Examination of Witnesses (Questions 320
- 338)
TUESDAY 15 JANUARY 2008
MAYOR SIR
ROBIN WALES,
MAYOR JULES
PIPE, COUNCILLOR
DENISE JONES,
COUNCILLOR CLYDE
LOAKES AND
MR PETER
BUNDEY
Q320 Mr Hall:
One of the most important things with the Olympics—and this
is a very important part of the bid—was the active involvement
of communities in the whole project. You are a very powerful voice
for your communities. Is the Olympic Delivery Authority listening
to what you are saying, in terms of community engagement?
Sir Robin Wales: Yes. I come back
again: the establishment of the steering group for the Park is
a very important step. We have government ministers, we have the
Mayor, we have all the boroughs, and we have LOCOG and the ODA
all sitting round the table agreeing how we go forward. There
has been some significant movement now together. We have had a
Visioning Day, we have got a vision for the Park, we have got
ideas of what we would like to have in the Park, and we are now
saying we will have an international competition, but there are
a number of development platforms after the Games which can be
developed. So we are saying let us have an international competition.
Let us not us, as politicians, say what we think should go in
it, let us ask people in the private sector what ideas they might
have to make that work. That is all coming from partnership working.
I would have to say that, as a governance model, it is working
extremely well. If I can praise ourselves, if you take things
like putting together all the services that need to be provided,
we, as five boroughs, have worked together very closely to do
a lot of this work. As an example of local government working
together and working well with regional and national government,
I think it is a very positive story. I do not expect it to be
reported because I realise it is positive, but it is a very positive
story. I expect to see exactly the same thing as LOCOG begins
to work. What we need are discussions around volunteering, and
the stuff that LOCOG will do, and I expect to see the same sort
of approach. I would say, after a few hiccups, we are moving along.
Mr Pipe: Just to add to that,
that partnership working and, also, community engagement is going
to increase more and more as the focus turns more to the Cultural
Olympiad, the build-up of volunteering and, also—as it is
already doing so—to discussions for legacy. If there was
any bad impression initially it was because it was a "by
necessity" approach to a big civil engineering project that
had four or five years to be done in, and that was that. As we
move away from that kind of focus and on to one more about Cultural
Olympiad, volunteering and legacy, that kind of engagement is
going to increase.
Councillor Jones: If you take
the Aquatics Centre as an example of something that, actually,
we would have liked to have been involved in designing at the
beginning, to make sure that it is going to happen, we are very
concerned that local people will benefit from the right kind of
fees and so on afterwards. We have been working together, making
sure that Tower Hamlets is making a contribution and Newham is
making a contribution—capital contribution—to making
sure that is built.
Councillor Loakes: Just to echo
comments that have already been made, it is a very complex and
challenging relationship. Not every local authority or group of
local authorities will be able to claim that they have put together
such a significant and massive regeneration event during their
time in office. Certainly, from a Waltham Forest perspective,
we have had our challenges with the ODA and LOCOG but we have
used the various vehicles that have been set up, through the five
borough group and the steering group, to iron out those challenges
and come to an understanding on the best way forward to benefit
the residents of Waltham Forest but, also, to continue to deliver
this fantastic event in 2012. It is not to say there are not challenges,
but the engagement is actually getting better all the time because
the organisation committee, as well as the ODA, recognise that
they are not going to deliver a successful Games unless they carry
local people with them. Therefore, there is a premium on that
level of engagement with elected representatives as well as those
communities directly.
Q321 Mr Hall:
Mr Bundey, you have a slightly different view about community
engagement, do you not, because you say that all cities traditionally
start to try and invent the community engagement afresh rather
than building on existing structures. Is that true of the London
Olympics? Are we in danger of falling into that trap?
