Memorandum submitted by the Five Host
Boroughs
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The five Host Boroughs comprise the
London boroughs of Greenwich, Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets and
Waltham Forest. The boroughs came together to support the London
bid and continue to work together and strengthen relationships
in pursuit of the central objective to secure a lasting legacy
for local people, communities and business.
1.2 The Boroughs continue to work in partnership
with the Minister for the Olympics, the Mayor of London, London
2012 and other key partners and stakeholders to progress the preparation
for the Games, to maximise the opportunity for local people and
to create a lasting legacy. As representatives of the communities
we serve we welcome the opportunity to submit evidence on the
issues now under examination by the Committee.
1.3 Our submission is set out in response
to the headings under which the Committee seeks evidence, as follows:
2. PROGRESS IN
PREPARING VENUES
2.1 As the boroughs most closely located
to the development of the principal site for the Olympic Park
and the major venues we are encouraged by the progress which the
Olympic Development Authority (ODA) has made in a relatively short
space of time since taking responsibility for the Park site. We
would congratulate the LDA on the successful conclusion to the
process of land assembly and transfer to ODA in July 2007. We
recognise that this process was not without its challenges but
through close working of all parties and the commitment of boroughs
to assist in the process this was achieved with the minimum amount
of disruption and impact on surrounding communities. The visible
transformation of the site through remediation and demolition
is rapidly advancing and we anticipate the start of major construction
activity on site in 2008.
2.2 Maintaining a close working relationship
with ODA in particular will be vital to the ongoing success of
the build programme. It is vital that all parties continue to
build the confidence and trust of local people and communities,
through the provision of timely information regarding site development
and potential impacts upon communities to minimise and mitigate
the situation. We welcome the introduction of the Construction
Hot Line which provides immediate contact and resolution of issues
for local people and the establishment of construction newsletter
informing residents of activity and progress.
2.3 We have sought to impress upon ODA the
importance of engaging with our people and local communities throughout
this process and emphasised the role which Boroughs can play in
facilitating this through existing and established channels for
community communication and engagement.
2.4 Our senior officer teams have been closely
engaged with ODA in the progress of the design development of
the individual venues. Whilst we have an interest in the design
development of the Park and principal venues for their Games time
use our principal concern is for their transformation and use
in legacy and our detailed comments are given under that section
heading. We recognise that the design development of the Park
and key venues for the Games is now reaching critical path decision
points and that decisions must be taken to ensure infrastructure
is delivered on time for the Games. At the same time many of these
decisions will establish critical "fixes" which will
determine the scope of subsequent legacy opportunity. As the legacy
to be derived from hosting the Games in East London is our primary
concern we continue to press for the closest possible involvement
in the decision making process where this has a direct bearing
upon legacy and have welcomed the creation of the Olympic Park
Regeneration Steering Group (OPRSG) which provides governance
and oversight on these issues of strategic importance to Boroughs.
3. DEVELOPMENTS
IN SECURING
FUNDING FOR
ALL ASPECTS
OF THE
GAMES
3.1 Pronouncements during 2007 summer gave
greater clarity and visibility to the funding of the Games infrastructure,
contribution towards legacy transformation and contingency. Boroughs
do not have a direct involvement in the costs and budgetary provision
of delivering the Games time infrastructure, save that in the
event of any scope and or cost escalation we would wish to be
assured that this was not met from budgetary provision to the
detriment of available budgets to deliver transformation and legacy.
3.2 With regard to the funding of legacy
it is very early days in the process of defining the Legacy Master
Plan to have certainty with regard to budgetary requirement and
funding provision. From the joint work undertaken to date it is
however clear that the budgets available to the ODA for transformation
of the Olympic site and venues will only provide the basic facilities
and infrastructure to initiate the legacy. The legacy aspirations
of all parties displayed at the Vision Day event, held on 20 September
were rightly ambitious but suggest that to deliver against such
expectations will require greater funding than identified to date.
3.3 As a consequence we remain concerned
that the currently identified levels of funding for legacy will
be insufficient to deliver on the original Games commitments to
deliver the "best ever legacy". We seek assurance and
firm commitments to an agreed sum for legacy transformation, and
that this sum is protected against further pressure from Games
related costs.
3.4 This will require clear visibility of
the legacy business plans for individual venues, the park itself
and an overall legacy business plan which takes account of the
delivery mechanisms for legacy and the opportunities presented
by the development platforms identified in the Legacy Masterplan.
Securing sufficient funding to deliver and sustain a high quality
legacy will require appropriate capital and revenue funding. There
is a clear expectation amongst some stakeholders that a significant
element of this funding will have to be generated through the
development of the post Games site. We are particularly concerned
to ensure that in a desire to generate revenues, principally to
repay the HM Treasury and the Lottery, this does not place unacceptable
pressures on the development of the area, leading to unacceptable
densities of housing development and/or inappropriate forms of
economic activity undermining the ability to create sustainable
communities.
