The Forum of Private Businesses (FPB), which represents 25,000 companies employing more than 600,000 people across the country, today urged Manchester firms to 'stand up and speak out' against the plans.
The FPB - and local businesses - reacted after the M.E.N. revealed revised plans for the city centre's inner congestion charge zone.
A petition has now been launched.
The group said the proposed charging scheme would 'seriously impact on small businesses operating in Manchester' and 'encourage entrepreneurs and employees to move elsewhere'.
Spokesman Matt Goodman said drivers making rush-hour deliveries across the two congestion charge zones would be hit hardest.
He said: "This will heap on extra delivery costs and damage the relationships between smaller businesses and their suppliers, not to mention their customers.
"It will also have the effect of driving people away from Manchester city centre to out-of-town shopping centres. It will make Manchester less competitive with other regions and therefore less attractive to businesses looking to set up there. Smaller firms just cannot afford this extra tax."
As revealed in the M.E.N. yesterday, the proposed location of the inner zone runs along Queens Road to the north and Alan Turing Way to the east. To the west the boundary is bordered by Trafford Road, Albion Way, Broad Street and Frederick Road.
Other boundary proposals were revealed but no final decision will be made until the end of a 15-week period of public consultation, which is due to start on July 7.
Revised zone
Transport bosses said the revised zone would mean only a fifth of peak-time drivers would pay the charge. It was also claimed that just one per cent of motorists who drive around the city every day would pay the full £5 charge by crossing both inner and outer zones at peak times.
The FPB also said the needs of small businesses were not considered before the bid for a £3bn public transport revolution in return for congestion charging was submitted to the government.
Businesses said congestion charging would prove costly and disruptive.
Chris Hardman is managing director of the Bacon Factory, a family-run bacon slicing firm in Bury - which is outside both zones.
He said: "We don't want it. It's just another form of tax that is bound to be detrimental to businesses.
"Customers and suppliers are going to try to avoid it at all costs, and they will want to operate outside normal business hours, so it will cost us more money in the long run, trying to accommodate them. It will also cause us problems with our own deliveries."
His brother, Matt Hardman, added: "It could also drive consumers away from Manchester city centre towards other regions and out-of-town shopping centres - especially during normal operating hours, when the charges would apply. It could also force potential new businesses to avoid the city altogether."
If agreed, the changes would only come into force in 2013.
What do you think? Have your say.
You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.
460
275
0
false
Tweet

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Manchester Dale, Manchester (21/06/2008 at 09:06)
Tell us GMPTA. If the revenue isn't as high as expected will the council tax payers be forced to repay the loans to the government? Are there`any guarantees that you will not increase the time of the charge to include other parts of the day or Christmas shopping weekends for example. I suspect not. Are there any guarantees on future price rises? I suspect not. London has doubled its fees.
Finally, the GMPTA is publishing the new public transport maps post 2013. Half of the metrolink expansion plan has been authorised without the congestion charge. Why don't you publish a map showing ONLY the improvements that are being made with the £3bn, for that is the real benefit that the people need to see in order to be convinced.
Kurt Stephens, Sale (21/06/2008 at 10:10)
Be patient.
shayla (21/06/2008 at 10:14)
So they will consult the public without telling us where the bounderies will be. How can we make an informed decision?
Even if we were mad enough to agree to it, they can just put them where they want to after they have "consulted" us.
Put it all on the table in full, let people see it and don't be changing it after they have!
NO, GIVES US THE IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT TAXING US AGAIN!
Timberman, MANCHESTER (21/06/2008 at 11:05)
-Soothsayer+ (21/06/2008 at 11:28)
A complete and utter con.
partytrick, salford (21/06/2008 at 11:47)
Fran M (Permissum Populus Constituo), Stockport (21/06/2008 at 13:55)
The AGMA or GMPTE are not interested in what people think or want. They have already made their decision.
