SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Sporting Participation
1. Even a year on from the Games, it seems that
many sports clubs do not feel equipped to meet increases in demand
from new members. We believe that this patchy infrastructure at
grassroots level is a symptom of three factors. The first factor
is the level of funding for sports clubs. The second is a lack
of coordination between the grassroots level sports organisations
and the organisations responsible for high performance sport.
The third factor is related: the lack of a clear legacy plan for
capturing the enthusiasm of the Games within all sports.
2. We call on the Government urgently to coordinate
the work of producing action plans for individual sports, involving
the relevant clubs, governing bodies and the Home Nations sports
councils. These plans are necessary to stimulate enthusiasm and
capture participants for future major events, identifying where
possible gaps between likely supply and demand. (Recommendation
1)*
3. The methodology used for the Active People
Survey and the Taking Part Survey has clear limitations. We welcome
the recognition by the Government that it needs to be improved,
bearing in mind the need to ensure that future surveys will need
to produce statistics which are comparable to what is already
gathered.
4. We urge the Department for Culture, Media
and Sport and Sport England jointly to develop a better and more
up-to-date methodology, taking full account of tools such as mobile
devices and social media, to capture better the activity levels
of younger people, particularly those under 16 years old. (Recommendation
2)
5. The legacy aspiration was for a step change
in participation, with the inspiration of the Games leading to
much greater participation by the general public. Looking at the
data as they stand, it too soon to say whether the slight post-Games
rise in activity will be sustained, or whether the slight fall
overall earlier this year was more than a seasonal blip. Whatever
the position, the evidence does not support a surge in participation
in the immediate wake of the Games across the population as a
whole. For those sports with the best records, such as cycling,
it is equally hard to say that the growth in participation is
solely or even largely down to the Games, such has been the sustained
success of British cyclists at previous Games and recent Tours
de France. London 2012 will nevertheless have played an important
role in the cumulative effect, although we have not been able
to quantify it.
6. The longer term picture from 2005 is positive
but a long term sustained legacy in participation will need real
commitment to infrastructure, social as well as physical. This
will need schools and local authorities to be as much a part of
the picture as Sport England's approach to funding.
7. The gap in participation between previously
under-represented groups and the general population does appear
to be narrowing, albeit slowly. The narrowing of the gap is to
be welcomed, but it will only be sustained if the right sort of
investment is put into developing the facilities in sports clubs
to ensure that they are more inclusive environments than in the
past, for example by ensuring that adequate separate shower and
changing facilities are provided or by installing floodlights
so that existing facilities can be used over a longer period of
time by a wider number of people. As significantly as the physical
infrastructure at grassroots level, a change of culture and board
composition of governing bodies of sports should be a key driver
in broadening the base of people who participate in sport, at
the same time appropriately reflecting the participants' views.
8. The Paralympic Games seem to have provided
tangible inspiration for people with disabilities. There are however
still real barriers to increasing their access to participating
in sport. These barriers include, but are not limited to, the
lack of adequate coaches and facilities in clubs. Although Sport
England appear to have used the 2012 Games to make progress in
getting the majority of the sports it funds to sign up to improvements,
this does not appear so far to be filtering down to grassroots
level. At a year's distance from the Games it is possible to diagnose
this problem, but not to ascertain whether sufficient steps are
being taken to improve the position.
9. Alongside the framework of new event legacy
action plans coordinated by Government which we have proposed,
national governing bodies' Whole Sport Plans would provide a good
way to track the trend of the performance of national governing
bodies in boosting participation, including to previously underrepresented
parts of society, an in helping clubs to develop better facilities.
10. We call on Sport England to make Whole Sports
Plans publicly available, so that the debate on progress on growing
participation in each sport can be informed. We invite the Government
to report to Parliament each year on whether these Plans demonstrate
the hoped-for continuing progress. (Recommendation 3)*
11. We welcome the recent announcement by NBC
that it will broadcast events from the next winter Paralympic
Games in Sochi live.
