CHAPTER 8: THE GOVERNANCE AND DELIVERY
OF THE LEGACY |
411. The delivery of the 2012 legacy is a major
undertaking, cutting across a number of Government departments
and a range of departmental bodies and regional and local authorities.
A diverse range of organisations and individuals are therefore
involved in this programme, giving rise to a complex network of
relationships and delivery arrangements.
412. This complexity can, to an extent, be understood,
and mirrors some of the complex arrangements that were in place
for the delivery of the Games themselves. Unlike the Games, however,
there is no firm deadline to focus minds and concentrate delivery,
meaning that the impetus for joint working and cooperation is
perhaps not as strong.
413. Throughout our inquiry we asked witnesses
to consider the efficacy of governance and delivery arrangements,
from the national level down to the local level. We believe that
these arrangements will have an impact on the extent to which
the UK is able to secure the maximum possible legacy from the
Continuity and cooperation
414. We have previously described the long-term
nature of the legacy programme, and the need for sustained commitment
and vision (see paragraph 263). In order to deliver this long-term
vision, some element of cross-party working and cooperation will
415. Lord Mawson told us how previous regeneration
initiatives in east London had floundered as a result of political
"What we need to deliver this legacy over
the next 20 to 25 years is continuity, and understanding within
governmentcross-party, reallyof the scale of the
task and the long-term job. The history of poverty in the area
tends to be government sometimes passing through with the latest
policy and Ministers staying around for six months but not staying
with us, because some of these things take a decade to really
build and change".
416. Cross-party consensus regarding the hosting
of the Games was in evidence as early as 2004, in a House of Lords
cooperation of this nature, and long-term, sustained, commitment,
was essential to the successful delivery of London 2012. Dame
Tessa Jowell told us that "all the substantial decisions
about the Olympics were negotiated on a cross-party basis".
Dame Tessa went on to explain, with particular regard to sport,
"You have to get commitment to the long-term,
and the funding has to be long-term, and therefore the programme
It worked for the Olympics; we had a Cabinet
Committee that oversaw the budget for the Olympics and some of
the aspects of service delivery
You have to have that kind
of embedded structure in order to create the resilience of Ministers,
who will come and go".
417. 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 need for Government leadership
418. Within Government, the Cabinet Office is
the Department responsible for general oversight and coordination
of the legacy programme. Delivery responsibility for the different
aspects of the legacy programme rests with the individual Departments
419. In its recent report, Sport and exercise
science and medicine: building on the Olympic legacy to improve
the nation's health, the House of Lords Science and Technology
Committee was "surprised, and disappointed, by the apparent
lack of joined-up thinking in Government about the Olympic health
legacy" and called for the Government to "take a strong,
joined-up approach to promoting the health benefits of exercise
and physical activity".
420. DCMS has oversight of the sports legacy,
the culture legacy, the tourist legacy and the retrofit and sale
of the Olympic Village. The Cabinet Office has responsibility
for volunteering. UKTI has responsibility for coordinating economic
growth ambitions from the Games, working with the FCO and BIS.
DCLG funds the Greater London Authority and, through that, the
LLDC, which is responsible for the post-Games transformation of
the Olympic Park. The relevant Secretaries of State, along with
the Mayor, are brought together through a Cabinet Committee, which
is chaired by the Prime Minister, with the Secretary of State
for Culture, Media and Sport as Vice-Chair. We asked the Government
to confirm how often the Cabinet Committee meets, and whether
the Prime Minister regularly chairs it, but were not provided
with the information.
The Mayor of London told us that the Committee meets on a quarterly
421. The work of this Cabinet Committee is supported
by a small team of seven staff, based within the Cabinet Office,
known as the Olympic and Paralympic Legacy Unit. The team includes
secondees from DCMS, the FCO and the office of the Mayor of London.
We were told that this team was established after the Games to
provide support to Lord Coe in his role as the Prime Minister's
Olympic and Paralympic Legacy Adviser, and to support the work
of the Cabinet Committee. The Head of the Unit told us that: "Our
role centrally is largely around co-ordination and making sure
that Departments are working together, that the focus is where
we think is appropriate, and that Lord Coe is able to feed in
his views about the appropriateness of the particular aspects
of legacy that we are working on".
422. We were told in evidence that "the
reporting to Lord Coe is important but
only if it has real clout with the departments it seeks to influence
and strong backing within Government generally".
