NATIONAL ATHLETIC STADIUM SUMMARYSITE
OPTIONS AND THE BRIEF (EXTRACTS)
1. This paper summarises the results of
work required following the meeting chaired by the Secretary of
State at DCMS on 15 March 2000. It provides briefing notes for
the meeting to be chaired by the Secretary of State on 24 March,
at which UK Athletics plans for presenting the bid for the 2005
World Athletics Championships will be discussed. UK Athletics
need to finalise proposals for presentation to the IAAF on 3 April
15 MARCH MEETING
2. The Secretary of State summarised the
outcome of the meeting as follows:
2.1 RAF Uxbridge, RAF Northolt, Cricklewood
and Rainham Marshes would no longer be considered;
2.2 Further consideration would be given
to Lee Valley (Picketts Lock and Hackney Wick), Hillingdon House
Farm, Crystal Palace and Twickenham;
2.3 Lee Valley and Hillingdon were considered
front runners, whilst Crystal Palace and Twickenham were considered
as reserve options;
2.4 Further work would be undertaken to reconcile
the cost estimates of UK Athletics and Sport England, set out
in papers circulated before the meeting. A view on the level of
quality to be achieved would be required.
3. The timetable was dictated by UK Athletics
need to conclude decisions in time to make a presentation to the
IAAF on 3 April 2000.
4. The following work has been undertaken:
4.1 Sport England, DCMS and UK Athletics
met on 16 March to consider the way forward.
4.2 On 17 March, Sport England, on behalf
of DCMS and UK Athletics, wrote to the five sites nominated at
the 15 March meeting, including Twickenham, setting out the information
required to assist in the determination of the way forward.
4.3 On 21 March, UK Athletics, DCMS and Sport
England met with four of the sites to discuss their proposals
in more detail. A further meeting on the same day between UK Athletics,
Sport England and respective design and cost consultants considered
the UK Athletics brief, design, quality and cost issues.
4.4 Written responses were received from
each of the sites, including Twickenham, by 23 March.
5. In addition, there have been further
discussions and meetings to facilitate the process, DCMS have
co-ordinated the input of the Government Office for London.
6. Various reports are appended to this
paper, setting out the results of the work undertaken:
6.1 Appendix onesummary tables of
sites assessed against issues set out in letter;
6.2 Appendix tworesponse letters received
from each site (not printed).
7. The key issue is for UK Athletics to
determine what to present to the IAAF on 3 Apriltwo key
issues have to be addressed:
7.1 What is the brief and can it be funded?
Based upon the current UK Athletics brief, and associated
views on quality, the project is likely to cost in excess of £100
million, plus any site and infrastructure costs. Alternative solutions
based upon upgrading existing stadia at Crystal Palace or Twickenham
could be provided at substantially lower cost if changes to the
brief are acceptable to UK Athletics.
7.2 What site option, or combination of
options can be presented to the IAAF? At this stage, it is
not possible to conclude with certainty whether any of the five
options is deliverable within the key constraints of budget, programme
and quality. Planning and funding issues dominate, and more detailed
work, ideally on a number of sites, is required before a final
decision can be made with any degree of certainty. However, the
recent exercise has provided additional information which should
help to clarify the issues applicable to each site, and to assess
risks to the UK Athletics bid to the IAAF.
8. UK Athletics have developed a brief for
the project, which includes:
8.1 The development of a stadium with a permanent
capacity of 20-25,000 seats, to meet IAAF standards, and with
standards acceptable to UK Athletics, for example in relation
to spectator sightlines;
8.2 The ability to add (probably from the
outset) a further 25-30,000 seats on a temporary basis (to achieve
50,000 capacity), which will then be removed after the World Championships;
8.3 The option of adding a retractable roof
to the remaining 20-25,000 seat stadium;
8.4 The provision of a 400 metre warm up
facility, either on a temporary or permanent basis, with additional
space for throws event warm up;
8.5 The consideration of using the stadium
as an Olympic venue if a future Olympic bid for London is successful.
9. At the 15 March meeting, UK Athletics
reported a cost estimate of £67 million related to this brief.
At a further meeting on 21 March, the cost estimates were discussed,
and a number of items were identified which need to be added to
the cost plan. (The cost estimate is based upon the shell and
core/structure works only). In addition, the level of quality
to be achieved was discussed, UK Athletics confirming that a similar
quality to the Cardiff Millennium Stadium would be appropriate.
