LIVERPOOL’S embassy in London has closed – but will reopen next month.

The office at the heart of the capital’s financial district in New Broad Street was closed after an initial six months.

But the embassy will now re-open in the glorious Grade II listed former Royal Mint building.

The office space will be smaller and cheaper than the first location.

The first office cost £231,000 to rent and run.

Liverpool council paid £135,000, with businesses paying the remaining £96,000.

Rent at the new embassy will be £4,200 per month, compared to the £15,000 at the previous location.

The council has signed a lease until March, which can be extended until 2013.

Last night, the city council and its regeneration agency Liverpool Vision insisted the first six months had been a huge success.

But opposition Liberal Democrat spokesman Flo Clucas said the shift to a cheaper location suggested there were problems.

Liverpool Vision said in the first six months the embassy had hosted 100 business meetings, some of “international significance”.

More than 650 people have visited the embassy and more than 15 events have been held, resulting in several serious investment enquiries, Vision added.

It is understood sponsorship deals, yet to be announced, for next year’s Global Entrepreneurship Congress, which is being held in Liverpool, were brokered at the embassy.

Liverpool council leader Joe Anderson said: “During the first half of this year we have shown our ambition and confidence by going to the financial heart of the UK.

“We have been making our case to investors and we have built relationships with many of the most influential decision makers in the UK.

“These people have gone away with a real sense of the city’s renaissance, of our offer, our areas of excellence and the opportunities for investment. It is clear to most, if not all, that Liverpool is a modern can-do city and a place where your business can thrive.”

Cllr Clucas said she was not convinced and demanded a city council report into the embassy.

“They are shifting premises obviously to reduce costs, and I can see why you would do that financially, but it seems to suggest there is a problem here.

“I would like to know precisely what are the outcomes of having the embassy.”