Memorandum submitted by Sport England
SECTION THREE—THE AGREED DESIGN AS
AT JULY 1999
10. The design was launched publicly at
Wembley Stadium on 29 July 1999. The launch represented the culmination
of an extended period of intense discussions and negotiations
between and among the organisations involved. The launch was supported
by the Government, the Football Association, UK Athletics, and
the British Olympic Association. There appeared to be extensive
support sufficient to be confident to press ahead with final detailed
design development, submission of a planning application, and
with plans to secure committed commercial funding.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES,
BRIEF, AND
ATHLETICS OBLIGATIONS
11. A fundamental project objective was
to develop a stadium for three sports without unacceptable compromise
in terms of viewing distances, sightlines and seating configurations.
The original design brief, and obligations related to athletics
and the Olympic Games are contained within the Lottery Funding
Agreement (see appendix)[3],
including:
11.1 The stadium must have the capability
to meet International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) requirements
(the IAAF are the accrediting body for athletics facilities for
both the World Athletics Championships and the Olympic Games);
11.2 The stadium must have a minimum
seating capacity of 80,000 seats for football and rugby league,
and 65,000 seats for athletics—WNSL have exceeded this specification;
11.3 The stadium must be made available
for athletics events on a cost only basis;
11.4 All rights to ticketing, television,
sponsorship, advertising, merchandising, catering, hospitality
and all other services belong to the event owner, which is, by
way of example, for the World Athletics Championships, the athletics
authorities; and
11.5 The stadium must be made available
for the World Athletic Championships and the Olympic Games on
the terms upon which such events are offered. This means that
at the time an Olympic Games is awarded by the IOC, the host city
will be required to enter into a contract with the IOC for the
staging of the event. The contract will set out the terms upon
which the IOC have awarded the event (principally the commercial
terms related to, for example, television or sponsorship rights).
The contract will also bind the host city into delivering the
suite of facilities required for the Games, including the stadium.
This will be based on the bid from the host city, and negotiations
which follow the IOC's assessment of the bid. The IOC have indicated
that consideration of the seating capacity for the stadium will
take account of the need for long term sustainable use of the
building.
12. The Select Committee noted, in its report
of 13 May 1999, that separate national stadia for football and
athletics would not be viable, and that a compromise solution
had been developed. The report stated:
"There is a consensus that no more than
three major athletics events requiring a large capacity stadium
. . . can be attracted to this country in the next 20 years. A
permanent athletics stadium with the capacity required for such
events would not therefore be economically sustainable" (para
132).
PROJECT FRAMEWORK
AS AT
29 JULY 1999
13. By July 1999, the following framework
was in place, representing a significant and planned stage in
the process to develop the project:
13.1 The project structure had been developed
and agreed among all the parties, reflecting the balance of use
of the stadium and the commitments or aspirations of the various
organisations involved;
13.2 The site had been secured by Wembley
National Stadium Limited (WNSL), following the acquisition from
Wembley plc completed on 15 March 1999;
13.3 The Lottery Funding Agreement (parties—Sport
England, FA and WNSL) relating to the£120 million Lottery
grant from Sport England had been negotiated and signed on 12
January 1999;
13.4 The planning brief had been established
by the London Borough of Brent;
13.5 The Government had established the
Wembley Task Force, under the chairmanship of Sir Nigel Mobbs,
(also formally launched on 29 July) to address issues related
to planning, infrastructure requirements and regeneration potential;
13.6 A full assessment of financial viability
had been undertaken to ensure that the proposals related to commercial
funding and financial need were robust; and
13.7 The key principles related to the design
of the stadium were agreed by all organisations involved.
EVENT DEMAND/PROFILE
14. From the outset, the design brief, project
structure, and business plan were developed to reflect the event
demand from the three sports involved. The projected event profile
was and is as follows:
14.1 Association Football—a 20 year
commitment for their flagship events, with a programme of 19 events
annually identified in the business plan;
14.2 Rugby League—1 event annually,
plus additional test matches on an occasional basis;
14.3 Athletics—no committed events,
but potential to accommodate the IAAF World Championships in athletics;
14.4 The Olympic Games—no committed
event but able to accommodate the track and field events, should
a bid be made and be successful in the future, and Wembley will
be the relevant location; and
14.5 Concerts—6 events annually.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
15. It was accepted by WNSL that the stadium
design must comply with a schedule of technical requirements laid
down by Sport England in the Lottery Funding Agreement. They include
obligations related to stadium capacity, design quality, playing
surfaces, facilities for participants, spectators, and the media.
They also require WNSL to comply with the requirements of the
three sports as determined respectively by the IAAF, FIFA, UEFA
and RFL. However, there are two key issues which have been the
focus of debate in recent months—the athletics deck and
the Olympic capacity.
