House of Commons - Culture, Media and Sport

Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Fourth Report

VII. A VENUE FOR THE WORLD ATHLETICS CHAMPIONSHIPS IN 2005

The Bid for the World Athletics Championships

118. The World Athletics Championships have an important role to play in the United Kingdom's evolving strategy for staging major sporting events. The event has never been staged in this country, but is listed alongside the FIFA World Cup, the Olympics and the Paralympic Games as a "mega-event" in UK Sport's typology of events.[371] Mr Casey told us last year:

372

119. Since at least March 1997 the idea of bidding for and staging this event has been intimately connected with the development of the new National Stadium at Wembley.[373] Following the establishment of UK Athletics in January 1999, it was agreed that a bid would be prepared for the World Athletics Championships centred on the new National Stadium.[374] In April 1999 UK Athletics told us:

375

On 22 April 1999 we asked Sir Rodney Walker, the Chairman of UK Sport, whether the event could be held elsewhere if Wembley were not ready for the then proposed event year of 2003 and he replied: "No, I do not believe it can go anywhere else".[376] UK Athletics felt that "the Wembley-based London bid was a firm favourite" to be awarded the 2005 Championships.[377]

Funding for athletics facilities

120. Since 22 December 1999 it has been the policy of the Government to pursue options other than Wembley for the staging of the 2005 World Athletics Championships. The Government thought that the decision not to proceed with athletics at Wembley would make funds available for Sport England to enable that body to consider other options "for an athletics venue in London".[378] The Secretary of State said that "we would wish the Sport England Lottery Panel to consider the deployment of the funds that they would otherwise have had to spend on creating athletics facilities at Wembley to be added to the £20 million that is coming back".[379] He then spelt out the funds which he considered would have been spent at Wembley: £23 million on the platform and the associated modification of the lower tier to create a capacity of 80,000; £15.4 million on the development of the "obvious option" for a warm-up track; and £1 million for compensation to WNSL for other events lost while the platform was assembled and dismantled. Together, this amounted to £39.4 million.[380]

121. The Secretary of State has told UK Athletics that the combined total of up to £60 million was "effectively available for the support of athletics", subject to viable applications coming forward and the "details" being sorted out.[381] Is this £60 million real money actually available to be spent or is it simply the sum total of a collection of items for which money has not actually been made available? Sport England told us that it was "not allowed to ring-fence money as such", but confirmed that they might give sympathetic consideration to any bid "if the £20 million comes back".[382] The total potentially available for athletics facilities is not from money currently held by Sport England. The site which the Secretary of State considered the "obvious option" for a warm-up track is the most expensive at £15.4 million.[383] Sport England believed that another option was "suitable for World Athletics and could have been developed at a cost of £2.4 million".[384] This implies that Sport England might not have presumed that its expenditure on athletics at Wembley would have been of the order calculated by the Secretary of State.

122. Sport England told us that any grant for athletics would need to satisfy the criteria applicable to all grants, relating to value for money, viability, the eligibility of the applicant and financial need.[385] Sport England also told us that it was currently assessing "an alternative solution for athletics, based on a review of options which may provide a better technical solution than Wembley, better value for money than Wembley, [have a] cost plan within the budget constraints and robust viability".[386]

The Manchester option

123. Proposals for national athletics facility provision in Manchester were discussed with the Secretary of State and the Minister for Sport in the course of January.[387] Proponents of the Manchester option argue that there is no compelling reason why the bid for the 2005 World Athletics Championships has to come from London; the event has consistently been awarded to non-capital cities.[388] On 18 January Mr Moorcroft told us that a Manchester bid was "a possibility".[389] A proposal was made in January to accommodate the event in the City of Manchester Stadium, a stadium which is due to be built in the first instance for the 2002 Commonwealth Games and subsequently converted into a football stadium with no permanent athletics capability.[390] The capacity could be increased to 52,500 including fully retractable seats to provide a permanent facility for athletics events at an estimated project cost of £55.4 million in addition to the current Stadium budget.[391] Speaking before this estimate was submitted to us, Mr Moorcroft told us that he was concerned at the "massive cost" of the project then indicated by Manchester.[392] Mr Casey thought that the re-design of the Stadium might take up to three months so that the Stadium might open only one month before the Commonwealth Games.[393]

124. UK Athletics submitted a bid to stage the 2005 World Athletics Championships on 31 January 2000, the deadline for bids. The bid document "was based around a suitable venue in London".[394] The Secretary of State told us that it was "the clear decision of UK Athletics" to proceed with a London bid.[395]

The Twickenham option

125. The bid documentation submitted to the IAAF by UK Athletics on 31 January proposed Twickenham as the venue for the 2005 World Athletics Championships.[396] This was anticipated by Mr Moorcroft on 18 January when he told us that the submission "might be the Wembley bid with Wembley tippexed out and Twickenham put in place".[397] This bid followed a proposal by the Rugby Football Union to stage athletics events at Twickenham, based upon an initial feasibility study.[398]

