A New Stadium in Leazes Park – Not Impossible

As the stadium decision looks, a professional town planner considers the viability of Leazes Park

Relocation - increasing in popularity?

Following Brad Miller’s well-reported comments at the fan event at Stack in November, it appears that the club are now strongly considering, and perhaps even favouring, leaving St James’ Park for a brand-new stadium. The straw poll taken at Stack suggested that many fans are now also in favour of a move to a new stadium. However, if comments on social media are anything to go by, the growing support for leaving St James’ – unconscionable to most just 12 months ago – is almost unanimously conditional on any new stadium also being within the city centre, for a multitude of reasons. If the club favours a new stadium in the city centre then the options are extremely limited, to say the least, and the favourite option of most fans who support a move appears to be relocating just a wayward Nick Pope goal kick to the northwest, into Leazes Park and/or Castle Leazes beyond.

However, like the well-documented Grade I listed Leazes Terrace which hems in St James’ to the east, Leazes Park is also listed (Grade II) and lies within the Leazes Conservation Area, as well as comprising a valued area of public green space – the first purpose-built public park in Newcastle when it opened in 1873. As a result it quite rightly has a significant level of protection in planning policy which, combined with the club’s failed attempt to relocate to Castle Leazes in the 1990’s, has led many to believe that building a new stadium in Leazes Park is simply a non-starter, as planning permission would never be granted.

Planning decisions – a balancing act

However, whilst building on Leazes Park would certainly be controversial, that’s not to say it would be impossible, at least from a planning perspective. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for England is, as the name suggests, a nationwide planning document which contains various policies against which planning applications are assessed, alongside the local authority’s own Local Plan. As you would expect, NPPF is strongly protective of the historic environment and of existing green spaces, with a presumption against development that would harm either. However, in advising on how to assess proposals that would harm heritage assets, paragraph 214 of NPPF states the following (my emphasis in bold):

‘Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to (or total loss of significance of) a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss’.

NPPF is also very supportive, in principle, of proposed developments that would provide significant economic and community benefits, contribute towards the vitality of town and city centres, and of developments that are accessible by sustainable and active modes of transport (public transport, walking and cycling). In relation to supporting economic growth, paragraph 85 notes:

‘Planning policies and decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development.’

It is important to note that planning applications, and particularly those for significant developments, are typically decided by the relevant local authority on balance, weighing up the positives and policy compliance against the negatives, and any conflict with policy. It is therefore not the case to simply say that because Leazes Park is listed, any application would automatically be refused.

Should they proceed to eventually lodge a planning application for a new stadium on Leazes Park, the club would be able to put forward some compelling arguments as to how the vast economic benefits of a new stadium (think construction jobs and the amount of money spent in the city centre by up to 20,000 additional fans on a matchday, concerts, NFL games etc) could outweigh the harm done by building on the southern portion of the park. The economic argument could also be bolstered if the club were to advise that, should Leazes Park not be feasible, their only other option to allow them to compete on the pitch in the long-term would be to explore out-of-town sites, and the devastating impact that would have on the city centre, as well as the resultant traffic chaos.

Redeveloping the current stadium - Replacement parkland

The economic benefits of a new stadium would probably not be sufficient on their own, however, to justify the significant harm that would be done by obliterating part of the park. In this regard though, should they obtain the agreement of Newcastle City Council (as the landowner), they would likely need to include as part of any application a proposal to demolish St James’ Park and to replace the majority of its current footprint with a new, high quality, biodiverse park, to replace the current area of parkland and the significant number of trees that would need to be lost to make way for a new stadium. Such a scheme, designed to the highest quality by expert landscape architects, and incorporating the relocation of any historic features that would need to be removed, such as the bandstand (which is actually a modern replica, built in 2003), would go a significant way towards replacing the existing open space to be lost, as required by paragraph 104 of the NPPF:

‘Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields and formal play spaces, should not be built on unless… the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location’

A new, high quality park on the site of the current stadium (you could call it St James’ Park…) would not only provide a new area of public open space that would extend right into the heart of the city centre, but it would also result in a significantly enhanced setting to the spectacular Georgian-era Leazes Terrace which is currently dominated, overwhelmed and overshadowed (quite literally) by the brutalist East Stand and the great husk of the Leazes End, which towers above it. The benefits to Leazes Terrace could partially offset the harm to Leazes Park and any talk of retaining the current ground for the academy and women’s teams, or for any other commercial redevelopment, is a non-starter.

