Local Gov 2009

8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/local-gov-2009 1/68

London 2012 Olympic Games:scoping the analytical and legacy issues forCommunities and Local Government

www.communities.gov.ukcommunity, opportunity, prosperity

8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


London 2012 Olympic Games:scoping the analytical and legacy issues forCommunities and Local Government

Cambridge Policy Consultants

September 2009

Department for Communities and Local Government

8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


Contents

Foreword 4

Executive summary 6

1. Introduction 14

1.1 Aims of the study 14

1.2 The structure of the report 15

2. Key connections between the Olympic agenda and policy 16

2.1 London 2012 legacy and the fit with the Department’s objectives 16

2.2 The key connections 19

3. Lessons from previous Games 23

3.1 Lessons from previous Olympic Games 23

3.2 Lessons from the 2002 Manchester Commonwealth Games 29

3.3 Issues arising for the London Olympics 31

4. A framework for how the Olympics can help 33address regeneration issues

4.1 Regeneration issues 33

4.2 Where the Department can help to realise these benefits? 37

4.3 How the Olympics can help increase employment and skills? 39

4.4 How can the Olympics help strengthen and diversify business? 43

4.5 How the Olympics can help address social cohesion? 45

4.6 How can the Olympics support affordable housing? 47

4.7 How the Olympics can help increase sports participation 48

and healthy living?

4.8 How the Olympics can help develop tourism? 494.9 Benefits for the wider region and the national economy 51

5. Conclusions and recommendations 54

Annex A – Bibliography 58

Annex B – Acronyms 64

3Contents

8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


Foreword

This study was commissioned by Communities and Local Government in 2007 through

its New Horizons Research Programme. The authors, Cambridge Policy Consultants

(CPC) were asked to highlight the key linkages between the London 2012 Olympics

and Paralympics, and the Department’s policy remit and objectives. The reader should

note that the views expressed here are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the

views of the Government or Communities and Local Government.

The aim of the report was to inform the development of the Department’s thinking

regarding the legacy of the Games, including its scope, an assessment of the evidence

and transferable lessons from other recent Games, and what actions we might have totake to secure and maximise the legacy benefits. As such, the findings of the report

have been used for several purposes, including identifying questions for the Legacy

Masterplan Framework (the spatial masterplan for transforming the Olympic Park) to

address, and the development of future work and wider Olympic evaluations. The

report should be seen as an addition to the evidence base. The questions raised in the

report do not represent a definitive list of policy issues that must be addressed, nor

should they be seen as a statement of future policy.

This report provides a useful snapshot of legacy issues in 2007, many of which had

already been factored into our legacy planning. However, the rapid rate of progress

across the Olympic Programme means that many of the issues raised in this reporthave already been addressed or overtaken by events, for example the global economic

downturn. The effect of the downturn has been to create a more challenging

environment, but with careful management challenges are being contained and

controlled within the existing budget.

London has benefited from the experience of the successful Manchester 2002

Commonwealth Games, and has closely studied the lessons which can be applied from

recent Games. One of the lessons learnt is the need to start legacy planning early and

London 2012 is unique in having considered legacy from the very beginning of our bid.

Legacy planning has continued as a priority and in June 2008 the Government

published the Legacy Action Plan Before, during and after: making the most of the

London 2012 Games setting out plans for the long-term benefits that can be

stimulated through London hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012. This

is the first time a host city has published such a document before their Olympiad has

begun. The plan builds on five legacy promises, setting out concrete long-term

objectives covering tourism, jobs and skills, education, sustainability, sport, business

and regeneration. The Legacy Action Plan has been agreed and signed up to across

the whole of government, creating a framework for a coherent and integrated

approach by government and partners.

4 London 2012 Olympic Games: scoping the analytical and legacy issues for Communities and Local Government

8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


Legacy benefits are happening now. The economic benefits are already evident.

Between them ODA and LOCOG will directly procure £6bn of contracts, which will

generate around 75,000 opportunities in their supply chains, and early indications

show that businesses from the UK are helping to make the Games a success. There

will be opportunities for businesses of all sizes and from a range of sectors to get

involved. Businesses interested in supplying the Games can register on CompeteFor,

the brokerage system for buyers and suppliers. Over 4,000 people are already working

on site. The ODA and its partners will provide 2,250 apprenticeship, training and work

placement opportunities over the life of the build. UK Trade and Investment has also

developed a number of programmes to capitalise on the increased potential of inward

investment created by the Games, as well as offering support for businesses looking to

capitalise on export opportunities. Wider legacy benefits already include the Personal

Best programme which helps people, particularly those furthest from the labour

market, develop skills for work through volunteering.

We envisage there will be up to 9-10,000 new permanent jobs and more than

10-12,000 new mixed tenure homes, with up to 35 per cent affordable housing, in the

Olympic Park and surrounding areas after the Games in legacy. Our legacy plans

recognise that physical regeneration is just one aspect of regeneration and we are

developing plans with partners to address the wider social, environmental and economic

regeneration priorities. For example, employment and skills pathways and mixed

provision housing have been embedded in plans from the beginning in addition to the

creation of new jobs and homes. The Government is committed to making the 2012

Olympic Games and Paralympic Games much more than a great sporting occasion.

5Foreword

8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


Executive summary

Aims of the study

1 Communities and Local Government commissioned Cambridge Policy

Consultants (CPC) to carry out a study to scope the analytical issues for

assessing the legacy of the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics in terms of

the Department’s key policy interests. It does not include the development of a

comprehensive Olympics evaluation framework, but will inform the department

and is intended to feed into an over-arching Olympic evaluation strategy led by

the Government Olympic Executive.

2 This study has two key aims:

1. To set out how and the extent to which the objectives for the 2012 Olympics

interacts with the Department’s policy programme. This stage of the study

should identify and develop key analytical questions and issues for the

Department.

2. To identify aspects of the legacy of the 2012 Olympics in terms of

Communities and Local Government objectives, and how these might be

achieved and or evaluated.

The approach comprises the following elements:

• a review of the expected legacy benefits/effects from London 2012 against

departmental objectives and policy priorities following the identification of

broad policy areas of interest and the definition of appropriate spatial areas

and target groups

• an analysis of the logic chains outlined in strategy documentation and

business plans for delivering the London 2012 legacy

• a review of the literature on the previous experience of legacy benefits

identifying methodologies for attributing legacy benefits and establishing

additionality

• summarising the legacy in terms of the relevance to Departmental priorities

and objectives, the scale of expected benefits and contribution to Public

Service Agreement (PSA) targets, the cost, other factors such as existing

Departmental commitments and risk factors


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


What are the primary benefits that the Department and its partnersshould be looking to derive from the Games?

3 The main connections between the Olympic agenda and policy priorities (PSAs

and areas of policy responsibility, particularly sustainable communities and

regeneration) are found in the potential legacy benefits of London 2012 (see

Figure 1). The department and its local and regional partners (such as the

Greater London Authority (GLA), London Development Agency (LDA) and the

five Olympic host boroughs will establish the strategic direction of policy and its

local level implementation and delivery in order to secure the legacy benefits of

the 2012 Games.

4 Of primary interest is Olympic and Paralympic Games Programme Strategic

Objective 3, namely the maximisation of economic, social, health and

environmental benefits that the Games bring to London, the nation, and all

sections of their respective populations. Within this framework, it identifies the

following key indicators: (i) contributing to the Sustainable Communities

programme (including the Thames Gateway), (ii) agreeing and promoting

sustainable development and procurement policies, and (iii) ensuring that the

UK’s diverse communities are engaged with and benefit from the Games, and

how they relate to five out of the Department’s six departmental strategicobjectives (DSOs), as well as a number of the existing PSA targets in the 2004-7

Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR).

7Executive summary

Primary

Impacts

Secondary

Impacts

Indirect

Impacts

Figure 1: How the London 2012 Games relates to theDepartment’s Strategic Objectives

London 2012 Olympics

Building prosperous

Communities/Regeneration

(objective 2)

Catalyst for improvinglocal service delivery

(objective 1)

Additional housingsupply (objective 4)

Creating cohesivecommunities (objective 3)

Facilitating

sustainable development

(objective 5)

8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


Lessons from previous Games

5 There is a growing body of research on the impacts derived from previous

Olympic Games. Many of the lessons are captured in University of East London(UEL)’s report A Lasting Legacy for London (UEL, 2007). Other lessons which are

primarily concerned with translating policy into action from the Manchester

2002 Commonwealth Games are captured in the City Council’s report 2002

Lessons Learned (Manchester City Council, 2002). Several of the lessons apply

to achieving outcomes that are desired for East London. East London has a

specific set of needs that could in part be met by the outcomes from the 2012

Olympic Games, in terms of economic and sustainable development and

liveability, engagement in employment, transforming its image, tourism and

enterprise.

6 Recognising that the Olympic Games cannot deliver a complete solution, we

need to take a realistic view of what the benefits for East London from the

Games might be and the issues to be addressed to achieve them, thus providing

a framework for understanding and taking action to achieve the legacy.

7 There is a general consensus in the literature regarding the potential benefits

and catalytic effect of the Olympics, but most existing studies tend to approach

the subject rather like a balance sheet with increased global visibility, investment

in infrastructure, community interest and pride in hosting the Games on the one

side and challenging perceptions, community engagement, sports participation

and health and regeneration benefits on the other. Previous research does notelaborate or evidence how these benefits are brought about.

8 Without establishing a theory of change to understand the processes by which

the “Olympic effect” works, it is difficult to identify which benefits can be

attributed to the Games and which benefits would be realised anyway. In most

studies, the question of what additional benefits the staging of the Games

brings over and above the investment in Games-related infrastructure is not

addressed; essentially, what part of the benefits arise from the staging of an

iconic event and what part from the associated investment in transport of other

Games-related infrastructure? It is important to distinguish here betweenGames-related infrastructure and wider infrastructure to realise broader

regeneration goals.

9 Costs for hosting the Olympics tend to be understated and benefits overstated,

either as part of the bidding process or in the run up to the Games and most

studies struggle to attribute benefits specifically to the Olympic Games in the

longer term (after one year or so) due to the interplay with other regeneration

activities and external factors. There is a danger that this raises expectations,

particularly in local communities. Furthermore, external economic changes can

have a major impact not only on the scale and nature of benefits but also on

their distribution.


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


10 “Hard” legacy gains in terms of infrastructure, the reorientation of city spaces,

improved amenity, new types of land use and economic activity are seen in all

cities Some of these become iconic images, creating a showcase or catalytic

effect. Barcelona, and to a lesser extent Sydney, are acknowledged success

stories in urban renewal, with soft legacy gains of confidence, buzz, reputation,

being tourist driven and acquiring commercially driven national and

international status and pride of place. However, in Sydney’s case, concerns

have been expressed that the Games did comparatively little to promote social

inclusion for its Aboriginal community.

11 There is limited evidence that these benefits were shared equally across different

communities, especially in terms of any housing legacy. In Atlanta some poorer

neighbourhoods were re-located to make way for Games facilities leaving a

legacy of bad feeling. The sale of housing post-Sydney was hailed as achievingpremium prices, however, there was no opportunity for affordable housing and

the resulting ownership was perceived to have contributed to gentrification of

the area. Even in Barcelona, there is little evidence that local communities

shared in any housing benefit.

12 Some of the outcomes in previous host cities also reflect the potentially weaker

aspects of the Games legacy, such as:

• no sustained uptake of sports participation

• limited impact on local unemployment and inactivity rates – most Games did

not have a pro-active strategy to address these issues

• a small legacy of a few hundred volunteers left out of the 10,000 or so that

participated in the Games

• only Barcelona and Manchester have developed a lasting legacy momentum

but in each case the sporting event has been one part of a wider approach to

regeneration

How the Olympics can address physical, economic and socialregeneration in London, the Thames Gateway, and the nation?

13 The bid for the London 2012 Olympics was successful largely because it

promoted a legacy from the Games that could be used to address regeneration

issues in East London. The Government is the lead for objective 3 as it relates

nationally, and the Mayor is the lead for London. The LDA has an explicit role as

the interim Legacy Client to lead delivery of an integrated physical, economic

and social legacy for the five boroughs and wider Lower Lea Valley. To exploit

the potential of London 2012 for East London, it is necessary to explore the

nature of the potential benefits, and equally importantly, what actions the

department and its delivery partners might need to consider in order to ensure

that the benefits are delivered. Key issues to be addressed include:

• What could London 2012 do for business and leisure tourism?

• What will encourage more local people to participate in the labour market?

9Executive summary

8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


• What will encourage more local and City based businesses to recruit residents of

East London and the Thames Gateway?

• How can excluded groups such as young people from local black and minorityethnic communities access work-based training opportunities and what needs

to be done to ensure parity in outcomes with their white counterparts?

• What needs to be done to grow development at Canary Wharf north

eastwards?

• How can the Cultural Olympiad activities and the pride in hosting London 2012

be harnessed to build stronger bridges between communities in East London?

14 There are five main areas of benefit that the department needs to ensure are

delivered in order to meet their departmental objectives and the three Olympic

sub-objectives (3.1.5, 3.1.6 and 3.1.8, sustainable communities (includingThames Gateway), sustainable development and diversity respectively) for which

they are lead stakeholder. These are:

• access to employment opportunities and business support for new starts and

business growth, particularly for the unemployed and inactive (for employment)

• affordable housing (for mixed communities)

• sports participation (for health and wellbeing)

• engaging with the local communities and involving disadvantaged and

minority groups (for social cohesion)

• maintaining the legacy momentum for regeneration by working with otherdepartments’ objectives. Such are the interdependencies between existing

service delivery and successful legacy outcomes, all Departments will need to

work closely together to ensure outcomes for local people are in line with

expectations

15 On a note of caution, none of the previous Olympics, not even Sydney, have

significantly increased sports participation to a level or duration where this

might conceivably lead to health benefits. It will need a high risk carefully

thought through approach to succeed.

16 Tourism and inward investment are outside the responsibility of the Departmentand will have limited impact on the Department’s PSAs. However, they are

important to support the perceptions of a successful Olympics, and as

contributors to past Games’ economic impact.