School Age Sport
12. We received evidence from several quarters
that the ending of funding to School Sports Partnerships, and
ultimately its replacement by the School Sport Premium, was a
mistake. The rights and wrongs of this decision are now academic
to the legacy, which must be forward-looking. SSPs were not universally
successful, but did provide a way for schools to cooperate to
build shared infrastructure, particularly in competitive sport.
The Government, Local Authorities and schools themselves must
all be alive to the danger of individualised funding to different
schools, giving them a high degree of discretion, leading to uneven
teaching of PE. They need to consider what more they can do in
concert to ensure cooperation and the building of shared infrastructure.
13. We call for investment to be made in primary
school teachers and club coaches, the link between whom is of
critical importance, to create a more positive disposition to
sport and physical activity in young people in the UK. (Recommendation
4)
14. We call on the Government to require Ofsted
to inspect and report on the time in the school day spent on PE,
including 'out of hours' sport, in all school inspections. This
would ensure that school leaders take the development of PE seriously
and invest in the professional development of teachers and coaches.
(Recommendation 5)*
15. In parallel and to the same end, we call
on the Government to conduct a review of initial training for
specialist PE teachers so that they can deliver a 21st century
curriculum with the quality of PE teaching which our young people
need and deserve. (Recommendation 6)*
16. Cooperation between schools, particularly
between secondary schools, whether independent or in the state
sector, and primary schools in the vicinity must continue to be
fostered. Facilities, particularly in independent schools, which
enjoy charitable status, must be made to work for the wider community
through partnerships with other schools and clubs, not least in
developing the facilities as hubs for inter-school competition.
17. As a part of its routine inspections, we
call on Ofsted to pay close attention to primary schools' use
of the Sport Premium, to ensure that schools pool resources and
infrastructure wherever possible. (Recommendation 7)
18. There are a variety of ways by which a framework
for competitive sport in and between schools can be developed,
ranging from the inter-school competitions organised by national
governing bodies to school age events such as the School Games.
Competitive sport is not, however, for every child at every stage
in their development. We agree that choice must be widened in
order to encourage the greatest possible number of young people
to find a form of physical activity which they will enjoy and
sustain.
19. The difference between the levels of participation
between young children with a limiting disability and those without
is unacceptably stark and the scale of the challenge is vast.
We welcome the Project Ability scheme as step in the right direction,
and over time we expect it to be expanded to extend the opportunities
to competitive sport more widely than at present.
High Performance Sport
20. International sporting competition does not
stand still. In the build up to 2012, resources and expertise
were marshalled behind the aim of continuous improvement in high
performance sport with spectacular results. With a reduction in
the expert personnel, and in some cases the recruitment of the
same people by Team GB's international rivals, it is difficult
to view the aim of improving the hauls of medals from the London
Olympic and Paralympic Games as a realistic one. In our view this
is particularly the case for the number of gold medals, by which
almost all medal tables are ordered.
21. We encourage all governing bodies of sports
to consider establishing athletes' commissions so that athletes'
voices can be heard. (Recommendation 8)*
22. UK Sport's "no compromise" approach
to funding Olympic and Paralympic sports governing bodies has
been a key part of helping established high performance sports
to do better in terms of securing medals in major competitions.
However too strict an adherence to this approach, which is by
its nature based largely on a retrospective assessment of performance,
will develop a growing gap between the sports which already do
well and those which have little realistic prospect of developing
in the next few years. Unless it is moderated, and tied more strongly
to performance pathways, this approach will fail to foster the
long-term development of sports from grassroots level up.
23. We recognise the strength of the no compromise
approach as a factor in the success of Team GB at the Olympic
and Paralympic Games and we would not want to undermine the firm
disciplines it has embedded. However, we believe it works best
with those few sports with a strong tradition of medal success
at recent Games. It is not a 'one size fits all' panacea.
