Leeds and Sheffield: A tale of two cities

We investigate how a building project designed to boost the economy of one of Yorkshire's leading cities has resulted in both economic and political competition between two old rivals

Until recently in the city of Leeds, there had been an excited sense of anticipation. Plans to build an arena were getting underway. October had seen the public consultation come to an end with a largely positive response from the public. Yet only days after this consultation ended, the project received a major setback when Yorkshire Forward, the region’s development agency, failed to secure the Government's permission required to provide £18m of funding for the arena. This aspect is only the tip of the iceberg in a tale of rivalry between two of the UK’s major cities.

Leeds and Sheffield are only 40 miles away from each other, less than an hour’s journey on the M1. Respectively they are the UK’s third and fifth largest cities in terms of population, depending on which statistics you read. In terms of business there has always been a strong rivalry between them. The Leeds Arena saga has, however, frayed this usual friendly rivalry to breaking point.

The proposal in Leeds for a 12,500 capacity amphitheatre-type arena, able to host a variety of music and entertainment events, with a touted cost of construction of around £78m. When finished, the arena would eventually employ around 300 people.

This last figure has been the main set back for the project. In October, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) announced they were that the project did not constitute "the best value for money" in terms of generating employment to merit the proposed £18m funding Yorkshire Forward would have provided.

Of course, this ignored the benefits inherent in the construction of such an arena. The project would benefit the construction contractors drawn into the project. The local economy would receive up to £28m extra through increased transactions, while the arena would also have contributed towards the regeneration of the city.

The scheme is not particularly speculative either. A site for the arena has already been agreed at Clay Pit Lane. Agreements had gone most of the way to obtaining the 5.1 acre site required for the arena from its current owners, Leeds Metropolitan University and clearance of this area had already begun. Close to the city centre, the site is around a 20 minute walk from Leeds railway station, meaning most of the necessary transport infrastructure is already in place. An operator had even been found for the stadium. The final funding, denied by BIS, would have all but have seen construction begin for a 2012 completion. BISs decision was thus a great disappointment for the city.

But the story continues because of the location of the proposed venue. Only 30 miles away from Leeds lies a large retail and industrial park. In it is the Sheffield Arena. Opened in 1991, this 13,500 capacity venue hosts a variety of events and musical acts ranging from ice hockey to Cliff Richard. It is the leading large venue in the area, drawing people from across Yorkshire, the Midlands and beyond, with an estimated seven million visitors in the arena's 19 year career. As such, its been described as "the entertainment heartbeat of the city".

The Leeds Arena would posed direct competition to the Sheffield venue. Sheffield International Venues, managers of the arena, predict that a new arena in Leeds would affect up to 62 percent of events resulting in losses of up to £1.8m. Such figures should be taken with a pinch of salt, but there would be significant economic rivalry if a Leeds Arena were built.

As a result Sheffield MPs have offered vocal opposition to the development plans in Leeds, claiming that such a development would cause immense damage to their own economy. Speaking to the BBC on the announcement of the BIS decision, Clive Betts, MP for Sheffield Attercliffe, praised the decision to reject the funding application: "It simply couldn't be right that Yorkshire Forward, charged with growing the regional economy, should be pushing millions of pounds into a new scheme which would have fundamentally undermined the economic viability of an existing organisation."

The effect of the lobbying by Sheffield MPs on the decision is unknown. Yet the fact that Sheffield MPs stood against the scheme has turned this development issue into a political spat across Yorkshire.

After the blow of the news of BIS preventing funding, Leeds City Council immediately announced that regardless of the Government’s decision, the project would go ahead. Councillor Andrew Carter went on to verbally attack the Sheffield MPs who criticised Yorkshire Forward’s attempts to fund the project: “It is widely known that Sheffield has received over £90m more than Leeds in the last ten years from Yorkshire Forward. Leeds has never questioned how Sheffield has spent the money allocated to them and it is interesting to note that they have chosen not to prioritise any of this money to further develop the Sheffield Arena.”

“We are not concerned how Sheffield wishes to prioritise Yorkshire Forward funding in their area and what we do ask is that they stop interfering with priority projects in Leeds," he said.

Other politicians have also expressed their anger. Andrew Mulholland, Liberal Democrat MP for Leeds North West, not only tabled an early day motion in the House of Commons to oppose the BIS decision but also used an article in the Yorkshire Evening Post to call on all Leeds music fans to boycott the Sheffield Arena. "Like many people living in Leeds, I have used Sheffield Arena – but I will not be doing so again," he said.

The war of words looks set to continue, as the Leeds Arena scheme is far from being scrapped. While funding is being sourced from elsewhere, BISs decision to prevent Yorkshire Forward from funding the project is far from final. In its ruling BIS left the door open for new developments on the scheme so that it would benefit more people in Leeds. On the day the decision, a BIS spokesman said: "We have asked Yorkshire Forward to work with Leeds City Council on this, and would consider any new proposal they put forward before deciding whether to approve an investment."

Given the state of progression for the project, combined with the determination and strong feelings
of Leeds MPs and council members, the likelihood of the scheme reaching completion perhaps should not be a case of 'if' but 'when'. Estates Review will follow the issue with keen interest to see how these plans progress.

To follow the story of the stadium visit: www.leeds.gov.uk/About_Leeds/Leeds_Arena.aspx