Mr Bundey: That has already been
mentioned this morning, and I think that is very true; there is
a danger of that trap and that is something we need to keep our
eyes open to. Legacy does not fall out of the Games; it is not
something that just happens at the end of the Games, it has to
be planned into the Games. One of the encouragements I have had
today, listening to the first session, was the amount of scrutiny
that you are putting into the legacy. We are a co-operative, social
enterprise, with charitable objectives, working to promote sport
and inclusion through sport to benefit communities. The reality
is that you cannot just drop something into the middle of an existing
community network, existing sport network, and existing sport
infrastructure, and then expect it to work. That is why there
is engagement with the boroughs—and we are working with
all the five host boroughs as partners and 9 other boroughs in
London. You cannot just drop it in without dealing those communities
in. It cannot be done to the community, it has to be done by the
community. As you know, a lot of British sport, UK sport, is propped
up by volunteers, individuals and small groups, and those people
need to feel involved. When the bid came we raised 35,000 signatories
on top of the signatories that had already been raised nationally,
so it showed the level of interest and goodwill that was around
within London in our facilities. The reality is we have to harness
that. There is a Paralympian and an Olympian joining me here today
because they are working out in the communities to inspire local
kids, to inspire people. The issue is about how do you capture
that and how do you take the spirit of the Olympics and the Paralympics
and get it out to the communities. The one thing that I would
raise and the one thing I think there is a danger on is protection
of the brand. The IOC puts a big cloak around the Rings, the Paralympic
symbols and how that brand is captured into a commercial sponsorship
opportunity for the Games. That is, clearly, very, very important—the
commercials have to work to make the Games stack up—but
the community also needs something to hang on to; we need to be
imaginative in how we get round some of those prescriptive measures
to make sure that we can put some logos out, we can put some brands
out and we can actually associate with the Games and get some
of the feel from the Games. The danger is if you cannot mention
the Olympics and you cannot mention the Paralympics, then how
do you inspire people? So we need to be very conscious about how
we engage with that.
Q322 Mr Hall:
Do you think the International Olympic Committee is too protective
of the Five Rings and the other logos?
Mr Bundey: My personal view is
yes. My personal view is that if you look at the past Games, then
the legacy and community engagement is not particularly good.
The one thing that is encouraging about London—and I have
to say I echo the boroughs—is that there is some good work
going on with the ODA and the LDA on community engagement; there
are certainly stakeholder groups involved in the design of facilities
(I sit on the Aquatics Centre design group) that are starting
to raise those difficult questions now so that we can actually
breach some of these issues of legacy. The nearer to the Games
it gets the less chance we have got.
Sir Robin Wales: Can I just say
something on the brand? I am also on the LOCOG Board so I see
it from both sides. There is a real problem with the brand. It
needs to raise a lot of money, and if it does not you will be
asking why not. I think what is being attempted, though, is a
non-commercial brand that we can use. Certainly, as boroughs,
we want it as quickly as possible and we want to use that brand,
and I echo Peter's comments that we want to get that as quickly
as we can. Equally, LOCOG has to raise the money, it has to protect
the brand and it has to be careful with that, but a non-commercial
brand would be helpful. What I am not sure about, which I think
is interesting, is that although LOCOG is doing some good work,
I think, on signing up partners, those partners are going to want
to invest a lot of money in a whole variety of projects up and
down the country, and I think one of the things we have underestimated,
perhaps, or not looked sufficiently at, is the benefit the rest
of the country is going to get from partners who want to get the
whole country involved; they do not just want to be involved in
London, they want the whole country. That will provide funding
in all sorts of places that we, perhaps, have not had. So I think
that is quite an interesting spin we will see in terms of spin-off
from the Games. I am not sure what the incentive will be, but
I think that is quite interesting. I will say, in defending LOCOG,
I think they are aware of the importance of involving the community,
they understand the need to get the brand out but they also have
to get this money. So it is a balance, we understand that, and
of course we will, as boroughs, push to get it as quickly as we
can.
Q323 Chairman:
When we were in British Columbia looking at Vancouver's preparations,
we were told that the provincial authorities actually had to obtain
permission to use the Rings on some of their literature. Have
you sought similar permission?
Sir Robin Wales: It is a non-commercial
brand that is being developed quite early on, and we are very
keen to get that and then use it. That is being negotiated at
the moment. The host boroughs will be first up to use that, and
sooner rather than later. However, as I say, yes, we would take
the brand tomorrow but it is that balance with sponsorship and
people paying for it. We have to understand that. It is right
and proper that is done, but there is a genuine recognition from
LOCOG (I cannot speak with two hats here) of the importance of
this, and they are quite keen to free that up as best they can,
and the non-commercial brand will be, I think, very significant.