24. For the majority of sports; including the
winter Olympic sports, we call for the no compromise approach
to be reviewed with a view to adopting a more flexible approach
which would give more weight to other measures than recent medal
success and forecasts; including support for the performance pathways,
improved governance of sport and the scope for high performance
athletes to inspire greater general public participation in the
sport. (Recommendation 9)*
25. We endorse the Government's aspiration for
greater synergies to be developed between UK Sport and Sport England,
as well as the other Home Nations sports councils. It is too early
to tell whether the current moves towards closer working have
been successful. The Government are committed to reviewing public
bodies regularly. The next triennial review of UK Sport and Sport
England will take place in 2014-15 and this will be a good opportunity
to see whether it goes far enough.
26. We recommend that consideration be given
at the forthcoming review whether the closer working has delivered
the hoped-for increase in coherence, or whether a full merger
is necessary and practical. The review should give genuine consideration,
not simply to whether the two bodies are fulfilling their remits,
but whether the current structure is the possible best way to
grow performance pathways from entry level to high performance
sport. (Recommendation 10)
27. The level of cooperation by British Olympic
Association and British Paralympic Association was a great success
in reducing the separation of the performances in the public's
mind. This success could be built upon with opportunities to combine
events as already happens in events such as the London Marathon.
The level of maturity of the Olympic and Paralympic Games remain
different. The Olympic sports have for some time been largely
subject to intense competition in terms of the numbers of countries
participating. This picture is changing, and it may be that more
similar approaches to managing and developing athletes will emerge
over time. Nevertheless we believe that for now BOA and BPA should
continue to cooperate, but retain their separate identities.
28. It seems clear that there is no current will
on the part of any of the Home Nations' football associations
to field Team GB men's football teams in future. There may be
a stronger case for fielding a Team GB women's team since this
represented the apex of women's football and that London 2013
had demonstrated significant support for the clear potential women's
football had to inspire greater participation in women's sport
as part of the London sports legacy. However, the Committee were
aware of the concerns of the Home Nations and their lack of confidence
that, despite the assurances given for London 2012, their separate
status on FIFA and their current representation on the International
Football Association Board would remain under threat from within
FIFA.
29. We urge the relevant governing bodies and
the BOA, the IOC and FIFA to work towards providing all necessary
assurances required to allow the BOA to continue to field a women's
team at the Olympic Games, to take into account the views of the
footballers and, subject to all the Home Nations Football Associations
being satisfied with the assurances they receive, to field a men's
team in the Under 23 tournament (with three overage players) that
comprises the Olympic Football competition. (Recommendation 11)
30. A real achievement of the Games is the development
of the expertise, international standing and self-confidence to
bid for and secure future major sporting events. The record of
successful bids for major events over the next decade is already
impressive. Importantly, these future events will not all be based
in or centred on London; and their hosting may prove the major
positive legacy of the Games to the UK as a whole. The continuing
programme of events will create a platform and a sequence of opportunities
for the UK to develop further its expertise and its reputation
for delivering major events and providing a whole host of related
services.
The Legacy of Sports Facilities
31. The bid process has been completed and construction
is well underway to convert the Olympic Stadium to its new use.
It is not for this Committee to comment on the fairness or otherwise
of the process, which has recently been subject to a failed application
for judicial review. In examining the arguments over the Stadium's
future use, we are concerned that the central point is being missed:
the Stadium is a national asset and the focus should be on making
the best use of it for the community and for the taxpayer. There
is also the issue of the important morale and leadership role
two successful football clubs can have in their local community,
particularly in encouraging the motivation and aspirations of
less motivated children in education. Ongoing conflict and bad
relationships will only hinder the impact they can have on this
vital work.
32. The ongoing dispute over the Stadium has
been a disappointing distraction. We urge those concerned to think
further on how the two most local football clubs might work together,
including whether any difficulties can be ameliorated through
wider community use of the Stadium, which may include its occasional
use by Leyton Orient FC if appropriate financial arrangements
can be agreed. (Recommendation 12)
33. We are reassured by West Ham United's firm
guarantee that the quality and quantity of seating for spectators
with disabilities will not be compromised by the re-design of
the stadium. We hope that the Olympic Stadium will set a gold
standard for accessibility. We are concerned that by contrast
the position at many Premier and Football League stadia is unacceptable
for spectators with disabilities.
