Safe Speed Forums

10m BMW move to Bolton
By Rob Devey

A PRESTIGE car firm is moving its headquarters to a new £10 million building in Bolton - to escape proposed congestion charges in Manchester.
Bosses at Williams BMW say proposals to charge drivers for using roads into the city centre will "destroy Manchester".
And they are predicting Bolton will be a big winner with businesses from Manchester looking to set up in the town.
advertisement

Bolton's proximity to the motorway network is an added attraction for companies.
WIlliams BMW managing director Nick Cook said people should not underestimate Bolton's strengths.
"We see the congestion charge as a major problem in terms of our staff getting to work," he said.
"The charge will destroy Manchester and the number of companies talking about moving out at the moment is frightening."
Transport bosses last month revealed plans for charges of up to £5 per day for motorists travelling through inner and outer zones around Manchester at peak times. The proposed outer zone would encircle the city close to the M60.
Williams BMW already had plans to open a new showroom in the town to replace its current site in Bradshawgate.
But the threat of congestion charges prompted bosses to move the firm's headquarters, too, from its present base in Chester Road, close to Manchester city centre.
Bolton Council has approved the plans for the company's new head office on the site of Bolton's former greyhound track in Raikes Lane.
Work on the new site will begin in autumn and is due to be completed in August next year.
Mr Cook said his firm could create 30 new jobs within two years.
Fifteen staff from the Manchester head office including bosses, accountants and secretaries will relocate to the new complex, along with 115 employees from the Bradshawgate dealership.
Mr Cook believes more companies will relocate from Manchester.
"If the council can get into a position to take up the slack, this could be a big win for Bolton and will create more jobs in the town," he said.
Prof Stan Oliver, head of business logistics and information systems at the University of Bolton, said: "Cities are becoming expensive places for head office activities and the trend is for things like finance and procurement departments and management services to move out of city centres.
"The congestion charge will encourage that even more and I think we will see an influx of companies from Manchester to Bolton.
"Places like Manchester might always be the attractive sales face of an organisation, but they do not need that for the back office work and somewhere like Bolton is only 15 minutes away by train."
Mr Oliver said Bolton needed to "prepare itself" for the influx.
"The council has got to make sure the premises are available, the road infrastructure is as modern as can be and technological links like wireless internet are here.
"I do think that is happening. There are lots of new office developments going up."
Cllr Nick Peel told fellow planning and highways committee members the Williams move was "a feather in Bolton's cap" as they approved the development, which also includes a workshop, parts store, washing bays, parking areas and a new access off Raikes Lane.
"The fact they are relocating here from Manchester is something for Bolton to be proud of," he said.
Cllr Akhtar Zaman, the council's executive member for regeneration, also welcomed the Williams BMW move, but said: "We don't yet know if congestion charging will happen and it's too early to say what impact it would have on businesses.
"But I think Bolton is in a good position to welcome any company which would like to move to the town and would be good for the town, whatever its reason and wherever it is moving from."

Business opposes c-charge
Exclusive David Ottewell
21/ 6/2007
FOUR out of five businesses in Greater Manchester would vote against the planned congestion charge in a referendum, a major new survey reveals.

And half of the 1,246 companies polled said they would be less likely to invest in the area as a result of road-pricing.

The news will come as a blow to Greater Manchester councils, who are currently involved in a massive consultation exercise asking for views on plans to levy a peak-hour congestion charge of up to £5 a day in return for £3bn of public transport improvements.

Electronic tags would be used to charge people passing through both an outer ring bordered by the M60 and an inner ring nearer to the city centre.

Transport bosses have pledged not to introduce the levy unless it is "acceptable" to both the general public and businesses - but resisted calls for a referendum.

The new independent survey was commissioned by Peel Holdings, one of Greater Manchester's biggest companies and vocal opponents of the proposed charge. Peel own both the Trafford Centre and the MediaCity:UK site at Salford that will house the BBC when it moves thousands of jobs out of London.

Supporters of the proposed charge dismissed the new results as "skewed" because they failed to link road pricing to the £3bn improvement package.

But Andrew Simpson, managing director of Peel Holdings, said last night he "couldn't believe" people would support a charge that would "hamstring" businesses and "drive away" investment.

Effects

"The effects on business across the board would be very painful but it will be too late to attract them back once they've gone," he said.

"This tax is a cause of serious concern to employers and those who drive the Manchester economy. It will hamstring businesses and drive away potential investors in the city.

