Whitehall of the north

David Ottewell

May 01, 2009

| Submit Comments | Comments (49) | Previous | Next

MANCHESTER looks set to become the `Whitehall of the North' with a massive development which will bring thousands of civil servants together.

A string of high-tech offices are planned near Piccadilly Station which would form a super campus housing 5,000 government staff who are currently spread throughout the region.

Thousands more could join them direct from London after Chancellor Alistair Darling promised to identify 6,000 more civil service posts to be moved out of the capital.

Government insiders said the development would put Manchester in pole position to win a large share of those jobs - and more that are likely to follow as the Chancellor looks to save billions of pounds.

The news comes five years after the M.E.N. first launched a campaign to get more government jobs in Manchester.

Gordon Brown - the then Chancellor - pledged at the time to move 20,000 civil service jobs out of London.

Some 18,000 have already been delivered - with Mr Darling using this month's Budget to increase the target to 24,000 by 2010.

Liz Meek, regional director of Government Office North West, said: "There is nothing like this - anywhere.

This would be a fantastic grouping of civil servants working together."

The campus has been earmarked for a now-derelict site which used to house Mayfield Station.

It would contain 700,000 sq ft of office space - the equivalent of around 10 football pitches, and more than the first phase of the MediaCity site at Salford Quays that will house five departments of the BBC.

The land would not cost the government a penny as it was formerly owned by British Rail.

The boundaries stretch from Fairfield Street and Temperance Street in the north and east, Barking Street to the west, and the River Medlock to the south. The land up to Mancunian Way is also being looked at.

Greater Manchester already has around 5,000 civil servants, scattered across the region and often housed in small private offices.

The government believes it makes economic sense to bring them all together in a single site that could act as an 'anchor' for further Whitehall jobs. The new buildings would be virtually carbon-neutral, say sources.

Government departments are said to be keen and have agreed to jointly fund a feasibility study into the scheme. The study has been made a top priority and should be complete by autumn.

If the scheme then gets the go-ahead from the Treasury, building would begin in 2012-13 with the civil servants in place by 2014.

Beverley Hughes, the regional minister, described the super-campus as potentially very significant news for Manchester and the north west.

She said: "The government is committed to moving civil service jobs away from London and the development of the site alongside Piccadilly station presents a real opportunity for the city to seize the initiative."

Backers of the scheme will now lobby government departments for their support - and to agree to re-locate more jobs to the new site.

Civil service departments with a major presence in Greater Manchester include the Inland Revenue, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Work and Pensions, Customs and Excise and the UK Borders Agency.

The 5,000 figures does not include the 800-plus staff, including those from Government Office North West, who have already agreed to move from City Tower in Manchester to Piccadilly Gate - a new office block on the fringes of the proposed development.

Read David Ottewell's politics blog here

You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.

460

275

KiD_v2-5jbE

false

| Submit Comments | Comments (49) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All

Almighty G0D, Everywhere (01/05/2009 at 10:28)

A better plan would be to fire 5,000 government staff. We don't need this many paper pushers, its a massive waste of public funds.

Ace Shakespeare , manchester (01/05/2009 at 10:28)

Oh my god a city of Parasites As if we dont have enough POLITICIANS.Do we really need more?

Audenshaw Bob (01/05/2009 at 10:34)

I am a bit confused here. I thought that the council were trying to reduce congestion in the city centre, so why have they just agreed this which will bring in another 5,000 people? It goes against what they are trying to achieve surely?

If say half used public transport then that would still mean 2,500 extra cars coming into town., which adds to the congestion.

It's like these apartment blocks. My nephew lives in Castlefield and to buy a space was £25k, which he doesn't have. As he travels all over the country during the day then no worries as at night he sticks it on a single yellow or on a bay (not metered, but still a space). If he works from home he sticks it in a bay but now the council are putting in meters so he can only park for a maximum of two hours in the bay then he has to shift it. Currently there are two sets bays and you get eight cars in, but the council are only allowing for three! You used to be able to park on a bit of concrete wastland but the council put huge ugly planters there to stop people. He now has to get a loan for £25k or stick it on an NCP one mile away!

Mark, South Manchester (01/05/2009 at 10:43)

Yeah yeah yeah - heard it all before. Load of New Labour pre-election baloney.
This, the supercasino, a Manchester home for the Royal Opera and the Royal Ballet, a £300 million redeveloped Victoria Station & high speed rail lines etc etc - yet again New Labour are taking us for a ride and making fools of this city!!

The stinking kipper, pinned under the table (01/05/2009 at 10:47)

Several comments on this:

Firstly, let's not forget this government's record on actually delivering on their promises and pledges to Manchester. It's very poor.

Secondly, let's not forget it's approaching election time. This is a blatant bribe.

Thirdly, Why the hell they are contemplating spending money on property when thwey already own numerous buildings in Manchester tat currently lie empty.

Fourthly, "Thousands more could join them direct from London". How does that help Mancunians?

Kris-Kross, Ashton Under Lyne (01/05/2009 at 10:56)

sheikh, prattle and droll (01/05/2009 at 11:03)

And all this inward investment, jobs and relocation of key services etc WITHOUT the congestion charge, which we were told by the same politicians at the heart of this proposal, would be vital to keeping Manchester viable. Sorry, are we just meant to forget their doomsday scenario? The funny thing this, they will probably have to move GMPTE from their swanky new offices in order to build 'Whitehall 2'.

Chapman (01/05/2009 at 11:18)

Excellent news for Manchester and it's surrounds.