17 The Cultural Olympiad will begin in 2008, with a programme including the

mandatory ceremonies, major and bid projects (mostly national) and the UK

Cultural Festival, based in local communities and lead by a team of creative

programmers, of which there will be one in each region. The concern is that this

will be treated more like a short term event to capture the attention of the world

rather than playing a key role in engaging with communities disconnected fromeach other and from the mainstream. The department will need to work within

the governance structure to ensure that these opportunities are not overlooked.


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


18 At a policy level, the department should provide leadership to enable Games-

related initiatives to engage and deliver to local communities and also perform a

challenge function as a critical friend. In support of this role, it should also

provide a bridge to local community and faith groups and regeneration

professionals who are experienced and familiar with the engagement and

delivery issues to ensure that initiatives which are based on a comprehensive

analysis of statistical data also consider the views and perceptions of local

people.

Conclusions

19 Whilst the literature identifies a range of potential legacy benefits of the

Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, including:

• the physical infrastructure for the Games itself, and its post Games use

• the related regeneration of socio-economically deprived areas, either

through its catalytic effect of accelerating proposed development or

promoting the development of projects that would not otherwise have

happened

• provision of employment opportunities, especially for local communities, and

encouraging the upskilling of the workforce

• opportunities to improve social inclusion and community cohesion through

the sporting and cultural Olympiad

• encouraging a ‘feel good factor’ amongst residents of host cities and

nations, promoting confidence and pride through hosting a showcase event

• encouraging the improvement of public service delivery, especially to

minority and excluded groups

20 Nevertheless, the actual processes by which economic and social benefits accrue

to host cities and nations are not well defined beyond the plausible theoretical

links. It is perhaps only since Barcelona in 1992 that the idea the Games should

provide a social and economic legacy has taken hold.

21 However, the Games is a means to a wide range of opportunities to enhance

East London and its residents but in a number of areas, the existing service

delivery is not up to national standards. To achieve the legacy objectives set for

the Games, the process needs to more than make up for this:

• local employment for the local unemployed/economically inactive is

something that other Olympics have not been able to deliver and will require

much greater co-ordinated action to secure. A key issue is to identify the

barriers to accessing employment

• there is little evidence on the inclusion of local communities in post-Games

development of new housing through provision of affordable homes or

other initiatives

11Executive summary

8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


• the evidence of impact on sports participation is, at best, minor and

transitory – every opportunity needs to be exploited for its legacy potential to

engage people and more needs to be done to explore the importance and

involvement in sports of different local communities

22 A truly significant legacy from London 2012 would involve a shift, not just a

shift, better coordination in the delivery of public services – employment, skills,

housing, health and community – such that the people of East London can

benefit to the same degree as residents in other parts of London and the UK.

23 The issues raised above represent a significant challenge to London – to achieve

where others have failed in whole or in part. A major issue has been the failure to

deliver benefits to the local communities where the Games are actually staged.

For London, this is a key issue because a celebration of London’s diversity wascentral to the winning bid for London 2012.

24 At a policy level, the Department should provide leadership to enable Games-

related initiatives to engage, join-up, and deliver to local communities.

Therefore, the primary role should be a challenge function, acting as a critical

friend by:

• working with local regeneration practitioners, faith and community groups

to provide a bottom-up perspective on developing a legacy for London 2012

• working with local partners to tackle the problem of engagement of local

people in certain service areas which need to be addressed, and explore whythese problems have arisen; and

• articulating these views to partners involved in delivery of the Games to help

construct a stronger legacy; it also should be more dynamically involved in these

partnerships to help realise legacy outcomes

25 To take this agenda forward, some suggested actions include:

• provide leadership in commissioning by developing a network connecting

providers and commissioners to maximise the legacy benefits

• promote local activities to partners, emphasising the celebration of cultural

differences, promoting awareness and removing prejudice from economicand social life

• bring forward their local and national expertise on effective approaches to

community engagement and support the involvement of local regeneration

and community organisations in the five boroughs to make the most of this

opportunity

• ensure high quality housing management for East London, especially for the

large scale introduction of new housing after the Olympics closing ceremony

• ensure minimum standards for planning to underpin the enhancements of the

built environment associated with the Olympics


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


26 Some of the potential benefits in East London can be rolled out to the regions.

For many regions (notably the North West), there is a realistic expectation that

proactive involvement in London 2012 provides an opportunity to engage

different sections of the community and encourage them to behave and think a

little differently about how to secure possible Olympic legacy benefits. A key

part of the Department’s responsibilities in helping to oversee this process is to

learn the lessons arising from this approach and consider the extent to which

London 2012 will prove to be a catalyst for change in public service delivery to

residents of deprived communities.

13Executive summary

8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


1 Introduction

1.1 Aims of the study

1.1.1 The Housing Markets and Planning Analysis (HMPA) division in Communities

and Local Government commissioned Cambridge Policy Consultants (CPC) to

carry out a study to scope the analytical issues for assessing the legacy of the

London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics in terms of the Department’s key policy

interests.

1.1.2 This scope of this study is defined by Communities and Local Government’s

policy remit. It does not include the development of a comprehensive Olympicsevaluation framework, but will inform the department and is intended to feed

into an over-arching Olympic evaluation strategy, led by the Government

Olympic Executive.

1.1.3 This study has two key aims:

1. To set out how and the extent to which the objectives for the 2012 Olympics

interacts with Communities and Local Government’s policy programme. This

stage of the study should identify and develop key analytical questions and

issues for the Department.

2. To identify aspects of the legacy of the 2012 Olympics in terms ofCommunities and Local Government objectives, and how these might be

achieved/assessed.

1.1.4 The approach comprises the following elements:

• a review of the expected legacy benefits/effects from London 2012 against

departmental objectives and policy priorities following the identification of

broad policy areas of interest and the definition of appropriate spatial areas

and target groups

• an analysis of the logic chains outlined in strategy documentation and

business plans for delivering the London 2012 legacy

• a review of the literature on the previous experience of legacy benefits

identifying methodologies for attributing legacy benefits and establishing

additionality

• summarising the legacy in terms of the relevance to Departmental priorities

and objectives, the scale of expected benefits and contribution to Public

Service Agreement (PSA) targets, the cost, other factors such as existing

Departmental commitments and risk factors


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


1.2 The structure of the report

1.2.1 The main connections between the Olympic agenda and policy priorities (PSAs

and areas of policy responsibility, particularly sustainable communities andregeneration) are found in the potential legacy benefits of London 2012. The

Department and its local and regional partners (such as Greater London

Assembly (GLA), London Development Agency (LDA) and the five Olympic host

boroughs will establish the strategic direction of policy and its local level

implementation and delivery in order to secure the legacy benefits of the 2012

Games.

1.2.2 There are many lessons from studies of previous Olympic Games, captured in

University of East London (UEL)’s report A Lasting Legacy for London (UEL,

2007), and from the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games, captured in theCity Council’s report 2002 Lessons Learned (Manchester City Council, 2002)

that should be taken into account, especially those concerned with translating

policy into action. These are summarised in section three. Several of the lessons

apply to achieving outcomes that are desired for East London. The 2012

Olympics could act as a catalyst to help promote a wide range of beneficial

developments in East London, in terms of economic and sustainable

development and liveability, engagement in employment, transforming its

image, tourism, enterprise, etc. Recognising that the Olympic Games cannot

deliver a complete solution, section four takes a realistic view of what the

benefits for East London from the Games might be and the issues to be

addressed to achieve them, thus providing a framework for understanding and

taking action to achieve the legacy.

1.2.3 Much has been said about the potential benefits and indicating how they would

help regenerate East London. However there are a number of key issues that

need to be considered in order to deliver the legacy:

• What barriers and problems exist that prevents mainstream services

delivering the benefits of the 2012 Games?

• Why will the Games make a difference and what are the logic chains of

inputs, activity, outputs and outcomes that will do so?• Who is responsible for the policy levers, and whose responsibility is it to

deliver the required activities?

• Also how will Games initiatives interact with other existing

regeneration/employment and skills initiatives, what will be the substitution

and displacement effects?

1.2.4 Section five summarises the findings of the report and draws out some of the

implications for the Department’s policy agenda.

15Introduction

8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


2 Key connections between the

Olympic agenda and policy

2.1 London 2012 legacy and the fit with the Department’s objectives

2.1.1 This section of the report explains the linkages between the Department’s policy

remit and the objectives of the Olympics. The Department’s publication

Delivering Our Priorities identifies six departmental strategic objectives (DSOs)

against which progress should be measured. These are outlined below:

1. to support local government that empowers individuals and communitiesand delivers high quality services efficiently

2. to improve the supply, environmental performance and quality of housing

that is more responsive to the needs of individuals, communities and the

economy

3. to build prosperous communities by improving the economic performance of

cities, sub-regions and local areas, promoting regeneration and tackling

deprivation

4. to create communities that are cohesive, active and resilient to extremism

5. to provide a more efficient, effective and transparent planning system that

supports and facilitates sustainable development, including the

Government's objectives in relation to housing growth, infrastructure

delivery, economic development and climate change

6. ensuring safer communities by providing the framework for the Fire and

Rescue Service and other agencies to prevent and respond to emergencies1

2.1.2 Until spring 2008, the Department led on four cross government PSA priority

outcomes identified in the 2004-07 Comprehensive Spending review (CSR):1. (PSA2) Regional economic performance – to make sustainable improvements

in the economic performance of all regions and over the long term reduce

the persistent gap in growth rates between the regions

2. (PSA9 and 10) Community cohesion – to build greater community cohesion

3. (PSA5) Housing supply – to address long-term housing affordability issues by

increasing the supply of housing and providing supporting infrastructure, to

ensure well-designed and sustainable communities


1 Delivering Our Priorities, Department for Communities and Local Government, London, 2007.

8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


4. (PSA9 and 10) Equalities – to promote equality of opportunity by enabling

people to improve their life chances and to participate in the economic and

social success of communities, irrespective of age, disability, gender, race,

religion/belief and sexual orientation, through a measurable reduction in

inequalities

2.1.3 In April 2008, a revised set of PSAs came into effect from the Comprehensive

Spending Review (CSR 07). The most significant change in this instance is that

the number of headline PSA indicators has been reduced to 30 across

government. The Department will lead on two PSAs:

PSA 20 – To increase long term housing supply and

affordability

PSA 21 – To build more cohesive, empowered and

active communities

2.1.4 However, the Department will be contributing to most of the other PSA

indicators, including PSA 22 – deliver a successful Olympic Games and Paralympic

Games with a sustainable legacy and get more children and young people taking

part in high quality PE and sport, as well as the PSA indicators relating to

sustainable growth and prosperity and fairness and opportunity for all.2

2.1.5 In June 2007, DCMS announced ‘Our promise for 2012’, which outlines the

gains envisaged for London and the whole UK from hosting the Games in five

years time. The five promises are:

• making the UK a world-leading sporting nation

• transforming the heart of East London

• inspiring a new generation of young people to take part in volunteering,

cultural and physical activity

• making the Olympic Park a blueprint for sustainable living

• demonstrating the UK is a creative, inclusive and welcoming place to live in,

visit and for business

17Key connections between the Olympic agenda and policy

2 The relationships between the 2004 and 2007 based PSA indicators, and between the PSAs and DepartmentalStrategic Objectives are explained in the annexes of Delivering Our Priorities.

8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


The five promises encompass four strategic objectives have been set for the

Olympic and Paralympic Games Programme. The focus of interest for the

Department is strategic objective 3, (to maximise the economic, social, health and

environmental benefits of the Games for the UK, particularly throughregeneration and sustainable development in East London). The lead stakeholders

for this sub objective have been identified in a National Audit Office Report.3 The

stakeholders are outlined in table 2.1 below:

Lead stakeholder Sub Objective

Government 3.1 Maximise the economic, social, health and

environmental benefits the Games bring to the UK andall sections of the UK population.

BIS & DWP 3.1.1 Maximise the employment and skills benefits for

the UK arising from Games-related business.

DCMS/GOE & BIS 3.1.2 Maximise the wider economic benefits of the

Games across the UK, including those for tourism and

business promotion.

DCMS/GOE 3.1.3 Maximise cultural benefits from hosting the Games

and the Cultural Olympiad.

DoH, DCSF, 3.1.4 Maximise social benefits, including in CabinetOffice health, education and volunteering, of hosting

the Games.

Communities and 3.1.5 Ensure that the Games contribute to

Local Government Sustainable Communities priorities,

including the wider Thames Gateway.

Communities and 3.1.6 Agree and promote sustainable

Local Government development and procurement policies,

including commitments to sustainable

energy and waste management goals.FCO 3.1.7 Promote positive images of the UK to an

international audience.

Communities and 3.1.8 Ensure the UK’s diverse communities Local

Government are engaged with, and benefit from, the

changes and opportunities arising from

hosting the Games in the UK.

Mayor of London 3.2 Maximise the economic, social, health and

environmental benefits the Games bring to

London and all Londoners.

Table 2.1: Olympic & Paralympic Games Programme Strategic

Objective 3


3 National Audit Office (2007) Preparations for the London 2012.

8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


2.2 The key connections

2.2.1 Although Communities and Local Government is identified as the lead

stakeholder for sub-objectives 3.1.5, 3.1.6. and 3.1.8, it has an interest in and

influence over each of the elements of the sub-objective 3.2 with the exceptionof 3.2.7. To a greater (3.2.5 and 3.2.8) or lesser (3.2.3) extent, these represent

the ‘local’ level outcomes which will build to the achievement of national DSOs

and PSAs. The delivery of these sub-objective 3.2 related outcomes by partners

will be crucial in achieving the lead stakeholder targets.

Lead stakeholder Sub Objective

LDA 3.2.1 Maximise the employment and skills benefits for

Londoners arising from Games-related business.

LDA 3.2.2 Maximise the wider economic benefits of the

Games to London, including those for tourism and

business promotion.

GLA 3.2.3 Maximise cultural benefits to Londoners from

hosting the Games and the Cultural Olympiad.

DoH, LSC, LDA 3.2.4 Maximise social benefits to Londoners,

including in health, education and volunteering,

of hosting the Games.

