Cancer centre to be built on former Royal Liverpool Hospital site
A new cancer centre is set to be built on the site of a former hospital, which is in the final stages of demolition. The Royal Liverpool University Hospital's 11-storey ward block has been demolished, with contractors now preparing the site for redevelopment, NHS University Hospitals of Liverpool Group said. Construction will soon begin on a new podium and entrance to improve access to the new hospital, with work set to be finished in Autumn 2026. A wider plan for the site includes a Liverpool centre for Manchester-based cancer charity Maggie's, which is set to open in 2027, the group said.
Plans are also under way to build the University of Liverpool's health and life sciences campus - which will house medical, dental and nurse training facilities - on the site. The hospital, which opened in 1978, was decommissioned when the new hospital opened on the neighbouring site in October 2022. Chief executive of NHS University Hospitals of Liverpool Group, James Sumner, said: "Demolishing the old site in such close proximity to the new Royal and neighbouring buildings has been a complex project and reaching this milestone is a significant achievement."He said the masterplan for the former hospital's site would be developed with the "health and wellbeing of our patients and local communities at its heart".
Listen to the best of BBC Radio Merseyside on Sounds and follow BBC Merseyside on Facebook, X, and Instagram. You can also send story ideas via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
31 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Scientists pinpoint way to check if you're going to get early-onset colon cancer with up to 92% accuracy
A little-known at-home test can detect early-onset colon cancer before symptoms develop, increasing the chance of surviving a disease that is surging among young people. The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) costs $49 and screens a person's feces for flecks of blood, a warning sign of the cancer — as tumors cause bleeding. The test is FDA-approved and allows younger people a chance to screen for colon cancer before they reach the recommended age for a colonoscopy, 45 years. If blood is detected, a colonoscopy is performed, increasing the chances of catching colon cancer early when it is more treatable. And the American College of Surgeons says it is generally accurate, able to detect about 80 percent of all cases. If someone opts for the $600 FIT with DNA screening, which checks for abnormal changes in cells' DNA, accuracy rises to 92 percent. A colonoscopy is about 99 percent accurate at detecting all cancers. A recent study found people that use the FIT method between the ages of 40 to 49 years old are 39 percent less likely to die from colon cancer than their peers who wait to get the test until they are 50 years old or above. An increasing number of younger people are seeking screening, as the US experiences a surge in colon cancer among people under 50, with young patients today about twice as likely to be diagnosed with the disease than their grandparents. The rising rates are prompting some physicians to urge Americans to start getting screened for the disease before the age of 45 years, which is when US doctors recommend. For the test, which can be ordered online, customers are sent a package containing a collection tube. They are asked to collect a sample of their feces from the toilet bowl, place it in the tube and mail it to a lab. Results take about five days to come back. In the lab, scientists expose the feces to antibodies that can bind to human hemoglobin - a protein found in red blood cells. If they bind to an area of the feces, a positive test result is issued - and patients are advised to undertake further screening. In the FIT with DNA, scientists also analyze cells found in the stool for abnormal changes - which could indicate cancer. Patients over 45 years old who have an average risk — meaning no family history of the disease — may be recommended the test, which is free for the group under health insurance plans. But people can also buy the test, which is sold by labs like Everlywell for $49, or opt for other tests like Cologuard, which is priced at $121. While the test can be extremely helpful, doctors caution that about five to 10 percent of patients who get a positive result do not have colon cancer or advanced polyps. The number of false positives after a colonoscopy is below one percent. It is important to follow up with a doctor to discuss results. Patients undertaking the test are recommended to do it every year, as this can help to catch early-onset cancers which are typically slower growing. Among patients to have their cancer caught after using an at-home stool-based test is Christine Bronstein, who was diagnosed with the cancer at age 48. The Hawaii local exercises regularly, and avoids sugar and alcohol. But after seeing blood in her stool in 2021, she became concerned and ordered a stool-based test. After results came back positive, she rushed to see her doctor and was eventually approved for a colonoscopy - which led to a stage three colon cancer diagnosis with a two-inch tumor found in her rectum. Bronstein told TODAY: 'I'm very lucky that I did my test when I did. This thing really takes people down right in their prime... I think the problem why this is becoming the No.1 killer for younger people is because their symptoms get denied.' Colon cancer cases are surging among under-50s in the US in an uptick that has stunned researchers, with adults born in the 1980s having double the risk of suffering from the cancer compared to their parents. Among adults aged 25 to 29 years, colon cancer cancer rates have spiked 85 percent in two decades according to CDC data. At the same time, over the last 30 years cases have dropped among over-50s by 30 percent.