34. We urge the Government to work with the football
authorities and the Sports Grounds Safety Authority to revise
the licensing conditions under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act
1975 to ensure appropriate and improved standards of access and
facilities for disabled spectators. (Recommendation 13)*
35. A key part of the legacy value of the Games'
facilities was their future use in attracting sporting events
to the UK. The value of these venues for the future staging of
events seems already to have been demonstrated. At the same time,
we are concerned that not enough has been done to ensure that
the facilities are affordable and accessible to those in the local
community.
36. We call for the pricing structure at facilities
such as the White Water facilities in Lee Valley Regional Park
to be reviewed. As with our recommendations on the facilities
in many independent schools, we see enormous legacy value in utilising
these facilities as hubs for schools and clubs. (Recommendation
14)*
The Legacy for Regeneration in
East London
37. During the course of our inquiry we were
consistently told that much of the pre-Games infrastructure expenditure
in East London was incurred on projects which would have taken
place even if the Games had not happened, but that these projects
would have been delivered over a much longer time scale. One 2012
legacy was therefore to have accelerated this investment. This
also implies that the total incremental economic benefit of hosting
the Games was considerably lower than the total benefit being
attributed to the project; we received evidence to support this
view. We call on the Government to publish figures setting out
the true net benefit of hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
(Recommendation 15)*
38. The hosting of the Games required sustained
commitment from a wide variety of national, regional and local
partners, working towards a shared goal. The delivery of a successful
regeneration legacy in East London will require the same cooperation
and a sustained, consistent vision, but over a longer period of
time. The office of the Mayor is best placed to provide ownership
to this, and should have clear responsibility for setting out
and leading this vision.
39. We urge all partners involved in delivering
the legacy in East London to maintain the long-term commitment
required to deliver positive change. We recommend that the office
of the Mayor should produce an annual report setting out the extent
to which partners are making progress in delivering the legacy
for East London. This should be received and debated by the London
Assembly. (Recommendation 16)*
40. We welcome the provision of a significant
amount of affordable housing within the East Village. The measures
that are being taken to make this housing available to local people
are also welcome.
41. We recommend that Get Living London continue
to monitor levels of local interest in private housing within
the development, and should be prepared to report how much of
this interest develops into long-term occupation. (Recommendation
17)*
42. We note the ambitious measures that have
been taken to secure an integrated mix of housing tenures within
the village. It will be important for both landlords to continue
to maintain a strong visible presence on-site. The success of
the village will have a direct bearing on future developments
within the Park, and beyond.
43. We recommend that Triathlon Homes, GLL and,
where appropriate, the LLDC, monitor how this mix of tenures works
when fully occupied, how this might evolve over time, and develop
robust plans for overcoming any identified challenges. We recommend
that the office of the Mayor, and the London Borough of Newham,
should consider how well the village is working when fully occupied.
(Recommendation 18)
44. The boroughs surrounding the Olympic Park
have a relatively high number of families who require more than
three bedrooms. It is vital that new housing within the Park is
accessible to, and suitable for, local residents.
45. We recommend that the LLDC undertake a robust
assessment of the level of such need within the area, and use
this to require developers to make appropriate provision when
bringing forward new housing within the Park. It is important
that new housing reflects the needs of local people. (Recommendation
19)*
46. We welcome the measures that are currently
being taken to promote sustainable design, construction and energy
use, and to follow Secured by Design principles, on the Olympic
Park. The Park is, however, an iconic site and should be capable
of setting an example in this regard.
