The Claim
The attack line is that Andy Burnham spent roughly £500m renovating Manchester Town Hall. It is usually presented as proof that his record in Greater Manchester is wasteful.
What is true
Manchester Town Hall renovation has become far more expensive than first planned. Manchester City Council originally put the project budget at up to £328.3m. By February 2025 the revised budget was £429m. Construction reporting in December 2025 put the projected budget at £524.8m, with completion moved to spring 2027.
What is wrong
The project is not a spending decision made by the Greater Manchester Mayor. Manchester City Council gave final approval in March 2017. The council owns the building, runs the project and reports the budget. Burnham chairs the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, a different institution with different powers.
The Record
Manchester City Council is responsible for the Town Hall and Albert Square project. Its own project page says senior councillors gave the final go-ahead on 8 March 2017.
The council says the whole project budget was set at up to £328.3m. That was the public baseline against which later increases are judged.
The council said in February 2025 that the project was operating within a revised £429m budget. Construction Index later reported that a further £95m increase would take the overall budget to £524.8m.
The Greater Manchester Mayor leads the Combined Authority on strategic city region issues such as transport, economy, police and fire. That is not the same as running Manchester City Council capital projects.
The Honest Criticism
The Town Hall project is a legitimate subject for criticism. A rise from the original budget to more than £500m is a serious public spending issue. A Grade I listed building, pandemic disruption, specialist heritage work, inflation and contractor risk explain some of the increase. They do not remove the need for accountability.
The right target for that accountability is the authority that owns and manages the project. That is Manchester City Council. It is not accurate to turn every large public project inside the city of Manchester into a personal spending decision by the Greater Manchester Mayor.
This distinction matters because accountability only works when it is aimed at the correct institution. Burnham can be judged on the Bee Network, mayoral policing, homelessness, buses, devolved transport, clean air negotiations and Greater Manchester strategy. Manchester Town Hall renovation belongs in a different column.
The Programme Test
The programme's position is that public capital projects should be ambitious, but ambition requires stronger cost discipline than the current system provides. The Town Hall case shows the need for published project gateways, independent cost review after each major reset, clear ownership of risk and plain public reporting when budgets move.
It also shows why public argument needs institutional accuracy. Good scrutiny asks who held the budget, who authorised the increase, what risks were known and what alternatives were considered. Poor scrutiny simply attaches a large number to the best known political name in the area.
The Programme Position
The answer to cost overruns is not a smaller country and a lower ambition ceiling. It is stronger public delivery: published budgets, earlier risk escalation, independent assurance and accountable political ownership. The same standard should apply to town halls, railways, housing and energy infrastructure.