GLA 3.2.5 Ensure that the Games contribute to

Sustainable Communities priorities, including the

London Thames Gateway.

GLA 3.2.6 Agree and promote sustainable development and

procurement policies, including commitments to

sustainable energy and waste management goals.

Visit London 3.2.7 Promote London’s image as a leading world city to

an international audience.

GLA 3.2.8 Ensure London’s diverse communities are engaged

with, and benefit from, the changes and opportunities

arising from hosting the Games in London.

Table 2.1: Olympic & Paralympic Games Programme Strategic

Objective 3 (continued)


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


2.2.2 Table 2.2 shows the relationship between the objectives for which the

department is identified as a lead stakeholder and the respective DSOs.

2.2.3 This assessment does not take into account the overall balance of the

Department’s policy remit or the relative importance of the 2012 Games in

achieving the targets. However, certain parts of the 2012 programme readacross a number of Departmental policy objectives while others contribute on a

narrower front, a variety of other mechanisms are available to support the

achievement of PSAs and DSOs. The Department’s main policy areas are:

• cities, regions and urban policy (State of the Cities)

• communities and neighbourhoods (Neighbourhood Renewal)

• equalities (Supporting People and Respect)

• housing (Barker initiative)

• planning, building and the environment

• Thames Gateway and the Olympic Legacy

• fire and resilience (Our Fire and Rescue Service)

• local government (modernisation)

2.2.4 The Olympics can be expected to impact on all of these policies to some extent,

but the main ones will be Thames Gateway and the Olympic Legacy,

communities and neighbourhoods (including social cohesion), equalities,

housing and cities, regions and urban policy.

2012 Programme Strategic Objective Contributes to DSO

(SO) 3 (see Table 2.1 above)

3.1.5 – ensure that the Games contribute DSO 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5

to Sustainable Communities priorities,

including the wider Thames Gateway

3.1.6 Agree and promote sustainable DSO 4 & 5

development and procurement policies,

including commitments to sustainableenergy and waste management goals

3.1.8 – ensure the UK’s diverse communities DSO 1, 2, & 3

are engaged with, and benefit from, the

changes and opportunities arising from

hosting the Games in the UK

Table 2.2: Key Linkages Between Olympic & Paralympic GamesProgramme Strategic Objective 3 and the Department’s DSOs


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


2.2.5 As lead stakeholder the Department will contribute to the two sub-objectives,

3.1.5 and 3.1.8 above, if the Olympic Games can be shown to contribute to the

regeneration of East London and the engagement with disadvantaged groups,

respectively. The regeneration of East London will contribute to most

departmental objectives, although the primary impacts would be through

building prosperous communities (objective 2) and facilitating sustainable

development (objective 5). A secondary impact will be the significant

contribution to additional housing supply (objective 4), as will the incentive to

improve local service delivery standards (part of objective 1). The level of success

which is achieved in meeting these objectives will in turn help to determine

whether the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games can deliver a cohesive local

community with shared values (objective 3 related). These relationships are

summarised in figure 2.1 below.

2.2.6 Achieving the desired outcomes requires the co-operation and commitment of

partners, such as London Development Agency (LDA), local authorities (LAs),

Learning and Skills Councils (LSCs), Jobcentre Plus (JC+) and Regional

Development Agencies (RDAs). The Department needs a commitment from

these partners such as the one given in June 2007 by the Local Government

Association (LGA) in the document Community Champions: the Local

Government Offer for the 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympics (LGA 2007).

London 2012 Olympics

Building prosperous

Communities/Regeneration

(objective 2)

Catalyst for improvinglocal service delivery

(objective 1)

Additional housingsupply (objective 4)

Creating cohesivecommunities (objective 3)

Facilitating

sustainable development

(objective 5)

Figure 2.1: Olympic Impacts on the Department’s Policy Remit


Primary

Impacts

Secondary

Impacts

Indirect

Impacts

8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


2.2.7 To this end, the LDA is delivering programmes to address sub-objectives 3.2.1,

3.2.2, the volunteering aspect of sub-objectives 3.2.4. and 4.7. to implement a

viable venue legacy and has clear delivery plans to realise these objectives. The

Agency has also set out in its joint statement with the ODA, Commitment to

Regeneration, the principles that will govern its work to deliver sustainable

regeneration in the Lower Lea Valley (LLV). More recently the document, After

The Games: Legacy Master plan Framework , a joint position statement between

the LDA, ODA, host boroughs and other partners sets out the aspiration to

develop a shared vision for the Olympic Park and the surrounding area,

alongside the LLV Opportunity Area Planning Framework (LLVOAPF) that has

been adopted by the Mayor, and the vision for the LLV Regeneration.

2.2.8 LAs recognise that ‘The Games fits well with councils’ existing ambitions and

can act as a catalyst for delivering corporate priorities and mainstreamprogrammes.’ (p18). The issue for the Department is whether the existing

governance structure (essentially now headed up by the Cabinet Office) for the

Olympic Games can first make such a commitment on behalf of all the partners

and then ensure that all levels of the governance structure deliver on the

commitment.

2.2.9 It should also be noted that for the purposes of this report, the Olympic and

Paralympics Games are treated as one in terms of their impacts, as their catalytic

effects are likely to be very similar. However, there is at least one area in which

the Paralympics effect is likely to be different, namely the potential of the

Paralympics to reach out to and inspire excluded groups.

2.2.10 In summary, there are three agendas that overlap and need to reinforce each

other. These are:

• the Olympic Agenda – to deliver a successful Games

• the Agenda for East London – to deliver regeneration of the area

• the Agenda for Communities and Local Government – to use its resources to

maximise the contribution from the Olympics to its policy objectives

2.2.11 A successful legacy from the Games will only arise from all three elements incombination, every aspect of London 2012 can and should have a legacy

impact. However, there is a danger that these three agendas will not merge;

within the existing governance structure, responsibilities are parcelled out to

committees and partners, without effective programme performance

management that ensures that:

• what partners say needs to be done is actually done and delivered effectively

• there is a process by which partners are challenged to recognise that the

Olympics will not by itself deliver regeneration and set out how they will add

something to make it do so


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


3 Lessons from previous Games

3.1 Lessons from previous Olympic Games

3.1.1 There are a number of sources reviewing the impacts of previous Olympic

Games but the most useful for the purposes of this study is the research

undertaken by the UEL for the London Assembly, A Lasting Legacy for London?

Assessing the legacy of the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games (UEL,

2007). This document draws out the lessons from the research on the four most

recent Olympic Games (Barcelona 1992, Atlanta 1996, Sydney 2000 and Athens

2004) providing a critique of the economic, social, cultural and lifestyle and

environmental impacts arising from previous Olympic and Paralympic Games.

3.1.2 UEL wrote an earlier working paper, From Beijing to Bow Creek: Measuring the

Olympic Effect, Working papers in Urban Studies, London East Research

Institute, March 2006, that sets out some of the history of the rationale for the

Games. On p5 of their report, they say that “While Olympic event organisers

may receive some immediate benefit from the selling of media coverage rights,

the city that hosts the Olympics seeks to boost its image as an advanced

metropolis, a ‘global’ city and international centre for business and commerce”.

It also suggests that the model of catalytic effects originated with USA planners

following declining federal government aid and deindustrialisation that beganin the 1970s (p6). This was most clearly articulated as a legacy or ‘payback’ in

Barcelona in 1992.

3.1.3 That said, none of the literature that we are aware of (the UEL report included),

then goes on to put forward a theory of change that describes how the catalytic

effects are supposed to come about and how they then deliver regeneration.

Discussion is usually limited to a list of possible or expected outcomes and a

discussion of measurement. The following table (Legacy Matrix) is taken from the

UEL report and encapsulates the principal costs and benefits of the event and the

legacy that have included in previous evaluations.

23Lessons from previous Games

8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


Short Term: visible Long Term: visibleThe Event: The Legacy:

Sports success Sports Legacy

community Development Community Regeneration

Olympic Employment Non-Olympic Employment

Pre-Events

OLOG Revenue Additional Housing

Media rights Leisure and sports facilities

Merchandising Convention/Exhibition/Office Spaces

Marketing Telecommunications Infrastructure

Sponsorship Transportation infrastructure

Ticket sales Environment (parks, space, water, air,

Lottery ecology)

Donations Tourism

Interest Earnings Public Services – education, health Public

Subsidy/Tax Labour Market – skills, knowledge

Transportation Volunteer organisation

Rents & Fees Village - % change in host city & compare to other

cities

OLOG CostsNew temporary

construction & removal

Event Ceremony

Security

Insurance

Admin & PR

Volunteers

Medical Care

Test Events

HousingMedia & IT

Short Term Invisible Long Term Invisible

City/regional brand/image Olympic-related jobs disappear

‘Can do’ or ‘Can’t do’ approach Knowledge/skills retained

Political ‘message’ Volunteer Ethos retained

Displacement of resources Regional Pride/Image/Brand

from other uses National Pride/Image/Brand

Displacement of other sources of Structural ‘displacement effects’

demand - ‘expenditure switching’

Table 3.1: Legacy benefits identified in UEL’s Beijing to Bow Bells Report


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


3.1.4 There is a general consensus regarding the potential benefits and catalytic effect

of the Olympics but the literature does not establish a clear process through

which one leads to the other. Most existing studies tend to approach the subject

rather like a balance sheet with increased global visibility, investment in

infrastructure, community interest and pride in hosting the Games on the one

side and challenging perceptions, community engagement, sports participation

and health and regeneration benefits on the other. The intangible re-branding of

a city, as the Games provides the catalyst for accelerating renewal and

regeneration, is likely to lead to an enhanced level of entrepreneurial confidence

and expertise and inward investment.

3.1.5 However, the identification of specific Olympic related benefits and the actions

that are required in order to bring these about is considerably more complex.

3.1.6 Closer scrutiny of the research delivers at best a plausible connection. Given the

scale of investment required to host a modern Games successfully, this is a

significant information gap which needs to be addressed. For example, we are

not aware of any research which is able to demonstrate how increased inward

investment occurred as a result of hosting the Games; indeed, there is only

marginal evidence that inward investment is associated with the Games.

Transport improvements change inward investment decisions, and while

significant investments in transport are associated with hosting the Games, it is

possible to undertake them without hosting the sporting event.

3.1.7 A key question, therefore, is how much more economic and social benefit willarise from hosting the Games, when compared to making the investment in

infrastructure without the Games. If it is not possible to explain the process

through which changes brought about by hosting the Games lead to economic

and social benefits, then it is also difficult to attribute these benefits to the

Games. The evident economic development of Barcelona is often cited as a

result of the city hosting the 1992 Olympic Games. However, in other literature

Barcelona’s development has also been ascribed to increased city-region

autonomy. The two are not mutually exclusive, but it is clear that neither can

lay claim to all the City’s development over the last 16 years. A more robust

analysis for attributing the benefits of hosting an Olympic Games is crucial toestablishing a proper understanding of the scale of benefits and the persistence

of any “Games effect” into the future.

3.1.8 Another weakness in previous research is the absence of any assessment of the

opportunity cost of staging the Games, essentially the benefits foregone as

expenditure is re-directed to staging the Games and supporting infrastructure.

In most cases, the research starts from the perspective that staging the Games

has focused investment on ensuring that the facilities are ready on time and to

the required standard and that public expenditure has been re-directed and

(perhaps) brought forward in time as a result of the Games. At a local, and


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


perhaps regional level, this expenditure is additional but this is not the case in

any national level assessment.

3.1.9 In their latest report prepared for the London Assembly, A Lasting Legacy (UEL,2007), UEL highlighted the importance of a legacy momentum, whereby

subsequent developments are staged through time, with each building on the

achievements of its predecessor and addressing any issues arising during the

previous stage:

“It is especially useful to learn from Barcelona how best to achieve legacy

momentum. According to the research, it is essential that the Games

complement an existing regeneration plan. Secondly, the knowledge base

employed in the preparation and the staging of the Games must not be

dispersed at the end of the event, but used to promote further innovation.

Thirdly, any negative consequences of Games-related regeneration must beaddressed in subsequent urban development.” (p5)

3.1.10 One of the important requirements for establishing a legacy momentum is

having a governance framework that can effectively resource and police the

development of the legacy.

3.1.11 For Barcelona, there are many parallels with London, not least an existing

regeneration strategy to which to link the Games, and the report concludes that

Barcelona ‘is the best example of a host city achieving Legacy Momentum’

(op.cit p8). As UEL point out, what Barcelona achieved was having distinct

stages of development, the most recent being to attract hi-tech industry intothe business parks and tackle congestion in the city centre, whilst learning from

experience and mistakes in previous phases. The Olympic Games was one of the

triggers for regeneration and exploiting the legacy opportunities linked to the

Games was a rationale for reinforcing relevant policies. This requires good

governance structures and, in this aspect, Barcelona was less complex than

London is, being under the umbrella of the City and Regional authorities. The

challenge for London is to have an overarching governance structure that

incorporates the relevant policy drivers so that legacy opportunities can be

exploited at all levels.

3.1.12 The study also found that the employment effects were ‘most marked in the

pre-Games phase’ and that ‘long term unemployed and workless communities

were largely unaffected by the staging of the Games……There is little evidence

of volunteer skills transferring to the post-Games economy.’ (op cit, p9). Any

skills development achieved was for event/project management knowledge

acquired as a result of developing and operating the Games.

3.1.13 The report also found that costs for hosting the Olympics were understated and

benefits overstated before the Games, either as part of the bidding process or in

the run up to the Games and that it was difficult to attribute benefits to the

Olympic Games in the longer term (after one year or so) because of external


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


changes. There is a danger that this raises expectations that cannot be

delivered, particularly in local communities. Furthermore, external economic

changes can have a major impact not only on the scale and nature of benefits

but also on their distribution.

“The Olympic legacy of Atlanta (1996) was dwarfed by wider positive

economic factors – enterprise expansion and capital movement from north to

south USA, whilst the Barcelona (1992) legacy received a favourable impetus

from the post-1992 development of the single market in the European Union.