On this basis, further work has been undertaken to review the
added items of cost, and the following cost estimate has been
|Item||Cost estimate (£)
|UK Athletics base cost||67,120,290
||UK Athletics estimate from 21 March meeting
|Additional roof covering||5,000,000
|Conversion costs 50-20,000 seats||10,000,000
||Inc operational and facilities fit out
|Warm up facilities||750,000
||UK Athletics estimate
|Internal M&E (HVAC)||7,500,000
|Site preparation and demolition||2,500,000
||Site dependent (assumes brownfield site)
|Add prelims, overheads, profit, fees, contingencies and project management
||10 per cent on base dates
|Other costssite acquisition, section 106, infrastructure
10. The cost estimates are highly indicative at this
early stage, and need to be reviewed alongside the development
of the brief. However, a number of key issues have emerged:
10.1 the brief will need to be reviewed to explore the
technical feasibility of the proposals to convert the stadium
from 50,000 to a permanent legacy of 20,000 seats;
10.2 the economic viability of the proposals will need
to be reviewed based upon UK Athletics event profile, and other
potential uses for the stadium;
10.3 there is a substantial funding requirement which
will need to be addressed at an early stage.
11. The costs are also based upon a starting point of
UK Athletics estimates. To verify the exercise, a further independent
costing of the brief estimated costs of £130 million for
the stadium, with an additional allowance of £31 million
for subsequent conversion from 50,000 to 20,000 seats. Nevertheless,
whichever cost base is used, it is apparent that there is a substantial
funding requirement for which there is no identified source at
the current time.
12. As the project moves forward, it will be necessary
for the brief and cost plan to be reviewed in detail, against
the following issues:
12.1 Technical feasibility and design quality;
12.3 Viability, in capital and revenue terms;
12.4 UK Athletics legacy aspirations;
12.5 "Added value" from partnerships with other
sporting uses, and wider benefits which could accrue to the project
(which may attract additional sources of funding).
13. The cost estimates apply to the brief related to
new build options (principally the Picketts Lock, Hillingdon and
Hackney Wick proposals). Crystal Palace and Twickenham offer the
possibility of upgrading existing facilities, although the new
build option is also possible at Crystal Palace. A key issue will
be UK Athletics assessment of the suitability of the proposals
against the brief, both for the World Championships and the long
term legacy aspirations of the sport. The cost estimates put forward
for Crystal Palace and Twickenham are:
13.1 Crystal PalaceLondon Borough of Bromley estimatesstadium
development £21 million, plus infrastructure costs of £22
milliontotal £43 million. An initial assessment of
the cost estimates suggests that an additional allowance will
be required for temporary seats which is likely to increase the
overall cost to over £50 million. In addition, further assessment
of the infrastructure cost is required, together with an assessment
of the relationship of these proposals to the existing scheme
at Crystal Palace (which may reduce the cost overall).
13.2 TwickenhamRFU estimate£22.5 million,
includes for redevelopment of the south stand, increase in capacity
to 80,000 for rugby and 74,000 for athletics. However, the RFU
cost estimate lists 12 exclusions from the cost plan, which are
likely to increase the cost to approx. £48 million this
is similar to the RFUs own cost estimate suggested for a similar
scheme put forward in December 1999. In addition, the view of
GOL is that there would be substantial transport infrastructure
costs related to transport improvements in the surrounding area.
14. In summary, the overall costs, based upon UK Athletics
requirements, are likely to be in the range:
14.1 New build (Picketts Lock, Hillingdon, Hackney Wick)£122
14.2 Crystal Palace£30 million (£21 million
plus indicative allowance for temporary seating), plus infrastructure.
14.3 Twickenham£48 million plus infrastructure
(previously estimated by GOL at approx. £100 million, based
upon extensions to the underground network).
15. This option provides an accessible site sufficient
to accommodate the brief, and a sponsor able to offer the site,
project management, partnership in the future use and operation
of the facility and the prospect of a capital and revenue contribution.
Potential university developments may resolve athlete accommodation
16. However, potential risks include the need to address
the Green Belt issues in planning terms, provide additional transport
infrastructure, and meet decontamination costs (as yet unknown,
although unlikely to be substantial). The UDP revision suggests
the Green Belt issue could be resolved provided that the scale
of development on the site is not substantially increased. This
may involve accepting low density development with the emphasis
on community use, and an assessment of whether there are other
suitable sites in the London catchment to satisfy Green Belt policy.
In addition, athlete accommodation proposals are at an early stage.
