Keir Starmer promises government's 'full backing' to get Sunderland's Crown Works Studios on track
It emerged earlier this summer that the main private backer behind the £450 million film and TV studio development had pulled out.
North East leaders are now pushing to find new investors to ensure that the huge regeneration, earmarked for the banks of the River Wear in Pallion, can go ahead.
Speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service on Tuesday, the Prime Minister pledged his support in the hunt for new investment that can deliver a project hailed as the biggest boost for the region since the arrival of Nissan.
The Government has already put £25 million into the Crown Works plans, via the devolution deal which established the North East mayor last year, while the local authorities have committed to a total public investment of up to £120 million.
Asked what support Downing Street had offered since Cain International's withdrawal from the Crown Works deal, Sir Keir said: 'Let me be really clear on this because I know it really matters – we really want to see this landmark project come to fruition. It is such a good project, good for jobs, good for growth.
'We announced £25 million of funding for the studios in the Autumn Statement to support filmmaking and economic growth, and we are working with the mayor [Kim McGuinness] very closely because we need to get private investors to get in behind this.
'I am determined that we will do everything we can to see this project come to fruition. It is really important locally, it is a huge thing, and we need to give it our full backing.'
Global entertainment company Fulwell Entertainment, who were behind the Sunderland 'Til I Die Netflix series, had partnered with Cain on the joint venture to build 19 sound stages on the riverside plot.
The firm has said it remains committed to working with Sunderland Council to find new funding for the filmmaking hub.
It had been hoped that the scheme could create more than 8,000 jobs and Labour's new creative industries strategy specifically highlights the 'game-changing plans for film production in Sunderland'.
Planning permission for the development was secured last year, but detailed approval has only been granted for a first phase of building that would include four sound stages, production offices, workshop buildings, and a multi-storey car park.
City council leader Michael Mordey has previously said that he expects to have new funding secured by the time that land remediation works at the site are completed later this year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
16 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Why 'Albo the activist' has more in common with Liberal hero John Howard than he'd care to admit - and what it says about the future of Australia: PVO
Anthony Albanese is edging towards a paradox: a Labor PM who could end up echoing John Howard. Not in ideology, but in method. The shape of what's unfolding is familiar: govern from the centre, bank incremental gains and let time in office do the heavy lifting. But nobody could accuse either PM of failing to pursue passion projects, and not always successfully.
Sky News
2 hours ago
- Sky News
Sir Keir Starmer and his allies have no choice but to keep their Trump criticisms implicit
Sir Keir Starmer is straining his diplomatic sinews to simultaneously praise Donald Trump's efforts to end the war in Ukraine, while repeating calls for a completely different approach - one which ends the cosy bonhomie with Vladimir Putin, threatens the Russians with sanctions, and puts the Ukrainians back centre stage. If that's a message which feels like quite a stretch in writing, in person, during this morning's call of international leaders, it must have been even more awkward. Donald Trump 's public dismissal of the Europeans' previous calls for a ceasefire - after his tete-a-tete with Putin - has only highlighted divisions. Of course, the prime minister and his European allies have no choice but to keep their criticism of the Alaskan summit implicit, not explicit. Even as they attempt to ramp up their own military preparedness to help reinforce any future peace deal, they need President Trump to lead the way in trying to force President Putin to the negotiating table - and to back up any agreement with the threat of American firepower. For Downing Street, President Trump's new willingness to contribute to any future security guarantee is a significant step, which Starmer claims "will be crucial in deterring Putin from coming back for more". It's a commitment the prime minister has been campaigning for for months, a caveat to all the grand plans drawn up by the so-called Coalition of the Willing. While the details are still clearly very much to be confirmed, whatever comments made by Donald Trump about his openness to help police any peace in Ukraine have been loudly welcomed by all those present, a glimmer of progress from the diplomatic mess in Anchorage. 5:08 Of course, the promise of security guarantees only means anything if a peace deal is actually reached. At the moment, as the European leaders' bluntly put it in repeating Donald Trump's words back to him: "There's no deal until there's a deal." 8:31 Fears of Zelenskyy being painted as warmonger There is clearly real concern in European capitals following the US president's comments that the onus is now on Volodymyr Zelenskyy to 'do a deal', that the Ukrainians will come under growing pressure to make concessions to the Russians. As former defence secretary Ben Wallace said: "Given that Donald Trump has failed to deliver a deal, his track record would show that Donald Trump then usually tries to seek to blame someone else. I'm worried that next week it could be President Zelenskyy who he will seek to blame. "He'll paint him as the warmonger, when in fact everybody knows it's President Putin." The European leaders' robust statements describing the "killing in Ukraine" and Russia's "barbaric assault" are an attempt to try to counter that narrative, resetting the international response to Putin following the warmth of his welcome by President Trump - friendlier by far than that afforded to many of them, and infinitely more than the barracking President Zelenskyy received. They'll all be hoping to avoid a repeat of that on Monday.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Unless he can fix things at home, Keir Starmer will get no credit for his diplomatic skill