A positive impact upon different industrial sectors, other than transport and

construction, (Athens 2004) rests with the successful attraction of inward

investment in knowledge-based (mainly) service industries (Barcelona 1992)”

(op cit, pp8-9).

3.1.14 “Hard” legacy gains in terms of infrastructure, the reorientation of city spaces,

improved amenity, new types of land use and economic activity are seen in all

cities. Some of these become iconic images (for example, Barcelona Cruise

Terminal and waterfront), creating a showcase or catalytic effect. Barcelona, and

to a lesser extent Sydney, are acknowledged success stories in urban renewal,

with soft legacy gains of confidence, buzz, reputation, being tourist driven and

acquiring commercially driven national and international status and pride of

place.

3.1.15 There is limited evidence that these benefits were shared equally across different

communities, especially in terms of any housing legacy. In Atlanta some poorerneighbourhoods were re-located to make way for Games facilities leaving a

legacy of bad feeling. The sale of housing post-Sydney was hailed as achieving

premium prices, however, there was no opportunity for affordable housing and

the resulting ownership was perceived to have contributed to gentrification of

the area. Even in Barcelona, there is little evidence that local communities

shared in any housing benefit:

Barcelona is understood to be amongst the most successful cities in terms of

legacy. As part of its successful development of its image and infrastructure

towards becoming a key European hub – and a renewed centre for global tourism and culture, the city has also seen (as a consequence) massive house

price and rental inflation (131 per cent between 1987-1992), and the

emergence of a large population of wealthy international resident/visitors and

property investors benefiting from long term infrastructure investments more

directly than some local populations, whose access to housing and jobs may

not have significantly improved. (op cit, p20).

3.1.16 Where community participation is defined by the volunteering community, all

Games have done well. There is also evidence in most Games host cities that

communities do take a sense of pride in staging the Games.


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


All Games, Athens, Barcelona, Atlanta and Sydney show particularly good

evidence of community participation through volunteering. Barcelona shows

examples of engagement in other pre- and post-Games forms. Sydney and

Barcelona are notable in the success of anniversary events. (op cit p10).

3.1.17 Other forms of community engagement are more limited and there is little

evidence (because it was mainly not an issue) that the Games have an impact on

multiculturalism and embracing diversity, which is a key theme of London 2012.

In fact Sydney provides the only example where excluded ethnic communities

were an explicit issue: “The [Local Organising] Committee also carefully

established local community relations, particularly with the Aboriginal people,

who threatened to disrupt the Games with protests aimed at highlighting the

Australian government’s failure to recognise indigenous people’s rights” (op cit

p36). However, there have subsequently been complaints that this pre-Gamesengagement has not led to a long-term valuing or integration of Aboriginal

communities within the wider Sydney community. In Atlanta, the dislocation of

mainly economically deprived African-American areas to make way for the

Games construction and the failure of neighbourhood renewal in deprived areas

has led to a very negative perception of the 1996 Games in some communities.

3.1.18 There is a growing awareness of the danger of a ‘white elephant’ syndrome and

legacy plans have had to include post-Games uses into the thinking about initial

conception, design and delivery of Olympic facilities and associated

infrastructure, in terms of buildings, IT, governance, city brand management,

post Games maintenance contracts, with all four cities having examples of

doing this effectively.

3.1.19 It becomes difficult with the passage of time to attribute outcomes wholly to

the Games process. This is particularly so when the feel good factors,

governance structures and ‘can do’ attitudes, all catalysed by the Games

process, turn into productive public and social networks that sustain and

promote good governance and community support structures.

3.1.20 The virtue of good governance structures is demonstrated by Barcelona where

the lessons from the preparation and staging of the Games was utilised topromote further innovation and the negative consequences and omissions from

the Olympic regeneration phase (pre and during the Games) were addressed by

later regeneration projects. The key is to align creative thinking and governance

structures with a focus on valued outcomes.

3.1.21 Community participation is mainly through volunteering for the Games and there

is a small legacy of ongoing volunteering. There are some positive impacts on

sports participation over the same timescale but doubt about their sustainability

after the Games. There is no mention of health impacts in the report.


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


3.1.22 Comparatively little has been mentioned on the history and impact of the

Paralympic Games, but the connection between the UK of the birthplace of the

forerunner of the modern Paralympics and its recent growth into a global

sporting event should not be underplayed.

3.1.23 In 1948, the first wheelchair Games were held at Stoke Mandeville hospital,

contested by a small number of World War two veterans with spinal injuries, and

this was the origin of the modern Paralympic Games. However, it is only since

1988 that the Games have regularly been held in ‘parallel’ in the same city as the

Olympics and have gained an international profile and prominent media coverage

in its own right. In this respect, the growth of the Paralympics has been far more

dramatic in scope and profile than that of the Olympics itself, with an estimated

4,000 athletes competing in Athens in 2004.

3.1.24 One question that arises from this is how the additional Paralympic effect can

be used to derive legacy benefits. At present, there seems to be little

information on this topic.

3.2 Lessons from the 2002 Manchester Commonwealth Games

3.2.1 Lessons Learned: A review of the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games,

(Manchester City Council, 2002) prepared by the residual staff of the operating

company M2002, was completed soon after the Commonwealth Games had

ended and has much more to say about the lessons in the preparation and

staging of the Games than about the success or failures associated with the

legacy.

3.2.2 The 2002 Games are uniformly regarded as a great success, locally and nationally,

enhancing both Manchester’s and the UK’s reputation for staging major events.

Residents’ expectations were met and significant local pride was engendered. The

value of the partnership relationships that Manchester had developed during the

1990s was realised and enhanced by the planning, organisational framework and

governance structures put in place to stage the Games.

3.2.3 Key elements seen as ‘best practice’ were:• ownership/leadership of the principal stakeholder, as the principal risk-bearer

and the capacity for close scrutiny (in this case, Manchester City Council),

which allows faster decision-making and a quicker identification of and

response to problems as they arise;

• effective partnerships (importance of knowledge transfer with sport bodies,

funders, operational partners)

• having the operating company (M2002) as a separate entity, focused on

staging and delivering the Games, with an effective organisational

management structure


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


• mixed staffing, including secondees from the City Council who wanted the

creative challenge and experienced people brought in from elsewhere

(including Sydney)

• effective programme management (for procurement, change management

and planning)

• a strategy and model agreed by all stakeholders that ‘fit’ with local aims,

appropriate locations for venues and events and the wider context

• agreed funding, with ‘Big Bucket’ costs and contingencies, with budgets set

over broad headings to allow flexibility, with strong financial control and

independent scrutiny

• national government buy-in at the bid stage and continuing throughout

• a considered sports programme that took account of the balance of capitaland operating costs and the potential for commercial revenue

• a successful programme of parallel events and initiatives that engaged with

local businesses and communities

3.2.4 Manchester’s regeneration has been led by strategic projects, often around

themes rather than a single strategy, and the Commonwealth Games was the

biggest. However, the City Council had prepared the ground with a bid for the

1996 Olympics that consolidated the emerging partnerships and developed a

network across the City. Key partners, both public and private, subsequently

built long-term relationships with third parties and were able to develop moreefficient and effective negotiations, an important factor for the bidding and

planning for the Commonwealth Games.

3.2.5 CPC’s research following the Games ( A performance measurement framework

for the 2002 Manchester Commonwealth Games, completed in 2004 for the

City Council) identified a number of legacy issues which are relevant to London:

• the capacity to stage large scale high profile events has been enhanced (eg

the success of hosting the Champions League final in 2004)

• business tourism levels to Manchester had a step change following the

Games

• venues were refurbished and the planned transfer of Games Stadium to

Manchester City FC has been accompanied by provision for greater

community use

• there have been improvements in mainstream services because of the

practices developed for the Commonwealth Games, particularly for street

cleaning and dressing (eg banners around building sites to conceal them

from view) and transport operations


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


3.2.6 However, some of the outcomes reflect the potential weaker aspects of the

Olympic Games legacy, such as:

• no sustained uptake of sports participation• limited impact on local unemployment and inactivity rates, directly from the

Games – a significant amount from the regeneration activity associated with

the development of East Manchester, eg ASDA Walmart, Ashton canal

corridor and Ancoats Urban Village with its warehouse conversions,

transforming housing estates to 21st century communities (New Islington),

the creation of Sportcity (the locality of the Games Stadium, now occupied

by Manchester City Football Club)

• a small legacy of a few hundred volunteers left out of the 10,000 or so that

participated in the Games

• while Manchester as a whole has reaped the development benefits of a

much stronger market image, East Manchester has not yet secured the

successive investment to secure the Sportcity development (this is the site of

the proposed super casino). Related to this, the proposed extension of the

Metrolink through the site and out into the North East of Greater

Manchester has also not yet been approved

3.3 Issues arising for the London Olympics

3.3.1 The major issues for London arising from these lessons are:

• while the literature identifies a range of potential legacy benefits, the

associations remain very broad. It is perhaps only since Barcelona in 1992

that the idea the Games should provide a social and economic legacy has

taken hold. Research has not yet evidenced the routes through which

increased global visibility, investment in infrastructure, community interest

and pride in hosting the Games leads to social and economic benefits in

terms of re-branding, community engagement, sports participation and

health and regeneration

• without theories of change which establish cause and effect it is difficult to

attribute benefits solely to staging the Games. In most cases, the question ofwhat additional benefits the staging of the Games brings over and above the

investment in infrastructure is not addressed

• leadership with a key risk-bearer, a separate operating company, and a

governance framework that translates design and planning into delivery is a

strength in delivering the Games

• a governance structure that can build and sustain a legacy momentum, that

challenges partners to demonstrate real progress and is based on transparent

and effective communication channels


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


• the City and Regional Authorities in Barcelona played this role and were then

able to pick up the further development of the City in subsequent

investment. At present there are a number of potential players for this role in

London (GLA, LDA and Thames Gateway), and there is, as yet, only limited

evidence of the potential transition from Olympic investment to successor

programmes. The LDA is already working with other partners, such as

LTGDC, and local boroughs, to integrate the Olympic legacy programme

with the wider regeneration strategy for LLV, and with the development

strategies for local town centres through a series of fringe studies. The

Legacy Master Plan framework will be a key driver in ensuring effective

integration of the Olympic Park site with the wider LLV. LDA and the ODA

have made a joint commitment through the Commitment to Regeneration

document. This will need to be addressed in the detailed legacy strategy

which is to be put in place in 2008




barriers to accessing employment. This is being delivered through the

London Employment and Skills Taskforce (LEST) action plan



other initiatives

• the impact on community cohesion and particularly multiculturalism has yetto be tested. The Aboriginal community did get the attention of Sydney’s

organising committee by threatening to highlight the inequalities they face

during Games time

• sustained sports participation after the event, again with no evidence that

that has been achieved by previous Olympics

3.3.2 These issues are the same as those required to meet the Department’s objectives

and contribute to relevant PSAs. The scale of the challenge is set by the fact that

previous Olympic Games have not been able to address the underlying barriers

to participation, despite having reasonable governance structures that deliver asuccessful Games. Hence, the challenge remains to address the underlying

barriers to participation facing many living in communities within the five

boroughs: to ensure that key public services – education, skills, employment,

housing, community and health – work for them as well as they do for the

public in general.


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


4 A framework for how the

Olympics can help addressregeneration issues

4.1 Regeneration issues

4.1.1 The bid for the London 2012 Olympics was successful largely because it

promoted a legacy from the Games that could be used to address regeneration

issues in East London. To exploit the potential of London 2012 for East London,as well as the physical assets that the Games will create, such as the

transformation of the Olympic Park site into an attractive riverside place to live

and work in the heart of the East End, stakeholders need also to consider the

way in which the Games can be used as a catalyst for driving improvements in

service delivery.

4.1.2 A number of high level questions are identified below, comprising three distinct

but related groups; (i) economic development and governance matters, (ii)

employment growth, labour markets and skills, and (ii) the potential tourism

and cultural dimension:

Economic development and governance

• How will the area be converted to an urban dwelling environment, putting in

place the local transport links that connect local communities to each other

and to the new Stratford Transport hub? How will housing management

practice deal with issue of social mix and affordability?

• What needs to be done to grow development at Canary Wharf north

eastwards? – the Lower Lea development framework identifies Thameside

West, West Silvertown, and Star Lane as strategic employment locations

nearest to Canary Wharf• How can the presence of a state-of-the-art media communication centre be

exploited to build a cluster of media and technology companies?

• What is the most appropriate governance structure for addressing these

issues?

Employment growth, labour market and skills

• What will encourage more local people to participate in the labour market?

• What will encourage more City firms to recruit residents of East London and

the Thames Gateway?

33A framework for how the Olympics can help address regeneration issues

8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


• How can more black and minority ethnic young people access work-based

training opportunities and what needs to be done to ensure parity in

outcomes with their white counterparts?

Tourism and cultural

• How can the Cultural Olympiad activities and the pride in hosting London

2012 be harnessed to build stronger bridges between communities in East

London?

• What could London 2012 do for business tourism for Excel and O2?

• How can the Olympics help VisitBritain encourage a greater proportion of

foreign tourists to visit locations outside of London?

• London 2012 has significant potential to engage with local people to

become more active but evidence from previous Games is that the impacts

can be modest. What can be done to improve on previous practice and share

lessons at regional and national levels?

• What should be done in terms of the London 2012 housing legacy to

support levels of affordability which will include local residents?

4.1.3 There has been considerable discussion around a range of potential legacy

benefits arising from the staging of the London 2012 Olympics. Inevitably, much

of the focus of the debate and the legacy management process has centred on

the requirements of staging London 2012: the creation of a number of sporting

venues, the need for connectivity, accessibility, construction employees, thesupport of 70,000 volunteers, and the potential image and tourism spin-off

benefits from being the focus of attention in 2012 and being associated with

one of the most well-known brands in the world.

4.1.4 One of the challenges for the legacy planners is to identify how London 2012

might bring to addressing some of the long-standing economic regeneration and

quality of life issues facing residents of the five boroughs and the wider

population of the Thames Gateway.4 To date, there has been comparatively little

detailed analysis of this topic in previous research studies in this area. Another

key challenge will be to examine how London 2012 can help shift mainstream

delivery to more effective practice that will allow local practitioners to exploit the

benefits of the Olympic legacy?