16. The Athletics Deck: it has been
understood by all organisations involved from the outset that
there would need to be compromises between the needs of athletics,
football and rugby—as the Committee recognised in its May
1999 Report—given the different sizes and shapes of the
playing areas. However, all organisations involved consistently
supported the principle of developing one stadium for the three
sports, on the basis that a solution acceptable to all could be
found. A key principle was to ensure that spectators in both football/rugby,
and athletics modes, were as close to the action as possible.
Another key determinant was the balance of use proposed for the
stadium. This led to the development of the deck approach to accommodate
athletics, for a number of reasons:
16.1 The event profile did not require the
stadium to host athletics on an annual basis. Indeed, only two
events were projected by UK Athletics, and they were dependent
on successful bids being submitted. Thus there was no need to
ensure particularly rapid turnaround times from football to athletics—the
deck could be installed without significant disruption to the
stadium's annual event profile, as WNSL has made clear. It has
been confirmed by the athletics authorities that they would not
use the stadium for any other purposes in that major events such
as World Cup, European Championships and European Cup are more
suited to other locations or a smaller stadium.
16.2 The design secured excellent views
for football and rugby, with spectators close to the action. By
way of comparision, the Stade de France approach, with retractable
seating would mean that spectators in the second and third tiers
of the stadium, would be 12-14 metres further away at the sides,
and 25-30 metres further away at the ends. This compromise was
not considered acceptable given the balance of use of the stadium,
and the resulting numbers of seats pushed outside the accepted
190 metres distance from the furthest point of the action.
16.3 It secured excellent views for athletics,
again with spectators close to the action. All seats would have
a clear view of the track, the minimum sightlines being within
the recommendations established by the Football Stadia Advisory
Design Council for large stadia. By way of comparison, the Stade
de France has significant numbers of seats with obstructed views
when in athletics mode. It is stressed that the design of the
stadium was specifically produced with athletics in mind: the
athletics design was not an afterthought.
16.4 The cost of the deck approach compared
favourably with other options. The Stade de France option is reported
to have an initial additional cost of £40 million for the
retractable seating system. The Atlanta Olympic Stadium was converted
for Baseball after the Olympic Games at a cost of £27 million,
with no retained athletics capability. Stadium Australia, built
for the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games will cost £26 million to
convert for Australia Rules Football, Soccer and Rugby after the
Games, again with no retained athletic capability. The deck approach
at Wembley is projected to cost up to £15 million.
16.5 The conversion time from football to
athletics was projected to be 4-6 months, and would be undertaken
in the period September to March, which WNSL agree would cause
minimal disruption to the stadium event profile. The Atlanta Olympic
Stadium took eight months to convert from athletics to baseball
after the 1996 Olympic Games.
16.6 The deck approach provided substantial
flexibility for the organisers of athletic events. The space beneath
the deck could be used for additional accommodation, additional
warm-up facilities, and for marshalling the participants in opening
and closing ceremonies. The ongoing work on the design of the
stadium for athletics had identified the extent of space required
beneath the platform, and more definitive plans were being considered
to reduce both cost and turnaround times.
16.7 Football to UEFA and FIFA standard
can be played on the deck within the athletics track during this
mode of design.
17. Olympic Capacity—the Lottery Funding
Agreement does not identify a capacity for the Olympic Games.
It is understood that this would be subject to negotiation at
the time the event was awarded. The minimum seating capacity for
athletics of 65,000 is required by the Lottery Funding Agreement,
with a further obligation on WNSL to accept the Olympic Games.
Various capacities have been indicated—65,000 was the seating
capacity of the Barcelona Olympic Stadium in 1992; 65,000 is and
was considered feasible by the International Olympic Committee
(IOC) in correspondence with WNSL's design team in July 1998;
75-80,000 seats required by the British Olympic Association (BOA)
in successive correspondence since January 1998; and IOC confirmation
that they have no specific requirements in December 1999, and
that they would take into account the viability and use of the
stadium after the event when assessing bids. The stadium design
proposed by WNSL can accommodate athletics capacities in the range
67,290-80,000, thus providing the flexibility to accommodate the
stated needs of the Olympic bodies. The cost to the event of the
deck plus additional seats to achieve 80,000 capacity is projected
to be £23 million, a small percentage of the reported £2.5-3
billion cost of staging the Olympic Games in London.
18. The intention since the BOA has declared
an intention to consider the feasibility of a future bid, has
been to ensure that the stadium has the capability to host the
Olympic Games at a future date if required, whilst preserving
the flexibility for the BOA to consider alternatives should they
prove better options at the time of the bid. It is clearly not
appropriate to fix the location of the Olympic Stadium before
a detailed feasibility study into the options for the Olympics
in London is undertaken (including venues for all sports, the
village, transport links and infrastructure). In the light of
this, and the acknowledged uncertainty surrounding the bid, it
would not have been appropriate to commit additional funds to
the stadium to increase its capacity at the outset on a speculative
basis (there has been no decision to bid, no detailed feasibility
study to assess practicality and cost, and no certainty of success).
