Supplementary memorandum submitted by
1. What is UK Athletics' response to the criticisms
by Bromley Council of the process by which Pickett's Lock was
selected as the venue for the 2005 World Athletics Championships?
LB Bromley's criticisms centre on four issues:
Length of a meeting with LB Bromley
Lack of transport expertise at this
A subsequent change to certain aspects
of the brief
Taking these issues in turn:
TimescaleAll parties involved would acknowledge
that more time to have considered this issue would have been welcomeunfortunately
the timetable was set by the need to present our bid to IAAF for
the 2005 Championships in Aprillittle more than three months
after the decision to remove athletics from Wembley.
However, there was a structured decision-making
process throughout these months, which was facilitated by Sport
England, and included input from UK Athletics, UK Sport, DCMS,
BOA and the Government Office for London (GOL). Following this
process, and after taking into consideration a number of reports,
these parties reached a unanimous decision to select Pickett's
Length of MeetingIt is correct that an
hour was spent with each of the "short-listed" site
owners. However, these meetings were held to clarify issues from
the written submissions regarding each site, rather than the sole
basis on which a decision was made.
Lack of transport expertiseThe use of
GOL reports in the selection process gave an objective assessment
of the transport situation for each site. Moreover, it was not
for reasons of transport accessibility that Crystal Palace was
not selected (see below).
Changing BriefThe brief has indeed been
refined over the last year. This is the case with all projects
and reflects the input of all partners in the project and a better
understanding of the future business case for the National Athletics
We would also make the following observations
about the LB Bromley evidence:
We are surprised that LB Bromley, immediately
after casting doubt on the ability of the project to be delivered
by 2005, call for an independent review of the choice of Pickett's
Lock. We believe that the timetable is achievable, but the World
Championships will never be held anywhere in London if the location
is reviewed every six months.
It might be useful for Committee members to
understand the factors that contributed to the unanimous decision
to support Pickett's Lock rather than Crystal Palace despite the
many attractions of the latter option:
Lock offers a 125 acre siteample space for the stadium,
High Performance Centre and a permanent warm-up track and throwing
field. As the LB Bromley submission shows, it was not proposed
to offer this range of facilities at Crystal Palace.
University's proposals for new campuses near to Pickett's Lock
were preferable to the multi-site approach offered by LB Bromley.
Olympic DimensionBOA saw no
role for a redeveloped Crystal Palace in an Olympic bid, whereas
they believed that Pickett's Lock could play a role in an East
ViabilityThis was the crucial
factor. The LB Bromley submission (p 21 of the 29 February 2000
document) shows the condition that was put on Crystal Palace being
the venue of the National Athletics Centrefull capital
and revenue support from Sport England for a separate Lottery
application for the CPNSC modernisation project. Sport England,
understandably, was unable to give this assurance. In contrast,
the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority was offering the Pickett's
Lock site with capital and revenue contributions.
2. What discussions has UK Athletics had with
the IAAF about the proposal that the capacity of the Pickett's
Lock Stadium be 43,000?
The IAAF has been kept informed of the progress
of the Pickett's Lock project throughout its development. Following
a specific enquiry on capacity, Istvan Gyulai (IAAF General Secretary)
wrote to David Moorcroft on 29 September 2000 to confirm that:
". . . the IAAF approve the intention to
provide spectator accommodation of between 40-45,00 in the new
stadium for the 2005 World Championships in Athletics.
It would be our preference for the capacity to
be at the higher figure of 45,000 but we understand that the exact
figure will be dependent on the final design".
3. Does UK Athletics have any plans to contribute
to the capital or revenue funding of the Pickett's Lock Stadium?
UK Athletics does not have the resources at
present to make a capital contribution to the project, except
the time of its officers. However, we are hopeful that the continued
success of the sport will allow us to contribute to the revenue
of the centre in the future.
4. For both the 2003 and 2005 events, can
UK Athletics confirm that EOAs have been signed by the end of
January 2001 and who are the parties to each agreement and what
financial undertakings have been given by those parties?
It is usual for EOAs to be signed by the Host
Federation (in this case UKA) and the "Host City" authority
on the one hand, and the IAAF and its marketing partner ISL on
the other. The status of the two contracts are outlined below:
2003 WORLD INDOOR
An agreement between Birmingham City Council
(BCC) and UK Athletics to host the event has been reached and
a document to clarify the respective financial liabilities is
being drafted. It is anticipated that the BCC/UKA agreement will
be completed by 15 February.
Both parties have raised points regarding the
EOA and detailed comments have been submitted to the IAAF/ISL.
We are awaiting a reply and hopefully will be able to complete
the EOA as soon as the BCC/UKA agreement is signed.
