Calls to use County Hall HQ for hospital parking
Fresh calls are being made to use Worcestershire's County Hall as overflow hospital parking.
A new administration taking control of the council will face questions over the authority's Worcester headquarters, which has been closed since June last year.
Green Party and Independent councillors have called for County Hall car parks to be opened up to staff, patients and visitors at nearby Worcestershire Royal Hospital for an initial nine months.
Their motion is to be debated at a council meeting on Thursday – the first since elections earlier this month, when Reform UK became the largest party with 27 seats but remained two short of an overall majority.
In the motion, councillors also called for more bays for Beryl Bikes, which is a bike-sharing scheme in the city, to be installed at the Spetchley Road end of the council site.
The motion said: "Worcestershire County Council's empty car parks at County Hall are just a few minutes' traffic-free walk away from the hospital.
"Allowing these car parks temporarily to be used for overspill hospital parking could reduce congestion on the hospital site immediately while the longer-term solutions are put in place."
Plans to build a multi-storey car park next to the hospital were approved in March, but councillors behind the motion said: "This will take several months to be built."
It is suggested the council could charge £3 a day for parking at County Hall to bring in revenue and that "a significant number of car parking spaces" should be opened up.
Councillors said details would need to be worked through to prevent an adverse impact on county workers and visitors and to address residents' concerns.
They said a park-and-ride scheme for hospital staff, visitors and patients had been spoken about for months now, but still nothing was in place.
In February, 50 parking spaces were temporarily made available for hospital staff while their usual parking was improved.
The council offices have been shut since June last year, after potentially dangerous RAAC concrete and legionella bacteria were detected.
This news was gathered by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, which covers councils and other public service organisations.
Follow BBC Hereford & Worcester on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Reform UK elects Worcestershire group leader
Hospital unit staff to park at council building
NHS staff to get park and ride service
'Beryl' bike share scheme rolled out across city
Worcestershire County Council
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Robby's Radar: Elon Musk should join the Libertarian Party
I have an idea for Elon Musk: join the Libertarian Party! Actually, don't just join it — take it over! Let me explain. Musk and President Trump seem to have entered some kind of détente following their big blowup last week. The world's richest man is no longer tweeting constantly about Trump being on the Epstein client list, or about how he feels betrayed over the big beautiful bill, which will massively increase the deficit despite Republican promises to finally cut government spending. In fact, he's spent the last several days tweeting about the Los Angeles riots and the importance of emerging AI technology. Trump, for his part, is refusing to engage Elon with particular hostility. Trump recently told reporters that he would be keeping the Tesla he bought from Musk, that he would continue using Starlink, Musk's internet service, and that he wished Elon well. I try not to make political predictions, but it actually would not surprise me in the least if Trump and Elon makeup — or at the very least, if the Republican Party maintains a friendly enough connection to Elon so that the tech billionaire remains a financial backer of, say, Vice President JD Vance when he inevitably runs for president. But here's an alternative idea I'd like to plan in Musk's head, as he is currently party shopping. As a Libertarian Party member, and voter, I would be thrilled to welcome Elon into the party — and I suspect I wouldn't be alone. After all, the Libertarian Party is a natural fit for Elon, whose politics mostly seem to align with Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, the two most libertarian members of Congress in the Republican Party. Elon wants low taxes, lower spending, low regulation, and thinks the federal government's priorities should reflect that: Cut the deficit first, get our fiscal house in order, and worry about the other stuff later. He also wants government regulations to be friendly to technological growth, is particularly motivated to prevent censorship on social media, and thinks the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic was authoritarian. These are all textbook libertarian issues. What's more, the current trajectory of the Libertarian Party makes it ideal for some new leadership. For years, the party has been the nation's third or fourth largest, alongside the Green Party. In the 2016 election, Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson received 4.5 million votes and about 3 percent of the national vote, a record at the time. In 2020, the Libertarian nominee received about 1 percent of the national vote. In both of those elections, it finished ahead of the Green Party. Behind the scenes, however, the party has gone through something for a transformation over the last two cycles. Johnson, the 2016 nominee, was perceived by some within the Libertarian Party as too liberal and mainstream — not based enough to attract contrarians and dissidents to the party. In response, a faction calling itself the Mises Caucus formed and attempted to take control of the party. In 2022, they succeeded. Their strategy was podcast-focused: Find people who listen to Joe Rogan and like-minded independent thinkers and draw them to the Libertarian Party. The strategy had a certain amount of merit. The party ended up flirting with Robert F Kennedy Jr., and found itself having significant audience overlap with him. But eventually, Kennedy made a quasi-endorsement of Trump and essentially withdrew from the presidential race. Meanwhile, at the Libertarian National Convention, delegates bucked the Mises Caucus and picked their least preferred candidate, Chase Oliver. In response, the Mises Caucus leadership barely tolerated the Libertarian candidate, hindering his campaign in numerous ways. The party's chairwoman, Angela McArdle, the highest-ranking Mises Caucus official, subsequently resigned from the party. The new chair is not a member of this faction and is trying to chart a more neutral course and reunite the party, though the Mises Caucus has vowed to retake control. So that's where we are now: The Libertarian Party could use some new people, some new leadership, and probably a new infusion of cash. If Elon Musk really wants to make Republicans sorry that they failed to live up to his expectations and cut government spending — but quite rationally believes that Democrats will never ever, ever do better — he might find he has the most in common with the ticket that gets my vote every year. Robbie Soave is co-host of The Hill's commentary show 'Rising' and a senior editor for Reason Magazine. This column is an edited transcription of his daily commentary.
