THE company behind the Trafford Centre has been excluded from an independent panel overseeing plans for congestion charging in Greater Manchester.
Peter Nears, strategic planning director at Peel Holdings, was nominated by Trafford council as their representative on the 15-strong body of businessmen, lawyers and academics.
It is understood he was rejected by senior council officers from across the region for having too strong a `direct interest'.
The panel will decide if the charge passes key tests - including being acceptable to business and not hurting the economy.
The news emerged just days after Gordon McKinnon, director of operations of the Trafford Centre, said congestion charging would be a `terrible mistake' that would put Greater Manchester at `an immense competitive disadvantage'.
Peel Holdings, which has assets of é3bn and is headed by billionaire John Whittaker, is seen as one of the key economic players in the region.
In addition to the Trafford Centre, the company owns much of the land in Salford Quays earmarked for the BBC's new northern HQ.
Senior sources indicated Mr Nears was dropped after discussions between the various council chief executives and before elected politicians voted on his inclusion. It is understood several members of the panel backed Peel's involvement but they were overruled.
The snub provoked a furious response from Susan Williams, leader of Trafford council.
"We are not happy at all," she said. "We are trying to get to the bottom of why Peter and who else, if anyone, was rejected.
"Peel is the single biggest interest in Greater Manchester and doesn't just have interests in Trafford. The reason we were given was that he had too much of a direct interest."
Ms Williams - the only Conservative council leader in Greater Manchester - has admitted she has `philosophical problems' with the idea of charging.
The panel's members include David Partridge, chief executive of property developers Argent; Nick Johnson, deputy chief of Urban Splash and chairman of Marketing Manchester; Geoff Muirhead, boss of the Manchester Airport Group; lawyer Peter Heginbotham, chairman of Manchester Enterprises; Stephen White, a senior partner at Cobbetts solicitors and chairman of Pro Manchester; Michael Oglesby, chairman of the inward-investment body MIDAS; Angie Robinson, chief executive of the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce and John Early, a past president of the chamber.
Trafford is now represented by businessman Ian Fox and panel chairman is recently-retired Manchester Business School director Prof John Arnold. Two academics who support charging are also members.
The panel's task is to advise the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities on whether four key `tests' have been met. Until they have, plans to charge up to é6 a day to travel at peak times on congested routes will not be submitted to the government as part of a bid for é1bn of transport funds.
The tests are: There must be `significant' investment in public transport, including Metrolink, before charging is introduced; it must complement competitiveness in the city and town centres and do nothing to disadvantage the poor; be acceptable to the public and business; and be applied only where congestions exists or may develop.
Tweet
Peel snubbed over pay-to-drive panel
February 05, 2007

Showing comments 1 to 13 and replies | View All
Jake Long, Manchester, City Centre (05/02/2007 at 10:41)
Chris, Manchester (05/02/2007 at 11:21)
Bo, manchester (05/02/2007 at 12:30)
Bo, manchester (05/02/2007 at 12:50)
I think were speaking to ourselves on here,? you know that we live in a country full of sheep they keep voting these people into power each year ?And each year they keep having us over?
Jake Long, Manchester, City Centre (05/02/2007 at 13:27)
Chris, Manchester (05/02/2007 at 14:21)
Dan, Manchester (05/02/2007 at 14:27)
Steve, Manchester (05/02/2007 at 15:39)
Angie Robinson and John Early are directors of G-MEX, now owned by MCC, operators of Manchester Central car park. Geoff Muirhead is from a MCC controlled airport.
The decision for congestion charging has already been made; the committee will "deliberate" and deliver an "independent" decision for congestion charging in due course.
Let the public decide.
Jake Long, www.pledgebank.com/MancCCharge (05/02/2007 at 16:45)
j armsden, ordsall (05/02/2007 at 18:04)
The deal is already done. how else do you think they got financing for Metrolink? They had to garauntee the rest of the funding, and the pay to drive was the answer
The fault of all this is with the people who vote labour in each election, without even a thought.
All indipendant thinkers need do is look at labours record.
Biggest march ever in UK history, the farmers bringing the country to a standstill, a war nobody wanted, war based on false reports, honours for loans scandal, muslim terrorism on home soil, the most indirect taxing in Europe, the highest indirect taxing in UK history, unaffordable house prices, new "affordable" housing throughout the Uk all sitting empty (go look around salford quays etc), the lowest moral ever known in the UK and the most disaffeced population ever.
Not voting labour does not mean your a tory, or a liberal. It means you have thought about your vote before using it.
If you dont want pay as you drive, dont vote labour
Technobabble, Manchester (05/02/2007 at 20:18)
How many others of you out there think it was just a smokescreen? A diversionary tactic to keep us, the tax-paying public, on the back foot. I donâ€TMt believe that they ever really intended to go ahead with the parking charges, but when they follow that up with the congestion charges, they can then offer us a â€oecompromiseâ€; we can have one or the other, but not neither. Theyâ€TMve â€oelet us off†on the parking, but unfortunately, the cost of that is to be lumbered with congestion charges. Oh, arenâ€TMt they kind….
Now that Peel Holding have been excluded from the so called debate, it just goes to show that they want to continue playing mind games with us. We are viewed, not as their employers to be consulted, but rather as serfs to be manipulated or kept in the dark, lest we selfishly object to following their superior instructions.
Question: Can you really still call it public transport, when itâ€TMs all owned by private companies?
Mike Brown, sale (06/02/2007 at 08:50)
Ken, Wigan (06/02/2007 at 18:46)
It is my choice to drive r not as the case may be and so if I am prepared to get stuck in traffic...that is my choice...as so why should I have to pay for the inconvenience