"We fully support the Federation of Small Businesses' call for a referendum on this issue but I can't believe people will support this tax."

The research was carried out by independent Manchester-based pollsters Aspect Market Research and included 1,246 businesses of all sizes across the city-region. The interviews were with chief executives, directors and managers.

The survey found 80 per cent of respondents would vote against the charge in a referendum. Thirty-five per cent said they would be "much less likely" to invest in Greater Manchester in the future if the scheme went ahead, with a further 15 per cent "somewhat" less likely".

The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) drew up the congestion charge plans as part of a potential bid to the government for money for public transport. AGMA could get up to £3bn for a package include a major extension of the Metrolink light rail system and investment in trains and buses. Ministers have made it clear that without the congestion charge, Greater Manchester's won't get the cash.

An exclusive M.E.N. survey of 1,000 people across Greater Manchester, carried out by independent pollsters in March, found 64 per cent of people thought congestion charging was a bad idea. But 59 per cent said it was a price worth paying for the public transport improvements.

Roger Jones, Chairman of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority, said: "This particular poll does not reflect reality as it only asks about congestion charges and not about public transport improvements.

"We would of course expect a majority to vote against road charging if it was introduced in isolation, in the way this poll suggests.

"However, a limited, peak time-only congestion charging scheme would in Greater Manchester will ONLY be considered alongside £3bn of improvements in public transport.

Concern

"The feedback we have received indicates that increasing congestion is a real concern for businesses in Greater Manchester, negatively impacting on getting goods to market and staff to work.

"The fact that a substantial minority, 20 per cent of people, are in favour of charging in response to what is really a skewed poll confirms the level of concern among the Greater Manchester public about congestion and environmental issues."

Chris Fletcher, policy director at the Greater Manchester Chamber, said: "We have not yet done a formal survey of our 5,000 members, although we are planning to do so.

"In the straw polls we have done we have heard some pretty mixed views, although not quite as polarised as this survey.

"Some are totally against it and some say it is not too bad and they can see the benefits.

"There has been a barrage of information relating to the planned transport improvements [that would accompany the charge] and some of our members have welcomed those."
Read more about the congestion charge via the links on the right of this page.

Discuss the congestion charge - and other hot political topics - at David Ottewell's blog .
Let us know what you think by submitting your comments below.

-charge: War of words
Exclusive David Ottewell
22/ 6/2007
A WAR of words erupted today over a controversial survey showing a massive business backlash against plans for congestion charging in Greater Manchester.

The poll of 1,246 companies, commissioned by Peel Holdings, showed 80 per cent would vote against the proposal if given the chance in a referendum.

Further findings - revealed by the M.E.N. today - include:

: 38 per cent of businesses would consider moving out of the proposed charging zone if road pricing went ahead

: 78 per cent believed it would harm businesses compared with the rest of the country

: 58 per cent said it would have a "negative" effect on their profitability

But the survey was subject to a furious attack from Roger Jones, chairman of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority (GMPTA), who said he had "nothing but contempt" for Peel's intentions, accusing them of "trying to con" the public. Peel, one of the biggest companies in Greater Manchester, are vocal opponents of plans to charge peak-hour motorists up to £5 a day in return for £3bn of public transport improvements.

Disingenuous

The boss of one of the region's most influential developers joined the fray last night, saying the poll "trivialised" the congestion charge debate and was "disingenuous". Ken Knott, chief executive of Ask Property Development - the company that regenerated Central Park, the Malmaison hotel and Deansgate Locks - said he was "minded to support" the charge.

"People should not be influenced by polls which have no basis in reality, are skewed towards sectional interests and serve only to meet the interests of those who want everyone to carry on driving, no matter what the cost to our businesses, environment and health," he added.

Critics of the poll point out that respondents - who included 504 business leaders from Trafford, 320 from Manchester and 422 from neighbouring boroughs - were not asked whether they would accept the charge in return the £3bn of improvements. Coun Jones has pledged that without the money, the charge will not go ahead. Ministers have made it plain that without the charge, Greater Manchester will not get the money.

The independent research company that carried out the poll said Coun Jones had been "completely wrong" to "cast aspersions".

"All the businesses that were surveyed were fully briefed on the proposed public transport improvements before they were interviewed, said Richard Barron, managing director of Aspect Market Research. "Coun Jones is trying to distract attention from the key finding - that business is overwhelmingly against the proposed tax."

