Memorandum submitted by Sport England
THE REDEVELOPMENT OF WEMBLEY STADIUM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: JANUARY 2000
SPORT ENGLAND:
ACHIEVING AGREED
OBJECTIVES
1. Sport England welcomes this inquiry into
the development of the new National Stadium at Wembley. The attached
submission explains, in detail, our involvement in this project.
2. Throughout the process, we have sought
diligently to ensure that:
2.1 Wembley would be redeveloped as a world-class
stadium capable of hosting football, rugby league and athletics
events—including those held within the Olympic Games;
2.2 all interested parties were consulted,
kept informed and actively involved in the project's progress;
and
2.3 Lottery monies were spent effectively
with due regard to our responsibilites to ensure we were funding
an eligible project, one which met expressed demand, would be
economically sustainable and, therefore, represented value for
money.
3. Sport England secured a sound arrangement
in its negotiations with Wembley National Stadium Limited. We
are confident that Wembley will still be a world-class stadium,
and that other key objectives will be met.
4. A wide variety of organisations (including
the British Olympic Association, UK Athletics, the Rugby Football
League and the relevant football authorities) were kept closely
informed about the project's development.
5. We have welcomed the supportive stance
taken by the DCMS, particularly at key stages of the project.
THE STADIUM
DESIGN: "WORLD
CLASS"
6. The design of the new Wembley Stadium
was widely welcomed at the time of its publication, in July 1999,
by all key organisations—including the Government, the Football
Association, the BOA and UK Athletics.
7. Since then, the design has continued
to attract support—not least because of its suitability
for athletics. For example, David Moorcroft (the Chief Executive
of UK Athletics) stated, in mid-December 1999, "we are as
convinced as ever that the new Wembley will provide a great home
for flagship athletics events".
8. The specialist journal Stadia and
Arena Management described the plans for the new National
Stadium as "the future of stadium design" and an improvement
on the much praised Stade de France. It was particularly enthusiastic
about the proposed athletics "deck". In its words: "it
is the design of the `Olympic Platform' that is truly significant
and one that will certainly set a trend in the new generation
of stadiums that the new Wembley will herald" (December 1999).
9. Such views were echoed by the DCMS's
own expert body on architectural design—the Commission for
Architecture and the Built Environment. According to CABE, its
Committee "strongly supports this design"—believing
it will provide "a world class stadium" capable of hosting
football and athletics (16 December 1999).
MEETING THE
NEEDS OF
FOOTBALL AND
ATHLETICS AND
RUGBY LEAGUE
10. It was recognised by all involved, from
the beginning of the project, that the design of the new stadium
would inevitably necessitate some (mutually acceptable) compromises
between the demands of the three sports it would host—football,
athletics and rugby league.
11. This was discussed by the Select Committee
itself. In its inquiry Staging International Sporting Events,
the Committee received evidence that a permanent, large-scale
athletics stadium would be economically "unsustainable"
(para 132), largely because such a stadium would be used only
for the world's three largest athletics events (the Olympic Games
and the World and European Championships—should they be
attracted to London). In fact, UK Athletics believes that only
the first two of these three events would ever be hosted in a
large-scale stadium.
12. It was for this reason that the design
brief was specifically focused on meeting the significant annual
demands from football but also with the ability to meet the rare
demands from athletics for major championships.
13. All multi-sports stadia have to address
issues which arise out of the different size and shape of playing
areas and the different audiences which the sports will attract.
There has to be an element of compromise, but not to an unacceptable
degree. The design challenge, taking account of value for money,
was to achieve the best balance so that the facilities are as
close as possible to the optimum for each sport. Many commentators
have said that the Wembley solution achieved this remarkably well,
with one of its major advantages being the proximity of spectators
to the sporting action.
CONCERNS RAISED
ABOUT THE
PREVIOUSLY ENDORSED
DESIGN
14. As we have set out in our submission,
all partners (including the BOA) were supportive of the design
plans in July 1999. The BOA, however, subsequently expressed concerns
at the detailed planning stage about the quality and capacity
of the seating.
15. These concerns led to the commissioning
of the Ellerbe Becket report, which made a number of much-publicised
criticisms about the suitability of the stadium for major international
athletics events. In particular, their opinion was that the quality
of the additional 13,000 seats (which would bring the capacity
up to 80,000 in athletics mode, even though there is no specific
IOC requirement for such a figure) would be sub-standard. Ellerbe
Becket's claims were subsequently refuted in a detailed and comprehensive
rebuttal from WNSL.
16. UK Athletics, who were initially concerned
by some of the points raised by Ellerbe Becket, responded to the
WNSL rebuttal by reaffirming their commitment to the original
designs. They confirmed their belief that Wembley represented
the best solution for athletics.
KEY FACTS
ABOUT WEMBLEY
17. The DLA Ellerbe Becket report is not
the only publication to have been in need of correction. In this
submission, Sport England addresses other expressed concerns.
18. For example, it demonstrates that the
new Wembley Stadium would provide football, rugby league and athletics
spectators with better sightlines, more intimacy and the same
(or better) levels of comfort as the Stade de France.
19. The submission also shows that the new
National Stadium compares favourably with other recent stadium
projects when compared, like for like, on a cost-per-seat basis.
Confusion over this point has been caused by the fact that redeveloped
Wembley will not only consist of a world-class sports stadium,
but offices, visitor attractions and a four- or five-star hotel
as well (as the Committee was informed, by WNSL, in April 1999).
20. Finally, the submission demonstrates
that the Lottery Funding Agreement between Sport England and WNSL/FA
does make specific mention of the fact that the new Wembley Stadium
must be capable of, and available for, hosting major athletics
events including track and field events in an Olympic Games.
21. As requested, this submission also details
Sport England's involvement in:
21.1. the financing of the new stadium;
21.2. ensuring that a warm-up track would
be available for athletes (in the event of Wembley attracting
major athletics events) and, potentially, community use; and
21.3. discussions with other public bodies,
including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
OPENNESS, TRANSPARENCY
AND ACCOUNTABILITY
22. Sport England would, of course, be happy
to provide the Committee with additional facts, figures and paperwork
upon request. We believe that, in view of the project's importance,
the Committee should have access to as much information as possible.
23. We support the proposed review (as outlined
in the Secretary of State's statement of 1 December) of the overall
handling of the Wembley issue and welcome the idea that it should
be conducted independently, in order to ensure maximum transparency
and objectivity.
24. Sport England hopes that its submission
proves useful to Committee members, and looks forward to answering
their questions in the hearing scheduled for 27 January.
| 
