This article, by DPP partners John Francis and Nigel Cussen, first appeared in Football & Stadium Management in its June/July 2009 edition.
Now that we are approaching the 20th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster, the worst footballing tragedy in British history, it is worth reflecting upon how football stadia have changed in this interim period and how the planning process interfaces with this form of development.
The Taylor Report commissioned to investigate ground safety and crowd control, following Hillsborough was in fact the ninth inquiry on this matter. It indicated the endemic and deep routed problem that was yet to be satisfactorily remedied. One of the main criticisms arising from the Taylor Report was the existence of old and outmoded football grounds together with the effects of hooliganism and the general experiences of football spectators. As such, one of the recommendations was the gradual replacement of terracing with all seater stands and improved facilities for the spectator.
The big question was how were these recommendations going to be financed and what implications would they have upon the viability and location of existing grounds? A proportion of the financial burden was relieved by grant funding from the Football Trust and tax relief. At this time, the Football Trust was willing to grant more to clubs willing to ground share. Proposals for ground share and ground improvements give rise to planning considerations. Richard Faulkner, the Football Trust's first Deputy Chairman acknowledged that 'some proposals for new stadia may prove hard to fulfil because of planning permission problems, and as yet there is little support for ground sharing’.
Many existing stadia were and are positioned in cramped, densely populated locations and the idea of moving to a less congested, well planned site has proved very attractive to many club boards in recent years. Furthermore, the lack of ancillary revenue generating facilities within existing outdated stadia was also curtailing club's finances, which has a direct correlation with the club's success on the pitch. Subsequently a boom took place in the 1990s which saw new stadia for Sunderland, Bolton, Middlesbrough, Reading, Stoke City and Derby County.
This trend was supported in planning policy terms by PPG 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation. The PPG asks Local Planning Authorities to give sympathetic consideration to development proposals designed to fulfil the aims of the Taylor Report. Town and city centres are favoured within this policy document, requiring that sites for new stadia must be readily accessible by a range of modes of transport.
PPG 17 also advocates that a sequential assessment of the location of the stadium must take place, seeking to discourage out of town relocation of football stadia. In such assessments, flexibility needs to be demonstrated to achieve the land take required to accommodate the increased capacity required at a new ground, along with ancillary corporate facilities and other related infrastructure. Incorporating other mixed uses to allow enabling development will also enlarge the size threshold required to accommodate the development.
A good neighbour?
During the 20 year period prior to Hillsborough, English football had become synonymous with hooliganism. High profile policing, strict segregation of opposing fans and organised violence were common. Regrettably, this perception of crowd behaviour and supervision on match days has become engrained into the psyche of non-match goers. Furthermore, to certain sectors of the community, football matches are still seen to be the domain of young males and that older people, women and children are excluded from participation and enjoyment.
Representations to a planning application are always likely to be weighted in one direction. Supporters of a scheme do not put pen to paper as readily as an objector. Concerns will surface and will focus on crowd trouble and violence, litter, increased noise and disturbance, general anti-social behaviour, traffic congestion and light pollution.
The reality however is quite different to the content of many of these objections. Whilst isolated occurrences of crime and anti- social behaviour will occur when bringing together large numbers of people, modern stadia have become much more tame spaces compared to those of the 1980s. Corporate activity, family stands and all seater grounds have all succeeded in diversifying the crowd at your average game. A modern design and layout together with an improved transport strategy allows for better crowd management, inside and outside the ground.
A successful argument that can be presented when addressing concerns of local residents is the infrequency of use of the stadium. The footballing activity takes place two hours either side of the match and therefore does not take place some 95% of the year. In the season 2007/08, Everton Football Club played only seven matches at home in the evening. The reality of the 'blight' upon the living conditions of neighbouring communities is much less than the perception.
Community consultation
Having put more intrinsic planning policy judgements to one side, it is often the human element of such a development that will disproportionately take up the time of the decision maker, likely to be a planning inspector in most cases. And quite rightly so. A planning decision reached without due regard to the quality of life of neighbouring residents would be flawed and therefore ample time and effort must be given to examining their concerns.
In recent years more extensive public consultation procedures have become a planning requirement for Local Planning Authorities. Whilst in some locations the proposals may be contentious there is strong potential to engage good local support from the general public, supporters of the club and members of the council. Despite potential reticence from fans wedded to historic grounds, thorough explanation of advantages and high quality design can go a long way in carrying supporters along with the proposals.
Consulting residents at an early stage in the inception of the proposal is key to good relationships; however no amount of consultation and goodwill will eradicate opposition from those directly affected by the development. A resident finding themselves with a football stadium in their back garden (and the resultant impact upon the value of their house) is unlikely to be coerced into supporting such a proposal. Assessing the overall appropriateness of location is therefore fundamental to a successful approach.
Designing for mixed use and regeneration
Encouraging use of the stadium beyond the 20 or so home games per season is critical to maximising both income and investment. Most major stadia have become less sports facilities than sites for a range of functions and types of leisure and business activities. Communal areas are now occupied by bars, shops, conference and community facilities. This diversification of club activities is a direct result of the determination of clubs to maximise the use of the stadium as a resource; a revenue generator. In planning terms this maximises the efficient use of the land.
It has also become common in recent years for new stadia projects to be cross subsidised by an element of enabling development. This often takes the form of retail, leisure or residential development and must be well related in geographical terms to the proposed stadium in a comprehensive scheme.
Statement architecture and high quality public space, when mixed with other development, gives the opportunity to demonstrate significant environmental and economic benefit. Planning authorities will generally be receptive to a considered approach maximising interaction and permeability between different parts of a scheme and the wider area.
Influence policy makers
At present funding difficulties may be resulting in clubs placing thoughts about improved facilities on the back burner, as covering day-to-day running costs takes precedence. In the current climate, long term loan funding or even enabling development funding is increasingly illusive. However practical issues remain - deteriorating and dated grounds, expensive maintenance works and inadequate club and supporters facilities are the legacy for many clubs still resident in stadia which may date from the middle of the last century or earlier. FA, Football League and Conference eligibility criteria set out the requirements expected of clubs at different levels of the football hierarchy. Similar requirements apply to other sports, for example the Rugby League “Super League” has high expectations over ground facilities.
Consequently, even if immediate finance cannot be put in place, it important that serious consideration is given to redevelopment or relocation options. Making initial in-roads into the planning process can considerably ease the application when the time comes. Engaging with Local Planning Authorities and seeking positive policies or site allocations within development plans is an important part of the planning strategy. This applies equally to the future use of soon to be vacated existing sites. Demonstrating a strategic approach may also assist in making a persuasive case to potential funding partners and grant regimes. This can also demonstrate to League bodies that the Club is taking positive steps to address any required improvements.
Conclusion
The requirements of the Taylor report and the need for the match day experience to move 'upmarket' have given rise to the requirement for new and expanded stadia. New stadia offer tangible benefits for the football club and their supporters but also provide regenerative effects for the local community and act as a catalyst for new investment. Obtaining planning permission for such substantial buildings and their accompanying reputations can prove an arduous task, but as shown in numerous examples, it is by no means insurmountable.
Conflicting land uses and dissenting fans often muddy the waters of what is on paper a well conceived development proposal. It is not unusual to find stadia in towns and cities, sequentially and sustainably this is the best place for them. They may initially be an alien feature but soon become an accepted landmark.
By John Francis, Partner and Nigel Cussen, Partner at independent planning consultancy DPP.
DPP is currently advising on the new stadiums and mixed use developments for clients involved with Chesterfield and Everton Football clubs.