Regeneration
of the surrounding area
21. The Lower Lea Valley, where the Olympic Park
is situated, sits within the Thames Gateway, which is described
by the Government as a national regeneration priority.[43]
It was the prime target of the London Development Agency's efforts
at regeneration in London before the Host City contract had been
bid for, let alone secured.[44]
The Mayor of London set out the reasons why the Lower Lea Valley
was receiving such attention: the area suffered from the worst
poverty in London, perhaps the worst in Britain (and the ODA told
us that three of the five boroughs surrounding the Olympic Park
are among the most deprived local authorities in England);[45]
and the land offered vacant sites and ready potential for development.
The ODA told us that change was already coming to the Thames Gateway
area, irrespective of the London 2012 Games; but it pointed out
that the Games project enabled the ODA "to deliver higher
quality infrastructure, in a systematic way, and faster than we
could otherwise hope to".[46]
22. The Candidature File identified $11.5 billion/£7.18
billion of investment in road and railway improvements.[47]
This investment was committed independently of the Games and includes
projects which were to proceed regardless of whether London won
the bid. That work is for the most part already funded and work
is under way;[48] a small
portion ($600 million/£375 million) relates to road and rail
improvements in and around the Olympic Park itself and will be
funded from the Public Sector Funding Package.[49]
23. The Games have clearly been a stimulus to the
drive to improve local transport links. In 2004, the Department
for Transport agreed with Transport for London a £10 billion
investment programme for transport infrastructure across London.
The Transport Committee concluded that this commitment had "almost
certainly helped to convince the International Olympics Committee
that London's infrastructure would be able to meet the needs of
the Games".[50]
Arguably, by linking capital projects to an unalterable Olympic
timetable, costs may end up higher than they otherwise would have
been; but equally - as the Mayor of London has said - the Olympics
may well make sure that many of them, such as the extension of
the underground to Hackney, will actually finally be implemented.
24. It is less clear that the Games have added impetus
to the Crossrail project. The Crossrail Bill is presently before
a Select Committee, which expects to report to the House later
this year. Assuming that the Bill receives Royal Assent and that
the scheme is taken forward, there will be some impact on the
Games project: the Transport Committee noted that "much
of the construction will be adjacent to the construction of the
Olympic Park".[51]
Crossrail services are not expected to be in operation by the
time that the Games take place.
25. The remit for our current inquiry into the Games
project specifically excluded transport issues and we make no
comment here on the merits of the proposed transport links to
serve the Games or on progress towards those goals. We note, however,
the conclusions of the report by the Transport Committee in 2005
and its recent follow-up evidence session with the Olympic Delivery
Authority on the Draft Transport Plan.[52]
26. Funding for local regeneration in the Lower Lea
Valley has been allocated over a long timespan. The Chief Executive
of the ODA, David Higgins, argued strongly that the ODA would
not be taking a responsible approach if it were to carry out a
superficial regeneration of the Valley, fit only for the purposes
of the Games and not for any legacy use; and he called for more
co-ordination of expenditure between the ODA and other Government
departments which intend to invest in the area over the next five
to ten years, on the grounds that it would ultimately prove more
cost-effective.[53] When
we put this point to the Secretary of State, she did not dismiss
it; but she stressed the importance of distinguishing between
the costs of the Olympic Park, which had to be met in order to
fulfil commitments to the International Olympic Committee, and
the costs of associated regeneration, which were a matter for
the Department of Communities and Local Government.[54]
The DCMS written memorandum acknowledged, however, that it was
"critically important to strike the right balance between
minimising costs and securing the long-term legacy of the Games
in terms of the wider regeneration of the Lea Valley and the Thames
Gateway".[55] We
commend the scrupulous approach by the Secretary of State in distinguishing
between costs which are integral to the Games and costs which
are not; but we nonetheless encourage her to look favourably on
co-ordinating the expenditure of ODA funds with local regeneration
funds where long-term benefit for the local community can be shown.
4