Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Olympic Delivery Authority
CULTURE, MEDIA
AND SPORT
SELECT COMMITTEE
OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS
FROM ORAL
EVIDENCE SESSION,
4 DECEMBER 2007
1. Further to the exchanges with Paul
Farrelly MP at Q 165, could Mr Higgins and Mr Armitt please supply
examples of projects in which they have been personally involved
and in which the level of contingency was set at 50% or 60%, with
an indication of how much of the contingency was actually spent
in each case.
ODA response
John Armitt has worked on two major infrastructure
projects—The Channel Tunnel Rail Link and the West Coast
mainline—that have reflected this approach to the management
of project risk.
At the inception of these building projects—Group
Stage 1 (guidance for railway investment projects)—the level
of contingency was in the region of 50-60%. This level of contingency
reflected the level of risk in the projects at that stage, with
initial understanding of the scope of work within each project
and early project designs.
Project development provided a greater certainty
of the scope of work and, combined with detailed designs, both
projects were able to reach Group Stage 4/5 with contingency allocated
and the overall level reduced from 50-60% to 15-20%.
2. Further to the exchanges with Helen
Southworth MP from Q 174 to Q 178, could the ODA please supply
further information on the process for identifying a legacy agreement
for each of the permanent venues and for matching that agreement
with the design process?
ODA response
There has been significant work to date on the
venue specific business and legacy planning for each of the major
sporting venues. This work has informed design development and
investment decisions for venues in legacy. The LDA, working with
the ODA and wider stakeholders, will now take forward through
the Legacy Master-planning Framework and business-planning work
(shortly to be commissioned through Grant Thornton) the detailed
legacy plans for the parkland and retained venues.
The relevant sport governing bodies and stakeholders
with a legacy interest have already been involved in the design
work with the LDA and the ODA. Account is being taken of the interests
of potential tenants as part of this process.
3. Further to the exchanges with the
Chairman at Q 180 to Q 182, concerning legacy use of the Velopark,
the relevant extract from the memorandum by British Cycling (dated
9 November 2007) is reproduced below:
Legacy use of venues
3.1 In legacy mode the Olympic venues for
the track and BMX disciplines will form part of a multi-discipline
Velopark, the final details of which are still under consideration.
Through our involvement in the appropriate ODA steering group
we are contributing to the design process and the consultation
process attaching thereto.
3.2 Pending agreement on the final design
and specification for the Velopark we have lodged objections to
the relevant outline planning applications in so far as they fail
to take proper account of the Olympic Act and specifically do
not provide an adequate or comparable replacement for the road
and off-road facilities provide to cycling for the past three
decades on the Eastway Cycling circuit which has been lost as
part of the Olympic Park.
3.3 We are optimistic that the present consultation
process will result in an adequate and comparable replacement
such that our objections can be withdrawn.
Is it the understanding of the ODA that British
Cycling no longer has these reservations about the proposed legacy
facilities?
ODA Response
The ODA has a good working relationship with
British Cycling. We have received very positive feedback from
British Cycling to the revised plans for the Velopark and they
have played an active role in the consultation process. We expect
to issue revised designs in the coming weeks. As their memorandum
outlines, they are optimistic about the process going forward,
have endorsed our plans on the provision they are delivered, and
will play an active role monitoring the ODA's delivery of the
project.
February 2008
| 
