Call for new tax on households to help pay council’s bill for bypass

By Cameron Brooks

Published: 06/07/2010

Council officials have suggested that a new tax could be introduced to help pay for the £400million Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR).

Officers at Aberdeenshire Council say a new levy on householders in addition to council tax would help the authority to cover its 9.5% share of the cost.

The proposal put to the AWPR steering group was that the government should authorise an exemption from the council tax freeze because the 28-mile ring road was of an “exceptional nature”.

North-east Labour MSP Richard Baker said it was “concerning and extraordinary” that Aberdeenshire Council officials had suggested introducing a new tax to pay for the AWPR.

A spokesman for the authority said, however, that no decisions had been taken on how to fund the project.

“We are still in discussions with the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland and await details on when the project will begin and how it will be funded,” he said. “We are willing to look at a range of funding options.”

The report was discussed in January by members of the steering group, made up of representatives from Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen City councils and Transport Scotland.

It stated that Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen City councils might have to dip into revenue budgets instead of capital budgets to pay their share because of the terms of the non-profit-distributing (NPD) funding model that the Scottish Government wants to use to fund it.

Report authors Derek Yule, Aberdeenshire Council’s head of finance, and Susan Cooper, Aberdeen City Council’s former chief accountant, say the NPD funding model “may not necessarily be the best for both councils”.

They added that not knowing what the overall costs of the AWPR are “creates further uncertainty at the present time and there are clearly financial risks associated with a project of this scale”.

“Council budgets are under significant financial pressure over the next few years, and it is anticipated that the cost of the AWPR will add to this,” they said.

The report said the city council, which will also pay 9.5% of the cost and take over responsibility for the A90 and A96 trunk roads once the AWPR is opened, could have “financing issues” over making improvements to the Haudagain roundabout.

The Milltimber Brae route leaves the Stonehaven-Aberdeen stretch of the A90 at Charleston, crosses the River Dee at Milltimber, loops west of Kingswells and rejoins the Aberdeen-Peterhead leg of the A90 at Blackdog.

A spokesman for Transport Scotland said the AWPR would be considered for procurement through the NPD model.

“The Scottish Government is meeting the largest share of the costs, contributing 81% of the total cost of the project,” he said.

Work to build the bypass is likely to be delayed because three legal challenges have been lodged at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

Reader's Comments

It should be no problem for ACC to pay for AWPR since they must have a glut of excess funds since they are already investing large amounts in UTG.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

Is it fair that Aberdonians have to pay for a road that will mostly be used by travellers from other towns?
Louiza Frohlich
Report this comment

Given that vehicles have to pay a very expensive tax to allow them to use the roads, why is this, and every other road project, not funded from that source?
Ron Campbell
Report this comment

In other words, the council has no money to pay for the project to which it has committed itself.
Ubi D
Report this comment

Considering that neither council has spare funds and are still planning more outlay on non essential projects ie UTG this is ridiculous. This should be a governmnet issue to get the road structure up to date and bring Aberdeen into line with the Central belt. This has been on the cards for many years and is now still waiting. At this rate with no money in either coffers it looks like it will be another 30 years in the making. For both councils to consider raising taxes in this area when we do not get the amount we are due from the Government is really out of the question. The do not give us our proper allowance and then say we now have to pay more for work they should be paying. Both councils knew this was on the cards, so why go ahead with the Marischal college refurbishment. More inadequate thinking from ACC. No doubt they will agree with this and will still carry on with their other grandiose plans for the supposed "Energetica" A road to nowhere.
minnie mo
Report this comment

Such a shame that they are investing in other non essential projects like new schools, new emergency care centre at Forresterhill, the Marishcal College project that will release funds from other assets, new CLAN centre all non essential NOT!!! If the pro UTG mob would care to get their heads out of the turf and have a look about they might just see something positive for a change. Don't levy a tax make it a toll road it works elsewhere in the world.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Wait a minute here! The WPR has been on the Agenda for nearly 50 years. We have seen the Oil Industry develop in front of our eyes, We have seen huge housing and Industrial developements. We have seen millionaires rise from these various enterprises but no one in either council decided to set up a WPR fund from huge profit making companies. They are having a laugh!!! Any shortfall in the money should be coming from the companies that will gain from it the most, such as the new Pittodrie site, Trumpton, Any Builders that will be building houses and industrial estates around the WPR as they are the ones to gain the most. In fact a bit like a TIF that the city council are wanting to use for the Union Terrace concrete Slab. Then we can be known as the city of "Up over ther heads in hock with a jester for a L.P."
Lord Lucan
Report this comment

I tend to agree with Sandy Milne:- Make it a Toll Road. Some householders in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire do not even own a motor vehicle. Why should they have to bear the brunt of the cost?
Louiza Frohlich
Report this comment

Louiza, did you miss the bit of the article that mentioned 81% funding coming from the Scottish Government. That would be the brunt.
Jaibo Palmer
Report this comment

We already pay our road tax and a LARGE fuel duty that is SUPPOSED to fund road infrastructure. Would it be too much to ask to let these funds pay for the road?
Bill Prentice
Report this comment

LL - perfectly put. NPD/TIF all amount to the same thing, the public pay. Well done to all our Councils for not reading vital information that lumbers the public with failing pointless projects! Hip Hip!
roger fontain
Report this comment

Get the "travellers" to contribute something...it's all take & no give with them. They just bleed Aberdeen dry..
Alan Hadley
Report this comment

Toll roads are too American. Some places in the States your throwing coins out every 20 miles. Money to pay for roads should come from fuel taxes. This is an efficient user pay system rather than the costly setup of toll booths or electronic tolls. Trouble is ACC are trying to develop new TIF taxation schemes which if implemented may be used to fund other unpopular schemes. Once a new tax is implemented they rarely go away. Last thing ACC needs is another revenue stream to waste.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

Let's have a referendum (it's all the rage). All those who are so convinced Aberdeen needs a bypass should include their bank details for the tax. Our councillors are morally bankrupt when it comes to this issue.
Kno Arts
Report this comment

Again Sandy is slamming into the anti UTG. Why???? Yes they are building new schools. so at least they get something right. The new emergency care centre at Foresterhill is also part funded by the University. The clan building again is partly funded with Charity money. So trying to make out that the Council are that good is really wasting your breath. Considering that Aberdeen gets less money from Holyrood, why then should we be forced to fork out more tax to pay for the bypass. It is not as if the council is tightening its own belt. Jaunts all over the world. not entirely necessary for a bankrupt council. Once again Sandy comes to the defence of the council. Sometimes it makes you wonder if he is actually on of the councilors but changes his name for the comments page. At least Neil Fletcher tries to explain. Not so Sandy. too busy slagging off the ones who care about the city.There was no real emergency in building a new office for the council. Not when they knew the financial difficulties they had. But they had to have their own way once again. Better to have let the company a few years ago have the Marischal college to turn into a hotel. That would have been far more appropriate for the area. Also saved the city some money.
minnie mo
Report this comment

Get Suart Milne to pay for it, he wants this just so he can destroy more greenbelt land, and of course make millions.
alan reid
Report this comment

The Press and Journal is happy to encourage discussion and debate on the topics featured within our newspaper and on our website.

However, we would urge people to respect the opinions of others even if they do not agree with them. We will not tolerate abusive comments of any type and such posts will be removed with the people responsible facing a ban from this website.

Only registered users can supply comments, and your registered name and location will automatically be appended to any comment that you upload.

We reserve the right to remove comments from anyone using a false name or pseudonym.

To post a comment, please login using the form at the top of the page, or click to register.