Q324 Rosemary McKenna:
First of all, can I raise an issue that was briefly mentioned
by Jules, and it is about volunteering. Having experienced the
huge benefits of volunteering, because I attended the Commonwealth
Games in Victoria and saw how much work was done by the volunteers,
I have two questions. First of all, the training that is being
given to them—is that ongoing and how is it going on the
local community getting involved? Can you deal with that one first?
Councillor Loakes: Our Waltham
Forest adult education services are running a number of volunteer
programmes to start to prepare people for the opportunities from
volunteering. Of course, what we are trying to do is, also, ensure
that the opportunities to volunteer before the Games they kind
of get first dibs on, so that there is some continuous benefit
between now and 2012. We have been very successful in getting
a lot of our adults through those volunteer programmes.
Q325 Rosemary McKenna:
I think it is really, really important that you get as many people
as you can involved.
Sir Robin Wales: There are two
things here. One is, obviously, we will want to bring people from
all over the country to be part of the Games, and that is important,
because then different parts of the country get involved. We all
recognise that you can volunteer, perhaps, to be in the Park but
there are loads of other volunteer opportunities around it, and
it is about us trying to engage with our communities. If we can
get them volunteering and doing things now—we do a volunteering
scheme and we have been looking to see: "Can we then get
people moving from there into employment?" Very interestingly,
we have managed to get some into employment but we also have evidence
that people who are not working think that is their contribution
and do not want to stop doing the volunteering and go into work.
We will be doing research on that, so we are working now because
we see it as a way of pushing people towards employment as they
get connected. Clearly, all of us have plans to have extensive
volunteering programmes; the more the merrier and the more people
can get involved in that and the more they are part of it, the
better. I think that is extremely important.
Q326 Rosemary McKenna:
That is part of the legacy as well.
Sir Robin Wales: Yes, absolutely.
Q327 Rosemary McKenna:
People will continue; once they have done some kind of volunteering,
they tend to continue to do more. Thank you. Can I ask you about
how you feel your views are being reflected? You are not on the
Olympic Board, and you do not have any direct representation on
the Olympic Board. Do you feel that they are listening to your
views or are you struggling?
Sir Robin Wales: I am on LOCOG
and LOCOG absolutely listens to every word we say with great interest.
I think people are listening. There were some initiatives—and
I think Jules explained why that is—but people are trying
very hard to listen. Do they give us what we want? No. Do we expect
that? No. There is an engagement, and I think quite an adult engagement.
I think there is a willingness to listen. Sometimes, clearly,
costs and things like that will drive things in a particular way,
so we will not necessarily agree with some of the things that
are done. I think the Park thing recently was very positive,[5]
with people having real vision about what they wanted to do and
the sort of place we want to build. The challenge will be to deliver
that. I think people are trying to listen and trying to work with
us, but it is a challenge. It will not be exactly as we want.
So, yes, I think they are coming in good faith, to be honest.
Councillor Jones: Also, Neale
Coleman mentioned earlier that there is a regeneration board that
has been set up that we will sit on together.
Q328 Rosemary McKenna:
You already mentioned that; you said you thought there was a very
good structure within that, and you are confident that that structure
will be sufficiently strong for you to be really, really involved
in the regeneration aspects of it. That is one of the biggest
things, I think, that persuaded the Government that it was a good
thing to do the Olympics and to bid for them.
Councillor Loakes: We do actually
have very good access to those on the Olympic Board when and if
required. So, for example, certainly from Waltham Forest's and
Hackney's perspective, the northern sports hub that comprises
Hackney Marshes, the Manor and the velodrome in Newham, there
are some bridges that are integral to actually making that a successful
sports hub, and ourselves and Hackney have been at the forefront
of lobbying quite hard with David Higgins and Alison Nimmo to
make sure that they understand the full implications of ensuring
that those bridges are maintained and do go in and do exist in
a legacy context. Otherwise, that northern sports hub, which,
for all intents and purposes, is a community sports facility,
will not work or function as well as it possibly could.
Councillor Jones: I would endorse
that because the bridges also running from Tower Hamlets across
the two rivers are needed after the Games as well as during the
Games. That is very important.
Q329 Rosemary McKenna:
So you see a real legacy for the five host boroughs in the future?
Councillor Jones: Yes.