All prime ministers end up being their own foreign secretary. Keir Starmer started off as one. He has been moderately successful in foreign affairs, but has gained no credit for it from the British electorate. He has played a role in rallying Europe to the defence of Ukraine. This bore fruit at what we might call the half-baked Alaska summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. The meeting failed to end the war in Ukraine, but that also means that President Trump did not sell out the Ukrainian people, which he has threatened to do. We cannot be sure how important European voices, including the British one, were in holding the line, but it seemed as if the conference call Trump held with European leaders on Wednesday was a significant moment. The briefing from the Europeans was almost ecstatic: that the US president seemed to recognise that a peace on Putin's terms was unacceptable, and that it was Putin who was the obstacle to a fair settlement. Starmer has played a surprising role in organising that show of European unity. Surprising, because so many of those who wanted Britain to stay in the EU argued that leaving would diminish our standing in the world. On the contrary, Starmer's diplomacy has vindicated the Brexiteers who said we could be more nimble, more creative and more assertive outside. Precisely because Britain is not a member of the EU, Starmer was better able to overcome EU disunity by assembling his 'coalition of the willing' to pledge solidarity with Ukraine, backed up by plans for (some) higher European defence spending. He was able to do it because the British people are so supportive of the Ukrainian cause. That allowed him to finesse the two possible sticking points in giving practical expression to that support. As with a lot of opinion-poll findings, the British are very supportive of the Ukrainians until it starts to cost them a noticeable amount of money. We have thrown open our doors to 200,000 refugees, but higher taxes to pay for the Ukrainian war effort? Ni, dyakuyu. Luckily, Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, found an electorally painless way of increasing defence spending by simply switching money from the most unpopular Budget heading, namely foreign aid. The almost total silence since that announcement in March has been instructive: the great enlightened achievement of Tony Blair and David Cameron in meeting the UN target for foreign aid spending is something that, it turned out, almost nobody cared about. The other sticking point in support for Ukraine is the idea of sending troops to help repel Putin's aggression. That has been out of the question for all of Ukraine's allies: we are happy to supply arms and money, but Ukrainians must do the fighting. Yet British public opinion is sufficiently supportive that Starmer has been able to talk about deploying British forces to help deter further Russian aggression if there is a peace deal. It is unclear how or whether this would work, but it has helped focus attention on the difficult question of who would guarantee a settlement and how that would work. What was most surprising about Trump's statements after the Alaska summit – apart from referring to Mark Rutte as the 'highly respected secretary general of Nato' – was his promise that the US would provide 'robust security guarantees' to support Ukraine. All in all, then, and considering how badly the summit could have gone, given Trump's belief that the Ukrainians brought their troubles on themselves, his disdain for Nato and his desperation for a Nobel Peace Prize at any cost, the Alaska meeting went well. Starmer can take some credit as the leader of a nation that is an important ally of Ukraine and an enemy of aggression. But that is another limit to the sympathy the British people feel for the Ukrainian cause: they are not going to reward their own leader for giving their sentiments practical expression on the world stage. Just as they are not going to give Starmer credit for his handling of the US president on tariffs, which has allowed him to carve out a better deal for the UK than for any other country. Nor will they give Starmer credit for the deal with Emmanuel Macron by which France has accepted that Britain can send back some of the people crossing the Channel in small boats. My astonishment at Starmer's skill in securing this concession is heavily outweighed by most people's dismay that the boats keep coming. The British public has had enough of the boats and is not inclined to wait a year or more to see if the numbers being sent back can be increased to the point where they act as a deterrent. I remember the European Parliament election in 1999, when Tony Blair had saved the Muslim population of Kosovo from expulsion by Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian dictator. It was a moment of shining moral leadership, by which Blair persuaded a divided Nato and a reluctant Bill Clinton to stand up to ethnic persecution, and which was a triumphant success. It was a success that brought him 15 minutes of adulation from the tabloid press, followed almost immediately by sullen complaints about traffic jams and trains not running on time. In the European election, held on the day that the Serbs withdrew, Labour did extremely badly. What reminded me of that election was a 'government source' quoted in The Times: 'World War Three is breaking out internationally; it's unreasonable for people to expect Keir to be caring about potholes.' Wrong, wrong, wrong. International leadership is well and good, but unless Keir can fix the potholes and stop the boats, it counts for nothing with the voters.
