The short version
- Senior figures in Keir Starmer’s administration held preliminary discussions about relocating staff from Number 10 to improve collaboration and working conditions.
- Critics described the historic building as unfit for modern work, citing its fragmented layout, safety hazards, and poor maintenance, while supporters view it as a national treasure.
- The relocation idea did not advance beyond early talks, and it is unclear if Prime Minister Starmer was directly involved or would have moved his residence.
Senior members of Sir Keir Starmer’s government engaged in preliminary discussions regarding the potential relocation of staff from Number 10 Downing Street. These conversations were driven by growing concerns about the suitability of the historic residence as a modern workplace. Officials and ministers from successive administrations have privately expressed dissatisfaction with the building’s complex, maze-like structure, which they argue hinders effective collaboration among government teams.
James Lyons, who served as Starmer’s director of communications between late 2024 and late 2025, confirmed that the possibility of moving out was considered during his tenure. He echoed sentiments shared by other senior figures, describing the environment as gloomy and poorly maintained. Lyons highlighted specific issues such as infestations and outdated security measures, noting that staff often felt envious of colleagues working in more contemporary government departments.
The proposed alternative involved consolidating staff into an open-plan office space within another government department. One source indicated that a location inside the Foreign Office building, situated near Downing Street, had been identified as a potential site. This move was intended to foster better teamwork and communication by removing the physical barriers inherent in the current layout. However, both sources emphasized that these discussions remained in their infancy and did not progress to any concrete implementation plans.
It remains uncertain whether Prime Minister Starmer himself was consulted on the matter or would have supported such a move. There is no indication that the plan included relocating the prime minister’s private residence, which has been a traditional part of the role for centuries. The focus of the discussion appeared to be strictly on improving working conditions for civil servants and ministers rather than altering the symbolic heart of British government.
Lord Walker, a former adviser to Starmer and current head of supermarket chain Iceland, publicly criticized the building’s condition in recent interviews. He argued that Number 10 is no longer fit for purpose due to its age and structural limitations. Walker suggested that the property should be preserved as a museum or converted into residential use, labeling it a national treasure that is currently being misused as an office space.
The building itself is over three hundred years old, comprising more than one hundred rooms across three merged houses. It was originally granted to Robert Walpole, widely considered the first prime minister, by King George III in 1732. Its Stuart-era architecture features small meeting rooms spread across different levels, which modern critics say create logistical challenges and safety hazards for daily operations.
Starmer’s frustration with Whitehall’s operational inefficiencies extended beyond physical infrastructure. He frequently clashed with civil servants over what he perceived as a lack of ambition and resistance to change. His chief secretary, Darren Jones, revealed that Starmer had attempted multiple times to abolish the Cabinet Office, aiming to replace it with a more integrated department focused on strategic priorities.
Following Starmer’s tenure, Andy Burnham established the Office for the Prime Minister and Cabinet to streamline decision-making processes. This new entity includes Number 10 and other key parts of the Cabinet Office, led by senior civil servant Dame Antonia Romeo. While this restructuring aims to enhance governmental focus, those close to Burnham indicate that he has not yet formed a definitive opinion on whether Number 10 remains an adequate workplace for future administrations.
The debate over Downing Street’s utility reflects broader tensions between preserving historical heritage and meeting modern administrative needs. While some view the building as an essential symbol of British governance, others see it as an obstacle to efficient policy implementation. As discussions continue behind closed doors, the question of whether to renovate, relocate, or repurpose the site remains unresolved.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- BBC News↗Keir Starmer's government discussed moving out of 10 Downing Street