Andrew Simpson, managing director of Peel Holdings said: "Elected representatives could better spend their time listening to the breadth of local opinion rather than attempting to rubbish anyone who dares to disagree with their pet political project.

"Coun Jones is attempting to shoot the messenger because he doesn't like what people are telling him."

Join the debate on David Ottewell's political blog

C-charge: mixed messages
David Ottewell
21/ 6/2007

THE Manchester Evening News' exclusive poll on road pricing highlighted a key tension at the centre of the debate.

On one hand, 64 per cent said road pricing was a bad idea and 80 per cent that it would have a negative impact on Greater Manchester's economy.

On the other, 59 per cent said it was a price worth paying to get £1bn worth of public transport improvements including the full "Big Bang" extension of the Metrolink tram system to Rochdale, the airport and Ashton under Lyne.

Investment

Since then we have learned that the true scale of investment could be three times the original estimate - £3bn - and include huge investment in trains and buses as well as extra light rail lines to Stockport and the Trafford Centre.

In our survey, conducted by CBA Marketing Research in March, 61 per cent of people said a congestion charge would NOT change the way they travelled.

Half said it would mean they would come into Manchester for shopping or entertainment less often - but that was before AGMA declared the charge would only apply at peak times.

Sixty-three per cent said congestion was a "serious problem" in Greater Manchester, while 66 per cent of existing public transport users said they doubted the system would be able to cope with increased demand. But, again, that was before details of the planned investment were unveiled by the Manchester Evening News.

And while 53 per cent of people said they would vote against a party that supported congestion charging, the results of the council elections in May told a different story. Labour lost just two seats across 14 councils in and around Greater Manchester, despite the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats temporarily withdrawing support for the charging proposals just before polling day.

What do you think? Have your say.
Submit your comments | View comments
(4 comments. Last comment 21/ 6/2007 at 11:01)

I wish you luck.
Manchester is the frontline of the road pricing aganda. It will happen, of course, but the adherents are going to have to "tune" it to get the best results. Then it will be rolled-out over the country, with the knowledge gained from the Manchester campaign.
The battle is lost, but a few minor skirmishes may gain something for local areas.
All too obviously, road pricing in many formats is on the way.

As this is my birthday weekend, I treated myself to a nice run out in the car yesterday, up the M6 to the southern Lake District. Lovely

I must find some more time to do that; go for a run in the car just for the hell of it.

As this is my birthday weekend, I treated myself to a nice run out in the car yesterday, up the M6 to the southern Lake District.

-charge: 'A wall around the city'
Dean Kirby
25/ 6/2007


THE M60 will become Greater Manchester's `Berlin Wall' blocking out business and tourism if congestion charges are introduced, protesters have warned.

Campaign group Manchester Against Road Tolls (MART) has now launched an online petition calling for the scheme to be scrapped.

Members of the group, whose campaign is backed by the Association of British Drivers, started gathering the first signatures in Market Street, Manchester, on Saturday.

Spokesman Sean Corker said: "Congestion charging will create an electronic Berlin Wall around Manchester and the M60 will become a barrier that will keep people in and money out."

The campaign launch came the day after a survey showed a massive business backlash against the charge.

The poll of more than 1,200 companies, commissioned by Peel Holdings, showed 80 per cent would vote against the proposal if given the chance in a referendum.

Further findings - revealed in the M.E.N. last week - showed 38 per cent of businesses would consider moving out of the proposed charging zone if road pricing went ahead.

And 78 per cent said they thought it would harm business compared with the rest of the country.

The survey was criticised by the chairman of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority, Roger Jones, who accused Peel Holdings of `trying to con' the public.

Motorists who signed the petition told the M.E.N. why they were concerned about the plans to charge peak-hour drivers up to £5 a day in return for £3bn of public transport improvements.

Lorraine McKenzie, from Blackley, said: "It's just a tax on motorists because we're easy targets. The authorities think drivers are the new Bank of England."

Peter Roberts, the man behind a national anti-road pricing petition which attracted 1.8m signatures, was in Manchester for the launch of the campaign.

He said: "Now is the time for the people of Manchester to start the fight back against these toll plans, which destroy jobs and put the city at a major economic disadvantage. Politicians are denying the people of Manchester a voice on this crucial issue and MART is determined to give them their say."

The petition can be found at www.manchestertolltax.com

Charge worries for ski slope
Alan Salter
18/ 6/2007

A CLOUD hung over Europe's biggest indoor ski slope on its proudest day so far...Greater Manchester's approaching congestion charge.

