Thursday, 08 January 2009

Dangers of council power struggle over site of new hospital

A LEADING Allerdale councillor has warned of the danger of a power struggle between district councils over the location of a new hospital for West Cumbria.

Seaton councillor Trevor Fee, speaking at an Allerdale scrutiny committee meeting on Friday, warned of the risks if Copeland and Allerdale councils went head-to-head in a bid to get the health campus in their areas.

He said: “We need to be careful because there is a risk that a power struggle breaks out. We need to make sure that the right place is chosen for the hospital; we have to look for a good area for the people, instead of political gain.”

Three possible locations are understood to have been earmarked for a new West Cumbrian district hospital, at Lillyhall, the Westlakes Science Park site near Whitehaven, and at the existing West Cumberland Hospital site in Whitehaven.

Coun Fee said: “The best site is at Lillyhall because of the access from all directions. It is also central, and hopefully this one will be chosen.”

His comments follow concerns raised following a recent controversial statement in which Copeland council leader Elaine Woodburn claimed that Whitehaven would be economically devastated if a district hospital was moved from its present Whitehaven site any further north.

She said: “There is an extremely strong business case for the hospital to stay in Whitehaven.

“Allerdale does have five cottage hospitals. Copeland has one, in the southern-most part of the borough.”

Workington MP Tony Cunningham is on record as preferring a Lillyhall site, but added: “The major issue is that the hospital must be accessible for the people of Maryport, Cockermouth and Workington as well as for the people of Copeland.

“The ideal place is somewhere equidistant. It’s a West Cumberland Hospital, not a Whitehaven or Copeland hospital.”

A public consultation will begin next spring.

Vote

Should people convicted of drink-driving permanently lose their licence?

Yes, they are taking a real risk that could prove to be fatal

No, a ban for, say, 18 or 24 months is sufficient

Show Result