UNION BOSSES have issued a last-minute plea to Telford & Wrekin Council to look again at its budget which aims to save £35 million over next four years.

The council is expected to back plans at a meeting tonight to make millions of pounds of savings after a cut in funding from the Government. Telford Unison has sent letters to each councillor asking them to reconsider plans which put 530 jobs at risk.

The authority employs about 6,500 people.

The union has put forward an alternative budget and claims”there is another way” to save services and some of the jobs.

Staff redundancies are expected to contribute up to £14 million in savings by 2013 but the council is also looking to make cut to some of its front line services.

Jonathan Sedgebeer, secretary for Telford Unison, said: “No service will be left untouched by these cuts, from safeguarding children to services for the old and vulnerable.”

But he added other avenues could be explored to fill the “black hole” by using money set aside for redundancies, returns on council investments and alternative ways of delivering services.

“Our alternative budget will enable the council to take longer to investigate different ways of delivering in-house services and provide more time for staff to find alternative jobs without the need to pay high redundancy costs,” he added.

Mr Sedgebeer added Unison believed its alternative budget would alleviate the “misery” which would result from the cuts.

He said: “We encourage all councillors to think carefully before voting for this cuts package and remember that they will all be up for election on May 5.”

A Telford & Wrekin Council spokesman said: “The figures provided by Unison do not stack up.

“The budget proposals already include use of significant one-off sums of £9 million to avoid greater reductions in services and job losses.

“We began reviewing services two years ago; we’ve already abolished departments and halved the number of senior managers.

“The Union proposals to stop the work on reviews and use money that can only be spent on capital schemes in this way would expose the council to financial instability. To do so would put far more services and staff in jeopardy.”

By Peter Finch and Jason Lavan