17. This option provides a pragmatic, lower cost solution
combining a permanent 20,000 seat solution and 20-25,000 temporary
seats. The scale and layout also provide ease of segregation between
athletes and spectators. No acquisition costs, and potential linkage
with institute use provide additional advantages. Recent transport
improvements and SRB commitments improve the accessibility of
18. However, key issues remain the accessibility of the
site by road from West End hotels (a UK Athletics bid issue),
and identifying the location of the athletes village (although
a number of potential sites were suggested in discussion, based
on a split site). UK Athletics aspirations for a new build stadium
with retractable roof are not favoured by LB Bromley although
they did not rule out options if proved viable and not intrusive
in the context of the park as a whole. No additional capital contribution
likely from LB Bromley, and revenue contribution depends on the
outcome of discussions between LB Bromley, neighbouring boroughs
and Sport England.
Hillingdon House Farm
19. The site offers a "green field" site close
to A40/M25 access. Some potential for a revenue contribution.
20. However, it is also Green Belt, and could be a substantial
planning risk. LB Hillingdon were realistic about the risks associated
with achieving a successful outcome by 2005. In addition, LB Hillingdon
role is passive in terms of the development, and UK Athletics
would probably have to lead the project vehicle, and accept the
associated development/operational risks. Local access to A40
poor, and wider benefits limited.
21. A key strength is the level of support and the emerging
partnership involving the developer, local authority, Lee Valley
Partnership, commercial partners and regeneration agencies. A
strong team with a focus on the wider benefits to the area. Strong
transport links (current or planned), both rail and road. Offers
a large scale development which provides potential for the sport
to occupy a world class venue. Potentially a strong project vehicle,
with a willingness to tackle key issues, for example athlete accommodation.
22. However, the developer was unwilling (at the meeting)
to downgrade the plans to accommodate the UK Athletics legacy
aspiration of 20,000 seats. (Notesince the meeting, they
have confirmed that they will accept the brief). The potential
partnership with football may conflict with athletics longer term
requirements. The developer maintains the project is viable, although
this is likely to be dependent on concluding suitable arrangements
with a Premiership football club. The probable need for the developer
to realise the value of the site may present problems, as is the
need for additional land to be acquired to meet the wider objectives
of the scheme.
23. Key advantage is the existence of a proven stadium
operation and lower cost of conversion as opposed to other new
24. However, planning issues are likely to be problematic,
and costs of infrastructure developments will require substantial
Government commitments (although GOL consider SW London a low
priority). Based upon the current proposals, it is GOLs view (23
March) that any development of the South Stand is likely to require
substantial transport improvements, even if the increase in stadium
capacity is relatively small. In addition, this solution does
not provide for UK Athletics legacy aspirations. Whilst it may
provide a permanent track in the stadium, this is likely to be
used on only one occasion for athletics, with unacceptable sightlines
in large sections of the stadium (17,000 seats below C60).
SPORT ENGLANDNATIONAL ATHLETICS STADIUMEVALUATION
OF SITE OPTIONS
PICKETTS LOCKLEE VALLEY REGIONAL PARK AUTHORITY
|Size of the site||125 acres.
|Current ownership||Lee Valley Park, use for leisure centre and golf course, plus two areas under lease to cinema and restaurant.
|Land Acquisition/Clearance costs||No acquisition costs.|
£500,000 clearance and site preparation.
Decontamination (metal workings)cost unknown.
|Brief and event profile||Able to meet brief, incorporated within larger regional and community sport/leisure complex.
|Olympic issues||Does not rule out Olympic potential.
|Planning, Regeneration and Transportation|
(See previous papers on planning and transportation issues)
|Planning status||Green Belt, but UDP supports more intensive recreational use (in line with Lee Valley Park Act). Would require improved access and landscaping.
|Transport capacity||RailLondon-Stansted linenearest station within 1 kilometre, but would need new station at Picketts Lock.|
Undergroundvia Tottenham Hale (three miles), connection by rail.
Road15 mins M25 and M11, five minutes North Circular Road.
Car parkingabout 1,100 on site.
|Wider benefits||Lee Valley regeneration corridor, an objective 2 area. May attract funds.
|Partnerships||Lee Valley have links with the Lee Valley Partnership and LB Enfield. Preferred structure would be Lee Valley acting as landlord, leasing the site to a Trust or other SPVLee Valley, UK Athletics and Enfield could be members. May consider direct responsibility but generally moving away from this approach.
|Project management||Would be prepared to manage the project.
|Capital contribution||Would consider a capital contribution (current capital programme represents 30 per cent of their budgetapprox £14 million per year committed to current capital programmes).
|Facility management||See above on partnerships.
|Revenue contribution||Current Picketts Lock centre costs "several hundred thousand" per year to run. Dependent on the facility mix, may consider a contribution, but looking to reduce current level of commitment. This contribution is likely to be required as free standing athletics stadium traditionally operate at a deficit.
|24 March 2000|