Freedom Of Information Request to Shropshire Council

 Dear Editor,

Current information uncovered by local campaigner Andrew Radford has raised serious concerns about how Shropshire Council is spending public money on social activities for illegally entered individuals, asylum seekers and non-British citizens.

Following a Freedom of Information request submitted by Mr Radford, it has been revealed that over £85,000 has been spent in recent years on entertainment and social activities for those who either have no right to be here or are claiming asylum in the county. This includes cinema trips, yoga classes, podcast workshops, football match tickets, theatre visits, leisure memberships, and even a “Father Christmas cultural event” at Shrewsbury Museum.

In 2024–25 alone, the almost bankrupt Shropshire Council reported spending £65,684.84 on Ukrainian refugees and £1,200 on Afghan refugees for these types of activities. An additional £4,500+ of the council budget was spent for transportation costs to and from these events.

Worse may still be to come, as it would appear that many individual ethnicity groups were left off the requested list, with a new FOI request now requesting the missing information.

Perhaps most concerning is that the council admitted it does not keep records of staff hours or time spent on organising these activities, meaning the actual cost of salaries, staff resources, and departmental workload is still unknown.

The council said that the money was ring-fenced Home Office money, not local council tax. However, as Mr Radford points out, this is still public money and must be subject to complete transparency and proper scrutiny. At a time when British families are struggling to access basic services and cannot afford similar activities for their children, many residents will rightly question whether this is the best use of taxpayer funds.

Only Reform UK has committed to carrying out D.O.G.E. Style inspections (Departmental Oversight of Government Expenditure) across all government departments to expose waste, enforce accountability, and ensure that the needs of British citizens come first. Mr Radford, who hopes to become the next MP for The Wrekin, has pledged to fight for complete financial transparency at every level of government, from Whitehall to Shropshire Council.

The people of The Wrekin deserve to know how their local money is being spent, and they deserve elected representatives willing to ask the tough questions and put local priorities first.

Yours faithfully,

The Campaign Team

on behalf of

Andy Radford

Reform UK Parliamentary Candidate for The Wrekin

www.AndrewRadford.co.uk

A decorated British Army veteran is leading growing local opposition within The Wrekin to proposed solar farms in Wellington and Sutton on Tern, warning that they threaten Shropshire’s green spaces and community rights under the guise of government-imposed Net Zero targets.

Andrew Radford CGC, a recipient of the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, is Reform UK’s Campaign Manager and County Organiser for The Wrekin and has vowed to fight against plans for local industrial-scale solar developments on farmland. Radford, who served over 18 years in the British Army, says local people are being “railroaded” by top-down green initiatives that ignore the will of rural communities.

“This isn’t about clean energy – it’s about control,” said Radford. “Solar panels should go on rooftops and brownfield sites, not across our countryside. What’s happening here in our local town and village fields is part of a national pattern of Net Zero enforced on everyday people, without proper consultation or consent.”

The proposed sites cover productive agricultural land and have already sparked concern among nearby residents. They fear the extra traffic, especially in Wellington, which would run close to a local school, could permanently change the area's character and lead to the loss of farmland and local wildlife habitat.

Radford has been meeting with residents, speaking at parish meetings, and organising grassroots opposition under the Reform UK banner. He says that, while he supports responsible environmental policy, “climate goals should never override democratic rights or local decision-making.”

“I fought to defend freedom abroad. I won’t stand by while it’s quietly taken from us at home in the name of green ideology,” he said.

Reform UK, led nationally by Nigel Farage, has pledged to scrap Net Zero by 2050 and replace it with a “pragmatic British energy policy”, focused on affordability, sovereignty, and common sense.

Radford, who now wishes to become an MP for The Wrekin, says he will fight for local referenda on major planning decisions, protection for green belt and agricultural land, and “an end to centralised diktats from Whitehall.”

“People in The Wrekin didn’t ask for solar farms; they are being dropped on them by the government and greedy energy companies,” he said. “This is where Reform UK stands apart. We trust local people to shape their future.”

The campaign is already gaining traction, with petitions circulating and local support swelling.

I was reminded last week about just how little understanding there is in the mainstream media of just how much Net Zero could end up costing the country.

To some extent this ignorance has been deliberately engineered. The original Climate Change Act in 2008 included no sort of cost-benefit analysis at all; it was passed almost unanimously through Parliament on the basis that when you are saving the planet, costs do not matter. It was the same story when Theresa May amended the 2008 Act to set a Net Zero target.