For it emerged that the centre which is due to open next to the Trafford Centre in November may have been built elsewhere if the developers had known about the road pricing plans.

The Chill Factor which has drawn admiring glances from drivers on the nearby M60 as it reached its full height over the last few months, will employ 500 people and is expected to attract 2.5million visitors a year to its real snow slopes.

Behind the glittering traditional "topping out" ceremony was fear that the charge would put off potential customers at the £31million centre.

After celebrating with bosses of contractors Sir Robert McAlpine - builders of the Eden Project in Cornwall and Arsenal's Emirate Stadium - Chill Factor chairman Peter Moore revealed that he first heard of the congestion charge plans when he read about them in the MEN six weeks ago.

He said: "Any reasonable person recognises that there has to be some management of the traffic problem - and I don't yet know the fine details of the scheme.

"It came as a bit of a bolt out of the blue to learn that we are just a few yards from the edge of cordon.

Demand

"We will have people on the slopes before 9.30am and our busiest time will be between 4.30pm and 6.30pm so the congestion charge is going to affect our business. There is bound to be some demand reduction.

"It would have given us great food for thought when we were deciding where to build it if we had known that a congestion charge was going to be imposed."

He added: "It is important that we know the full details as soon as possible."

The British Disabled Ski Team has chosen the centre as its training base for the Vancouver 2010 Paralympics

Debate gets congested
David Ottewell
26/ 6/2007


A WAR of words broke out in the business community of Greater Manchester after a survey commissioned by Peel Holdings showed 80 per cent of companies would vote against congestion charging in a referendum.

Transport chiefs - backed by Ken Knott, chief executive of Ask Property Development - dismissed the poll as `skewed' because they say it failed to link road-pricing plans to the £3bn of public transport cash that would be demanded in return.

But Peel's managing director Andrew Simpson fired back, saying critics were `attempting to rubbish anyone who dares to disagree with their pet political project'. Here we print their highly-charged statements, letters and comments . . . .

Andrew Simpson, managing director of Peel Holdings said in a press statement:

"This tax is a cause of serious concern to employers and those who drive the Manchester economy. It will hamstring businesses and drive away potential investors in the city.

"In the global economy, many businesses can relocate very easily. This kind of disincentive will only encourage investors to go elsewhere.

"We're equally concerned about the effects on small businesses, many of whom are our suppliers. The effects on business across the board would be very painful but it will be too late to attract them back once they've gone.

"We fully support the Federation of Small Businesses' call for a referendum but I can't believe people will support this tax."

Roger Jones, chairman of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority, said in his press statement:

"AGMA is encouraging all views on the issues surrounding the potential £3bn of public transport improvements and the possible introduction of a congestion charge.

"This is part of an initial consultation to gauge the views of Greater Manchester's business communities, a substantial sample of businesses will be contacted for their opinions.

"This particular poll does not reflect reality as it only asks about congestion charges and not about public transport improvements. We would, of course, expect a majority to vote against road charging if it was introduced in isolation, in the way this poll suggests.

"However, a limited peak time-only scheme in Greater Manchester will only be considered alongside £3bn of improvements in public transport.

"The feedback we have indicates increasing congestion is a real concern for businesses in Greater Manchester.

"The fact that a substantial minority, 20 per cent, are in favour of charging in response to a this skewed poll confirms the level of concern among the Greater Manchester public about congestion and environmental issues."

Chris Fletcher, policy director at the Greater Manchester Chamber, said in an interview with the M.E.N:

"In the straw polls we have done we have heard some mixed views, although not quite as polarised as this survey.

"Some are totally against it, and some say it is not too bad and they can see the benefits. There has been a barrage of information relating to the planned transport improvements (that would accompany the charge) and some members have welcomed those."

Ken Knott, chief executive of Ask Property Development, told the M.E.N:

"As a company with a substantial investment, both in the city centre and in many satellite towns throughout the city-region, particularly focused on regeneration and employment creation, we have considered the proposals carefully and we are minded to support, subject to the congestion charge only being levied when substantial public transport improvement has been delivered and also to the charge being strictly limited to the peak periods.

"The recent poll trivialises the very serious debate currently underway about the possibility of road pricing in conjunction with £3bn of transport improvements. No sensible business leader would ever support road pricing in isolation - the possibility of a road charge can only be considered in context of improving future transport in the region.