3.5 To date we have been given assurances
by LDA as the land holder and nominal legacy client that it would
not seek to promote development strategies which negated the ability
to deliver sustainable community outcomes. This is the overriding
objective of Boroughs and we will continue to press for that commitment
to be honoured through the development of the legacy plan proposals.
Nevertheless we recognise the need to generate financial returns
from the development of the post Games site and we will work with
partners through the legacy Masterplan process to examine innovative
proposals for delivery mechanisms which will address financial
imperatives whilst securing sustainable outcomes.
3.6 Beyond the funding of the Games legacy
there are a range of wider aspects of funding associated with
the Games that require commentary.
3.7 Boroughs together with key partners
have embarked upon an ambitious programme to create jobs for local
people, enhance skills capability amongst our communities and
deliver support to local businesses, predominantly in the SME
sector to secure opportunity from the Games and embed long term
capacity and capability. Whilst our early efforts are demonstrating
successes, this will require long term financial support to intervention
initiatives. We are grateful for the financial contribution from
LDA (to December 2009) to fund the Local Employment and Training
Framework (LETF) and the commitment of further financial support
to 2015. We are concerned to ensure that further monies will be
available (post 2009) to ensure that these essential programmes
can be carried through.
3.8 The development of the site and principal
venues and Games time itself will place a significant burden upon
the existing resources and services of boroughs. The recent planning
permission and associated Section 106 agreement makes provision
for payments to boroughs to mitigate the increased burden on borough
departments to deliver these services to mitigate the adverse
impact on our communities. At this point in time as we work with
London 2012 to assess the level of additional demand we cannot
be certain that the monies offered by ODA will be sufficient to
meet this burden and we need to be assured that equivalent recognition
of their responsibility and therefore financial contribution will
be forthcoming from LOCOG in respect of additional Games time
impact.
3.9 Whilst there is recognition and a proposed
contribution towards the creation of a legacy in respect of the
Park and venues, and the contribution to mitigating the additional
services burden there appears as yet to be no recognition of,
and therefore no contribution toward enhancing the wider public
realm. If London is to present itself favourably whilst in the
glare and spotlight of the world then there must be recognition
of and funding support to enhance the wider public realm. Failure
to address this issue risks creating a visible gap between the
infrastructure and environment created within the Park and the
un-enhanced communities and neighbourhoods adjacent. To date there
is no visibility or proposals as to how this critical issue is
to be addressed and there is increasing risk that it will be too
late to address some of the more challenging issues. We would
urge that consideration is given to funding initiatives that will
support such projects.
3.10 A final aspect of funding which requires
to be addressed is that of the Cultural Olympiad in spectator
and participation terms this creates even greater levels of attraction
and engagement than the Games themselves. For the 5 Host Boroughs
this represents the greatest opportunity to engage our communities
in the opportunity to celebrate the talents that exist whilst
building cohesion and inclusion. LOCOG's budgets do not contain
provision to fund this tier of cultural activity. Whilst fully
committed to the opportunity that the Cultural Olympiad presents
for our communities without recourse to funding the aspirations
espoused by Government and London 2012 will not be achieved.
4. LEGACY USE
OF VENUES
(AND IMPACT
ON GRASS
ROOTS SPORT)
4.1 This has been an issue of primary concern
for Boroughs to ensure that in legacy there is a clear plan to
achieve long term viable utilisation of individual venues and
that there is a coherent business plan for the Park as a whole.
It is acknowledged that in legacy venues will have to address
a range of expectations and uses from elite to community use;
to the hosting of international, national, regional and local
events but if there is not clear accessible community use within
the legacy plans for each individual venue then the Legacy will
fail to deliver on a key objective. We have a particular contribution
to make to this aspect of the development of the Legacy plan in
that as representatives of local communities, actively involved
in the current provision of community services and facilities
and engaged in raising active participation in sport and recreation
we can input knowledge into this process.
4.2 To date boroughs have been consulted
in the development of individual venues with mixed outcomes. In
respect of the main stadium and the aquatics centre we remain
of the view that these represent missed opportunities to embed
from the outset clear provision for community use and for the
development of viable legacy plans. We are keen to ensure that
our contribution is fully integrated at the outset. The creation
of the Olympic Park Regeneration Steering Group where the 5 boroughs
are now fully engaged as partners is a positive step forward and
welcomed by boroughs. Similarly the establishment of the Sports
Venues Legacy Group is a welcome forum within which to apply specific
focus to the long term legacy use and viability of individual
venues.