2005 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS
During the bidding process a "Host City"
authority did not exist for London. With the subsequent establishment
of the Greater London Authority it has been possible for UKA to
approach the GLA to take this role. The matter, including financial
details, is currently under consideration at the GLA, which is
aware of the timescale expected by the IAAF/ISL. It is our hope
that an agreement can be in place by 15 February.
The EOA for the 2005 event is nearly identical
to that for 2003, therefore the IAAF/ISL response to comments
and amendments, if any, can be incorporated. As soon as the UKA/GLA
relationship is in place and the IAAF has responded the EOA for
2005 can be completed.
5. What is the current estimate of the public
subsidy required for running the 2003 and 2005 events?
2003 WORLD INDOOR
Birmingham City Council will submit a report
direct to DCMS.
2005 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS
Sport England has offered "in principle"
revenue support of £15m for the event. This must be confirmed
through the normal application process. It is anticipated that
value-in-kind from other public authorities will be added to this.
6. What resources will UK Athletics itself
be devoting to the running of these events?
2003 WORLD INDOOR
UK Athletics have offered the services of staff
for the event, both UKA employees (approximately 14) and honorary
officials (approximately 14) that we presently use on our Policy
and Support Teams. This contribution has been recognised formally
by UK Sport as UKA's "in-kind" contribution to the event.
We will also be supplying UKA's officials and
ancillaries (approximately 120) over the weekend of the Championships.
2005 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS
The same services given to the 2003 Championships
will be available for 2005, though the event, including the IAAF
Congress will be over the longer period of 13 days. The sport
will also play a major role in mobilising up to 5,000 volunteers
to support the event.
7. What role will these two events play in
UK Athletics' sports development strategy?
The IAAF 2003 Indoor and 2005 Outdoor World
Athletics Championships will play an integral part in the successful
delivery of "fun to fulfilment", the UK Athletics Development
Strategy. Both Championships will be used as a catalyst for developing
athletics within schools, athletics clubs and local authorities.
The focal point of the associated activity programme
will be the development of UK-wide athletics festivals (page 24
of "fun to fulfilment"). Each local community athletics
festival will involve:
1. The development of new and creative athletic
opportunities with curriculum time to include:
(i) Fun and creative athletic challenges
endorsed by UK Athletics stars
(ii) Athletics study report resources
that promote an integrated and cross curriculum approach
(iii) A range of innovative competitive
formats built around school sports days
2. The creation of varied extra curricular
opportunities linking schools to the athletics community, to include:
(i) Development of after school feeder
(ii) Creation of innovative indoor and
outdoor competition formats for use with athletics clubs and local
(iii) The training and development of
teachers, helpers, coaches and officials involved in the organisation
and delivery of the festival programme
(iv) A UK-wide athletics clubs recruitment
(v) Special targeted opportunities to
encourage more girls and women, people with disabilities and ethnic
minorities into athletics
3. An opportunity to raise the profile of
athletics and athletes through:
(i) Target television and media opportunities
(ii) Creation of athletically focused
fundraising and charitable initiatives
(iii) Athlete visits to local community
The impact of the Championships and related
wrap-around activities will produce the sport of athletics with
the perfect platform to create long-term excitement, interest
and sustain development.
8. What is the policy of UK Athletics towards
the possible Gateshead bid for the 2006 European Athletics Championship?
In answer to this question, UK Athletics will
refer to the relevant paragraphs of a letter sent by David Moorcroft,
Chief Executive UK Athletics to Kate Hoey MP, Minister for Sport.
In our opinion, irrespective of where in this
country the World Athletics Championships or European Championships
may be held, we would not wish to host both events in successive
years. Other than the Olympic Games, the two major events in the
athletics programme are the World Championships which happens
every two years and the European Championships which is organised
on a four year cycle.
An appropriate analogy might be to consider
whether we would wish to host the World Cup Football in one year
and the European Nations Championships the following year. It
would not make sense in football and it does not make sense in
athletics. I believe this is a view that is held by senior officials
within European athletics who will not support the notion of the
two most significant events on the world calendar being awarded
to one country within successive years.
For Britain to be successful in attracting major
events we have to be aware of the preferences of those who will
make the final decision. Of all the continents, Europe has the
largest representation on the IAAF Council. Those people who chose
to be in London in 2005 for their premier event are unlikely to
support a return to this country in the following year for the
second most important competition on the athletics calendar.
Britain has never hosted either the World or
European Championships and it is vital that the staging of those
two events fits into a strategy that considers, as a priority,
the best interests of current and future generations of athletes.
The Commonwealth Games, World Indoor Championships and the World
Championships are all happening within a three year period. From
a planning point of view, we would like to build on the success
of those events by offering opportunities to a new generation
of talent to perform well in a European Championships in this
country in either 2010 or 2014.
Our relationship with Gateshead is very strong.
They have a great tradition in athletics and a commitment to elite
and grass roots development and we will continue to work with
them to help develop our sport.