The idea that the public should know the cost of decisions made by their MPs was regarded as abhorrent by them and still is.

Since then, much of the media have been complicit in refusing to discuss the issue of cost. Nevertheless, there have been attempts to put a figure on it. In 2019, then Chancellor Philip Hammond warned May that reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 could cost the UK more than £1 trillion.

On the other hand, the Climate Change Committee has claimed the cost would be more like £200 billion over thirty years. However, this excludes the costs we are already paying and is based on unrealistically optimistic assumptions about the future cost of renewable energy.

So, who is right?

It is of course foolhardy to try to predict what will happen in three decades time; we have no idea what the economy or technology will look like then. Anybody who thinks they do know is a fool and anybody who claims they do is a charlatan!

But we should have a much better idea of how things will pan out in the shorter term, say the next 10 years or so. In any event, nobody cares about what will happen in decades’ time, when half of us will probably be dead. What they are concerned about is the here and now and what the immediate future has in store.

So, let’s start with what the transition to Net Zero is already costing the UK.

The Office for Budget Responsibility publishes the cost of environmental levies each year as part of its Economic and Fiscal Outlook. These levies cover the cost of direct and indirect subsidies for renewable energy which are added to energy bills, or in the case of the Renewable Heat Incentive paid out of general taxation. These are projected to rise to over £17 billion a year and show no sign of falling after 2029-30.

Although some of the older, more heavily subsidised wind farms will start shutting down in a few years’ time, carbon capture and hydrogen production are horribly expensive and highly inefficient ways to replace what we have now: conventional gas power stations.

Office for Budget Responsibility: Fiscal Outlook March 2025
Additionally, the costs that NESO (National Energy System Operator), which is responsible for running the grid, pays out to balance the electricity grid has risen to £2.9 billion a year. This is almost entirely all because of the intermittency of wind and solar power; NESO now needs to pay generators to supply power at short notice, pay wind farms to switch off when there is too much wind and pay for storage and other grid frequency measures.

In all, the transition to renewable energy is costing around £20 billion a year. Far from these costs falling in years to come, they are only going to increase, as NESO admitted in its ‘Clean Power 2030 Report’, published last November.

NESO estimated that Ed Miliband’s plan to fully decarbonise the grid by 2030 would add £25 per MWh to the cost of electricity. When wind and solar power is tripled, as planned, there will be many occasions when there is too much power for the grid to handle. As a consequence, billions will be paid out to wind and solar farms to switch off – so-called ‘constraint payments’. But there will also be long periods when there is not enough electricity to meet demand; when that happens billions more will be paid to standby generators and batteries to switch on. All in all, NESO estimates this will add another £9 billion a year, on top of the £20 billion we are already paying.

Astonishingly, NESO did not budget any extra costs for the enormous task of expanding the electricity transmission network. Only this month Ofgem announced the first tranche of an £80 billion grid upgrade which will need to be completed by 2030. This upgrade is only necessary to meet decarbonisation targets. On Ofgem’s calculations, this expenditure will add an extra £6 billion to electricity bills.

NESO also made it clear that building new wind and solar farms would not produce electricity any more cheaply than simply continuing to run our existing gas generators, which would need to be paid to provide standby capacity anyway. (They say renewables will be cheaper than gas, but this is sleight of hand, because it assumes a punitive carbon tax on gas generators.)

Add that lot up and you get a cost of £35 billion a year, just for decarbonising the electricity sector alone. That figure can only go up, as the bills for carbon capture and hydrogen storage start to take effect.

Moreover, we have not even started to address the problem of upgrading the local electricity distribution network, which brings power from the high voltage transmission grid into our homes. As we all start using more electricity for heating and electric cars, the existing network will quickly get overloaded. This will effectively mean digging up streets up and down the country to replace cabling, replacing fuse boxes in homes and increasing the capacity of substations. One independent electrical engineering expert, Mike Travers, researched the problem five years ago, and estimated the cost of all this work at around £200 billion, not even counting the enormous cost of disruption which will inevitably be caused. We are probably looking at a figure closer to £300 billion now.

Earlier this month the OBR published the costs to the public sector of the transition to Net Zero – note this just accounts for the cost to government, not the wider UK economy. The bill comes to £257 billion over 26 years. As is usual with Net Zero, most of the cost is frontloaded. Supposedly these costs will start to rapidly decline in the 2040s. Only a fool would believe that. We are expected to believe in jam tomorrow!