126. The RFU have told us that it is continuing work on the design with its architects and with "the Government-appointed consultant architects" Ellerbe Becket.[399] In view of the role of Ellerbe Becket in consideration of Wembley, we find this duality surprising. According to the BOA, the current proposal for Twickenham involves demolishing the existing South stand and building a new stand. It also involves establishing a new permanent playing surface 1.67 metres above the current playing area to improve the standard of sight-lines for spectators.[400] In this regard, the solution has ironic echoes of Wembley, but the new surface for an athletics track and rugby pitch at Twickenham would be permanent.[401] In terms of sight-lines, WNSL considered it "highly questionable whether you can deliver something at Twickenham which exceeds our specification".[402] Sport England had not yet seen definitive costs for the Twickenham proposal.[403] The Secretary of State told us that "the costs, as far as we can establish, do not look at if they are going to be astronomical".[404]

127. The direct stadium costs might not be astronomical, but other costs would be involved. Mr Casey described the infrastructure and transport in the Twickenham area as "problematic".[405] Richmond upon Thames Council has told us that any proposals "would have to include major improvement in transport links and infrastructure in the Twickenham area, ideally an extension of the tube network".[406] The Minister for Sport accepted that the Twickenham proposal presented "an infrastructure difficulty".[407]

128. Mr Casey said that the RFU saw athletics at Twickenham "as part of a wider regeneration of that area".[408] Regeneration is a common theme in investment in facilities for major sporting events. Both in Manchester and at Wembley sports expenditure is linked to investment in deprived areas from other sources, such as the Single Regeneration Budget.[409] The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has used a deprivation index which was published in June 1998 "to target regeneration funding at the most deprived areas".[410] According to that index, of the 32 London boroughs, there are only three boroughs less deprived than Richmond upon Thames. Using measures which concentrate only upon the most deprived wards in each borough, the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames appears to be the least deprived borough in London.[411]

Other London options

129. The bid by UK Athletics for the 2005 World Athletics Championships has been submitted on the basis that Twickenham might be the venue, but it is the policy of UK Athletics to be "very honest" about the circumstances.[412] Other options are being explored.[413] By early April 2000 it is intended either to present a full bid based around Twickenham or to present a bid reflecting continuing uncertainty regarding the venue.[414] The Secretary of State told us that UK Athletics had "until the end of April to firm up the precise location".[415]

130. One London option has effectively been ruled out. Mr Moorcroft considered that Crystal Palace, although now "the spiritual home of athletics", would not be appropriate for the World Athletics Championships, referring particularly to transport difficulties.[416] Venues in London for athletics other than Twickenham being explored by Sport England include Hackney Wick, Southall, the Linford Christie Stadium in West London, RAF Northolt and Cricklewood.[417] The Secretary of State considered the effective seating capacity requirement of a stadium staging the World Athletics Championships to be around 60,000.[418] No costs for the construction of a stadium of this size with a specification suitable for an event of the importance of the World Athletics Championships have been presented to this Committee. It has also not been explained how an athletics stadium of this size would have a sustainable long-term future and whether it would require fundamental alteration to secure a long-term user, such as a London football club.[419]

Athletics at Wembley

131. WNSL told us that it would welcome athletics to the new Wembley Stadium.[420] During December 1999 considerable progress was made in seeking to give substance to this welcome. As well as satisfying UK Athletics that the 2005 World Athletics Championships would be technically feasible with the platform solution, WNSL agreed to build the Stadium initially in athletics mode with 80,000 spectators up to the Championships in 2005.[421] If the Stadium were opened in this mode as planned in May 2003, it would be available for athletics events for a period of more than two years.[422] WNSL saw this proposal as a clear demonstration of the commitment by them and by football to accommodating athletics at Wembley.[423] If included from the start in this way, the platform could then be removed in good time for the 2006 World Cup finals, enabling an even more spectacular football stadium to be revealed to the world in that year.

132. If this option were pursued, it was the intention of WNSL and UK Athletics to stage a major Grand Prix-style meeting in 2004 to celebrate both the new Wembley and the fiftieth anniversary of Roger Bannister breaking the four-minute mile barrier.[424] UK Athletics considered that such a one-off event might fill Wembley.[425] With appropriate funding, UK Athletics also believed that special events for young people could be held in the new stadium as "an excellent way of inspiring a new generation of athletes".[426]

Conclusions

133. In his letter of support for the bid to stage the 2005 World Athletics Championships, the Prime Minister stated that "World Class facilities will be ready".[427] The Government is committed to finding a venue for the 2005 World Athletics Championships. If a venue is not found, the Government's strategy for major events will be severely undermined. We consider that a venue for the bid for the 2005 World Athletics Championships should be selected against five criteria—design quality, value for money, equity, legacy and viability.