Sir Robin Wales: Far be it for
me to suggest what the Committee should do, but it would be really
helpful if we can try to get an understanding in the public about,
actually, the development of the communities. London is expanding,
and a lot of the expansion is going to come in this area. You
need housing; you need places for them to come. We need to make
it work and we need to make it sustainable. We need to get the
people who are not in employment into employment; we need to get
people connected and doing things. We need to develop a Park that
will be an east London and a north-east London Park, that we do
not have anywhere. If we can recognise that that, and developing
that sustainably, will be a long-term benefit to the UK and not
just to the local populations perhaps we can just focus on that
and say: "That is what we have got to get out of these Games
first". If we get that and we make sure that is a priority,
then at the end of the time the money that will come out, or whatever,
in 2030 will be a bonus. However, if we can say publicly: "That
is what we have to do; we have to transform this area and get
people into work and change people's lives there", because
it is a huge area of deprivation, then I think we will engage
in more effective debate because then we will actually be making
sure there is a permanent legacy. We need to focus on that and
the more you do that the more helpful it will be for us.
Mr Pipe: As well as changing the
realities for people who live there—for example, employment—I
think what is key as well is that we have to change the reputation
of East London. If anyone says: "North London", "West
London" or "South London", everyone has an image—usually
positive—of those places, but as soon as someone says: "East
London" it is automatically linked with Dickensian poverty
in many people's minds.
Q330 Rosemary McKenna:
That is exactly what they are trying to do in Glasgow with the
East End in the Commonwealth Games.
Councillor Loakes: It is not just
about saying to the ODA: "You have to do this for us".
We have to make the most of some of these opportunities ourselves.
I know that all of us are investing in various different ways
in different services to ensure that we maximise the opportunities
from the Games. So, for example, we are putting up money towards
our Cultural Olympiad offer, from October this year, to make sure
that that is successful. We can hang around and wait for DCMS
or ODA, or whoever, to give us money, until the cows come home,
but it actually starts this October. For a lot of residents that
will be one of the major points of engagement; for a lot of residents
that will be one of the first key milestones of the 2012 Games,
when that torch is handed over in Beijing, and in October, when
we launch the Cultural Olympiad. So we cannot hang around and
wait forever; we have got to do a lot ourselves and not just keep
thinking that the ODA needs to answer this question and deliver
on this question.
Q331 Paul Farrelly:
Just on that point, I gave you very good notice of my question
on kids and sports and participation, which has been talked about.
I am boring people now because I mention it every time, but the
most noticeable way is to say: "These are the five London
boroughs and, Mr Bundey, Pro-Active East we are going to deliver
a playable sports surface in every school on our patch. We are
going to tap you, the Government, and you, the sponsors, who are
awash with money, to deliver that, and it is good for us and it
is good for you".
Sir Robin Wales: We can then say
that sponsors should spend their money in the East End of London
rather than the rest of the country. I like that. I will go for
it.
Q332 Paul Farrelly:
It is a no-brainer for the leaders' group.
Sir Robin Wales: Yes. Each of
us has different requirements in different boroughs. Each of us
can give you a story. For example, in my borough, we introduced
free swims way back, to try and get to kids, and we are currently
drawing up a programme and saying: "What do we want to invest
in, in terms of a sports infrastructure, between now and 2012?"
We are significantly cutting our budget elsewhere so that we can
fund that. I think the sports infrastructure will be critical.
We have got a programme where, again, we have cut budgets so that
we can invest heavily in activity, both for adults and for young
people, because the adults' investment is often left behind in
this, but, actually, it is a big factor in reducing ill-health
and mental ill-health in adults—or older people. We have
set up the Newham Sports Academy. I think 70% of all medals come
from people from independent schools, from private schools, so
we have set up a sports academy in Newham (with Tessa Sanderson)
funding it, saying: "We want to help the kids, the Ds and
Es that never get a chance because they have not got the support,
the good ones, to get access to medals, so that they can then
come back and say to other kids: `Look, I can do that, why don't
you take part in sport?'" That is what we are doing in Newham.
Each of my colleagues can tell you exactly the same story, but
with different emphasis, because each of us has different requirements.
Jules sits with the biggest number of football pitches in the
world in one place; he has got something very special—so
we have each got different things and I think we all recognise
the importance of that. Investing in that is absolutely critical,
and the more we can get support for that from the sponsors or
from the Government the better.