Using the OBR’s high-end scenario, that cost could be 50% higher. In the next 15 years alone, the cost will be £204 billion, all to be funded by higher taxation, reduced public spending or borrowing.

Most of this expenditure will have little added value, for instance installing heat pumps in public buildings and electrifying buses. It also includes the tens of billions handed to Ed Miliband to waste on Great British Energy, carbon capture and other nonsense.

Source: OBR
But the private sector will also be hit hard as well. Within the next 10 years, everybody with a gas boiler will need to replace it with a heat pump when it packs up. About 20 million homes have gas boilers. Including extra insulation, hot water tanks and radiators, we are probably looking at £15,000 a go, compared to £3,000 for a boiler. That’s a total cost of £240 billion, or £16 billion a year.

Meanwhile electric cars remain stubbornly more expensive to buy than petrol ones. Even allowing for savings on fuel costs, the extra cost of purchase will amount to at least £16 billion a year when the petrol and diesel ban comes into force in 2030.

And we have not even looked at the cost of complying with decarbonisation targets which will be incurred by industry.

If we add that lot up, we get approximate annual costs in the 2030s of:

Electricity Supply – £35 billion
Heat pumps – £16 billion
Electric Cars – £16 billion
Public Sector – £14 billion
Upgrading distribution networks – £20 billion
A total of £101 billion every year. It’s possible that costs may start to subside from this peak at some point in the distant future, but the damage will be done by then.

Proponents of Net Zero often try to deflect attention from the issue of cost by claiming that millions of green jobs will be created and that the economy will somehow grow because of Net Zero.

However, the hundreds of thousands of green jobs long promised have never materialised; the number of jobs in the renewable sector are no more than tens of thousands, many less of course than the jobs that have been lost to the UK because of high energy prices over the years.

Moreover, their claim defies the laws of economics. Jobs that create no extra value and rely on subsidies and government diktat simply drain money and resources from the productive economy. It’s the old ‘Green Door’ theory – pass a law requiring every home to have its doors painted green, and you create work for decorators; but homeowners then have less money to spend on other goods and services.

Whether it’s electricity generation, transport or heating, the solutions demanded by Net Zero are more expensive and less efficient than existing ones. No economy can grow by promoting and subsidising inefficient alternatives.

Worse still, the threat to British industry and jobs from Net Zero is a very real one. This is one cost that is impossible to measure.

This exercise is, by definition, broad-brush. But it is all founded on officially sourced data and analysis and based on sound principles. Maybe some new technology will come along eventually or maybe the cost of renewable energy will tumble.

But where we stand today, the cost of transitioning to Net Zero will within a few years cripple the UK economy.

As a parish councillor for Sutton, I receive news from the Cheswardine Ward Unitary Councillor, Neil Bentley. 

Sadly, we have very differing views on successful outcomes.

Below is a recent letter from Bentley expressing his delight at the “Daytime Only,” road closure of the A41 this summer holiday period.

I have followed this up a dressing my concerns with both Bentley, and the head of Shropshire Council, Heather Kidd.

From Cllr Bentley

Received 23/7/25

Hello, 

Just a quick update on the proposed A41 Roadworks this summer to be shared with cllrs. 

Over the past few months I have been pursuing Telford & Wrekin Council Highways over their plan to close the A41 24/7 between 4th-15th August 2025. 

I reminded them of the chaos caused when the A41 was closed during the summer of 2023, with many of our country lanes being used as "quick cut through" routes by unsuitable vehicles. I also shared the concerns of our residents and businesses.  A total summer closure would inevitably have a detrimental impact on our hospitality businesses. Although it is appreciated that T&W are investing in the network, they have failed to produce any impact assessment following the 2023 closures which we were offered at the time. 

I am however pleased to share that I received a very detailed confirmation yesterday from the highways team at T&W and Balfour Beatty explaining that they have listened to feedback and will now undertake this work during daytime closures 07:00-16:00, weekdays only. 

Although we can still expect some travel disruption during this time, I feel this option will reduce the impact on all those involved, especially our local businesses serviced by the A41. 

Many thanks, 

Neil 

Cllr Neil Bentley

Liberal Democrat Councillor for Cheswardine | Shropshire Council 

Reply from Andy Radford to Bentley and then Kidd.

23/7/25

Dear Neil,

Thank you for your update regarding the proposed A41 roadworks this summer.