Albert Bino (01/05/2009 at 11:29)

if just moving civil servants around who are already up up here is there any benefit? if it is making space for more to move up then great. the more civil servants up here the less they might focus less on london, notice what our problems are and spread some wealth around the north.

Free Red, Manchester (01/05/2009 at 11:40)

Regional devolution we were promised. I trust this is the first step to Mancunia becoming a republic (lol)

Frostee, Oldham (01/05/2009 at 11:43)

I don't mind (or care) where these people work from as long as they are doing necessary jobs. Unfortunately under New Labour they have created many thousands more of these civil servants since being in office. I was hoping the next government would drastically reduce the amount of pen pushers required by government and quangos so we wouldn't need such lavish edifices of squander. But what the hell, it's only taxpayers money afterall and nobody in New Labour bothers about that being frittered away.

davefb, bolton (01/05/2009 at 11:54)

Interesting and a nice way of spreading that government money. But do they *have* to remove Mayfield station? Wouldn't it be possible to use this as a way of using/rebuilding the station and relieving the pressure on Piccadilly and cross manchester rail traffic?

darren Mernagh (01/05/2009 at 11:55)

In your article you say that the area is now-derelict site when the truth is far from it there is a thriving business community employing over 100 people in a number of small companies, again the media and government say its good for the city when there are thousands of empty offices in manchester. And a lot of the small companies established for many years are hounded out of business and bear the brunt of the credit crunch and recession. As a small employer in this area i am astounded by the lack of support and local knowledge of a manchester paper.

Barney Gumball LLB Hons (01/05/2009 at 12:24)

I'd rather see another Tesco...

Ace Shakespeare , manchester (01/05/2009 at 12:25)

Whitehall of the North, where all the pigs can get their snouts in the trough all at one sitting!

Public Servant, Swinton (01/05/2009 at 12:46)

It was only in March that the MEN announced the possibility of Mayfield station being resurrected to relieve congestion at Piccadilly station. With this proposal, if it comes to fruition, would not only make that impossible, but place 5000 potential daily new users of Piccadilly station on its doorstep, and it is creaking at the seams now.

Mr Manchester (01/05/2009 at 12:51)

'Government insiders said the development would put Manchester in pole position to win a large share of those jobs'

More details, MEN, please. All a bit flakey at present to be a real news item; a feasibility study has not even begun yet! Wonder who the insider is anyway -- the same chap who dreamt up childish insults about Cameron? Sybil, number 10's cat?

Paul, South Manchester (01/05/2009 at 12:52)

excellent news for Manchester - perhaps if we have more decision makers in the north then there will be less prejudice against us

however I am very cynical - election in less than a year and labour starting to make false promises.

- remember the false promises made in 1997 about metrolink expansion and devolution

Mark,Radcliffe. (01/05/2009 at 12:55)

...And they can all be entertained at the Super-Casino just down the road.

beswick red (01/05/2009 at 13:01)

perhaps if they incorporated a new rail station under the development adequate for the people who will use it would be a start and then build an underground system in a public private partnership but it is private companies that create wealth !! not goverment handouts so a mix would be better lets have some vision here with an opportunity like this

Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (01/05/2009 at 13:07)

Think about it! Nu labour won't be in next year and most know it, why spend money they know they won't get the benefit of unless the the planning departments are creaming off the taxpayers whilst they can having meeting etc, why not, I think everybody else in the government is doing exactly that at the moment.

This government are dead in the water, can we not oust them somehow with a forced vote of no confidence before they line their own pockets and run next year

Audenshaw Bob (01/05/2009 at 13:12)

sheikh, you make avery good point. It wasn't only the council who said that there would not be any companies or organisations moving into with in the M60 due to the 'severe' congestion and the predicted doomsday congestion but the government too. So if it is so bad and is supposed to get much worse why have the same government decided to shift 5,000 peoplle into the heart of the city.

Smacks of lies, more lies and damned lies.

Gary SK13 (01/05/2009 at 13:14)

The usual suspects are doom and gloom mongering again, perhaps if we complain enough they will select another city that would actually welcome all the potential investment. Does it matter if it is a ' bribe ' due to upcoming elections, the fact is it is being discussed, the area earmarked for this, although as people have said is not derelict, is in need of massive regenaration and would improve the piccadily area enormously, also where does it say the mayfield station would not be developed as part of the plans.
The negativity shown in some of these posts is astounding.

Audenshaw Bob (01/05/2009 at 13:24)

Gary, yes it does matter if it is a bribe. People fall for it. Just like the congestion charge adverts that said 'I want cheaper bus fares so I will be voting yes'. Everybody I knew that voted yes did so because they though the fares would be lowered. It only applied to those on the dole and students. It was a cn.

The supercasino was going to bring in 1000's of jobs, the race course at Regents Road was (8 years back) etc.

People are just sick of lies and hypocrisy. Take the council, trying to be all green, wanted teh congestion tax, fining pensioners who put glass in with plastic in their bins etc. The own Manchester Airport and have just tabled a bid for Gatwick. So anti this and anto that yet they are investing in the biggest polluters going.

It's like anti nuclear protester buying shares in General Dynamics. Holier than though and telling everyone else what to do but doing the complete opposite themselves.

These jobs never materialise anyway. Who dreams these figures up?

Gary SK13 (01/05/2009 at 13:31)

Ok Bob lets just ko the idea and let it go to another city, the government have made a pledge to move jobs out of london, whether it happens or not the fact Manchester is being lined up as a potential site is good news for the city.
Fortunately there will be more people trying to make this happen than there will be sceptics, so who knows, maybe even the BBC will move to Manchester?,

()

Report

News