Councillor Loakes: It is about
using the government programmes. So, for example, Building Schools
for the Future, in Waltham Forest we are using that to totally
revamp the sports offer that there is in our secondary schools
currently. So the Leytonstone School, the new community sports
facility there, during the day serves the school population but
in the evening serves the local community population. That is
a brand new facility. At Mayville Primary School, we have put
in a synthetic, all-purpose sports pitch, and that is the first
in Waltham Forest for a primary school. So it is there at the
forefront of our mind, and when other government programmes are
coming on board we are ensuring that we link the Olympics and
Paralympics with what we want to do in those schools to ensure
that we maximise the opportunities. Like Newham, in Waltham Forest
we have been doing the free swims, and our target around participation
in sport—two hours a week—in one year has gone from
63% to 87%. I am not happy with that, I want it 100% in an Olympic
host borough, and we will be pushing hard on that and will probably
make that one of our local area agreement targets that we are
currently in negotiation with. So there is a lot that we can do.
We have a "Tour de Waltham Forest" now, a celebration
of cycling and bikes and all that is fit and healthy, because
that is something that we know adults are particularly keen to
participate in. That is a new festival that we added to our programme
last year. So we are just building all the time on what we already
do and making sure that it gets linked to the positive aspects
of the Olympics and Paralympic Games.
Councillor Jones: Without going
into detail, in Tower Hamlets we are also working with the Primary
Care Trust, so we are sharing budgets, looking at preventative
health, so that sports activities and healthy initiatives are
being set up for people of all ages.
Mr Bundey: To round up, that is
exactly spot on. No borough is the same, and across the UK, not
just in London, every borough will be doing what the five boroughs
are doing, which is looking at their sporting provision, looking
at their sporting infrastructure, and building on that, so that,
hopefully, coming out of the Olympics, the demand from young people
and adults to get into sports facilities is such that we are going
to have to look at a major expansion programme to cope with the
capacity.
Mr Pipe: I would like to say that
in Hackney, and we have mentioned the pitches and the £3.5
million that is going in there—£2 million from the
LDA and £1.5 million from Hackney itself—in investment
in the facilities. One highlight would be that we have opened
a 50-metre lido which has attracted 100,000 people to use it in
one year. There are probably few pools that could say that they
have actually attracted that level of participation. Also, just
one anecdote, there is a Paralympian who is going to Beijing who
says that he probably would not be able to do it if it was not
for that pool there because it would have been too far to travel
to train.
Mr Bundey: He is actually sitting
behind you now.
Chairman: We need to quickly move on
to legacy.
Q333 Philip Davies:
In Manchester, they knew before they designed their stadium that
Manchester City were going to be the people taking over afterwards.
Do you think that decisions have got to be taken now about the
design of the Olympic Stadium, and things like that, even though
no legacy tenant has been agreed?
Sir Robin Wales: Clearly, in Manchester,
they had some idea beforehand and were moving forward. We would
probably have supported (I would as a West Ham season ticket holder)
them going into the centre, but, actually, what has happened is
quite an imaginative and innovative legacy development from the
Mayor, who has been able to identify some land which is more appropriate
for West Ham. So from a point of view of the borough, I could
probably say now that a significant legacy benefit is likely to
be in use for West Ham in a better part of the borough, freeing
up some of my borough and making it work. I think the work they
are now doing for the tenants of the stadium and how we run the
Aquatics Centre afterwards, people are working it through, they
are trying to be imaginative and they are trying to come up with
some ideas. I think it is a good example. There was a bit of a
problem at the beginning but I think it is settling down and people
are trying to resolve it. So I would probably say that I am quite
hopeful that we will end up with a solution to these problems.
In the meantime, I can genuinely say that I think we have had
something, in terms of West Ham, in the borough which is, effectively,
legacy; it would not have happened but for the Games, and that
for us is quite a significant gain in our borough.
Mr Pipe: There is a similar tension
around the IBC. It arises from the same thing that we have already
touched on before: initially there is the drive to get it right
for the Games and get on because they have got to let contracts.
At the moment there are still two consortia involved who are vying
to build the IBC, and hopefully that will be sorted by February
and they will know which consortium is going forward. It is absolutely
vital then that that consortia and the ODA talk to the array of
broadcasters and recording industry people and others that we
have put together that we want to see as the end-users, because
they are saying to us they are not going to be interested in taking
on that venue afterwards if they have not had some input into
the spec, and it is something that they will be interested in.
