Keeping the flame alive: the Olympic and Paralympic Legacy - Select Committee on Olympic and Paralympic Legacy Contents


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)*

previous page contents next page

© Parliamentary copyright 2013