19. More information is available relating
to the stadium design approach, including the strategic brief
for the project, information prepared by WNSL in support of the
planning application, the WNSL response to the Ellerbe Becket
report, and the drawings prepared by WNSL as part of the proposed
bid for the World Athletics Championships in 2005.
ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT
AS AT
29 JULY 1999
20. All organisations involved agreed this
approach prior to 29 July, and supported it publicly at the launch,
including:
20.1 WNSL Board—approved the design
on 5 July 1999;
20.2 The Secretary of State—received
presentations on 15 and 21 July 1999 and publicly welcomed the
design on 29 July 1999;
20.3 The BOA—following meetings in
May and July 1999, they accepted the approach, including the deck,
and the concept of adding seats at a later date should they be
required for the Games. They welcomed the design by stating on
29 July that whilst they would have preferred a stadium with larger
capacity from the outset, "We understand . . . the economics
of this additional cost against a scenario where we are yet to
even announce a bid, let alone secure a future Olympic Games for
London". They concluded that "We are . . . extremely
comfortable that today's announcement puts in place another piece
of a highly complex jigsaw puzzle which moves us towards announcing
a bid to bring the greatest prize in world sport back to our capital
city" (BOA Press Release 29 July 1999); and
20.4 UK Athletics had been working with
the design team during the development of the brief and the design
and were enthusiastic about the design.
21. The design approach was widely understood
and accepted by all relevant organisations on the grounds of sports
demand, economic sustainability and in terms of achieving acceptable
compromises between athletics, football and rugby. The approach
has not changed since the Select Committee reported in May 1999,
and its acceptance by all organisations involved in July 1999.
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
22. By the end of July 1999, everything
was set to proceed with detailed development, in essence, to translate
agreed principles into a detailed design. The Lottery Funding
Agreement includes a series of development conditions or milestones
by which WNSL are required to achieve agreed targets (failure
to achieve the milestones by WNSL represents a breach under the
agreement, and could therefore result in the repayment of the
grant). They include:
22.1 By 15 November 1999 (Section Two milestone):
a series of milestones relating to progress on planning, funding,
design and property matters;
22.2 By 31 March 2000 (Section Three milestone):
to secure planning consent, a binding funding agreement, and design
to RIBA stages E, F and G;
22.3 Construction start—one year following
satisfaction of the section three milestone; and
22.4 Completion—a further three years
after construction start.
DEVELOPMENTS SINCE
JULY 1999 LAUNCH
23. Detailed development has now progressed
from the concept/principle stage (July 1999) to the planning application
stage (November/December 1999). It includes:
23.1 Athletics Deck—the layout of
the stadium in athletics mode has been agreed and drawings prepared
by WNSL for the 2005 World Championship bid. The overall projected
cost of holding World Athletics at Wembley would be up to £15
million;
23.2 Olympic Options—further work
had been undertaken to assess the optimum approach (in design
and cost terms) for achieving an 80,000 seat capacity for the
Games. This involved reconfiguration of the lower tier of seating
once the deck is installed, at a cost of up to £8 million
(plus up to £15 million for the deck); and
23.3 Planning application—submitted
15 November 1999.
RE-LAUNCH
OF THE
DESIGN
24. The design was re-launched on 15 November
1999, to coincide with the submission of the planning application.
Since then, the following comments from design specialists and
athletics interests have been made about the design:
24.1 Commission for Architecture and the
Built Environment (CABE)—established by the DCMS to advise
the Department and "stimulate debate and promote the very
best of architecture in this country" (DCMS Press Release,
2 August 1999). On 16 December 1999, it reported that its Committee
"strongly supports this design".
24.2 Stadia and Arena Management Magazine
(December 1999 edition) commented that: ". . . 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. Put simply, it is
the future of stadium design. In recent history, the need to incorporate
a running track within any national stadium has been deemed as
essential, the implication of which has been to move the crowd
away from the bread and butter events held in most facilities.
Solutions have been tried, eg the poor attempt in the Stade de
France to implement movable seats. Several facilities have installed
tracks and have then stripped out, or propose to do so after the
event. Examples of this include the Olympic Stadium in Atlanta
for the 1996 Games, Stadium Australia (venue for the 2000 Games)
and the City of Manchester Stadium (venue for the 2002 Commonwealth
Games) . . . The athletics track in anything other than a dedicated
athletics facility is dead, with Wembley showing the way ahead".
24.3 The Chief Executive of UK Athletics,
David Moorcroft commented in December 1999 that "UK Athletics
technical staff have been working with Wembley for some time to
ensure that the new stadium is suitable for athletics. We are
as convinced as ever that the new Wembley will provide a great
home for flagship athletics events. I am aware of no technical
reasons to prevent Wembley from hosting athletics" (Building,
17 December 1999, and widely reported in the national press).
25. Sport England has also completed its
design appraisal in accordance with the Section Two milestone
under the Lottery Funding Agreement. It is clear that the design
complies with the technical requirements of the Agreement. There
is now an opportunity to develop the best stadium in the world.
3 Not printed. Back
| 
