schemes.

A letter from the Department for Transport warned there is not enough money to fund all the road schemes currently being proposed across the UK.

A list of schemes drawn up in 2019 is now being reconsidered and some will be axed.

However, the letter also says that its "starting point" is that funding already agreed will stay in place unless either a council agrees to scrap a scheme or if the "case for the scheme changes significantly".

Shropshire Council says it has no doubt the road will go ahead and it remains a priority– despite questions from campaigners Lib Dem councillors opposed to the scheme.

Lezley Picton, Shropshire Council’s Leader, said: “The letter does ask for all local authorities to review their proposed and pipeline schemes and we know that the money just isn’t there for some.

“However, the letter also clearly states that any scheme that already has approval at Outline Business Case stage will not be considered for removal unless the relevant local authority decides otherwise, or unless the case for the scheme changes significantly.

“The Shrewsbury NWRR remains a key priority for us as a council and is currently being considered as part of the planning process.

“The NWRR has successfully passed through the Outline Business Case stage, has received an offer of DfT funding and has formally entered the DfT Large Local Majors delivery programme. We plan to submit a full business case to DfT by the end of 2022, subject to planning approval."

She added: "The case for the road hasn’t changed and it continues to support and deliver the stated aims within the original objectives and the more recent, wider objectives of government transport investment.

“These include reducing congestion, supporting housing delivery and delivering value for money.

“It’s because of this that we will continue to progress with the scheme, and we remain confident that the funding is in place to deliver it.”

The new road would effectively complete a ring road around Shrewsbury, linking Battlefield to the A5 on the Oswestry side of the town.

A number of obstacles still remain for the project with the Environment Agency having written to the council in October saying it still had concerns about the plans.

It has requested further information while a formal objection has been lodged by Shrewsbury Town Council.

Opposition councillor Rob Wilson, the shadow portfolio holder for physical infrastructure on Shropshire Council said he believed there are still concerns over the plan.

He said: “There is significant risk because construction costs are increasing all over the world.

"The planning application and full business case have been delayed again. It doesn’t even fit with the existing local transport plan, or the new one that is under development.

“Shropshire Council has signed a blank cheque for any overspend and at full council it was exposed that they have also invested all of the development costs. If the government pulls the plug, the council could be left with just £1.4m. Some councillors want to press on, but it is increasingly apparent that this road is a money pit.”

Speaking for protest group Better Shrewsbury Transport, Frank Oldaker, said: “We have reviewed the scheme against the DfT criteria.

“The road will result in an increase in carbon emissions. It does not have local support, with over 4.500 objections and local town councils including Shrewsbury, Oswestry and Ludlow vehemently opposed to it.

“It does not represent value for money since the current business case is hopelessly optimistic, based on out-of-date and missing costs and over-inflated estimates of its benefits. The programme for the scheme is also badly off-track, resulting in additional costs and delays.”

Sorry, we are not accepting comments on this article.