Whilst, yes, okay, we will end up with a shed that someone is
going to want to pay a lot of money for afterwards, it does not
do that trick that I spoke about before about changing the reputation
of the area. Soho cannot give the power supplies to the creative
and film and broadcasting industry, Hoxton is bursting at the
seams with digital and creative media industries; they want somewhere
new where the location is right, it is accessible and all the
power supplies are there, and all the support that they need.
This location, the IBC, the MPC and the surrounding areas is absolutely
ideal for that, but we will lose the opportunity for that to happen
if the ODA do not do as they have committed they will do. They
have committed to do this, but they must do this. Come February/March,
when we know who the contractor and the consortium is, they must
start talking to those people that we and Hackney borough have
actually put in front of them.
Q334 Philip Davies:
Obviously, we are all interested spectators as to what is happening,
but do you have a preferred model of ownership and operation of
the Olympic Park—what you would like to see?
Sir Robin Wales: I think the governance
of the Park is an integral part of the discussion—how we
do it. We would probably echo what Neale Coleman was saying earlier:
we want to be part of the governance; we recognise you need to
have business there, and it will be as it develops. What we have
got is a governance body which enables us to engage effectively
so we can develop a model for the Park afterwards. So the answer
is I do not think we have a model at the moment; we recognise
the different interests that need to be there and then, depending
on the development, how that develops is really the governance
structure you will want, but we have a body that can effectively
take that forward. So the answer is no, we have not got an end
game but we have got a process in place that will give us the
end game, and give us it with some confidence. I think it is fair
to say this from my colleagues: we have a lot more confidence
now in the development and partnership that has been working and
the improvements in relationships. That is down to what Jules
is saying; that initially it was: "We must get this done,
we must get it done on time". I think, as that has gone on
and we have worked together with developers in partnership I would
certainly, personally, argue that I am feeling very comfortable
about where we might end up with this. I do think the governance
structure (I said it earlier) in this is probably better than
anything else that is operating in regeneration elsewhere in London,
including the rest of my borough. So I think this is a very good
model because it is involving local councils in an effective way.
Mr Bundey: From our point of view,
having seen it from the ground, we would be comfortable with the
LDA or the five boroughs in their approach as public guardians
of the service. I think, generally, the issue around facilities
is about flexibility for long-term legacy; to be flexible to meet
demands and to make sure that we have got the ability to programme
and get some community use into that. The reality of our structure
is that the philosophy of the operator needs to match the philosophy
of the guardian, so that it is a public asset from the five boroughs
or from the LDA: a public asset, public benefit from the operator
and the ongoing use of it. There has been discussion in the Aquatics
Centre, for example, about softening off into leisure water, into
flexibility with movable floors and booms, which helps all of
the programming side, and it is quite right there is debate coming
forward now. There is a healthy debate—it has already been
mentioned early on—and that healthy debate is being had
with the ODA, and they are listening through the stakeholder groups.
Q335 Adam Price:
You said in your submission that there is not enough money allocated
in the budget for legacy for transformation of the Olympic Park
and venues. You also said it is too soon to put a figure on it.
So how do you know it is not enough?
Sir Robin Wales: I think it is
more we said there is a concern about it. We are concerned. As
we have said, we must get the legacy right. We must get a place
that is sustainable and that we do not knock down in 40 years.
We must get a place where the communities work so that then there
is less cost overall to the taxpayer. We must get a place where
people are aspirational and get into work. Those are all challenges,
in how you do that and how you develop that. If we said that has
got to be a guiding principle, there will be a sum of money involved
in that. Neale Coleman was making the point that we do not know
how much money is going to come from this. One of the things with
the international competition that we are going out to for some
of the development platforms is that we could get something very
interesting that will supply a lot of money to the public purse.
I do not know. Hopefully, it is "to go" to the rest
of the world. It is "eyeball" economics. People are
going to look at this area in the next four years in a way that
they would not have done otherwise. This can transform the reputation
but it could bring people in who would never have thought of the
area. What do they bring? How do we then use that? If you look
at the O2, what a transformation, where somebody said: "I
could do something with this". We do not know what is coming.
What we have got to be saying is we must make sure that the first
priority is to get this right. Then, if we do it properly, the
money will be what it will be. If you take some principles and
say the development of legacy and the sustainability in developing
long term, for whole life, costs, then actually that is a better
approach. We should then try, as far as we can, to maximise the
benefit to the public purse always, but I think that is the priority.