"We are currently all paying a hidden tax - congestion - which causes delays to our transport and eats up our time. The real issue to be resolved is what, if anything, we want to do about this ghost charge on our resources. Greater Manchester's local authorities are currently seeking the views of the public and businesses.

"It is vital that all those involved express themselves and make their views heard. I am surprised that the survey, which looks at road pricing in isolation, was not 100 per cent against road pricing - no one would support road pricing without some improvements in public transport or highways.

"People should not be influenced by polls which have no basis in reality, are skewed towards sectional interests and serve only to meet the interests of those who want everyone to carry on driving, no matter what the cost to our businesses, environment and health.

"Greater Manchester has never shirked its responsibilities to creating a better society, difficult choices have to be made.

"The best thing that can be said about this disingenuous poll is that it might increase the level of debate about the price we all pay for congestion, and I would urge those interested to feed their views to the information website www.gmfuturetransport.co.uk.

Richard Barron, managing director of Aspect Market Research said in a press statement:

"Councillor Jones is completely wrong to cast aspersions on our research. All the businesses that were surveyed were fully briefed on the proposed public transport improvements before they were interviewed.

"Councillor Jones is trying to distract attention from the key finding - that business is overwhelmingly against the proposed tax."

Find out more via the links on the right of this page.

Submit your comments | View comments
(1 comments. Last comment 26/ 6/2007 at 14:57)



Most recent 1 of 1 user comments
I am so pleased that a Company with the clout of Peel Holdings has taken the trouble to do their own investigations into the Congestion Charge and not come up with the results that Jolly Roger and his cronies would like us to believe. Again, it must be said if roads had not been narrowed and pavements widened; if traffic light phasing was adjusted to accommodate traffic flow and other logical changes put into place, then the congestion problem would not be half as bad. I cannot imagine what it will be like now all the water pipes are to be replaced. Why was this not done in stages, over the past 50 years - typical continued bad management. Jolly Roger made promises in his previous life as Chair of Education (Salford) when he promised in 2002 that YELLOW SCHOOL BUSES would be made available to ferry children to and from school in an effort to push through his school amalgamation proposals, guess what, surprise surprise, 5 years later, no school buses have ever materialised dont believe a word the man says. And for all you constituents living in IRLAM, Cllr Roger Jones is up for re-election in 2008 Make sure your vote counts and get rid of him!! Remember he and the rest of his entourage of councillors will be exempt from any charges they foist on the hardworking public and you can bet you will not see them using this wonderful public transport they keep raving about.
Fred Parker
26/06/2007 at 14:57

I don't share your fatalism.

Many other so-called "no-brainers" haven't happened, such as entry into the Euro. Determined opposition could stop this happening and scupper all future schemes.

The proposed Edinburgh CC was defeated in a referendum - so obviously they won't be having one of those in Manchester.

As this is my birthday weekend, I treated myself to a nice run out in the car yesterday, up the M6 to the southern Lake District. Lovely

Therefore I was unable to participate in the protest. But it still has my wholehearted support...

Referendum call on congestion charges
Alan Salter
25/ 5/2007

A REFERENDUM would be the fairest way to decide the congestion charge issue, a business campaigner said today.

Victoria Carson, campaign manager for the Knutsford-based Forum of Private Business (FPB), said people power in Edinburgh had resulted in charging plans north of the border being abandoned.

She said: "If a referendum was good enough for Edinburgh, why should it not be good enough for cities such as Manchester?

"Many smaller businesses have to deliver goods and services when and where their customers want them. They cannot avoid busy motorways and city centres."

The FPB believes road pricing would particularly affect independent city centre shops. Added to high car parking charges, this would be yet another incentive for shoppers to avoid city centres and use out-of-town shopping malls.

City council leader Sir Richard Leese appeared before the Commons transport select committee this week and said the charging scheme would be preceded by `the biggest public transport programme ever attempted in this country'.

The move comes as the government updated a draft Bill, giving councils the power to bring in local road-pricing schemes.

Those could, if successful, act as a pilot for a nationwide satellite-based pay-as-you-drive system.

Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander has stressed any decision on a national scheme could only be taken after local schemes had been assessed by all sides.

But shadow transport secretary Chris Grayling said that `the truth is that this Bill is a Trojan horse for national road pricing'.

More than 1.8m people signed a Downing Street website petition expressing opposition to any such scheme

Congestion Charge: Good or bad idea?