4.1.5 Regional and sub-regional strategies have identified a number of significant

localised problems across economic and social domains:

• high levels of labour market inactivity – a quarter of all Londoners of working

age are economically inactive, for Newham and Tower Hamlets this

proportion rises to just under 40 per cent. (GLA, 2004)


4 The ‘five boroughs’ are the London Local Authorities which are in close proximity to the key east London basedevents; Greenwich, Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest.

8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


• declining industrial base – in the London Plan, total employment in East

London was projected to grow by 249,000 or 23 per cent of the London

total. 90 per cent of these jobs were expected to be in the office sector,

almost all of them in the City, City fringe and the Isle of Dogs. Conversely,

the industrial sectors were expected to face a net loss of 11,000 jobs and the

‘other’ activities to generate an extra 36,000 jobs (Mayor of London, 2006,

para 57)

• non self contained labour market – the East London labour market has the

lowest level of ‘self containment’ outside Central London with a high level of

in-commuting (Mayor of London, 2006, para 61)

• poor take up of work-based learning among black and minority ethnic

groups – black and minority ethnic groups form 47 per cent of the 16-19

year old population of London East. Young people from black and minorityethnic groups are under-represented in WBL provision (only 38 per cent of

16-19 year olds) and are particularly low in construction and related

apprenticeship training (below 10 ). By contrast, 54 per cent of 16-18 year

old FE learners are from black and minority ethnic groups (LSC, 2005). In

addition outcomes for black and minority ethnic young people completing

work based learning are poor – only 48 per cent of black and minority ethnic

young people completing WBL find jobs, compared with 72 per cent of

white young people. This is a poor incentive for black and minority ethnic

young people (LSC & BTEG (2003)

• significant areas of deprivation – with a number of large housing estatescharacterised by isolation requiring co-ordinated programmes of improved

public transport, skills development, capacity building and environmental

improvement (Mayor of London, 2006, para 32)

• challenges for service provision – the demands of growth and the need to

remedy current deficiencies will mean that many community services will

require space for expansion (Mayor of London, 2006, para 35)

• poor locational image demanding major improvements in the quality of

services and environment (Mayor of London, 2004, para 5.53)

• diverse communities with strong intra-group networks (ie bonding socialcapital) but weak connections between different community groups (ie

bridging social capital), requiring a wide range of support to develop cross-

community understanding

• high refugee presence facing language barriers and limited recognition of

foreign qualifications – the key barriers to securing employment were

summarised as: language needs, lack of work experience in the UK, lack of

information on the job market and how to access employment and training

opportunities, lack of recognition by employers of refugees’ qualifications

and discrimination against refugees per se (Dixon et al , 2006)


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


• high concentrations of social housing and poor stock condition – compared

to other London sub-regions, East London has lower than average levels of

owner occupation and higher number of council and housing association

tenants. 64 per cent of council homes in the sub-region do not meet the

Government’s Decent Homes Standard (DHS). The estimated cost of bringing

these homes up to the decent standard is over £800m (ELHP, 2006)

• health issues associated with low income and poor diet – problems directly

associated with a lack of regular physical activity (heart disease, diabetes and

obesity (London Health Commission, 2000)

• strategic transport is good, strengthened by the development of the

Stratford transport hub and the Docklands Light Railway (DLR)’s takeover of

responsibility for heavy rail and the creation of three new stations in the East

London. However, the weaknesses are in the links into the hub from the localcommunities. Historically, the industrial pattern of development and the

existence of a freight terminal have left an inheritance of a surface road and

rail network that makes it difficult to get buses into the Stratford hub and to

connect the local communities. (Mayor of London, 2006)

4.1.6 The significance of these issues is that they are barriers to creating an urban

dwelling environment that establishes East London as part of London.

Addressing them should be the focus of regeneration, with the Olympic Games

providing additional opportunities to catalyse the regeneration.

4.1.7 The LDA as London’s economic development agency has a lead role in theOlympic project in delivering the legacy and integrating the legacy development

with the wider Lower Lea Valley (LLV) regeneration strategy. The LDA’s work on

the Olympic project also aligns with the Agency’s role in delivering the East

London City Strategy Pilot which is taking an integrated partnership approach

between regional and local stakeholders to delivering welfare services on the

ground.

4.1.8 The Local Employment & Training Framework (LETF) was approved by the five

borough leaders and Mayors in Sept 2006. The LDA is investing £9.6m over 3

years to Dec 2009 in the LETF which contains measures to support a five

borough job brokerage scheme, construction training, other vocational training,

business support and local labour and business schemes. The LETF JobNet

project sits alongside these initiatives and supports job brokerage in the rest of

the Thames Gateway.

4.1.9 The five local authorities are also actively building a platform to take advantage of

the Olympics. All five host boroughs have websites that provide details of current

and forthcoming local events associated with the Olympics and links to sites for

volunteering, employment and business opportunities, as well as promoting

sporting activities and facilities (for example, see the London Borough of

Newham’s main website http://www.newham.com/2012games). Olympic


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


stakeholders are working together on a London Roadshow to promote Games-

related opportunities and benefits arising across business, employment, skills and

sport. It will visit key events within the five boroughs in order to inspire local

people and make them aware of opportunities emerging from the 2012 Games.

This will be complemented by outreach work with local communities which will

also be undertaken through the East London City Strategy Pilot.

4.1.10 There are also consultation process in place from Spring 2008 for the Legacy

Master plan Framework, the LDA will consult and engage with residents and

businesses across the five boroughs on what the legacy master plan should

contain. The LDA is sponsoring the LVSC to raise awareness within their

community networks and to deliver community based events to promote

Games-related opportunities and is working with the Thames London Gateway

Partnership as part of an approach across all London sub-regions to stage high-profile events to engage local businesses and residents in the 2012 Games and

to market opportunities. Through the LDA Opportunities Fund, 27 projects have

been awarded funding worth £11m over three years to provide outreach and

engage with communities with high levels of worklessness, disengaged young

people and businesses and provide skills development opportunities in key

sectors.

4.1.11 The London Borough of Newham, together with the University of East London, is

working to develop the night-time economy that would capture the tourism and

leisure benefits. UEL are also working with the British Council to develop Olympic

(and Paralympic) Monologues, bringing former medallists’ stories to refugee,

black and minority ethnic and other marginalised groups in East London to

encourage participation. They are also looking for stories of some of the (local)

people who are actually building the stadium and other facilities.

4.2 Where the department can help to realise these benefits?

4.2.1 There are a number of areas of benefit that the department needs to ensure are

delivered in order to meet their departmental objectives and the three Olympic

sub-objectives (3.1.5, 3.1.6 and 3.1.8, sustainable communities (including

Thames Gateway), sustainable development and diversity respectively), forwhich they are lead stakeholder. A key aspect will be how the different aspects

of the hard and soft legacy contribute to place-making: that is, combining the

different strands of regeneration, employment growth, development and

service delivery improvement to make the five boroughs, and the Olympic site in

particular, attractive and vibrant places to live and work, in other words,

realisation of the vision for the Park (see also figure 2.1). The individual

components include:

• access to employment opportunities and business support for new starts and

business growth, particularly for the unemployed and inactive (foremployment)


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


• affordable housing (for mixed communities)

• engaging with the local communities and involving disadvantaged and

minority groups (for social cohesion)• sports participation (for health and wellbeing)

4.2.2 The importance of health and its relationship to sports participation should also

be noted, although it is neither a departmental responsibility nor included in

one of its PSAs. Unfortunately, none of the previous Olympics, not even Sydney,

have significantly increased sports participation to a level or duration where this

might conceivably lead to health benefits. It will need a carefully thought

through approach to succeed. On a positive note, the Local Authorities are

enthusiastic in their desire to involve children, young people and schools and

somewhere in the process the governance structure will need to ensure that

there are enough facilities for the intended levels of participation, particularly inEast London.

4.2.3 Tourism and inward investment are also outside the responsibility of

Communities and Local Government and will have limited impact on

departmental PSAs. However, their effective delivery is important to support the

perceptions of a successful Olympics, which has knock on effects on the

achievement of its PSAs.

4.2.4 Much of the above service delivery issues arise in the actions by stakeholders

under the Olympic & Paralympic Games Programme Sub-Objective 3.2. The keyissues that need to be addressed are in the areas of housing, employment

access, skills and engagement with disadvantaged groups. The key stakeholders

in the delivery for the activities to tackle the issues in these aspects of

regeneration are the GLA, LDA, Housing Corporation, LSC, JC+, local

authorities and Thames Gateway, together with private developers.

4.2.5 The department has policy and funding levers with which to influence Thames

Gateway, Housing, GLA, LDA and, through these, the five local authorities. But,

above all, it needs to take ownership of the community constituency and

promote social cohesion, to be a success for the local communities, London 2012

simply needs to deliver on its promises. For this to occur, all stakeholders need torecognise that current mainstream service delivery will not achieve that goal, as

currently too few people from local communities are engaged for London 2012

to build on. All services need to improve, particularly in their ability to engage

with more disadvantaged communities and failure to address this at an early

stage will hinder the regeneration legacy. While construction skills will be an

important area, the Cultural Olympiad offers a richer vein of activity that can

both engage with different cultures but can also bring communities together in

collaborative activities in the visual and performing arts.


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


4.2.6 The Cultural Olympiad will begin in 2008, with a programme including the

mandatory ceremonies, major and bid projects (mostly national) and the UK

Cultural Festival, based in local communities and lead by a team of creative

programmers, of which there will be one in each region. The concern is that this

will be treated more like a short term event to capture the attention of the

world rather than playing a key role in engaging with communities

disconnected from each other and from the mainstream. The department will

need to work particularly with LOCOG who are driving the cultural

programmes, the DCMS and the GLA, respectively leading delivery plans to

maximise cultural benefits from the Games to ensure that these opportunities

are not overlooked. It will also be important to ensure that the

interdependences between the cultural delivery plans and other legacy delivery

plans are maximised.

4.2.7 At a policy level, the department should provide leadership to enable Games-

related initiatives to engage and deliver to local communities. Therefore, the

primary role should be a challenge function, a critical friend. In support of this

role, it should also provide a bridge to local community and faith groups and

regeneration professionals who are experienced and familiar with the

engagement and delivery issues to ensure that initiatives which are based on a

comprehensive analysis of statistical data also consider the views and

perceptions of local people.

4.3 How the Olympics can help increase employment and skills?

Access to jobs in East London

4.3.1 Economic inactivity rates in the five boroughs are among the highest in the

country (Tower Hamlets 38 per cent, Newham 34 per cent, Hackney 37.5 per

cent, Greenwich 26.7 per cent). A key Government target is to move towards

an overall 80 per cent activity rate. While there are undoubtedly skills, cultural

and language issues, London 2012 could provide a focus to drive up

participation rates.

4.3.2 There are a number of areas where London 2012 could provide some impetusto improve access to employment for people living in the five boroughs:

• availability of local employment in keeping with the principles of sustainable

communities

• access to ‘city’ employment opportunities

• improved transport connections to other employment centres

(West End)


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


• access to job opportunities in public services

4.3.3 It is expected that the development associated with London 2012 will provide

for increased commercial investment in East London through the generalregeneration activity, mainly remediation and transport infrastructure. This will

result in increased employment opportunities in the boroughs over and above

that expected from existing initiatives such as Stratford City.

4.3.4 Overall, the additional increase in construction employment relating to London

2012 will represent some 3 per cent of total construction employment in

London, according to an early departmental estimate. While this is a significant

increase from a single construction project, the primary issue is to raise the

employment of East London residents, (particularly from black and minority

ethnic communities), in what is a large industry London-wide. From a local

employment perspective, the open procurement practices that ODA are requiredto follow, do not allow for the inclusion of local labour agreements.

4.3.5 However, there are approaches to getting community benefit out of major

construction projects that can be made consistent with UK and EU regulations.

Community benefit packages have been developed in the US, for example in Los

Angeles as compensation for expansion of the Airport, and targeted recruitment

and training initiatives in Development Agreements have developed in the UK, for

example, in Sandwell and Dudley (housing), Rochdale (town centre

redevelopment) and Oldham (new commercial district). Because they are

innovative agreements, they do not appeal to all contractors and legalprocurement teams tend to be risk-averse.

4.3.6 Employment in Canary Wharf alone now stands at over 80,000 and is expected to

grow to 120,000 by 2016. While these jobs (and those of the City more generally)

have been on the doorstep of the five boroughs, many local residents do not

challenge for the currently available job opportunities and there is a concern that

this expansion of economic activity will also pass by many in the local

communities.

4.3.7 The limited skills of some of those living locally may explain why they have not

accessed higher level jobs in the City but fails to explain why local people have notfound lower-skill job opportunities which have arisen in ancillary and support

industries.

4.3.8 Cost and availability of childcare and transport, and peoples’ capabilities in English

are some of the barriers to taking up work. Another barrier for local people will

simply be discrimination – either because of ethnicity or disability.5

4.3.9 A major challenge for London 2012 in employment terms is not the provision of

employment opportunities, nor even the ‘preservation’ of local employment

opportunities through local labour agreements, but encouraging local people to

participate in the labour market in much larger numbers.


5 Ian Sanderson et al , Barriers to Employment in Newham, June 2004, p34.

8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


4.3.10 To raise activity levels in the five boroughs to the London average would require

some 74,000 currently inactive residents to take up work. This will only come

about if local people are engaged, so that employment makes sense for

themselves and their families. This will require outreach and more effective

interface with communities and must be closely linked with radical revision of

skills practice (see below).

4.3.11 Increasing employment rates in an area which suffers from some of the lowest

activity rates in the country will be a significant challenge. Jobs created by

London 2012 will be a benefit to East London, but positive measures will be

required to engage local people to challenge for these employment

opportunities. To date, low employment rates have been attributed to skills mis-

match between available jobs and the skills of local residents. This may be part

of the story, but London has large numbers of low skilled jobs which do notappear to attract local residents. Very little is known of the supply-side issues

from the perspective of inactive people in the five boroughs: the (real and

perceived) barriers they face and the opportunities which might attract them

into the labour market. Research is necessary to understand the barriers and to

explore the potential solutions.