While I appreciate your apparent efforts in pressing the council for adjustments to the original plan, I must respectfully express that I do not consider this revised arrangement a successful outcome.

Restricting the closure to weekdays from 07:00 to 16:00 may reduce the severity of disruption compared to a full 24/7 closure, but it still poses a significant impact on daily traffic flow, local businesses, and rural communities reliant on the A41. As you rightly pointed out, the chaos of the 2023 closure caused serious issues on surrounding country lanes, and without a formal impact assessment or clear mitigation strategy, it is difficult to see how those lessons have truly been learned.

Daytime closures during peak business hours still affect suppliers, staff movements, customer access, and deliveries, all of which are critical for the viability of local enterprises, especially in the summer period. I believe more should have been done to either phase the works more sensitively, provide adequate diversions that do not push traffic into unsuitable rural routes.

Surely carrying out the work after rush hour in the evening, until 0700hrs, would have been a much better solution? This seems far more logical to ensuring minimal disruption which you have clearly failed to understand. 

While it’s encouraging that T&W and Balfour Beatty have adjusted their approach slightly, I feel you must continue to push for a more common-sense approach, and close the road in the evening not the daytime. 

Kind regards,

Andy

Dear Heather

I note that Cheswardine Unitary Councillor Neil Bently has given an update to his local parish councillors, regarding the A41 road closure.

While I appreciate his so called efforts in pressing for adjustments to the original plan, I must respectfully express that I do not consider this revised arrangement a successful outcome whatsoever 

Restricting the closure to weekdays from 07:00 to 16:00 may reduce the severity of disruption compared to a full 24/7 closure, but it does nothing to impact on daily traffic flow, local businesses, and rural communities whom are reliant on the A41. The chaos of the 2023 closure caused serious issues on surrounding country lanes, and without a formal impact assessment or clear mitigation strategy, it is difficult to see what, if any lessons, have been learned.

Daytime closures during peak business hours still affect suppliers, staff movements, customer access, and deliveries, all of which are critical for the viability of local enterprises, especially in the summer period. I believe more should have been done to phase the works more sensitively and provide adequate diversions that do not push traffic into unsuitable rural routes. Is there even a plan in place to prevent heavy traffic using unsuitable roads?

Surely carrying out the work after rush hour i.e. in the evening and possibly until 0700hrs, would have been a much better solution. This seems far more logical to ensure minimal disruption, which you have clearly failed to understand. 

While the plan has been adjusted slightly. I feel you must continue to use a more common-sense approach and close the road in the evening, not the daytime. 

Kind regards, 

Andy 

Cllr Andrew Radford CGC

Only Cllr Bentley replied

Hi Andy, 

Thank you very much for your email. Obviously I have no control over what the contractors decide is their best course of action.

Ideally we wouldn't like to see the road closed at all but as this is a T&W project it really is down to them to make the decision. They say they have listened to all stakeholders and decided this is the best course of action for the work.

Many thanks,

Neil 

Cllr Neil Bentley

Dear Councillor Neil Bentley 

I am writing to you as the Reform UK opposition for the Cheswardine Division regarding growing concerns from residents about the proposed biomass plant planned near the Buntingsdale Estate in Sutton on Tern.

Over the past week, I have spoken with numerous residents who are deeply worried about the potential impact of this development. While biomass energy is often presented as a green alternative, in practice, such facilities can pose serious challenges to local communities, particularly when located so close to residential areas.

Concerns raised include:

   •         Increased traffic: Heavy Goods Vehicles transporting materials to and from the plant could significantly strain our rural roads and create safety risks.

   •         Air and noise pollution: Organic waste processing may produce unpleasant odours and noise, impacting quality of life.

   •         Environmental disruption: The industrialisation of what is currently a rural setting may harm the local countryside and biodiversity.

   •         Impact on property and well-being: Many families feel their homes and health may be at risk.

This is not just a planning issue; it is about protecting the character of our community and ensuring that residents are not subjected to unnecessary industrial burdens.

Therefore, I would like to ask:

These residents have my full support in stopping this before it happens. However, do you also support the residents of Buntingsdale Estate in their opposition to the proposed biomass plant? Or will you, as their councillor, be pushing for this to go ahead?

Our community deserves a clear answer, and I hope you will stand with the people you were elected to represent.

I welcome the opportunity to present your answer to the community of Buntingsdale Estate. 

Yours sincerely

Andrew Radford CGC