47. We recommend that the LLDC and development
partners should consider what further steps they could take to
promote sustainability on the site and should seek to promote
the highest possible standards in security and in efficient, viable,
sustainable design and construction. The LLDC should seek to retain,
wherever possible, the feel-good factor of naming roads, buildings
and facilities with an association of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic
Games in mind. (Recommendation 20)
48. The Olympic Park will eventually house over
10,000 new households. These residents will be living close to
major sporting and leisure facilities and an emerging commercial
and business centre. This is a new community, with no collective
history. The LLDC should consider the long-term sustainability,
security and cohesion of the community that they are creating
to be amongst their highest priorities; ultimate responsibility
for this lies with the office of the Mayor. (Recommendation 21)
49. The Mayor, in the annual report specified
in Recommendation 16, should make clear the steps that are being
taken to deliver supporting infrastructure within the Olympic
Park. This social and community infrastructure should be capable
of being sustained beyond the eventual winding-down of the LLDC
itself. (Recommendation 22)*
50. There is a risk that successful development
of the Olympic Park will contribute to a further increase in house
prices in the surrounding area. There is, however, potential for
significant further housing development in other parts of the
host boroughs. We believe it essential that the Mayor's office
brings forward housing development on these sites, helping to
facilitate supporting infrastructure where required. This is particularly
the case for those sites that are owned, fully or in part, by
the GLA itself. The developments on these sites should follow
the same principles as set out in Recommendation 20.
51. Developments within and around the Park will
generate new job opportunities. We recommend that the LLDC, employers
and the host boroughs do more to communicate the availability
of these opportunities to local residents. These bodies should
develop a coordinated programme through which employment opportunities
at the venues within the Park are made available to local residents,
with clear and targeted communications to support local employment.
(Recommendation 23)*
52. We believe that efforts to provide staff
to the major construction sites across East London would benefit
from long-term additional investment in the skills base of the
local population.
53. We recommend that the Mayor, the GLA, employers
and the host boroughs work together to develop and invest in a
construction skills programme through which a coordinated approach
can be taken to making skilled staff available for the wide range
of major development sites across the host boroughs. (Recommendation
24)*
54. A lack of access to skilled workers is currently
restricting the growth of creative, digital and ICT businesses
in the area around the Olympic Park. There are likely to be significant
future employment opportunities available in these sectors.
55. We recommend that the Mayor, local authorities,
educational institutions and employers work together to provide
a coordinated response to meeting skills shortages in this area.
(Recommendation 25)*
56. Interventions to support local residents
in developing the skills needed to access new jobs should not
be limited to the two sectors that we have outlined above. Enhanced
delivery of appropriate skills, education and training opportunities
will be vital if the growth boroughs are to meet their convergence
aims. We believe that the Mayor's office should demonstrate support
for convergence by prioritising the skills challenge in the host
Boroughs.
57. The office of the Mayor should work with
local authorities and education providers to provide an ongoing
structure for delivering targeted support, aimed at giving local
residents the skills, confidence and aspirations needed to access
jobs in those sectors that are most likely to deliver employment
opportunities. These plans should be developed following consultation
with local employers. (Recommendation 26)*
58. The Javelin high speed train services were
a major success story of the Games. We support efforts to make
these services available to regular users of the London transport
system, through travelcard and oystercard services.
59. We recommend that TfL, Southeastern trains
and, where appropriate, the Department for Transport, work to
bring about this positive change. (Recommendation 27)*
60. A substantial public investment has been
made into Stratford International station but there are, as yet,
no international services using this station. It is, in our view,
vital that efforts to secure an international service at the station
are intensified; whilst it is not essential that all trains stop
there, it is essential that some trains begin to stop there.
61. We recommend that the Department for Transport
take proper ownership of this issue, and give a higher level of
priority to the need to secure a return on the substantial investment
made at Stratford International. (Recommendation 28)
62. The eastern end of the Olympic Park benefits
from good connectivity and clear access points. This is not the
case on the western side of the Park, which is to be the location
of one of the major employment sites in the area.
63. We recommend that the LLDC, TfL and local
authorities continue to work together to enhance access to the
west of the Park. Resolving this issue is likely to require further
investment. (Recommendation 29)
64. The challenge of hosting the Games encouraged
operators to think more creatively about how they could work together
to manage demand. Greater attention was also paid to the needs
of disabled users, and those who were not familiar with the transport
network. Post-Games, we believe that it is essential that this
focus is not lost. We urge TfL and other providers to continue
to place a high emphasis on improving accessibility.