Telegraph
37 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The ‘experts' you've never heard of inspiring Rachel Reeves's disastrous economic policy
A little like the Chagos Islands giveaway and, more recently, the apparent Gibraltar sell out, it's almost impossible to work out the motivations behind each and every idiotic decision this Labour Government takes. There's a palpable sense of incredulity spreading across Britain as the Prime Minister and Chancellor continue to insist that everything is going swimmingly despite most key markers showing precisely the opposite is true. Take the economy. In Wednesday's Spending Review, Rachel Reeves boasted that she had 'wasted no time' removing the barriers to growth. Less than 24 hours later, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that UK GDP had shrunk by 0.3 per cent in April. Labour continues to splurge taxpayers' hard-earned cash despite the national debt sitting at around 96 per cent of GDP, the budget deficit more doubling in the past seven years, and public spending being on a par with the profligate Labour government of the 1970s, which almost bankrupted the country. Back then, taxes as a share of GDP were around 33 per cent. Forecasts suggest that, by 2027, they could reach 37.7 per cent. Unemployment is at its highest level in four years, UK payrolls have lost 276,000 employees since the autumn Budget, and a millionaire is reportedly leaving the UK every 45 minutes under Labour. Still, no one in the Cabinet appears able to rule out further tax rises, with Paul Johnson, the outgoing chief of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) concluding that 'council tax bills look set to rise at their fastest rate over any parliament since 2001-05.' Who is advising Reeves on tax policy, and her relentless assault on our wallets? Readers may not have heard of Arun Advani and Andy Summers, but these little known academics may have been the inspiration for Labour's seemingly never-ending tax grab. They run the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax), which some credit for Labour's farm tax. Advani, who is associate professor in the economics department at the University of Warwick, called for inheritance tax 'loopholes' on farms to be scrapped in two reports for the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as well as writing a further report for CenTax making the same arguments for changes to both Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR) last October. After Advani boasted at the Labour Party Conference that he was 'optimistic' because the Labour government is 'genuinely listening' to his ideas, Reeves announced in the Budget that the availability of 100 per cent relief for agricultural and business property would be capped at £1 million. So far, so predictable, you may argue. What's the harm in tapping up Left-wing think tanks for radical tax ideas? Do Conservative governments not rely on the research of free market institutes? Well, some have alleged the Treasury relied solely on CenTax's projection that the changes would raise £520 million, without doing its own calculations. As it conceded in response to a Freedom of Information request: 'H M Treasury does not hold a disaggregated cost projection for the revenue raised from the measure announced at Autumn Budget 2024 to restrict these reliefs. This is a combined policy across the reliefs, rather than separate policies for each relief.' Even more problematically, the £520 million figure has been challenged. The OBR itself said it was uncertain how much would be raised as a result of behavioural responses, whilst CBI Economics calculates that the new tax on both family firms and farms will actually cost the Treasury £1.9 billion over the next five years. Advani claimed that only around 500 farms would be affected by the tax. As the Adam Smith Institute points out, however, 'the government's much-quoted '500' a year is really 15,000 a generation.' The true number of farms could be more than 40,000. Separate research, commissioned by Ashbridge Partners, found that one in 10 farmers surveyed said they will face an IHT bill of more than £1 million due to the inheritance tax hike, with 31 per cent expecting to pay more than £500,000. Why didn't Labour listen? Treasury minister James Murray, who referenced back in 2022 how many Zoom meetings he'd held with Dr Summers, even hosted CenTax's official launch in Parliament last November when he declared his desire 'to make sure that collaboration between CenTax, Treasury and HMRC continues for many years into the future.' Advani and Summers also influenced Labour's pledge to scrap non dom status with Treasury ministers again seeming to unquestioningly swallow their claim that it would raise £3.2 billion, a figure repeatedly cited by the Government. The trouble is, that number was also based on some misguided premises, perhaps including Advani and Summers' quite ludicrous prediction that out of 70,000 non-doms, only 77 would leave. As other economists later pointed out, the projection did not take into account the impact of abolishing non-dom inheritance tax protections. Even the OBR assumed that the changes would likely lead to a loss of 25 per cent of non-doms with trusts, which could cost the UK more than £12 billion during the course of the parliament. Still the Government swallowed the £3.2 billion figure hook line and sinker despite some now estimating that 10 per cent of non-doms may have already left the UK. A report by the CEBR predicts the ongoing exodus could reach 40 per cent – costing the Treasury a self-defeating £7.1 billion over this parliament. This combined with the £1.9 billion revenue lost as a result of the farm and family firm tax could mean the Government is down £9 billion thanks to listening to these nitwits. CenTax also wrongly predicted that increasing the tax rate on carried interest to 45 per cent would raise additional revenue of £0.8 billion per year. Labour settled on 32 per cent – but a January 2025 estimate by the OBR suggests that only £100 million will be raised and since then Reeves has watered it down. Labour claim to be a 'party of business'. So why are they seemingly listening to two economists who are laying the intellectual groundwork for an expansion in taxation that could come to look like Corbynism on steroids.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
UK's Spectris rejects second KKR takeover approach in favour of Advent's $5 billion proposal
June 13 (Reuters) - Britain's Spectris (SXS.L), opens new tab said on Friday it has rejected a second takeover proposal from private equity firm KKR, days after the scientific instruments maker backed a possible competing $5 billion bid from Advent. Spectris did not provide details on KKR's proposal, noting only that it was the second proposal by the PE firm it had rejected. The company, which provides hardware and software solutions to sectors such as pharmaceuticals, steel and automotive, said on Monday it would accept private equity firm Advent's proposal of 37.63 pounds per share if a formal offer was made. Advent and KKR did not immediately respond to Reuters' requests for comment. The competing proposal by KKR was first reported by the Wall Street Journal on Friday. Spectris is the largest takeover target this year in Britain, a country that has attracted overseas buyers in recent years due to relatively cheap valuations. Under UK takeover rules, KKR has until July 11 to make a formal offer or walk away.