15/ 6/2007


TWO of the area's most prominent MPs have put their case for and against the Toll Tax.

Tony Lloyd - Labour MP Manchester Central

It's hard not to be wedded to the car in modern Manchester and most car owners, myself included, want to drive where we want, when we want.

The last Tory government's disastrous anti-bus policies massively weakened public transport and made us all more reliant on the car.

But there is a consequence. Even now public transport is worse for those who have to rely on it than it should be because of over use of the car.

We know that congestion is getting worse year by year. That same congestion already contributes to greenhouse gases and global warming, already poses a health threat particularly to the lungs of young people and over the next ten years congestion will prevent thirty thousand people getting jobs in Greater Manchester.

So let's be clear about it. We have got to deal with congestion and we have got to change the attitude that says, "It's my right as a motorist to destroy jobs, to destroy health and to destroy the global environment".

I am not prepared to accept a veto from those who live in the most expensive parts of the conurbation who are happy to drive to the City Centre with all its advantages, to pay expensive car park fees but who are outraged that the greater public good will see them have to pay the congestion charge.

What do congestion charges really mean?

Firstly, it means there's got to be sustained investment in public transport, the Metro, trains and above all proper bus services before any charging system is brought in.

Secondly, there will no charge for most of the working day, no charge at night and no charge at weekends. Manchester will only see charging for people who travel into Manchester between 7 and 9.30 in the morning and travel out of the City between 4 and 6.30.

Lots of short journeys, like the school run or to the shops, even during those time will not be charged.

Doing nothing is simply not an option. Not for my constituents who have no cars and not even for motorists who in ten year's time who will be stuck in permanent gridlock.

Everyone will rightly condemn politicians who lack the guts to give a real lead on this issue. I look forward to hearing from my constituents on this vital issue.

Graham Stringer - Labour MP Manchester Blackley

I am opposed to the congestion charge because it is a tax on employment and investment in Manchester city centre.

The damaging effects of this tax are best illustrated by two examples:

Joe who lives in Middleton and drives his car or van to his workplace in Collyhurst (there is no bus route or tram that Joe can use) will pay about £1200 a year (£2 when he crosses the M60 and another £1 for crossing Queens Road on his way into work before 9am and a further £1 at each of these barriers when he leaves work.)

Josephine who lives in Harpurhey and whose daughter goes to Saviour Church of England School in Collyhurst will pay more than £200 a year for dropping her daughter at school before going to her cleaning job at North Manchester General Hospital.

The reasons given for introducing this tax are that it is the only way to get the Government to produce the investment that will enable the trams to go to Rochdale, Ashton, Didsbury and Manchester Airport and congestion in 2012 will be so bad new jobs will not come to Manchester.

The Government should be held to their previous commitments to fund the tram system directly as they have done in London and Edinburgh (in Edinburgh there was a referendum which rejected a similar tax and the investment was still agreed for a tram system). Why should Manchester be treated less fairly than London and Edinburgh?

The theoretical model that indicates Manchester will not attract new investment because of congestion owes more to voodoo than reality. The city engineer predicts that because of improved computerisation of traffic lights there will be no increase in congestion in this period, thus blowing a hole in the case for congestion charging.

Congestion has been made worse by a deregulated bus system where bus companies exploit the passengers. There is no guarantee from Government that they will give control of bus fares back to local authorities.

Astonishingly this tax isn't even related to congestion. Only seven per cent of congestion exists in the city centre - nothing compared to the congestion in Wigan and Hazel Grove where the tax will not be paid.

Drivers, businesses and bus passengers will pay an extra £200million a year for 30 years to pay for this nonsense. These staggering figures are bound to kill off jobs.

If Manchester saddles itself with this tax it will put itself at a disadvantage for attracting job-creating investment when compared to Liverpool, Birmingham, Leeds and other cities which have been sensible enough not to place a ruinous tax on themselves

Business split over airport sale
Chris Barry
4/ 7/2007

THE call for the airport to be sold to avoid congestion charging has split the business community.

Laura Wolfe, regional director of the Institute of Directors in the North West said she did not think Peel's suggestion was viable, and served only to `muddy the waters' in the core issue of congestion charges.

She said: "On paper, selling the airport for the sums that has been quoted sounds great, but would that money ever come directly back to be spent on public transport? Probably not.

"As a major employer and a major economic force Peel is entitled to its say, but I think this suggestion confuses and complicates the debate.