134. The design of Wembley National Stadium will set a very high standard for major stadia in this country. In pursuing any other option for 2005, the Government must have regard to the quality of overall stadium design, including spectator provision, in any chosen venue. The alleged shortcomings in the sight-lines and focal points at Wembley National Stadium were a factor in the Government's decision. Accordingly, any other option pursued ought to have sight-line and focal point characteristics of at least the same standard as Wembley National Stadium.

135. Value for money was one of the Secretary of State's main concerns about Wembley.[428] The estimated cost of staging the World Athletics Championships at Wembley is between £26.4 million and £39.4 million, depending upon the chosen warm-up track.[429] We have received no information about the costs of other London options, beyond the Secretary of State's indication that the costs at Twickenham "do not look as if they are going to be astronomical".[430] The total additional costs associated with securing a permanent athletics facility in the City of Manchester Stadium are estimated at £55.4 million.[431] This would be in addition to the current budget of £90 million for developing that stadium of which a very significant proportion has come from Sport England.[432]

136. Equity is an important criterion. If this country were to require two national stadia, there would be a strong case in equity for them to be located in the southern and northern halves of England.[433] It would be hard indeed to explain why two national stadia have been developed which were both sited in West London. For the same reason of equity, any decision on the location of a venue for a 2005 bid within London must have proper regard to the social and economic case for investment in a particular locality.

137. The Secretary of State rightly attached importance to securing a legacy from any successful bid to stage the 2005 World Athletics Championships. He argued that expenditure on an event at Wembley would create "no legacy" for athletics.[434] It seems to us that a permanent warm-up track has a potential legacy value wherever it is located—at Wembley, Twickenham or elsewhere. At Wembley, there would be considerable legacy value for athletics arising from association with the opening and the first two years of operation of what seems likely to become one of the premier sporting venues in the world. Finally, there would be the legacy of the knowledge that a stadium exists which has the technical capability to provide a venue for any subsequent major athletics events awarded to this country and which is made available for such events on a cost-only basis. This compares well with the legacy of a permanent athletics track in a stadium of a size which athletics does not expect to fill except during events which come to this country less than once in a generation.

138. A legacy too often associated with major events is the legacy of debt from the construction of facilities built to satisfy local or national prestige without a secure long-term future. The viability of Wembley Stadium is grounded in the 20-year staging agreement with the FA. The long-term financial prospects for any new stadium option are far less certain.

139. Prior to the Secretary of State's decision of 22 December 1999, proposals for a bid based on Wembley for the 2005 World Athletics Championships had been agreed between the organisation which submits the bid (UK Athletics) and the organisation which operates Wembley National Stadium (WNSL), with the support of the organisation that is expected to contribute public funding for the event at the Stadium (Sport England). A World Athletics Championships at Wembley in 2005 would take place in a very high quality stadium; the availability of a stadium of this quality to athletics up to 2005 for the costs proposed represents excellent value for money and offers a genuine legacy for the sport of athletics. Wembley uniquely offers a very extensive range of facilities which would be of great value to athletics in 2005. We recommend that the final bid submitted to the IAAF for the 2005 World Athletics Championships be based at Wembley National Stadium. We further recommend that, should this bid be successful, the Stadium be built initially with the athletics platform in place and with a capacity of 80,000.

140. During discussions between UK Athletics and WNSL in December 1999, the question arose as to whether a warm-up track for the World Athletics Championships in 2005 could subsequently be developed as a national stadium for athletics.[435] This idea has re-surfaced in discussions subsequent to the Secretary of State's decision on 22 December. The national stadium for athletics is a concept quite distinct from a venue for major athletics events, which Wembley can and should be. A national athletics stadium would have a maximum capacity of 20,000.[436] Any proposal for such a stadium in London might have an impact on the proposed redevelopment of Crystal Palace in the context of the United Kingdom Sports Institute.[437]

141. The case for a national athletics stadium has not yet been made.[438] It is not known who would manage the construction of such a stadium, who would operate such a stadium, how such a stadium would achieve long-term viability and what impact such a stadium would have on existing athletics venues.[439] In the context of December's discussions about a Wembley location for a national athletics stadium, it was suggested that such a stadium be developed subsequent to 2005, implying that it was not envisaged as a project for the immediate future.[440] UK Athletics has continued to consider whether the development of a national athletics stadium could be on a site linked to a potential venue for the 2005 World Athletics Championships.[441] The Secretary of State has claimed that the submission of a bid to stage the 2005 World Athletics Championships in London "has effectively ruled out pursuing venues outside London for a national athletics stadium".[442] We disagree. There is an argument of synergy for combining a national athletics stadium on the same site as a venue for a major athletics event. In relation to a London venue for the 2005 World Athletics Championships, this case is, in our view, more than outweighed by the argument of equity that too many facilities of national status should not be concentrated in London. Should the case for a national athletics stadium be established in the future and should it require significant public funding, we recommend that there should be a presumption that the stadium will not be located in London.