Furious row as councillors draw battle lines over North West Relief Road ahead of election

The Conservative administration is wholeheartedly committed to seeing the plan through, but opposition Lib Dem, Labour and Green Party councillors have all told the roads minister they would scrap the project.

The debate, which centred on a call from the Liberal Democrats for an inquiry into the management of the relief road project, came after opposition councillors became aware the business case for the road had been surprisingly published as the meeting was taking place.

The actual vote over whether to hold the inquiry disintegrated into near-farce, as one substitute motion was put forward, then the Lib Dems' proposal was amended - with the group who proposed the amendment eventually withdrawing support.

The situation meant the Conservative administration comfortably saw off the prospect of an inquiry.

But amid the procedural chaos councillors traded fierce claim-and-counter-claim over the handling of the relief road project.

Lib Dem Councillor David Vasmer, who proposed the motion, said: "One of the problems is we have not received the proper information. So we had that debate in 2023 when we voted by mistake for £95m and later on that was withdrawn.

"Later on we had the contract notice for construction which was £110m but we never got a proper figure for the total cost of the road."

He added: "And I think the management of that was really poor and that we need to look at the processes we use for disseminating information, for giving information to scrutiny committees, to make sure that people have the right information before them and I think we need that scrutiny enquiry to look at these issues."

Following up, Green Party member Julian Dean said "there is a complete continued failure to admit the scale of risk".

Addressing remarks from the council's Conservative leader, he said: "Lezley Picton is quoted in the paper as saying 'we look forward to demonstrating the value of the scheme to the Government and to local people shortly'. Well, you clearly don't because you had this report on the table since November - it says November on the bottom of the report. You could have brought it to council before this pre-election period, you could therefore then have had the opportunity to take it to government.

"You've refused to do that, in effect by publishing it today you have absolutely made sure you don't have to take it to council so it becomes an issue for the next council to pick up the pieces from the mess that you have left us in."

He also rejected suggestions that opponents of the scheme had delayed it.

He said: "At no stage have we slowed down this scheme. The slowing down of this scheme has been through what the Environment Agency said, through your inability to get a full business case to council in time, through continual resubmissions, re-estimates of the figures, that is what has slowed down this scheme."

Responding, Councillor Lezley Picton defended the handling of the publication of the business case - saying it was because she was "fed up with people making up their own stories".

She said: "Can I just clear up some misunderstandings? And I use that phrase deliberately. We have said all along that we will not bring the full business case before council before planning permission was issued."

On the publication of the business case she added: "I take full responsibility for this, it is no one else's responsibility but mine to actually release the full business case."

She continued: "I take full responsibility for it because I am fed up with people making up their own stories. I am fed up with people making out we have given this secret information out, this secret information to them, this secret information to someone else - we absolutely haven't.

"So there is no reason why I should not release the full business case before it goes to full council, because it means nothing until you vote on it and you haven't voted on it. But what it does do is release all that information."

The council leader defended the council's decision not to publish the expected cost of the road, saying: "And sadly one of the things nobody seems to understand - I'm going to pick someone randomly for this - if I am going to tell Ian that I have got fifty quid to spend on a project and announce that publicly, guess what? That project is going to cost fifty quid."

In a direct pitch to the electorate she told people to vote Conservative in May if they want the road to go ahead.

She said: "This isn't kicking anything down the road. The Conservative group have never, ever wavered from the fact that this road is required. If you want to increase the prosperity and the economic growth of Shrewsbury and remove the traffic from out of the town centre, which is what everyone wants, the only option you have is to build this road."

She added: "It is quite simple, the battle lines are drawn, if the public believe this road will actually help improve the traffic situation in our county then they know which way to vote. And the fact that three of the groups in this room actually wrote to the roads minister to say that the moment they get elected they are going to turn the project over, more fool you. Because if you look at the comments on Facebook over the last few months, the tide is turning."

Responding, Labour group leader, Councillor Rosemary Dartnall said the handling of the project had 'been a masterclass in hiding material from the public, from councillors'.

She added: "The portfolio holder is frequently heard enthusiastically extolling his opinions about the NWRR and how good it will be for everyone, but until a couple of hours ago he never can quite bring himself to share any details that might change his opinions into a credible argument.

"Opinions are one thing but evidence is king, and that's the nub of this problem for this mega project."

The debate saw the original Lib Dem motion for an inquiry to look at the handling of the project.

The party then accepted an amendment from the Green Party to include holding discussions with government about a way out of losing £39m if the council cancels the project.

The Labour Party put forward its own amendment saying that there should be no inquiry because it would mean spending more public money - and that a task and finish group should conduct its own report into the scheme.

The motion was defeated, but the Green party then withdrew their amendment after agreeing that it would be a waste of public money to hold an inquiry.

The Lib Dems refused a request to change the call for an inquiry to a call for a task and finish group instead, and the motion was defeated, meaning there will be no inquiry and no task and finish group.