"The real issue is whether we, as a city, are going to bid for the funding for public transport improvements, and whether as part of that we're going to have a congestion charge.

"I think raising the issue of selling the airport at this time serves only to muddy the waters in the bigger debate."

Debate

Angie Robinson, chief executive of Greater Manchester Chamber, welcomed the way that the business community is engaging in the debate on congestion.

She said Peel's proposals were an `interesting proposition', and one worth examining in greater depth, but pointed out that the airport could only be sold once.

"You can, of course, only liquidate your assets once and thereby restrict revenue for the future. The profits from the local authority ownership of the airport go into the local areas and I guess will either keep council tax down or maybe retain services that would otherwise be not available.

"It is clearly an option that the funds from the proceeds of the airport sale could be used to cover public transport improvements and more. But the cash would be spent, and no income stream for the future could cause hikes in other charges to business and the public.

"It would be worth seeing the profit and loss account for both options."

Pat Loftus, senior partner at professional services firm Deloitte in the north west said: "I think we have powered ahead down one route without there being the necessary information in the public domain.

"It is vital we have this debate now, because the impact will be very significant for this city. No one would disagree that Sir Howard Bernstein has done a great job for this city, but I don't feel that I can support something without fully understanding the issues.

"How's it going to work? How much money will the city be borrowing? What will the zones be? These are just some of the questions I would raise."

Assets

Damian Waters, regional director at the Confederation of British Industry in the north west said: "Peel certainly know what they are talking about in terms of the value of assets like airports.

"Their suggestion is important as it keeps the debate in the minds of business people. It's healthy for local democracy, but ownership of the airport is a matter for the local authorities involved and we would not have a role to play.

Accountant Edward Cook, a senior partner at the Manchester office of UHY Hacker Young said he fears congestion charging may hamper growth of new businesses within the charging zone.

"I would not have any issue if the airport was sold. It is run as a separate entity anyway so it is not essential if it is owned by the local authority. It would make absolute sense if the proceeds of any potential sale were used to help people get around the city."

Pub and club u-turn over c-charge
Alan Salter
5/ 7/2007

HOTEL bosses and city centre pub and club owners have been won over to the idea of congestion charging.

The Manchester City Centre Club and Pub Network - which a month ago called the idea `ludicrous' - has now welcomed the proposals.

And the Manchester Hoteliers' Association which represents 40 city hotels says in a letter to the M.E.N. today that it supports the bid, as long as public transport improvements are in place before charging starts.

The debate has raged ever since the M.E.N. first revealed in February that Greater Manchester wanted to offer itself as a pilot for congestion charging in return for £3bn of transport improvements, including extensions to Metrolink.

The Club and Pub Network represents more than 550 pubs, clubs, bars and restaurants in the city centre and feared initially that charging would send revellers elsewhere.

But now, licensees, owners and managers have been reassured that proposed charges would not affect the city centre leisure economy.

Sir Howard Bernstein, council chief executive and clerk to Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority, outlined how the extra investment could lead to Metrolink expansions, improved trains and more frequent and better quality bus services.

Network spokesman Phil Burke said today: "It's fair to say there was initial confusion over the details of the charging. And people genuinely felt concerned that they wanted to hear firm pledges to put public transport improvements in place before charging began, which we got."

Network chairman Andy O'Dwyer said: "The Manchester scheme is different from London's charge, which hits anyone in the central zone. Greater Manchester's charge would not target the vast majority of people coming into the city centre. And because it would only affect the most congested routes at their busiest times only, there would be no charges coming into the city centre at weekends.

"On weekdays, people would only pay to come into town in the morning rush hour, and not at all after 9.30am for the rest of the day and right through the evening and night."

"The only drinkers to be hit would be those coming into the city centre for a drink at early morning rush hour - and it's best we don't encourage that!"

The Network was also reassured to learn that other activities bringing people into the city centre would also escape a charge - these include weekend shopping, evening and weekend football and other sports events and entertainment.

There would be discounts for vulnerable groups and essential service vehicles would not be charged. The fact that leisure sector workers tend not to travel at peak times is another factor influencing the Network.

Mr O'Dwyer said: "Overall, the arguments that the transport proposals will help the economy grow are persuasive.

"In fact, there is a case to be made that changing work and travel patterns could mean a much more even spread of leisure activity throughout the working day, helping our businesses issues with `down times' during the day."

Hotel association chairman Stephen Miles says: "We share the authorities' vision of Greater Manchester's future transport."