Bloomberg
8 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Farage's Reform UK Appoints Murdoch TV Station Anchor as Chair
Television presenter David Bull will become the new chairman of Nigel Farage's Reform UK, after his predecessor Zia Yusuf quit the party and then rejoined days later following a disagreement about whether burqas should be banned in Britain. Bull, a former medical doctor and long-time ally of Farage who previously served as Reform's deputy leader between 2021 and 2023, was unveiled as chairman by Yusuf in a press conference on Tuesday. He is a presenter on TalkTV, an online channel run by Rupert Murdoch's News UK.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Starmer and Farage have doomed Britain to a spiral of decline
The Government's decision to U-turn on the winter fuel allowance is absurd – and, sadly, a big indicator that Reform UK is not going to be the party which breaks Britain out of its spiral of self-inflicted decline. Rachel Reeves plans to restore the WFA to all pensioners with an income up to £35,000 a year. It will then be clawed back from the wealthiest retirees via the tax system. Overall, around 7.5 million older people who missed the payment last year are set to receive it again – at an apparent cost in the region of £1.25 billion a year. Paul Johnson, the Chair of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, puts it well: 'It wouldn't even be in the top 100 of things that I would do with my £1.25bn if I wanted to act on poverty. Almost none of the people impacted by this will be in poverty.' He's right. The Government's decision to means test the WFA removed the payment from some ten million people; of these, its own analysis suggested that only 50,000 or so were placed into 'relative fuel poverty'. And remember, 'relative poverty' is merely an income inequality metric; it doesn't mean someone is necessarily unable to afford heating. Even on the face of it, therefore, Reeves is hosing money at 7.5 million people for the sake of lifting just 50,000 out of 'relative' poverty. But closer consideration of the numbers reveals even deeper absurdities. Take the income requirement of £35,000. From the off, that is only a couple of grand less than the national average wage of £37,430. Why should pensioners on that income receive a fuel payment when working-age people on similar incomes do not? If anything, those working-age people are more deserving of help – for their cost of living is often substantially increased by costs from which many pensioners are exempt. How many of those 7.5 million beneficiaries, for example, are living mortgage-free? Retirees are also exempt from National Insurance, and that has big implications for their real income. Without NICs, that £35,000 becomes about £2,500 a month post-tax; for a working person to be in a similar position, they would need to earn quite a bit more than the average wage (enough to be in the top 37 per cent of earners, or thereabouts). Pensioner poverty was a real problem in 2010, when the Coalition Government first introduced the Triple Lock. But whilst there are some struggling pensioners today, it is absurd that the State continues giving indiscriminate welfare to what has become, on average, this country's wealthiest age cohort. Our pathological inability to cut entitlement spending, even to people who obviously don't need it, is one of the main reasons our country is in such a sorry state. We are all but conducting a controlled experiment in how much of the state can be all but dismantled – prisons, courts, the military – in order to avoid touching the big revenue expenditure accounts. Arresting British decline will require breaking out of this cycle. But it's a prisoner's dilemma for politicians: try to do the right thing, as Theresa May did on social care, and it creates an all-too-tempting opening for opportunistic opponents to exploit – as Labour did then, and as Reform UK has done now. Now forced to govern in the long shadow of wildly unrealistic voter expectations, Labour is probably quietly regretting its game-playing over the 'dementia tax'. If Nigel Farage ever becomes prime minister, and is forced to admit the extravagant savings he claims he can get from abolishing DEI and net zero are for the birds, he may well regret killing off such an obvious cut as the winter fuel allowance. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