What we would be saying is we have concerns (and Neale Coleman
said it as well): how dense do you want your housing? How much
social housing do you want in it? Do you scrap all the social
housing, build it dense and you get a big sum of money? But it
will not be sustainable. So that is the debate we have to have,
and we, as boroughs, are naturally concerned about it and raising
it. I say again, and I said earlier, it would be very helpful
if this Committee says that is actually a priority that should
not be missed in arguing about sums of money.
Q336 Adam Price:
Do you currently expect, as local authorities, to have to make
a contribution yourselves to the conversion costs, for instance,
of any of the venues and facilities?
Sir Robin Wales: We have already
said ourselves, and Tower Hamlets have already said, we will make
some of that contribution. If you take the aquatics, it has been
agreed by the ODA to put in the movable floors that will enable
the conversion, but then the question becomes: what are we then
going to put in? I will give you an example: we would like leisure
water; we want it for our communities and we are prepared to put
some money in for leisure water for our communities. There is
a proposal to build a block next to the aquatics. If you are doing
that you will probably take Section 106 money as well, so where
does that then leave the overall benefit? That is part of the
debate you have to have. Just down the road, in Silvertown Quays,
we have a development which is going to have the largest aquarium
in Europe, Biota. Now, Section 106 money has gone into that because
we recognise the benefit of developing that. Until somebody had
the idea of putting an aquarium down there we would not have had
that idea. So I genuinely think the legacy debate is happening
early, people have come together in a structure that works, that
enables us to have a debate. Is it solving our problems? Not yet,
but we have a way of working it through. We need to decide what
we want as a country and as communities. If we say develop these
communities so that they will be net contributors to public purses
(and a lot of housing benefit is paid in my borough) they actually
can develop something different. Now we have a vision that actually
will give us something better at the end of the day.
Q337 Adam Price:
Do you foresee any risk that you could be saddled with very substantial,
long-term revenue costs? Is that part of the analysis that you
have made?
Sir Robin Wales: No, we would
not take them!
Q338 Adam Price:
How big is the risk?
Mr Pipe: As Robin said, we will
not take them, really. I think it would be reasonable to expect
the boroughs to make a significant contribution if they were expecting
additionality. I think, really, there was almost a kind of a bargain
struck (however much it might have been unsaid) when we embarked
on this; that, effectively, this was meant to transform a run-down
area of the finest city in Europe, and that should not be the
way it is. In that bargain there was a certain amount of legacy.
If we go beyond what was in the original brief, and do something
that is specifically, really, just for local people, I think it
would be reasonable to have the boroughs make a contribution.
Sir Robin Wales: Could I give
you an example? We happen to have in Newham an opera house. You
will not be aware of this because it is one of the few opera houses
in London. It is currently being used as a night club. We have
looked at it and said: "Wouldn't it be good if we could convert
that back into some sort of theatre or some sort of offer?"
We will have to pay for that ourselves. It is right next to the
Olympic Park. So if we do do that (and we are not sure that the
money will stack up) we will do it ourselves; we will pay for
it and we will raise money where we can, but we would not expect
the Olympics to be paying for that. However, the fact of the Olympics
and the Paralympics has made it possible for us to think about
it. As I say, if the sums do not add up we will not do it, we
will chuck it away and it will not be done. Another example is
on the docks. It is interesting. We have looked at the docks because,
of course, we talk about "the Park" because Excel has
one of the largest number of sport events of any arena. On those
docks, we are looking at putting in a lot of things. There are
lots of floating opportunities: you can put all sorts of bridges
floating in it, you could put greenhouses—there is lots
of stuff that happens across Europe. So we are saying: "We
want to develop the docks, link it in with the Olympics and do
something interesting." We will have to pay for that. We
expect to pay for that. We are piggy-backing on the back of the
Olympics. The West Ham potential move will then open up the whole
inside for us so that we can have a much better residential area
there. Obviously, any costs from that we would expect to meet.
It is using this and saying: "What could we do with this
opportunity that is coming?" We will pay for those additionality
things. We would expect to do that—that is our job.
Mr Pipe: There is that awful word
"synergy".
Chairman: I think we will have to call
a halt there, but thank you all very much indeed.
5 Note by witness: Refers to Vision day Back
|
