Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Exclusive: A96 dualling review bill rises by more than £1 million in five months

The public consultation and delayed A96 Corridor Review has cost taxpayers almost £5m so far.

The SNP promised to dual the A96 between Aberdeen and Inverness over a decade ago. Image:  Sandy McCook/DC Thomson.
The SNP promised to dual the A96 between Aberdeen and Inverness over a decade ago. Image: Sandy McCook/DC Thomson.

The cost of a long overdue review into plans to fully dual the A96 has soared by more than £1 million since June, we can reveal.

The SNP promised over a decade ago to fully dual the road between Aberdeen and Inverness by 2030, with party activists voting to back the plans again in October.

But a “climate review” of the dualling programme was ordered in summer 2021 when the party joined a power-sharing deal with the Greens.

We revealed last month that the outcome of the A96 corridor review has been delayed for a third time – a year later than first expected.

And now figures obtained by the P&J, following a freedom of information request, show the cost to taxpayers has increased by more than £1m since June, when it emerged £3.8m had been spent on the scheme.

This means the public consultation and review of the plans, which has yet to conclude, has cost almost £5m so far, with the future of full dualling still in doubt.

‘Ludicrous sums of money’

There are fears the road may never be dualled in full between the two cities, depending on the outcome of the review.

Government transport chiefs say the £5m spent so far is “not unreasonable given the length and complexity of the corridor subject to the review and the extent of the work being carried out to complete it”.

It is not the only major infrastructure project putting pressure on the government. The A9 dualling project is also now facing significant delays.

On Wednesday, it was confirmed the road between Perth and Inverness will be dualled by 2035, more than a decade later than originally planned.

North-east MSP Liam Kerr said communities will “rightly be furious at the ludicrous sums of money which have been spent on the A96 corridor review”.

SNP members voting in favour of dualling the A9 and A96 at the party’s conference in Aberdeen in October. Image: Kath Flannery/DC Thomson

He added: “Astonishingly, within five months, another £1 million of taxpayers’ money has been churned out on this needless delaying tactic to please the Greens and to stop the full dualling from happening.

“This £5m review should never have been needed in the first place and shows how disgraceful the SNP have handled the upgrade which they promised over a decade ago.”

In October, SNP activists sent a clear message to the party leadership to get on with dualling the A9 and A96 after an overwhelming majority backed the move at their conference in Aberdeen.

Speaking in November, Elgin councillor Jérémie Fernandes, vowed local SNP representatives will continue pushing until they see “spades in the ground”.

What next for the A96 corridor review?

The A96 corridor review was initially due to report by the end of 2022 but it has been delayed three times since.

It is now expected in the new year but will still have to go to a final consultation before a decision on full dualling can be reached.

A Transport Scotland spokesman said: “The total spent to date on the A96 corridor review reflects the extensive appraisal and assessment work that is required to appropriately inform this review and includes consideration of the large number of responses received through the initial consultation exercise and intensive sifting process to determine the initial options for further appraisal.

“More recently the detailed appraisal of the remaining options is ongoing as well as engagement with stakeholders and the development of the further assessment, including a climate compatibility assessment and statutory impact assessments, required to inform the review.

“This expenditure is not unreasonable given the length and complexity of the corridor subject to the review and the extent of the work being carried out to complete it.”

Conversation