Everyone is probably sick of seeing AI generated images of new stadium proposals, but this one is helpful in visualising, indicatively, how a new area of parkland could provide a much-enhanced setting for Leazes Terrace.

The replacement parkland approach, combined with the economic benefits of a massive new multi-purpose stadium in a sustainably accessible city centre location that can be used all year round (and not just once a fortnight) could perhaps be enough, in the eyes of Newcastle City Council’s planning department and councillors, to allow them, on balance, to support a planning application despite the obvious harm that would be caused to Leazes Park. The importance (weight) placed on the economic benefits of a development proposal that doesn’t otherwise comply with some planning policies cannot be understated – which is how Donald Trump managed to build a golf course on a Site of Special Scientific Interest in Scotland.

Heritage bodies and the government

It is worth noting that Historic England and The Gardens Trust, amongst various other organisations and stakeholders, would need to be consulted on any application and if Historic England were to object, which they likely would, then the final decision could ultimately be taken out of the Council’s hands should they be minded to approve it, with the application possibly requiring to be referred to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Given the strong emphasis placed on economic development and investment by the new Labour government however, and as set out in national planning policy, it’s not beyond reason to suggest that the Secretary of State could also consider that the public and economic benefits of a new stadium on Leazes Park, with replacement parkland on the current site, could outweigh the harm caused.

Local opposition – what impact would it have?

Another aspect that is often raised as to why planning permission would not likely be granted for a new ground in Leazes Park is that should there be a significant number of objections from individuals and campaign groups, they could sway the decision. Whilst the number of objections submitted would not sway the Council’s planners in their recommendation, it is true that they could sway local councillors, who would decide the application unless it were to be referred to, or called in by, the Secretary of State. However, given the recent groundswell of support for the idea of moving to a new stadium amongst the fanbase would only likely grow, it’s likely that the number of objections to any planning application could be outweighed by the amount of support. Regardless, the amount of public opposition (or support) to a proposal is not a reason, in itself, to refuse (or approve) a planning application.

An indicative aerial view of what a new stadium in Leazes Park, with replacement parkland and a fan walkway from St James’ Metro, could look like.

If the club do proceed to announce in the new year that they favour building a new ground in Leazes Park then it’s highly likely by that stage, in advance of any formal planning application, that they will have received positive responses in informal discussions with the Council (both as landowner and as the planning authority), as well as potentially with any other relevant stakeholders.

If it’s possible to build on Leazes Park, then why not just demolish and relocate Leazes Terrace instead?

Leazes Park is a Grade II listed park, whilst Leazes Terrace is a Grade I listed building. Without seeking to undermine the historic importance of the park, the threshold for permitting developments that would cause significant harm to a Grade I building is higher than for works to Grade II listed buildings and parks. Additionally, by the very nature of parks, which are predominantly soft landscaped, they can be more prone to change over time than bricks and mortar buildings. Leazes Park has been altered significantly more since it was constructed than Leazes Terrace, including its later extension towards Barrack Road, and the subsequent building on the southern portion of the park for St James’ Park (see the 1800’s map overlaid a modern satellite image below). That’s right, part of the original park’s footprint is now covered by the Leazes End – so, to an extent, building a stadium on part of the park has happened before.

Map from the late 1800s, overlaid on a current satellite image – shows that the Leazes End of the current stadium already encroaches onto what was originally parkland.

Given the understandable importance placed on the protection of Grade I listed buildings (in their original location and setting), the demolition and relocation of Leazes Terrace that has been floated in some quarters, is as close as you can get to a non-starter in a planning context. Equally, any increase in the height of the east stand, or its footprint towards Leazes Terrace, would encounter issues in relation to harming the setting of Leazes Terrace, as well as issues of daylight receipt and overshadowing.

Summary

To summarise, would a planning application for a new stadium in Leazes Park be controversial? Definitely, for a number of reasons - not least the loss of part of the historic park and the emotional attachment to St James’ Park. But would it be impossible for the club to obtain planning permission? No, not if they can get the Council on-side and subject to a well-considered scheme that protects as much of the park as is feasible, whilst replacing the current stadium site with high quality public parkland. Whatever happens, all eyes are now focused on the club’s impending announcement in the new year.

Fergie @tartoonarmy

---

---