It is now up to the people to stop this madness. Demand a referendum now.
rammylad, ramsbottom (21/06/2008 at 14:17)
So ARUP have an infrastructure, transport and railway consultancy and would stand to win millions of pounds of fees in designing nothing. I wonder why they are in favour of the con tax. I wonder if their own staff know their employer is looking to cost them more to get to work. I wonder if the director still parks in the basement of their building??? All good questions. I am sure I could dig up as much similar stuff on the other companies if needed. No one support a new tax without having a lot to gain from it.
Wor Bobby, Salford Quays (21/06/2008 at 16:42)
Pentest (21/06/2008 at 18:29)
Makes you wonder how much of a fiddle they will be getting out of it. We've always know it ...now they're trying to do it in broad daylight.
A Bus Driver (21/06/2008 at 22:25)
duncan harris (22/06/2008 at 02:15)
Chris, Irlam (22/06/2008 at 09:34)
I'll tell you why - it's going to be hugely unpopular so they are trying to keep the voting public in the dark for as long as possible.
I remember when you used to post long waffling comments about how this scheme was going to be the saviour of us all and how us 'antis' were telling lies (like Phase Two?)....now you post simple one-liners asking us to be patient. No chance.
REFERENDUM NOW!
Laura Norder, Didsbury (22/06/2008 at 12:11)
You - and everyone else - had a 'referendum' when the population voted their councillors into their posts.
Now the snipers, gripers and complainers are upsest because they can't have it their own way.
It's a democracy, and the will of the majority must prevail.
It's still the same saddo-s on here that trot out the same tripe - you've lost the argument.
We - the majority - want a C-charge to try and allow our city to continue to flourish. And I say that as regular car-user.
PW, Manchester (22/06/2008 at 12:27)
Laura Norder, Didsbury (22/06/2008 at 13:06)
Very profound. (Yawn.)
PW, Manchester (22/06/2008 at 15:58)
Deal with it!
(Dad's should know better!) paul teeque (22/06/2008 at 21:06)
RAILROAD IT THROUGH should be richard leese's motto IMHO.
Paul
Jane Bennett (FPB), Knutsford (23/06/2008 at 08:52)
Jane Bennett
Forum of Private Business
Chris, Irlam (23/06/2008 at 09:06)
Well let's put it to a referendum then sunshine eh?
(Dad's should know better!) paul teeque (23/06/2008 at 09:21)
Keep up the fight!
Paul
Karney for head of GMPTA(formerly MC Spanner) (23/06/2008 at 10:05)
Maybe the will of the Majority of the MCC cabal but not that of the people.
Gordie B was in Jeddah spouting out the usual tripe about understanding about people daily worries about rising prices. If he truly understood, do you not think this plan have been shelved for another day?
It is not a political failure to state that Global Commodity prices have risen so far that we as a government need to tighten our belts a little bit. If the government just stopped shovelling money down a black hole and tightened the public purse then maybe in a favourable climate this scheme would have majority support.
It's no good telling people to take restraint on payrises when for 11 years, the governemnt has shown no restraint on it's own spending.
When the OECD tells you your economy is being run badly, it is no shame to take notice but this government are just going to keep ploughing on till 2010 bankrupting the country.
Maybe the plan is to destroy the UK so much that when Cameron does get in in 2010, Labour can start blaming him for the economy in the hope of returning by 2105. I can see no other logic for such poor government
suge, mancs (23/06/2008 at 10:51)
Chess Piece Face, Manchester (23/06/2008 at 11:00)
And Matt Goodman says the charge will "drive consumers away from Manchester city centre towards other regions and out-of-town shopping centres". How many people does he really think drive into Manchester city centre between 7am and 9.30am on weekdays to go shopping? If anything, people will be more likely to come into Manchester as there will be much better public transport links, and those who do drive in on weekdays are more likely to stick around in town after work and do some shopping to avoid the charge on their drive home...
Chris, Irlam (23/06/2008 at 11:03)
I believe part of the local transport act rushed through parliament recently was to allow baliffs to pursue people for infringments of Toll Taxes so standby for a sudden increase in the number of baliffs in Greater Manchester around 2013. I kid you not!