Leeds leads the way
Even the best political programme is of little value unless it is connected to grassroots activity. Bob Wood reports on a campaign in South Leeds over a proposed major redevelopment at the Leeds United ground at Elland Road. Some hard lessons are being learnt about New Labour.
The traditional working class game of football is currently changing rapidly. The abolition of terraces and new all-seater stadiums are coupled with increased ticket price well beyond the reach of many fans. At the same time, many club owners are diversifying their activities - Chelsea now has a hotel and a restaurant adjacent to the ground. Shops for the sale of replica strips at absurd prices are now standard.
Leeds United, in conjunction with the City Council, is not about to be left behind. It proposes to increase seating at Elland Road by 5,000 to 45,000 and build an arena next to the ground with a capacity of 16,000, as well as a hotel and other leisure facilities.
The idea for an arena came originally from Leeds City Council. As an aspiring European city, Leeds desperately needed a concert arena. In order to compete successfully for inward investment, Leeds wants facilities comparable with other cities. Sheffield and Birmingham have arenas, and so does Manchester, Leeds' rival across the Pennines. The City Council owned the stadium and the land round about - all it needed was a developer.
Media group Caspian bought the club two or three years ago, probably because of the investment opportunity they saw waiting. In competition with other development companies, Caspian (now in their new guise as Leeds Sporting plc) was awarded the contract to build the arena by the City Council.
In a complicated deal, Leeds Sporting acquired the site from the Council for just over £11m, although it was independently valued at around £27m. The council agreed to payment in stages, partly in cash and partly in shares.
Free tickets
Ownership of the arena site remains with the council until completion of the development. As well as an Executive Box, the council will also continue to get free tickets.
Early this year Leeds Sporting unveiled their planning application. As a land owner and a major shareholder in the developer, it seemed that granting the planning permission would be a formality for Leeds City Council, acting as the planning authority.
Consultation was kept to a minimum. Most local residents only found out about the proposals from notices on lamp posts. Given the failure of the council to explain what was proposed, the local Labour Party branch decided to hold a consultation meeting for local people.
They were amazed when more than 300 turned out on a Saturday afternoon. However, only one of the six invited Labour councillors bothered to turn up. The meeting voted unanimously to oppose the application and also set up the South Leeds Action Group. This has continued since to meet weekly and campaign vigorously against the development.
If it goes ahead, extra traffic, pollution, noise and disturbance will make living in this inner city area even worse than it already is. The area is surrounded by motorways, and unemployment, poverty and ill-health are rife. Asthma, respiratory and heart ailments, and cancer are all well above average.
One of the selling points of the scheme has been its job-creating potential. Yet these jobs would be available to local people even if the arena were to be built on an alternative city centre site. If built there the impact on residents would be far less, and car usage would be reduced in keeping with the government's proclaimed transport policy.
Leeds Sporting's record as an employer is poor. Shortly after buying Leeds United, they closed the crèche, only later agreeing to reopen it and offering the workers they had made redundant their jobs back at worse rates and conditions.
When applications of this kind are submitted, and local residents object, councillors and MPs are normally quick to lend their support. A proposal for a major leisure development on the Leeds ring road, including a cinema, a casino and a bowling alley attracted opposition from councillors from all three main parties, and both local MPs. The contrast with the situation over the much larger development at Elland Road is stark.
In spite of widely publicised opposition by local people, only one local councillor had the courage to oppose the application. He has now been deselected, and there are strong rumours that his opposition played a part in this.
Prescott
The Planning Committee has now said that it is 'minded' to approve the application, although the final decision rests with John Prescott, the minister responsible. Most local residents think that permission will be granted. As one councillor commented in a local church magazine, it is difficult for 'ordinary members of the public' to believe that the Council can judge the planning application impartially when it owns shares in the developer.
Suspicion
Even the Nolan Committee on standards in public life recognised the problem. It reported last year that: "Public suspicion is created by the power of local authorities to grant themselves planning permission for their own land and developments."
The two inner city wards affected by the development at Elland Road are among the safest Labour seats in the city. And yet local Labour councillors have treated their voters with contempt. Protesters have been told that they are simply 'an unrepresentative, vocal minority', and asked at councillors’ surgeries: 'Who sent you?'.
As a spokesperson for the South Leeds Action Group said in an interview with Radio Leeds, "Whatever happened to democracy?".
The development has not yet been stopped, but the South Leeds Action Group can claim a limited victory already, for construction was due to start in the summer of 1998 but work has already delayed by nearly a year.
Residents in these areas are expected to vote Labour loyally at elections, and to be grateful for Regeneration funds. But they have been denied control over decisions that affect their lives. The Labour Council in Leeds, as elsewhere, basking in a huge majority, would rather talk to big business than its natural supporters.
Millbank
As a spokesperson for the South Leeds Action Group said in an interview with Radio Leeds, "Whatever happened to democracy?". The undemocratic nature of Labour's Millbank machine is becoming more and more obvious. Over the European elections, the Scottish and Welsh assemblies, and in the attempt to silence members of the NEC, their distrust of working class people is clear.
The Leeds experience is likely to be repeated elsewhere. In mid-November, the Paymaster-General, Geoffrey Robinson, said: "We have made great strides with the Private Finance Initiative in the past year. But we must continue to identify and develop partnerships and opportunities with the public and private sectors. We need to exploit all commercial potential in public sector assets through a sensible balance of risk and reward." No doubt he means public risk and private reward!