Skills development

4.3.12 The legacy challenge for skills from London 2012 is to improve the completion

rates of Advanced Apprenticeships and Apprenticeships from the current

average of 32 per cent for East London to the national average of 40 per cent.More importantly, it will be essential to ensure that participation in key

Apprentice frameworks are accessible by all groups: currently young black and

minority ethnic people do not participate in work-based learning at the same

rate as their white counterparts and tend to have lower completion rates in

most frameworks (LSC labour market statistics).

4.3.13 Increasing equal access is not a new issue and the range of initiatives might

include:

• outreach to grass roots and faith organisations

• trials and taster sessions organised for black and minority ethnic groups

• marketing and events specifically focused at black and minority ethnic groups in

the community

• additional support and mentoring available to black and minority ethnic trainees

to help maintain their participation and ensure their completion

• more targeted support for those who may need basic skills and/or ESOL

• raising the educational performance of young white men by mentoring and the

use of alternative education techniques (eg participation in sports and clubs)


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


• awareness campaign among employers and, where feasible, focused marketing

on black and minority ethnic businesses to raise understanding of the benefits

of Apprenticeships and other work-based training

• support for employers who recruit black and minority ethnic trainees to

promote cultural awareness

• leadership from all stakeholders to ensure more is done to redress the

current imbalance in provision and the potential damage this may cause to a

‘multicultural’ Olympics

• looking at schemes such as the Diversity Works for London programme –

which aims to promote to employers the case for workforce diversity – LDA is

looking at how to mainstream this approach within Olympic delivery bodies

4.3.14 The completion rates for young people starting apprenticeships and advancedapprenticeships have improved recently, but London is someway below the

national average. Of particular concern, is the limited participation of black and

minority ethnic communities in apprenticeships and their lower completion

rates, young people from black and minority ethnic communities need to be

able to access what is the primary mainstream route to work-based learning.

4.3.15 An aspiration of the Pre-Volunteer programme is to attract the unemployed and

inactive into pre-employment training. However, evidence from previous

Olympic Games and the Manchester Commonwealth Games indicates that this

is not a route for entry to employment for the disadvantaged and minoritygroups. The two initiatives set up for the Olympics, the London 2012

Employment and Skills Task Force (LEST) and the Local Employment and Training

Framework (LETF), involve mainstream providers as well as bodies set up for the

Olympics, primarily GLA, LDA, LSC and JC+, along with the ODA and LOCOG.

LEST has developed an action plan and will operate across London.

4.3.16 The aim of LEST is to reduce London’s workless population by 70,000 by 2012

and to enable workless people opportunities to develop confidence, skills and

become job-ready to complete for Olympic-related opportunities as well as

other employment opportunities across London.

4.3.17 LETF is based on a model developed in Greenwich in connection with the Dome

and subsequent regeneration of the Greenwich Peninsula and will include a

local labour and business scheme to match job opportunities with people

seeking work in the five boroughs.

4.3.18 These initiatives appear to be ‘governed’ by a partnership. It is not apparent

what the roles of each of the partners are and how the mainstream providers are

participating. However, the evidence that take-up by disadvantaged and minority

groups is low is what needs to be addressed. The LEST programme is still in the

early stages of development and delivery. Simply carrying on with mainstream


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


provision that is currently failing these groups will not be sufficient. Resources

will be needed for outreach to get to these people and engagement and pre-

employment support to identify the barriers and the ways in which these can be

overcome to increase participation.

How the Department can help

4.3.19 For effective delivery, there needs to be a lead organisation that ensures that

partners are working together to add value to current provision and to promote

uniform quality of delivery across each initiative, ensuring that the focus of each

of the local providers is on understanding and overcoming the barriers to

participation that are currently keeping take-up so low in East London.

4.3.20 How this might work for London is that LDA would be the lead body and

oversee the co-ordination, quality control and implementation of the initiatives,

encouraging mainstream providers to take any lessons out to other regions.

Local bodies for ensuring quality and focus of providers would be the LAs.

Making such a ‘governance structure’ work will require a thorough and

appropriate commissioning process and the development of a learning network

of providers so that lessons can be shared.

4.4. How can the Olympics help strengthen and diversify business?

Strengthening the existing business base

4.4.1 The scale of purchasing involved in London 2012 will provide a major business

opportunity. Business support is provided by the Small Business Service (which

covers the five boroughs), London Development Agency (including Business

Link London) and a number of smaller providers for social enterprise support.

The East London Business Centre, in its Annual Report 2006, recorded 406 new

starts in 2005/06, creating 675 jobs, of which 35 per cent were women, 59 per

cent were from an ethnic minority back ground and 40 per cent were previously

unemployed. This reflects the fact that many businesses are established

businesses, the Thames Gateway London Business Survey showed that 98 per

cent had been in business for over a year, with 51 per cent established for 16

years or more.

The Department to encourage LDA to provide leadership in the

commissioning process for providers and to ensure that providers

consider whether existing barriers to participation need to beaddressed. The Department can support this process by

promoting/hosting a learning network of providers and

commissioners.


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


4.4.2 In relation to the preparation and staging of the Games, much will depend on

ODA’s procurement strategy. There will be no local preferences, as this would

distort competition. Information will be available to local businesses on tendering

opportunities, support for businesses to bid and promoting consortia and

collaboration to enable SMEs to bid together, potentially matching the bids of

larger businesses. LOCOG and ODA are working with the Nations and Regions

group to develop initiatives. ODA has an agreed set of commitments with the

construction industry. National and London Business Opportunities Networks are

being created to enable businesses to compete for Olympic opportunities, also

the Electronic Brokerage Service (EBS) accessed via london2012.com ‘Business

Centre’ page will provide access to the London Games and legacy business

opportunities for SMEs and diverse-owned SMEs. These initiatives will be

launched in Jan 08.

4.4.3 Previous Games have used business interest in the Games to develop business

networks and engage employers in programmes to increase export sales – often

to countries competing in the Games. Lessons from the Business Clubs used in

both Sydney 2000 and in Manchester 2002 should provide a starting point for

the development of such activity.

Diversifying the business base

4.4.4 The existing development plans for the five boroughs and Thames Gateway

provide a balance of housing provision and commercial development areas. It will

also be important to ensure that sufficient space is provided to encourage inwardmigration of high-value businesses, this is likely to be particularly significant

around the new transport infrastructure where housing and commercial space

will be at a premium.

4.4.5 There are also specific opportunities to make the area attractive to new

companies. The proposed Olympics communications centre is close to a

strategic employment site in Hackney Wick and could provide the focus for a

media and IT growth pole post-Games by attracting a cluster of related

businesses to the site. Canary Wharf hosts significant Internet infrastructure

including a very high bandwidth gateway. Physical proximity to this technologyis essential to some media, software, IT and communications companies. It

would make sense to ensure that the London 2012 can provide similar access

post-Games to create another growth pole at the edge of the Olympic park,

anchored by the Olympics communication centre facilities.

4.4.6 More generally, it is not yet clear what the ‘offer’ is for the five boroughs and

the wider Thames Gateway. Forming a single marketing agency for inward

investment into the Thames Gateway is a step forward. Access to London, and

more specifically to the City, without the usual very high associated costs, would

appear to be the main selling points. The type of companies this might interest

and the nature of their property requirements needs to be determined.


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


4.4.7 While growing Canary Wharf north and east will make good sense in

development terms, it will not alter the lot of many local people if they continue

not to challenge for available employment opportunities.

4.4.8 Steps have already been taken to bring together inward investment marketing

across Thames Gateway but there is a need to identify key aspects of London

2012 which might form the basis of growth poles post Games. The

communications centre is one such asset which has the potential to attract IT,

communications and media companies post Games.

How the Department can help?

4.4.9. The Department has no policy remit to directly influence this process, but

supporting local SMEs will be of interest to regeneration programmes and there

is a need to ensure sufficient development land is associated with legacy assets

to build the business base.

4.5. How the Olympics can help address social cohesion?

4.5.1 A general improvement in the regeneration of the area surrounding the Olympic

Park, additional employment, and better housing and transport links all have

the potential to improve local communities’ quality of life. The local authorities

are leading on initiatives to help directly with improving community

engagement and relations between East London’s different community groups

in association with UEL, primarily by creating Olympic Monologues that capture

the spirit of the Olympics to enthuse residents from different ethnic groups.

4.5.2 It is possible to envisage a local dimension of the Cultural Olympiad whichspecifically sets out to improve local community relations and celebrates the

diversity of the boroughs, a key aspect of why London won the Games in the

first place.

4.5.3 Much of the available literature on the Cultural programme suggests a national

and international programme of activities. More should be done to link these

themes to local events (five borough and Thames Gateway) and build on the

existing programme of cultural activities run by the Local Authorities (Newham

is already very active) specifically to involve different ethnic groups and

showcase their cultures (LOCOG, 2007)

The Department should promote general awareness raising and

signposting for business opportunities emerging from the Olympics

process and ensure that key partners, particularly LDA, highlight

these through newsletters/communication with local regeneration

partnerships and business support agencies.


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


4.5.4 There is an opportunity to use London 2012 to focus on building understanding

and networks across different local community groups and thereby improve

social cohesion. GLA/ODA are appointing a number of engagement officers at

senior level to work with the local communities to develop engagement

initiatives. The Cultural Olympiad has a number of events which showcase

London and different cultures within East London but more could be done to

engage with local communities.


4.5.5 The main way in which the Manchester Commonwealth Games contributed to

social cohesion was through the participation of local people, both as

performers and in audiences, in the widespread cultural events that spread

across six months before, during and after the Commonwealth Games.Volunteering, employment (direct and indirect) and sports participation had a

limited impact in Manchester specifically related to the Games and they have

been shown not to have made a significant contribution as a result of previous

Olympic Games, according to the evidence.

4.5.6 The Cultural Olympiad is an important dimension of the Games, not only in its

own right but because it also can lead to the creation of new cultural businesses

and access to employment in cultural and arts based industries. There is a

significant amount of development across the five London boroughs to increase

the night time economy, which would greatly facilitate the promotion of

Games-related cultural and arts-based activities.

4.5.7 Above all, London 2012 is the ‘multicultural’ Games and this needs to be

reflected in local actions across the country. Some local authorities have

developed strategies to build on the opportunities from the Cultural Olympiad,

for example Kent County Council are exploring how the Cultural Olympiad can

be used to grow and support the skills development of small and medium sized

creative businesses across the County (Kent County Council, 2007).

Multiculturalism has a clear policy overlap with the Department’s

responsibilities alongside those of other Departments but it should

promote a coherent theme to this agenda: to encourage the

community and business constituency to use a wide range of events

to celebrate differences, promote awareness and remove prejudice

in social and economic life.


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


4.6 How can the Olympics support affordable housing?

4.6.1The regeneration of East London associated with London 2012 and the ThamesGateway initiatives is likely to raise property prices and rental levels relative to

other areas, and worsening affordability problems may arise. There is a need to

tie affordable housing to access to employment to ensure the provision of mixed

communities across Thames Gateway, otherwise lower income households will

be forced to move further out as properties near to transport inter-changes

appreciate in value and only higher income households can afford to rent or buy

on the open market.

4.6.2 House prices in and around the Games Park will increase as a result of the

staging of the Olympics and associated regeneration investment. Better

transport connections and environmental improvements should mean thathousing will be popular. Striking the right balance between private market and

affordable housing will be essential to ensure mixed communities are developed

post-Games.

4.6.3 There is however a housing management issue – what needs to be done to

manage the introduction of such a large number of rented and affordable

housing units on a short timescale so as not to undermine the achievement of

the mixed communities objective? The short timescale is dictated by the

government’s desire to recover the cost as quickly as possible. However,

developers fear that this will force them to release housing units for sale tooquickly, which will flood the market and depress prices.


4.6.4 The problem here is the economics of housing and the impact of market forces.

The new housing, in the context of better transport and built environment, will

be in demand by people from outside the area, especially City workers, and, if

left to the market, rising house prices and rental values are likely to drive

existing residents out of the area; not only because they cannot afford the new

housing but because of the potential to realise big capital gains as their existing

house rises in value. Moreover, one of the mechanisms proposed to underwritethe costs of London 2012 is to realise the development gains on reclaimed land

post-2012. This will create a tension with securing low-cost housing. If the

existing communities are to be retained and become more mixed (in income

terms) rather than the area being divided by gentrification of parts of new

housing among pockets of low incomes and deprivation, there needs to be an

agreement with developers that some part of the planning gain is used to build

or reserve houses that are affordable for existing residents.

47A Framework for how the Olympics can help address regeneration issues

8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


4.7 How the Olympics can help increase sports participation andhealthy living?

4.7.1 The North East London Health Authority has already brought together a range

of evidence on the potential benefits from encouraging more physical activity.

There is a growing evidence base for the direct relationship between regular

physical activity and both physical and mental health (North East London

Strategic Health Authority, 2006).

4.7.2 Only a minority of the British population participates in either sport or facility-

based fitness and exercise activities. The task of re-introducing sustainable

physical activity into daily life for people to gain health benefit and enjoyment is

very challenging. Although there is a general awareness of the benefits of

physical activity, the reality in terms of participation is rather different.

4.7.3 London has higher rates of childhood obesity than the rest of England, with

approaching 30 per cent of the 2 – 15 year old population either overweight or

obese.

4.7.4 London 2012 has significant potential to engage with local people to become

more active but this will not happen without active support. Local stakeholders

are working on an engagement strategy but this will need to join up with

national initiatives to help link interest in London 2012 with “how to get

involved” literature and support at a local level.

4.7.5 Some work has already been undertaken in highlighting the health costs of

physical inactivity and baselining the levels of participation in East London. Work

needs to be done on effective approaches to engaging people in physical

activity and both the evidence base and the engagement approaches need to

be highlighted and shared with other areas.