We are not certain that this is the case.
423. In July the Guardian carried an article
which stated that Lord Coe would be stepping down from his role
as Legacy Ambassador by the end of 2013. He was reported as saying
that he wanted the four main strands of legacy to be embedded
in Government Departments by the end of the year.
We asked where leadership at the national level would come from
if Lord Coe were to step down; we were told that this responsibility
would lie with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
424. We were told that coordination across Government
is not always evident. One area where this was highlighted to
us regarded the volunteering legacy. The NCVO complained that:
"there was some delay among departments
in sorting out what contribution they were going to make to volunteering
and the legacy
Watching the discussions sometimes felt
like a poker game, to see who was going to pick it up. It took
a while for the Government to resolve some of these issues. Frankly,
I am not sure it was all resolved
if you look at the Cabinet
Office, Home Office and CMS websites, you might wonder which was
425. To put all this in context, ahead of London
2012, the Government Olympic Executive (GOE), based within DCMS,
was responsible for coordinating public sector activity to deliver
the Games. This body had over 60 staff, headed up by a Director-General.
It had a lifetime cost of £52 million.
Whilst we are not equating the work of the GOE to the work needed
to deliver the legacy, this does provide a useful comparison.
The GOE was based within one department, reporting through to
one Secretary of State, with a sizeable staff and a significant
426. The Cabinet Committee 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.
427. 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
428. 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)
Delivering the legacy outside
429. Within London the LLDC and the Mayor, as
well as developments on and around the Park itself, should give
the legacy a visible public profile, as well as providing some
clarity of ownership. Outside London, ownership and delivery of
the legacy is spread across the wide range of departments and
agencies identified in paragraph 102. We have already discussed,
in Chapter Seven, the imbalance of legacy benefits between London
and the rest of the UK.
430. Ahead of the Games, the decision was made
to hand responsibility for planning the legacy within London to
the Mayor, and to entrust responsibility for the legacy outside
London to the Government Olympic Executive.
We were told that this lead to a fragmentation of responsibility,
and difficulty in sustaining a coherent approach.
431. We received evidence to suggest that, post-Games,
the legacy appeared to be focused upon London.
In Essex, which played host to the Olympic mountain biking events,
the county council told us that:
"It is very unclear as to governance arrangements
for overall delivery of a post games legacy. Essex as a host county
who have invested a lot of time and resources do feel that everything
appears to be London centric
Essex would like to see clearer
engagement with other areas outside London".
432. In Weymouth and Portland, which hosted the
Olympic sailing events, a similar picture was found. We were told
"Despite the exporting of games time expertise
and knowledge being apparently a top prioritymaking contact with
bidding organisations in other countries via the UKTI has proved
"The area has potential for tourism expansion
and watersports and outdoor activity. Weymouth and Portland had
fantastic television coverage in games time showing the locality,
the Georgian seafront and Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site.
There is a huge opportunity for the area and the UK as a whole
to benefit from edited sequences of this filming . . .but despite
requests to Visit England and Visit Britain this has not been
achieved, which is a huge missed opportunity".
433. These representations came from parts of
the country which played host to events and, clearly, have seen
some legacy benefits from investment in facilities and supporting
infrastructure (see paragraph 254). The feeling that there is
a lack of post-Games leadership of the legacy seems to us, however,
to be symptomatic of a wider issue. It is clear to us that the
legacy outside London does not enjoy the same identifiable leadership
and ownership as it does inside London. This, in part, accounts
for difficulties such as those detailed above.
434. 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 perceptionand reality, in
some casesthat the legacy is 'London-centric'.
435. 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
Delivery of regeneration within
436. We have discussed in Chapter Six the
role of the LLDC, which is a Mayoral Development Corporation created
under the Localism Act 2011. At that point we stated our belief
that the office of the Mayor must provide a clear, long-term,
vision for the regeneration of East London.
437. When the LLDC was created in April 2012,
the boundary was extended beyond the original boundary of the
Olympic Park, taking in additional sites within each of the four
surrounding boroughs. We were told that this was to promote the
integration of the Park with the surrounding area.
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)
438. The LLDC acts as planning authority for
the land within its boundary, including that which sits outside
the original Park. It is in the process of developing its own
local plan. The LLDC is also the landowner for large tracts of
land within this area. The LLDC Planning Committee includes five
representatives from the Host Boroughs, along with three LLDC
Board members and four independent planning experts, appointed
by the Mayor of London.