65. We welcome the fact that joint working between
transport providers seen in the run up to the Games is now continuing.
We recommend that transport providers continue to work together
to mitigate against disruptions caused by major events and improvement
works. (Recommendation 30)
The Economic, Social and Cultural
Legacy
66. The UK is the first country to create a scheme
to recognise Olympic suppliers post-Games, and this is to be welcomed.
We believe, however, that further improvements to the Supplier
Recognition Scheme are possible, and recommend that the Government
work with the BOA, and with suppliers, to narrow the range of
exclusions from the scheme. (Recommendation 31)*
67. We believe that the CompeteFor portal allowed
SMEs a better level of access to the Games supply chain than might
otherwise have been the case. We are pleased to see that the GLA
has continued using this service post-Games. We believe that there
is a strong case for rolling out CompeteFor still further.
68. We recommend that the Government work with
major public sector procurers to make CompeteFor permanently available
to SMEs across a wider range of public sector procurement programmes.
The Government should refrain from introducing new procurement
systems into areas of activity where CompeteFor would be suitable
for use. (Recommendation 32)*
69. We note that economic benefits which might
have arisen from the Games are disproportionately weighted towards
southern England. The scale of difference goes beyond that which
might reasonably be expected to occur as a result of the Games
taking place in and around London.
70. We urge the Government and UKTI to assess
the reasons for this disparity and, in light of this assessment,
to revise their plans for promoting post-Games investments in
regions outside southern England, whilst recognising the importance
of London to the UK economy as a whole. (Recommendation 33)*
71. Initial results suggest that levels of overseas
tourism to the UK are being sustained and improved since the Games;
this is to be welcomed. Tourism in London has seen a particular
benefit, in terms of both the numbers of visits and levels of
spending, since the Games. We welcome this positive development.
We note, however, that London accounts for almost half of all
tourist visits to the UK.
72. We are concerned that more needs to be done
to ensure that regions outside London enjoy a tourism legacy from
the Games. We recommend that the Government and Visit Britain
conduct an analysis of how effectively their current major campaigns
are promoting the rest of the UK, and, where required, bring forward
changes to ensure that regions outside London can share more fully
in the tourism legacy. (Recommendation 34)*
73. London 2012 was rightly praised for the sustainable
design and construction measures which were used in the development
and building of the Park by the Olympic Delivery Authority. The
events themselves also set new international standards for sustainability,
which future hosts of major events are committed to maintaining.
74. The experience of developing and working
to meet these standards should give UK businesses a competitive
advantage when bidding for future contracts. We are not convinced,
however, that this niche area of UK expertise is being effectively
promoted.
75. We recommend that the Government and UKTI
develop an appropriate strategy to promote the sustainability
expertise of the UK event industry. (Recommendation 35)*
76. We recommend that the methods used to recruit
and train volunteers for London 2012 should be applied more widely;
the Games provided an impressive example of what can be done to
inspire volunteers. The lessons learned from this process should
be built upon to support future events. (Recommendation 36)
77. We share the view that the opportunity to
create a comprehensive programme, building upon the success of
the Games Makers initiative, has been missed. Planning for the
volunteering legacy should have started much earlier; organisations
that would be charged with carrying this forward should have been
established well in advance of the Games. The work that the Join
In programme is carrying out is commendable, but began too late
to have maximum impact.
78. We ask the Government, in their response
to this report, to set out what the long-term, distinct, legacy
benefits of the Cultural Olympiad will be, and to explain how
these will be measured and monitored over time. Whilst some of
the events which comprised the Cultural Olympiad itself were undoubtedly
well received, we have seen no evidence to suggest that there
has been any coordinated, properly resourced attempt by Government
to use this potential to deliver a distinct cultural legacy from
the Games. (Recommendation 37)
The Delivery and Governance of
the Overall Legacy
79. Strong and sustained cross-party cooperation
was essential to the successful preparations for hosting the Olympic
and Paralympic Games; a similar degree of cross-party cooperation
is required if we are to deliver a coherent legacy. Within Government,
cross-cutting decision making, rather than silo working, is required.