The Department should encourage Olympic partners to determine

the appropriate point at which to balance the benefits which might

arise from land sales post Games in order to meet affordablehousing targets. Part of this process could set aside some new

housing on preferential terms for those displaced by the CPOs for

the development of Olympic Park to encourage a share of

affordable housing (affordability defined in terms of local residents

ability to pay). Because of the large scale introduction of new

housing, it will need to ensure that high quality co-ordinated

housing management procedures are in place that ensure that the

objectives are achieved, not only overall but with the appropriate

spatial patterns to contribute to the creation of sustainable mixed

communities.


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009



4.7.6 DCMS is the lead department for sports participation. However, the Department

for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) should also be active in promotingcurriculum packs and other schools led activities. A lot can also be achieved by

voluntary and community groups, which perhaps is where the department can

provide some support, although DCMS should be encouraging Lottery Funding

to be made available (despite the ‘raid’ on its funds). Healthy living and

increased sports participation are key issues in many regeneration programmes.

4.8 How the Olympics can help develop tourism?

4.8.1 The five boroughs have a number of key London tourist attractions, although

these are focused in Greenwich and Tower Hamlets. The area as a whole is

somewhat isolated from the core tourist market and suffers from limited

supporting hotel and leisure facilities. Although the private sector may bring

forward more hotel developments in East London, there are no plans to invest

substantially in new hotel stock.

4.8.2 The evidence from previous Games is that any net increase in leisure tourism (ie

pre-Games to post-Games) is limited. However, the aspiration that the Olympic

Games will transform the identity of East London to a holiday tourist attraction

is unlikely to be achieved.

4.8.3 Greater exposure of existing attractions will increase foreign and domestic

tourist numbers but many may in effect be day visitors while they stay in West

London hotels. There will be more people visiting the legacy sporting venues

and these visitors will support some jobs in leisure and hospitality. And the

Stratford connection for Eurostar may mean more tourists coming through the

area, perhaps starting or finishing the Eurostar segment of their trip in Stratford.This may not lead to a radical shift in perceptions of East London but will

promote some interest in the same way that Docklands does.

4.8.4 On the other hand, substantial increases in business tourism (international

conference market) have been a feature of a number of past Olympic Games

(Barcelona and Sydney). Excel and O2 represent a significant conference and event

venue with an existing hotel infrastructure. It would make evident sense, therefore,

to focus East London’s tourism efforts on attracting international conferences to

Excel/O2 through the additional exposure provided by London 2012.

The Department should promote awareness of local actions using

London 2012 to promote healthy living activities in combination

with Departmental colleagues in DCMS and DCSF.


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


4.8.5 London does not have a dedicated International Conference Centre which can

handle very large conferences and Excel will not capture the whole market in its

current format. A more detailed analysis of the expected conference marketwould need to determine the extent to which additional conferences as a result

of London 2012 could be accommodated. There is little point in Excel capturing

more of the existing market, as this would simply divert activity away from other

UK venues. Significant feasibility work is already ongoing around the

development of a centrally located international conference centre (see LDA

Tourism Team).

4.8.6 At a national level, the priority has been to encourage foreign tourists to visit

places outside of London. There is mixed evidence on the net gains in tourist

numbers attracted by the Olympics. For example a report by the European Tour

Operators Association provides evidence on the displacement impacts of theGames citing the example from the Barcelona Olympics:

‘The mild downturn in overnight stays immediately after the Games has to be

seen in the context of a massive increase in hotel capacity. Hotel occupancy

actually dropped from 70 per cent in 1991 to 64 per cent in 1992, the

Olympic year. Fears of construction and overcrowding played a role in

deterring visitors. Further falls in hotel occupancy followed with the two years

after the Olympics registering just 54 per cent37. It then took a further two

years for Barcelona's occupancy rates to recover. Only in 1998 did they exceed

the 80 per cent mark.’ (ETOA, 2007, page 11)

4.8.7 For London 2012 the policy priority should be to use the Olympics to encourage

tourists to venture out of the capital, building on the opportunities created by

improvements in transport connectivity including the Eurostar connectivity to

North of England via Stratford/St Pancras.

4.8.8 The Thames Gateway does not have a significant destination profile and while it

is unlikely that London 2012 will attract large numbers of visitors outwith the

period of the Games (when the Gateway will have a significant advantage in

terms of accessibility of the venues), the policy drive should be to highlight the

area’s tourism assets (Chatham, Bluewater etc) and seek to gain a larger slice ofboth foreign and domestic visitors than is currently the case, possibly through

packages linked to Eurostar.

4.8.9 Evidence from previous Games suggests that East London should focus on

exploiting business tourism and build on the presence of Excel to attract more

international conferences. For leisure tourism, marketing East London (and

Thames Gateway) attractions more coherently will help increase visitor

numbers. However, the legacy from London 2012 should focus on more

effective strategies to encourage more leisure tourists to visit places outside of

London.


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009



4.8.10 Increased tourism and inward investment are consistently linked to

improvements in an area’s image as a result of the investment undertaken tostage the Games. Evidence from previous Games suggests that any tourism

gains will relate more to business tourism than leisure and that while some

Olympic host cities can point to increased levels of inward investment post-

Games, few have established a direct link to the staging of the Games. Good

practice from Manchester and elsewhere is to ensure that marketing the area

(to inward investors and the business conference market) is coherent and co-

ordinated, preferably through a single agency. This has already been put in place

within the Thames Gateway area.

4.8.11 The main drivers for tourism (quality of the tourism product) are not within theDepartment’s remit. However, for both, quality of place (eg town centre and

environmental improvements) are secondary factors and the department can

encourage regeneration schemes and new developments by LAs, local

partnerships and English Partnerships to meet minimum standards.

4.9 Benefits for the wider region and the national economy

4.9.1 All the evidence from previous Games suggests that the primary focus for

benefits will be the immediate Games area and London. Elsewhere, the

potential for benefits arising from London 2012 is more limited. The main areas

where the regions and national economy can benefit, together with the

organisations responsible for delivery, are:

• education and schools, with curriculum packs and events with an Olympiad

theme for sports, global/citizenship issues and local activities (DfES and DfID)

• community events for similar issues (LAs and local groups)

• events, festivals and activities associated with the Cultural Olympiad

• business involvement through procurement for supplies for the preparation,

delivery and development of the legacy (RDAs and Chambers of Commerce)

• dispersal of visitors to the Games to other tourist destinations in the UK,

using the London Games as a gateway to the UK (Visit Britain, RDAs, LAs)

• image for the UK and its regions as tourist destinations and potential

locations for inward investors (Visit Britain)

• the possibility of local areas/universities hosting training camps forinternational Olympic/Paralympic teams

The Department to set minimum standards for quality of place and

incorporate these into planning approvals and new schemes.


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


4.9.2 The main Olympic vehicle in the existing governance structure for driving this

agenda is the Nation and Regions group. Whilst the Department currently leads

for the PSA concerning regional economic performance, and will still contribute

to it post CSR 07, it has limited influence over the tourism dimension which is

the responsibility of DCMS and Visit Britain.

The wider region

4.9.3 Because of the greater connectivity to the City and West London, the provision

in East London of additional housing priced out of the range of local people and

employment opportunities from inward investment is likely to draw qualified

people from the City and West London and thereby has the potential to reduce

the pressures on the more buoyant parts of the London economy. However, this

will be at the expense of local East Londoners who will be unable to findhousing and employment locally and will therefore be pushed further out of

London. In order to remain in the area, they need to become better able to

compete in the East London economy.

4.9.4 There is little evidence available from previous Games on the extent to which

development occurs purely as a result of the Games. The substantial transport

infrastructure investment and, in the longer term, the degree to which Canary

Wharf becomes built out, will drive the search for new development sites. The

challenge for Thames Gateways and the wider region is to exploit this interest.

In all likelihood the development path will stay close to transport nodes, and so

sites near to transport interchanges (Stratford city) are likely to be prime targetsfor development first. Such a process will not directly benefit those Thames

Gateway locations furthest from London and so responding to the legacy

benefits from the Games should differentiate between those areas closer to

London which might benefit from direct investment and those further out

where any benefit will arise from local residents being better able to access jobs

in East London.

Impacts at national level

4.9.5 At the national level the major benefit will arise from the impact on the national

economy of the London benefits. However, the Games have the potential to act

as a positive catalyst for change to raise interest in sports participation and

engagement in the excitement and interest in the event across the nation. This

issue here is that the interest and drive to utilise the Games brand will need to

come from local areas upwards, the centre can highlight ways in which this

might be utilised and network good practice but a top-down delivery approach

is unlikely to work. This fits with the approach adopted by the Games

organisations and the Nations and Regions.


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


4.9.6 Potential benefits:

• softer benefits arising from improved community cohesion and schools

education• increased sports participation

• net additional regional tourism during/post Games

4.9.7 A number of regions have developed action plans to exploit opportunities that

could arise from the Olympic build up and legacy including the South East

England development Agency (SEEDA), the East of England Development

Agency (EEDA) and the North West Development Agency (NWDA). Whilst some

of the material is aspirational, there is also a focus on engagement and

proactive interventions, with targets.

4.9.8 The Department’s role here is to be aware of good practice and be in a position

to signpost and network those interested in developing Games-related

initiatives across the Department’s constituency, regeneration programmes and

other community networks.


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


5 Conclusions and

recommendations5.1 Key lessons from previous Olympic and Commonwealth Games that are

relevant to the London 2012 Olympics are:

• while the literature identifies a range of potential legacy benefits, the

associations remain very broad. It is perhaps only since Barcelona in 1992

that the idea the Games should provide a social and economic legacy has

taken hold. Research has not yet evidenced the specific routes through

which increased global visibility, investment in infrastructure, communityinterest and pride in hosting the Games leads to social and economic

benefits in terms of re-branding, community engagement, sports

participation and health and regeneration

• a key issue will be how the different aspects of the hard and soft legacy

contribute to place-making (ie combining the different strands of

regeneration, employment growth, development and service delivery

improvement to make the five boroughs, and the Olympic site in particular,

attractive and vibrant places to live and work, in other words, realisation of

the vision for the Park)

• without establishing a theory of change to understand the processes by

which the Olympic effect works, it is difficult to attribute benefits solely to

staging the Games. In most studies, the question of what additional benefits

the staging of the Games brings over and above the investment in

infrastructure is not addressed. This is a key evidence gap which Olympics

stakeholders and local delivery partners need to consider in their strategies

for deriving benefits from their Olympic related activities

• leadership with a key risk-bearer, a separate operating company, and a

governance framework that translates design and planning into delivery is a

strength in delivering the Games• a governance structure that can build and sustain a legacy momentum, that

challenges partners to demonstrate real progress and is based on transparent

and effective communication channels

• the City and Regional Authorities in Barcelona played this role and were then

able to pick up the further development of the City in subsequent

investment. At present there are a number of potential players for this role in

London (GLA, Thames Gateway), and there is, as yet, only limited evidence

of the potential transition from Olympic investment to successor

programmes. This will need to be addressed in the detailed legacy strategy

which is to be put in place in 2008


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009





barriers to accessing employment



other initiatives

• the impact on community cohesion and particularly multiculturalism has yet

to be tested. The Aboriginal community did get the attention of Sydney’s

organising committee by threatening to highlight the inequalities they face

during Games time

• sustained sports participation after the event, again with no evidence that

that has been achieved by previous Olympics.

5.2 The issues raised above represent a significant challenge to London – to achieve

where others have failed in whole or in part. A major issue has been the failure to

deliver benefits to the local communities where the Games are actually staged.

For London, this is a key issue because a celebration of London’s diversity was

central to the winning bid for London 2012. As noted in chapter four, there is a

risk that insufficient emphasis has been placed on how to improve service

delivery to excluded groups, which will hinder delivery of the legacy to excluded

groups.This is even more important for the Department’s policy agenda, because

who benefits is as important as how many benefit. The ability of the London2012 legacy to engage and deliver benefits to those who are in most need is

central to regeneration and community cohesion and central to the achievement

of the legacy.

5.3 A truly significant legacy from London 2012 would involve a shift in the delivery

of public services – employment, skills, housing, health and community – such

that the people of East London can benefit to the same degree as residents in

other parts of London and the UK:

• the substantial investment in infrastructure, transport and facilities will

generate large numbers of jobs but

o the working age population of the five boroughs is characterised by high

levels of inactivity and will need significant investment in outreach in order

to engage them to challenge for such employment opportunities. Such

findings are completely in line with research on the impacts of Games in

the recent past

o the proportion of young people in black and minority ethnic groups

starting construction and related apprenticeships in East London is below

10 per cent although they represent 55 per cent of the 16-24 age group

o in addition, progression rates for black and minority ethnic

apprenticeships are below their white counterparts

55Conclusions and recommendations

8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


• housing development is a strong legacy outcome from past Games but there

are few examples where local deprived communities have shared in this

process, gentrification is more the norm

• even within the London 2012 development process there are tensions: the

desire to recoup some costs by maximising the development gain from

Olympic land post-Games needs to be set against the need to meet targets

on affordable homes

• sports participation and the promotion of healthy lifestyles remain areas

where London 2012 provides an opportunity to address a growing problem

of physical inactivity. Evidence from previous Games is that such an effect is

at best transitory, so much needs to be done to ensure a lasting health

benefit from London 2012

• the cultural Olympiad is still in development but there is a danger that thiswill be narrowly interpreted as a series of discrete mega-events which

showcase the Olympic brand rather than a wide-ranging programme which

can improve cross-cultural awareness and greater understanding of

multiculturism and involve local people

5.4 Whilst the Department is not leading on the delivery of the London 2012

Olympics and Paralympics, it does need to work with those who have direct

control over the delivery of the Games. While ‘legacy’ is often cited as a key

dimension in the actions of partners, there appears to be a blind spot around

the need to engage people in this process and a lack of imagination in how thevery wide range of activities can promote the legacy. The Games is a means to a

wide range of opportunities to enhance East London and its residents but in a

number of areas, the existing service delivery is not up to national standards. To

achieve the legacy objectives set for the Games, the process needs to more than

make up for this.

