The debate, the comparisons, the PIF committees – here’s a closer look at how the proposal to swap St James’ Park for Leazes Park plays out
The £1bn proposal for Newcastle United to move to a new stadium in nearby Leazes Park needs to be passed by two internal PIF committees before being given the green light to proceed, The i Paper can reveal.
Newcastle’s board, which includes prominent members of PIF, who are majority owners of the club, presented a vision of a new-build stadium at a summit in Northumberland chaired by Yasir Al-Rumayyan back in February.
Redevelopment of St James’ Park was also discussed but the feeling is that a relocation to nearby Leazes Park is the favoured option of influential voices at the club.
Some staff have also seen a promotional video of a proposed new 65,000-seater stadium, but heading into autumn, there is still no clarity on what comes next.
Fans have questioned why there has been such a delay in making the final call but The i Paper can offer fresh insight into a process which is designed to ensure “the decision of a generation” sets Newcastle up to fulfil PIF’s lofty ambition of being “number one” in European football.
NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE, ENGLAND - APRIL 13: A general aerial view of St James Park ahead of the Premier League match between Newcastle United FC and Manchester United FC at St James' Park on April 13, 2025 in Newcastle upon Tyne, England. (Photo by Robbie Jay Barratt - AMA/Getty Images)
Leazes Park is right next to St James’ Park stadium (Photo: Getty)
Having been handed recommendations by the club’s board earlier this year, PIF officials are now reviewing the projected investment costs, financial returns and timescales of the different visions. The cost of building a new stadium could stretch to more than £1bn.
A final decision has to be approved by two different internal committees who will review mountains of documents before making a call. The first is the fund’s executive investment committee before it moves to the board investment committee, who have the authority to rubber stamp the decision.
While the image of PIF in some quarters is that they are willing to dish out blank cheques, the reality is very different. There is a willingness at all levels to build a spectacular new stadium for Newcastle but it has to be achievable and make financial sense.
Signing players and sponsorship deals are important short-term calls that can make or break a season, but the feeling is that the stadium decision will impact the club for more than a generation.
“This is a much longer-term decision. Get it right and it’s brilliant. Get it wrong and the long-term impacts are significant,” one source said. The wait might be interminable, but it is at least proof that PIF remains highly engaged in club affairs.
It is understood there had been plans to reveal the next steps in the spring but the complex nature of the project – and PIF’s strict internal governance structures around such a significant investment – means no-one is now offering a firm timeline for a decision to be announced.
Indeed, during an in-house interview with club media after his unveiling last week, Newcastle’s new chief executive, David Hopkinson, left all options on the table, suggesting a renovation of St James’ Park – which some internally believe might be costly and not hit the sort of capacity a new build would be capable of – was still under consideration.
It is no wonder officials are handling public pronouncements with care. It would be a massive decision to build in the city’s oldest park with ramifications beyond football, and politically it will have to be handled with care.
The complicated call
The i Paper took a stroll through Leazes Park during a rainy summer afternoon with Rachel Locke from the Save Newcastle Wildlife campaign group.
Ms Locke was one of the organisers of a petition that called for a city-wide referendum on the stadium proposals, urging the council to “safeguard” the park. The goal had been to get 3,000 signatures to trigger a full City Council debate about any possible stadium move. In the event they reached nearly 30,000.
Ms Locke says she grew alarmed at coverage suggesting the Leazes Park stadium was almost a “done deal” (something the club and council – in a statement to The i Paper – deny). She says the group is not anti-Newcastle United or even necessarily against a new stadium being built, but she wants any debate around potential plans to play out in the open.
It is an early snapshot of what might be around the corner if the club do decide on a move into Leazes Park – and they have been here before.
In the 1990s a proposal by then owner Sir John Hall to move out of St James’ Park and build a new stadium modelled on the San Siro in nearby Castle Leazes was torpedoed by local opposition and planning regulations.
Thirty years on the debate is once again likely to be about much more than just football with issues around local politics, the environment and civic facilities pulled into a space that – until now – has largely focused on emotional ties to St James’ Park and how many extra seats the club might need.
On the day we chat, it is lunchtime and despite the overcast skies and unrelenting drizzle, a steady stream of joggers and city centre workers on their lunch hour walk past.
Leazes Park is perhaps not the prettiest green space in the area but – as Ms Locke points out – it is well-used and houses bats, small mammals and birds.
NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE, ENGLAND - JANUARY 12: A general exterior view of St James Park seen from Leazes Park ahead of the Emirates FA Cup Third Round match between Newcastle United and Bromley at St James' Park on January 12, 2025 in Newcastle upon Tyne, England. (Photo by Robbie Jay Barratt - AMA/Getty Images)
Wildlife in the shadows of St James’ Park (Photo: Getty)
“The reason why we started the petition was that it was reported that this will be built on Leazes Park (and) it’s just awaiting Government approval. It came as a bit of a shock, although we’ve now been told that it is speculation,” she says.
“It is really important that there is a challenge. Someone has to be a voice for wildlife. We’re not necessarily opposing the stadium, we just want an open, transparent conversation around it.
“The petition doesn’t say ‘Don’t build the stadium here’, it says have a referendum across the city on whether it should be built here.”
Part of planning regulations are that any project of this ilk must increase biodiversity by 10 per cent, something that has been factored into the club’s comprehensive due diligence.
One idea, not confirmed by anyone at the club but that has been floated in reports, is that the current stadium site might be transformed into a city centre park to mitigate the loss of part of Leazes Park.
“It’s potentially a really positive opportunity because the council is struggling to maintain lots of green spaces and parks across the city due to a lack of resources,” Ms Locke acknowledges.
“Could it be that making a small sacrifice for the greater good – for better management of other parks and green spaces across the city – is the end result?
“If that was the case, we’d want reassurances that was the case. How is it going to be delivered, how is it maintained for perpetuity?”
Newcastle City Council said in a statement to The i Paper: “We appreciate the significant public interest in Newcastle United looking at future options for a stadium.
“We can confirm we have not received any planning application from the club to develop on Leazes Park or anywhere else in the city for a new stadium or for a revamped St James Park.
“If a planning application is submitted it will be assessed through the statutory planning process which includes public engagement. As with all planning applications consideration is given to potential environmental impact. Any application from the club would be treated in the same way as any other application.”
Club sources have also told The i Paper that when plans are put forward, they are “absolutely” committed to engaging with fans and the wider city about the proposals.
The Wimbledon comparison
Planning experts see potential similarities in the expansion of the Wimbledon tennis site, which was finally granted in July despite a High Court challenge by a protest group.
That site will now triple in size with 38 new tennis courts and a new 8,000-seater stadium added in mostly parkland. Is that a blueprint for any Leazes Park super stadium?
“Wimbledon has pretty much proved that – even with green field sites – pretty much nothing is impossible,” says Victoria Charlesson, a senior associate at Moore Barlow with a decade of experience in planning law.
“That area was really protected and had a lot of designations on it but the planning decision was that – taking into account all material considerations – it should go ahead.
“It’s not easy to build something like this on a greenfield or open site and it does make the process more complicated. But it can be done.”
Whatever Newcastle’s call, going through the planning process will be lengthy and expensive for the club with a lot of boxes to tick.
Your next read
The plans will likely run to thousands of pages of documents when eventually submitted, which will be pored over by planning officers. The police, Highways department and local transport bodies will be consulted, and any plans would have to fit in with neighbourhood and national planning policies before it goes to a vote of councillors.
It would be a fiendishly complex process, and experts believe it will easily take longer than a year.
“Although there is a statutory timescale of 16 weeks for determination of a planning application of this nature, in practice the duration of the planning process for a project of this scale can vary significantly,” Josh Fraser, a senior associate in the planning and environment team at Walker Morris tells The i Paper.
“It typically takes several months to a few years, depending on the complexity of the application, the need for environmental impact assessments, and the level of public and statutory consultation required.
“Everton’s recently completed stadium at Bramley Moore Dock took around 14 months from the date the planning application was validated to the date it was granted.
“An effective pre-application process, and a pragmatism from both the applicant and local planning authority, can help to reduce this timescale.”
Although this is not a nationally significant infrastructure project (think HS2 or Heathrow Airport), it’s a big enough project that it could – in theory – be “called in” by the secretary of state for planning if they want to take the decision away from the local council.
Then there is even the possibility of a judicial review if those who oppose it believe there are legal grounds to take it to the High Court, as the Wimbledon protestors did.
It is probably for these reasons that the club’s owners are treading carefully. As frustrating as it is for supporters, the fact that such rigour is being applied to the decision feels like clear proof a seriously big investment is being considered.