Memorandum submitted by Sport England
SECTION SIX—DISCUSSION OF KEY ISSUES
50 This section of the submission discusses
a number of key issues which have been raised in recent months:
50.1 proposals for the provision of a warm-up
facility;
50.2 value for money comparisons related
to World Athletics at Wembley and other options; and
50.3 the monitoring of progress against
the funding agreement.
WARM-UP
FACILITIES
51. In its Report of 13 May 1999, on Staging
International Sporting Events, the Committee was concerned about
the proposals for a warm-up facility for major athletics events
(see para 134 of the Report).
52. The original brief required the provision
of a warm-up facility. Provision for warm-up facilities was a
weakness in nearly all bids for the project. One bid proposed
the use of existing facilities distant from the stadium, whilst
three bids proposed the use of temporary facilities on the car
park (including Wembley). It was generally recognised that the
allocation of land adjacent to the stadium would be problematic—land
is at a premium, and warm-up facilities conflict with the need
to provide car parking space, or to capitalise on higher value
regeneration opportunities.
53. Furthermore, the British Athletic Federation
could not provide a definitive view on the specification required
for the warm-up facility, nor indeed criteria for its location
in relation to the stadium. This was the result, in part, of their
consideration of recent athletic events where the warm-up facility
had been distant from the stadium.
54. During the negotiations with the FA
and WNSL on the terms of the Lottery Funding Agreement, it was
agreed that the warm-up facility would not be provided as part
of the stadium development. This was because at that time, UK
Athletics had identified Copelands School as an acceptable location
for thewarm-up facility for the World Athletics Championships,
with its legacy being a community facility (school and community
programmes). In this context, the Government confirmed to WNSL
and the FA, that they should not have to pay for warm-up facilities.
55. In July 1999, the Government established
a Task Force for Wembley, to develop a regeneration framework
for the area around the stadium. This includes an assessment of
the feasibility, costs and funding possibilities for options for
the warm-up facility. Four options have been under consideration,
including the Copelands School site, and a decision was due to
be made in the near future. Sport England has co-ordinated the
input of the BOA, UK Athletics and DCMS to ensure that an agreed
sports view is developed.
56. The four options are:
56.1 Copelands School—this option
could have been developed at a cost of £2.4 million. It is
850 metres from the stadium, and would have required an agreed
transport strategy to ensure smooth transfer of athletes to the
stadium. It would have been acceptable for the World Athletics
Championships, but not for the Olympic Games. The main advantages
were cost, and the potential to act as a legacy for school and
community sports programmes;
56.2 Sherrins Farm—immediately south
of the stadium, separated from the stadium by the Marylebone-Birmingham
railway line cutting. Cost—£7.6 million. Difficulties
included potential planning problems, and whilst acceptable for
both World Athletics and the Olympic Games, it would not have
provided the same legacy potential as Copelands School;
56.3 Stadium Car Park—cost £12.2
million, inclusive of land acquisition. Adjacent to the stadium,
with the advantage of direct and secure access to the stadium.
Suitable for both World Athletics and Olympics, but difficulties
would have included the impact on car parking for the stadium,
and land acquisition; and
56.4 South East Corner—cost £15.4
million, inclusive of land acquisition. Adjacent to the stadium,
with the advantage of direct and secure access to the stadium.
Suitable for both World Athletics and Olympics, but difficulties
would have included land acquisition. This option would have been
favoured by the Task Force as it would have been consistent with
plans to improve the stadium access corridor from the North Circular
Road. SRB funding had already been allocated to this corridor
improvement.
57. A further issue relates to the debate
regarding the need to provide the warm-up facility on a temporary
or permanent basis. The main argument in favour of the permanent
option is that the facility is then available for the Olympic
Games. However, if its principal use is for Word Athletics in
2005, then it could be provided on a temporary basis, and then
released for development after the event. This would reduce the
cost to the event considerably (construction cost is estimated
at £800,000, plus site preparation).
58. Since the Committee Report on Staging
International Sporting events was published in May 1999, therefore,
considerable progress has been made:
58.1 Four options have been identified and
agreed by the sports organisations involved—Sport England,
BOA, UK Athletics, and DCMS;
58.2 The options have been evaluated by
the Task Force, in terms of feasibility and cost. The Task Force
have a preferred option, and are in the process of taking this
forward in co-ordination with their overall strategy; and
58.3 There are a range of cost options open
for athletics bids based upon the need for proximity to the stadium,
the need for a permanent as opposed to a temporary facility.
VALUE FOR
MONEY COMPARISONS
ON CAPITAL
COSTS
59. It has been reported that the cost of
the new Wembley Stadium is high in comparison with other recent
stadium developments. However, the total cost quoted for Wembley
is inclusive of site acquisition, planning obligations allowances,
fees, financing costs, and items added to the brief such as a
proposed visitor attraction, hotel and office accommodation. The
costs are similar on a per unit (cost per seat) basis, when compared
like for like with Cardiff, Paris and Sydney.
| 59.1 New Wembley |
£3,178 per seat; |
| 59.2 Cardiff | £3,031 per seat;
|
| 59.3 Stade de France | £3,351 per seat;
|
| 59.4 Stadium Australia | £3,144 per seat.
|
SPORT ENGLAND
MONITORING
60. Throughout the negotiations with the FA and WNSL
on the terms of the LFA, Sport England has sought to ensure that
its key objectives for the project have been delivered. In addition,
Sport England has secured a substantial commitment from football
to the project, substantially in excess of the FA starting position.
Sport England, through its funding agreement with WNSL and
the FA, has extensive rights to monitor the project. These are
rigorously enforced to ensure that the stadium is developed in
accordance with the terms of the LFA. These rights include:
61.1 Ability to audit WNSL with access to all papers,
documents, correspondence, accounts and files. Full rights of
audit access are protected for the National Audit Office, Parliamentary
committees, and the DCMS.
61.2 Ability to attend all meetings of WNSL (other than
those solely with their legal advisors), including observer status
at the Board.
61.3 Requirement for WNSL to meet a series of development
conditions set out in the agreement.
61.4 Monthly review meetings with WNSL to monitor progress
against the milestones and to identify issues which need to be
resolved.
| 