439. We heard concerns that these arrangements
might lead to a conflict of interest, or a democratic deficit.
The Chief Executive of the LLDC was familiar with these concerns:
"Yes, that has been put forward; I have
heard it before. As I say, we take representation from each of
the host boroughs on our planning committee. They are represented
440. In spite of this representation, it was
apparent to us that there were tensions between the LLDC and some
of the host boroughs. The Leader of Waltham Forest Council told
"We think the current structure is simply
not up to the job. I did not go to the last LLDC meeting, and
[Sir Robin Wales] told me that neither did any other Leader.
Now, that speaks volumes".
441. Sir Robin Wales, the elected Mayor
of Newham, told us that:
"What is happening in planning is being
done in my borough, by and large, and it is a separate entity.
[Section] 106 deals are being entered into which will involve
people in the future paying for the maintenance of it. Who will
that be? That will be us, but we are not in. I do not think it
442. Whilst these views were not shared by all
of the surrounding boroughs, they do give some cause for concern.
Successful integration of the new developments on the Park into
the wider surrounding communities will depend, in part, on strong
joint working between the LLDC and the host boroughs. We are concerned
about the impact that such tensions might have on the long-term
success of these developments.
443. 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.
444. The responsibility for managing venues and
land within the Olympic Park does not rest solely with the LLDC.
The Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) has a remit for
promoting leisure, sport and recreation across a wide area that
stretches from the northern part of the Olympic Park up into Hertfordshire
and Essex. LVRPA will be responsible for managing 35% of the parkland
within the Olympic Park, and will also manage the velopark and
the Eton Manor hockey and Tennis Complex (in addition to the White
Water Centre in Hertfordshire).
445. We received evidence that questioned the
reasoning behind having two organisations involved in managing
and running the Park.
Lord Mawson, a member of the LLDC Board, told us that:
"My independent view is that I have concerns
about it, a bit, and I think there are challenges. We need to
make sure that for the customer... it feels like one place and
the quality is there. I think that the Lee Valley Regional Park
Authority can do more in learning about entrepreneurial engagement
with local communities
I think there are some challenges
and we need to work at it."
446. We were also told, however, of the strong
role that LVRPA had played in making plans for the velopark; these
plans were already in existence in the late 1990s, before the
decision was made to bid for the Games. Shaun Dawson, the Chief
Executive of LVRPA, told us that working arrangements with the
LLDC were strong.
Mr Dawson explained that the Park consisted of a diverse
array of landowners and operators, of which the LVRPA was one,
working under the overall stewardship of the LLDC.
447. Dennis Hone told us that the LLDC and LVRPA
worked effectively together and that:
"when people come to the park, they can
move seamlessly between the venues that are LLDC jurisdiction
and those under Lee Valley's jurisdiction. No one when they come
to the park will notice any boundaries between us and Lee Valley
Regional Park Authority".
448. We were told more than once that the LLDC
will be a "sunset organisation" and that its work would
eventually come to an end, possibly in around 10 years time.
This will clearly have impacts for the relationship with the LVRPA
and, likewise, for other partners of the LLDC, including the London
Borough of Newham, who have a shared interest in the stadium.
More fundamentally, we would question whether the work of the
LLDC can be concluded within 10 years; the convergence aims of
the Growth Boroughs, which have been backed by the Mayor, have
a 20 year timeframe.
449. 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.
450. 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.
451. 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.
452. 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.
453. 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)
208 Q 348 Back
HL Deb, 19 May 2004, cols 777-809 Back
Q 19 Back
Q 20 Back
Science and Technology Committee, Sport and exercise science
and medicine: building on the Olympic legacy to improve the nation's
health (1st Report, Session 2012-13, HL Paper 33). Back
Q 486 Back
Q 503 Back
Q 3 Back
Richard Sumray. Back
Q 486 Back
Q 453 Back
Emma Boggis. Back
Richard Sumray. Back
Essex County Council. Back
Weymouth and Portland Borough Council. Back
The Government. Back
Waltham Forest Council. Back
Q 307 Back
Q 195 Back
Written evidence from Waltham Forest, Q 195 Back
Q 355 Back
Q 339 Back
Q 316 Back
Q 306 and Q494. Back