ORGANISERS of an annual bazaar that usually raises £1,500 for the city's homeless have blamed the Guildhall's 'locked door' policy for losing them hundreds of pounds.
The Worcester News reported on Friday how the grand entrance to the High Street building had been shut to the public following a £650,000 programme to provide equal access for the disabled - a decision that had provoked fury from Worcester Mayor Aubrey Tarbuck.
Now organisers of Saturday's bazaar - held to raise money for St Paul's Hostel in Tallow Hill - say they lost at least a quarter of the money they were expecting to make as potential customers simply did not know how to get in.
"There's a sign on the door but people just couldn't read it," organiser Mike Field said.
"In the first hour - which is usually the most popular - we only took around £100.
"And the disabled and children in pushchairs were not able to get in anyway as there are steps at the side entrance - we had to help carry loads of people up them. It's ridiculous."
Mr Field added that the Guildhall's Green Room - which in the past has been used as a caf at the fundraiser - had also been closed.
"We have been carting boiling water through the Guildhall to make tea and coffee in the main foyer," he said. It's not ideal.
"We shall be asking for our £180 hiring fee back."
The council's chief executive, David Wareing, said the main doors were now only to be used for civic functions and major ceremonial occasions, in line with a notification sent to all councillors in July.
The side entrance provided access to a lift, so there should be no need for pushchairs and wheelchairs to have to be lifted up the steps, he said.
"The mayor and others have made complaints about the main doors being closed and we are considering them. We need to decided how we are going to manage two front doors in terms of reception and security," he said. If the organisers of Saturday's event were unhappy, they should write to him and he would consider their complaints.
Councillor and chief become locked in row
A ROW has blown up between the chief executive of Worcester City Council and a leading member over the Guildhall changes.
The chairman of the Guildhall working party Councillor David Clark has demanded to know "who is running this show" after the building's 'greatest asset' was closed to the public to be used for training council staff.
Coun Clark said he was disgusted that the historic Court Room - which was used to decide the fate of the city's prisoners - had been shut to visitors.
But the council's chief executive, David Wareing said Coun Clark should have spoken to him about his concerns before "sounding off" to the Press.
"As a senior councillor and former mayor, he should have known better," said Mr Wareing.
"The Guildhall working party has not met for some time, although it was open to members to reconvene it if they wished." He said the closure of the Court Room and adjoining Green Room was part of a cost-cutting plan to consolidate the staff in one building and eventually close Farrier House.
"My officers have had to endure a lot of change in recent years in order to reduce the council's budget by £3m."
However, Coun Clark said most councillors were against the changes and he could not recall being part of the decision-making process. He added the extensive work done by the working party was aimed at making the most of the 'great asset' of the Guildhall.
"By focusing on the Courtroom and retaining its historic use, and by improving access to the treasures of the whole building, the main entrance was the focal point to many of the suggestions that came forward," he said.
"I cannot understand why this decision has been made, nor am I aware under what authority it was done.
"I do question, therefore, who is running this show?"
"I would like to make a start in restoring these two extremely important parts of our main civic building back to their proper use with appropriate access."
But Mr Wareing stressed all 35 city councillors were sent a letter in July informing them about the changes at the building and Coun Clark had not replied.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article