Structures for delivering this coordination must be embedded for
the long-term.
80. The Cabinet Committee tasked with coordinating
the legacy looks, on paper, to be a strong coordinating body composed
of the right departments and non-governmental actors. It is concerning,
however, that the Government would not confirm how frequently
the Committee actually meets. The Committee has a huge and difficult
task in trying to ensure a coherent approach to the legacy from
the many organisations and authorities involved in delivering
the Olympic and Paralympic legacy. This Committee must be capable
of giving leadership to the legacy, and must be more than a theoretical
body. Delivery of the legacy is every bit as important as delivery
of the Games themselves. Given the public interest in the legacy
of such a public event, we believe that the frequency of meetings
and content of agendas should not be shrouded in secrecy.
81. As such, the need for clear, strong leadership
and ownership within Government is paramount. Such leadership
needs to be supported with the appropriate resources to allow
coordination of activity across a wide range of different bodies.
We are not convinced that either the leadership, or the resources,
are provided within the current structure. The arrangements for
replacing the Olympic and Paralympic Legacy Adviser, if he were
to step down, do not seem clear to us. Likewise, we would question
how well placed DCMS is to provide long-term coordination, across
Government, of a legacy programme that requires substantive inputs
from UKTI, FCO, DCLG, DH, DfE and a host of regional and local
bodies.
82. We recommend that one Government minister,
at Secretary of State level, should be responsible and accountable
to Parliament for coordinating delivery of the legacy. This would
provide clear, identifiable, national ownership of the Olympic
and Paralympic legacy. (Recommendation 38)*
83. Outside London, it is not clear who is responsible
for taking forward the legacy of the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
This is leading to the perception—and reality, in some cases—that
the legacy is 'London-centric'.
84. We recommend that the Government give responsibility
for delivering the legacy outside London to the designated Minister,
with appropriate resources to support them in this role. The designated
Minister should work with the devolved administrations, where
appropriate, to secure ongoing cooperation and commitment to delivery
of the legacy. (Recommendation 39)*
85. There is a debate to be had about whether
the area for which the LLDC is responsible should be extended
further to promote integration. We recommend that consideration
be given to the optimum extent of the LLDC boundary. (Recommendation
40)
86. Tensions between some of the host boroughs
and the LLDC are a cause for concern. In setting out planning
policy, making planning decisions and negotiating Section 106
agreements, the LLDC needs to ensure that it is working closely
with the relevant local authority for the area concerned. The
LLDC should examine its working practices and decision making
structures in this regard, taking on board concerns raised by
the host Boroughs. Strong joint working will be essential to developing
and delivering a clear vision for the future of East London.
87. We were told that the LLDC is a "sunset
organisation", with a life-span of approximately ten years.
We would question whether the LLDC can deliver against its remit
within this timeframe; we were consistently told that this project
was a long-term one, and believe that it will take longer than
a decade to deliver.
88. Regardless of the ultimate lifespan of the
organisation, the fact that the LLDC will not last forever reinforces
the need for balanced, detailed cooperation with the surrounding
boroughs. These local authorities will inherit the communities
created by the LLDC. The limited lifespan of the LLDC also reinforces
the need for the office of the Mayor to provide long-term, overarching
leadership and ownership for the legacy in East London.
89. The division of management responsibilities
between the London Legacy Development Corporation and the Lee
Valley Regional Park Authority makes coherence on the Olympic
Park more difficult to achieve. We were reassured to hear of the
strong working relationships that currently exist between the
two organisations; it will be important to maintain this relationship
over the long-term. Both organisations should give thought to
how the relationship might evolve in future, particularly when
the work of the LLDC comes to an end.
90. Ultimate responsibility for the long-term,
over-arching leadership and ownership for the legacy in East London
must fall to the office of the Mayor.
91. We recommend that this principle is accepted
both by national Government, by the Greater London Authority and
by the London Boroughs and that the office of the Mayor is given
the necessary powers and authority to ensure that that legacy
is delivered. (Recommendation 41)*
| 