4.3 The following provides specific comments
on individual venues:
Main Stadium
4.4 Notwithstanding the decisions that have
already been made regarding the legacy size of the main stadium,
boroughs remain concerned that the failure to adopt a premiership
football club as an anchor tenant, thus providing a strong financial
cornerstone and embedded community programmes, was in our view
a missed opportunity. If this option is closed, we are committed
to working with partners to secure the long term viability of
the stadium under the proposed tri-partite sports legacy. However,
we are concerned that:
— agreements with anchor tenants
have yet to be signed;
— the legacy solution must provide
commitment to appropriate and affordable local community use,
for which Boroughs have provided potential uses relating to sport
and education;
— the legacy scale of the venue
is driven by proven need and viability, which may not warrant
a permanent capacity of 25,000 seats; and
— in the absence of a strong financial
sporting anchor tenant there will be increased pressure for commercially-focused
legacy uses of the non-play space in legacy at the expense of
community utilisation.
4.5 On a positive note boroughs have welcomed
the recent announcement from ODA to secure provision in legacy
for the capacity for an athletics warm up track, making more viable
securing major athletics events and alleviating some of the issues
relating to incorporating community based athletics in association
with the stadium. However, we do not believe that this area should
be limited to permanent athletics, but provide a dual function
as an event warm up track and a valuable open space for public
and/or educational use.
Aquatics Centre
4.6 Boroughs have engaged closely with the
design development and legacy use proposals for the Aquatics centre,
having consistently advanced the need to secure a strong community
legacy offer. The main building will provide an iconic building
that will be an asset for the Park in legacy. Undoubtedly the
nature of the design not withstanding the cost reviews undertaken
by ODA will present a cost premium as against a more functional
design and the Boroughs area of concern will be to ensure that
this is closely managed to ensure that it does not compromise
functionality in legacy. In parallel with discussions on the core
facility boroughs, led by LB Newham and Tower Hamlets, have worked
closely with ODA to secure a solution for the provision of leisure
water as a core legacy provision. Both boroughs have offered to
make a capital contribution to the solution as long as this investment
is reflected in affordable access to the centre for residents.
Whilst boroughs are fully engaged in the development of an agreed
design solution they remain concerned that as yet there is no
overall funding proposal to secure this important provision.
Eton Manor
4.7 There has been considerable uncertainty
surrounding confirmation of the proposed legacy offer for the
Eton Manor site following its use as a key component of the Paralympic
Games. This has been a particular frustration to boroughs who
had accepted the amendments to the original plan which saw the
Velodrome on this site in anticipation that the proposed mixed
use legacy provision of hockey and tennis would provide significant
community benefit in legacy. Boroughs are concerned that clear
commitments must be made by the Lawn Tennis Association that represent
a long-term commitment to East London tennis as a legacy offer,
and if this is not forthcoming boroughs have accepted a revised
recommended legacy option combining hockey with a commercial five
a side football offer.
IBC/MPC
4.8 Boroughs led by LB Hackney have welcomed
the close engagement they have had in the process to define and
develop the proposals for the IBC/MPC facility and its potential
legacy use. The scale of the facilities and the opportunity they
present in legacy is immense in contributing to the creation of
a vibrant mixed economy solution that can contribute to the regeneration
of the valley in legacy.
Indoor Arena
4.9 Boroughs, led by LB Hackney, have been
closely involved in the planning of this arena. The range of legacy
sports envisaged for this indoor centre match the identified need
in the surrounding boroughs. The proposal that there should be
a central focus on basketball, first made at the bid stage, is
still at the heart of the plan. Borough led studies substantiating
the basis for the arena's legacy viability, have been largely
confirmed by the ODA's own work. The ODA's design brief has strongly
reflected legacy needs while retaining a building that could host
elite events. The ODA and LDA are actively working to find anchor
tenants, while seeing the boroughs as having a key role in helping
to build a local base of community users.
5. STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE
BY UK PARTICIPANTS
5.1 The involvement of boroughs in seeking
to promote and foster enhance performance amongst local participants
to encourage involvement at all levels has identified that income
constraints plays a major barrier in enabling talented sportsmen
and women from accessing higher levels of specialist coaching,
competition and lifestyle support. Recent British Olympic teams
have been significantly under-represented from low income and
state schools citizens.
5.2 We believe that a real legacy from the
2012 Games would be a team that more equally represented the income
profile of the UK population.
5.3 Borough funded initiatives such as the
Newham Sports Academy, led by Tessa Sanderson, have had a significant
success in improving local athletes' confidence, performance and
belief in their ability. The Academy aims to ensure that athletes
compete based solely on talent, not background, income or opportunity.
5.4 We are pleased that some National Sporting
Agencies have responded positively to these initiatives. However,
concern remains that traditional sports systems, and a lack of
financial support for athletes from low income backgrounds, is
perpetuating a significant barrier for many talented individuals.
December 2007
| 