5.5 Therefore, the main challenge is twofold:

• to get partners to recognise that there is a problem in certain service areas

which need to be addressed

• explore why these problems have arisen. Much analysis to date has been ofavailable statistical data with very limited surveys of peoples’ attitudes and

perceptions

5.6 At a policy level, the Department should provide leadership to enable Games-

related initiatives to engage and deliver to local communities. Therefore, the

primary role should be a challenge function, acting as a critical friend by:

• working with local regeneration practitioners, faith and community groups

to provide a bottom-up perspective on developing a legacy for London 2012


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


• articulating these views to partners involved in delivery of the Games to help

construct a stronger legacy

5.7 Some actions, suggested in section 4 above, are to:

• provide leadership in commissioning by developing a network connecting

providers and commissioners

• promote local activities to partners, emphasising the celebration of cultural

differences, promoting awareness and removing prejudice from economic

and social life

• bring forward their local and national expertise on effective approaches to

community engagement and support the involvement of local regeneration

and community organisations in the five boroughs to make the most of this

opportunity

• ensure high quality housing management for East London, especially for the

large scale introduction of new housing after the Olympics closing ceremony

• ensure minimum standards for planning to underpin the enhancements of the

built environment associated with the Olympics

5.8 Despite the growing body of evidence, there remain too many speculative leaps

in some pronouncements on the potential Games legacy. We were unable to

construct the logic chains we have used in this research entirely from

documents relating to London 2012; in all cases the lines of causality wereincomplete or supporting evidence was absent. Logic chains help to understand

the relation between levers and outcomes and provide a basis for assessing

whether the benefits are realistic and achievable. They also help define the

crunch points essential to the delivery of desired outcomes.

5.9 What the Department and its partners can achieve in East London can be rolled

out to the regions. For the regions (notably the North West), there is a realistic

expectation that proactive involvement in London 2012 provides an opportunity

to engage different sections of the community and encourage them to behave

and think a little differently. A key part of the Department’s responsibilities in

helping to oversee this process is to learn the lessons arising from this approachand consider the extent to which London 2012 will prove to be a catalyst for

change in public service delivery to residents of deprived communities.

57Conclusions and recommendations

8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


Annex A – Bibliography

Andranovich (2001) Olympic Cities: Lessons Learned from Mega Event Politics,

Olympic Studies Center · Autonomous University of Barcelona 1 / 9

Blake (2005) The Economic impact of the London 2012 Olympics, Nottingham

University Business School. Online at

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ttri/pdf/2005_5.pdf

Communities and Local Government (2006) Thames Gateway Interim Plan –

Development Prospectus. Online at

http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/561/TheThamesGatewayInterimPlanDevelopmen

tProspectus_id1504561.pdf

CPC (2004) A performance measurement framework for the 2002 Manchester

Commonwealth Games, Manchester City Council

DCMS (2007) Our promise for 2012. Online at

http://www.sportscoachuk.org/News+and+Links/Latest+News/NewsArchive/DCMS+-

+Our+promise+for+2012.htm

DCMS (2006) Welcome Legacy: Tourism Strategy for the 2012 Games – A Consultation

DEMOS (2007) The Biggest Learning opportunity on Earth: How London's Olympicscould work for young people in schools

Department for Communities and Local Government, Delivering Our Priorities,

London, 2007.

Dixon, D., Carter, M., & Lukes, S (2006) Research into Employability Issues affecting

refugees in East London. Online at

http://www.loreca.org.uk/downloads/Refugee_Employability_East_London.pdf

East London Housing Partnership (2005) East London Sub-Region Housing Strategy

2005-2010. Online athttp://www.elhp.org.uk/documents/ELHPstrategyDraft310106_000.pdf

EEDA (2007) London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games - Suffolk Business Plan

Consultation

EEDA (2006) Economic Impact Study of the London 2012 Olympic Games and

Paralympic Games. Online at http://www.livingeast.co.uk/olympic.pdf

ERM (2004) Rapid Health Impact Assessment of the Proposed London Olympic Games

and Their Legacy, The London Health Commission and the LDA


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


Essex County Council (2007) Action Plan Essex Legacy from the 2012 Games. Online at

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Action+Plan+Essex+Legacy+from+the+20

12+Games&meta=

ETOA (2007) Olympic Report. Online at

http://www.etoa.org/Pdf/ETOA%20Report%20Olympic.pdf

Experian (2006) Employment and skills for the 2012 Games: research and evidence,

Learning and Skills Council & London Development Agency. Online at

http://readingroom.lsc.gov.uk/lsc/2006/research/commissioned/nat-employment-and-

skills-for-the-2012-games-research-and-evidence-jun-2006-main-report.pdf

Five Olympic Boroughs (2006) Sports Development Framework. Online at

http://www.newham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5334F3FF-D8AF-4B24-86D0-

5AE2C87EE811/2481/5BoroughSportsDevelopmentFramework.pdf

GLA (2007) Corporate Plan 2007-10. Online at

http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/budget/corporate_plan.jsp

GLA Economics (2004) The London Labour Market – Case for London, Technical

Report 4. Online at

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/economic_unit/case_for_london/labour_market_rep

ort_main.pdf

Habitat International Coalition (2006) London Olympic Housing Impacts. Online at

http://www.hic-net.org/articles.asp?PID=543

Halifax (2004) House prices go for gold in Olympic host cities

Haxton (1998) Community Involvement and the Olympic Games - A Review of Related

Research

Haynes (2001) Socio-economic impact of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, Olympic

Studies Center · Autonomous University of Barcelona 1 / 9

House of Commons (January 2007) London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic

Games: funding and legacy Second Report of Session 2006–07 Oral and writtenevidence, HC 69-II

IPPR (2004) After the Gold Rush A sustainable Olympics for London, Executive

Summary

Jones Lang LaSalle (2001) The Impact of the Olympic Games on Real Estate Markets

Kent County Council (2007) Kent’s strategy for Maximising the Benefits and Legacy to

the county from being on the doorstep of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic

Game. Online at http://www.kentsport.org/london2012/pdfs/strat.pdf

59Annex A – Bibliography

8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


Kornblatt (2006) Setting the bar preparing for London’s Olympic Legacy, Centre for

Cities Discussion Paper 8

LDA (2007) London Thames Gateway Development and Investment Framework.Online at http://www.lda.gov.uk/server/show/conGlossary.94

LDA (2006) Socio-economic assessment - Lower Lea Valley Olympic & Legacy Planning

Applications.

LDA (2006) Thames Gateway RDA Economic Statement. Online at

http://www.lda.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.410

LDA (2005) Draft Central London tourism development framework 2006 – 2009.

Online at http://www.c-l-

p.co.uk/files/pdf/Central_London_Tourism_Framework%20for%20CLP.pdf

LDA (2004) Statement of participation introduction context document for the Lower

Lea valley Olympic & Legacy Planning Applications. Online at

http://www.lda.gov.uk/upload/pdf/Statement_of_Participation_INTRO_v2%5B1%5D.pdf

LDA & LSC (2006) London employment and skills taskforce for 2012: An action plan to

maximise the employment and skills benefits of the Olympic Games and Paralympic

Games in London, The Learning and Skills Council and the London Development

Agency

LGA (2007) Community Champians: the local government offer for the 2012 Olympicand Paralympic Games. Online at

http://www.lga.gov.uk/Documents/Publication/communitychampions.pdf

Locum Destination Review (2006) Eyes on the tourism prize - optimising the potential

tourism benefits of the Olympics

London 2012 (2006) Sustainability Policy. Online at

http://www.london2012.com/NR/rdonlyres/0A4A8890-027B-4ADD-A439-

8ED8988D7FE4/0/SustPolReprint2.pdf

London 2012 (2005) London 2012 Candidate File. Online athttp://main.london2012.com/en/news/publications/Candidatefile

London 2012 (2005) Olympic Park Delivery Programme. Online at

http://main.london2012.com/NR/rdonlyres/53624644-FE24-42EB-B3C9-

894D2036AED9/0/OlympicParkProgramme.

London 2012 (2006) The Olympic Park Masterplan. Online at

http://main.london2012.com/NR/rdonlyres/62FE00F2-1E00-442D-AA71-

ED36AA1DE7F2/0/FINALOlympicMasterplanbrochure.pdf


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


LSC (2005) London East Learning and Skills Council Annual Plan 2005-06.

Online at

http://readingroom.lsc.gov.uk/lsc/2005/ourbusiness/strategy/london-east-

local-annual-plan-0506.pdf

LSC & BTEG (2003) Modern Apprenticeships & Black and Minority Ethnic

Young People. Online at http://www.bteg.co.uk/MA.pdf

GLA (2007) London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games: The employment

and skills legacy. Online at

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports/econsd/games-skills-legacy.pdf

LOCOG (2007) Culture Update. Online at

http://main.london2012.com/NR/rdonlyres/00006717-77A7-4285-90AD-

A1896E051202/0/Cultureupdate210607.pdf

London Borough of Hackney (February 2006) Wick 2012 Community

Meeting - Q&A. Online at

http://www.hackney.gov.uk/wick_questions_and_answers_february_2006.pd

f#xml=http://www.hackney.gov.uk/SCRIPTS/texis.exe/webinator/search/pdfhi.

txt?query=olympic&pr=HackneyLive&prox=sentence&rorder=1000&rprox=75

0&rdfreq=500&rwfreq=500&rlead=500&sufs=1&order

London Borough of Havering (2007) The Games Delivery Plan, Havering.

Online athttp://www.havering.gov.uk/media/pdf/0/2/Havering_Olympic_and_Paralymp

ic_Games_Delivery_Plan_January2007_1.pdf

London First (2006) Business Plan. Online at http://www.london-

first.co.uk/publications/bb_3106.pdf

London Health Commission (2000) London Health strategy. Online at

http://www.londonshealth.gov.uk/strategy.htm#Top

Madden (1999) The economics of the Sydney Olympics. Paper presented to

the 23rd conference of ANZRSAI Newcastle, 19 - 22 September 1999

Manchester City Council (2002) 2002 Lessons Learned - Review of the 2002

Commonwealth Games in Manchester for DCMS, Sport England and

Manchester City Council. Online at

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/corporate/games/lessons/cglessons.pdf

Mayor of London (January 2007) Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Area

Planning Framework. Online at

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning/lower-lea-valley.jsp


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


Mayor of London (2006) The London Plan - Sub-regional Development Framework,

East London. Online at http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning/srdf/east.jsp

Mayor of London (2004) The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for GreaterLondon. Online at http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/index.jsp

MLA (2006) Setting the Pace - A prospectus for the contribution of museums, libraries

and archives in England to the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games

Nations and Regions East (2006) DRAFT Regional Business Plan for the London 2012

Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. Online at

http://www.eera.gov.uk/Documents/Meetings%20and%20Events/Assembly%20and

%20Panels/RPG/December%202006/item%203%202012%20Business%20Plan.pdf

Norfolk County Council (February 2007) 2012 Olympics: Norfolk Cultural Response.Online at

http://www.norfolklive.co.uk/norfolkcfb/documents/2012_Cultural_Olympiad_worksh

op_060207.doc

North East London Strategic Health Authority (2006) You are Here – Towards a

physical activity service for the host boroughs and North East London. Online at

http://www.nelondon.nhs.uk/downloads/Publications/youAreHereFinalReport.pdf

ODA (2007) Olympic Delivery Authority, Summary of Business Plan 2007/08. Online at

http://main.london2012.com/NR/rdonlyres/BC8E66DF-5C26-4AAD-AF00-

B58418DBE534/0/ODABusinessPlanSummary0708.pdf

ODA (2007) Sustainable Development Strategy. Online at

http://main.london2012.com/NR/rdonlyres/CB65E7CA-4F70-42F6-B7AB-

D837AE89509D/0/SustainableDevelopmentStrategyExecSummary.pdf

ODA (2006) Draft Sustainability Principles and Progress Report. Online at

http://www.london2012.com/NR/rdonlyres/59D448F0-4F39-43B5-8A31-

E6CC95A38AE2/0/DraftSustainabilityPrinciplesandProgressReport.pdf

Oxford Brookes University (2006) Thames Gateway Evidence Review, Communities

and Local Government. Online at

http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1504589

PA Consulting (2006) Identifying an inclusive and effective structure for the Higher

Education contribution to the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games

Preuss H (2004): The Economics of Staging the Olympics – A Comparison of the

Games 1972-2008, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar

PWC (2005) Olympic Games Impact Study. Online at

http://www.culture.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E88F2684-F49E-4F45-B826-2F19F21374F8/0/OlympicGamesImpactStudy.pdf


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


Scottish Executive (2000) The role of sport in regenerating deprived areas. Online at

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/156589/0042061.pdf

Sport England (2001) Sport and Regeneration, Planning Bulletin, Issue 10

Swann (2001) When do Major Sports Events leave a Lasting Economic Legacy? Online

at http://www.innovativeeconomics.org/games.htm

Thames Gateway London Partnership (November 2006) Sub-Regional Economic

Development Implementation Plan (Sredip), East Sub-Region. Online at

http://www.thames-

gateway.org.uk/uploadedFiles/projects/Industry_and_Economy/SREDIPNov06.pdf

Tourism Alliance (November 2006) Welcome legacy consultation Tourism Alliance

Submission

UEL (2007) A Lasting Legacy for London? Assesisng the Legacy of the Olympic Games

and the Paralympic Games. London Assembly Online at

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports/econsd/lasting-legacy-uel-research.pdf

UEL (2006) From Beijing to Bow Creek: Measuring the Olympic Effect, London East

Research Institute

UK Sport (May 2006) Business Plan 2006 / 2009. Online at

http://www.uksport.gov.uk/assets/File/Generic_Template_Documents/Publications/Cor

porate_Publications/UKSBusPlan_210706.doc

University of East London (2007) A Lasting Legacy for London? Assessing the legacy of

the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, London Assembly. Online at

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports/econsd.jsp

Visit Britain and Visit London (2007) Tourism opportunities and legacy for London

2012. Online at http://www.tourismtrade.org.uk/Images/olympics_tcm12-26297.pdf

West Sussex (2006) Olympics and Paralympics Action Plan 2006 – 2009. Online at

http://www.westsussex.gov.uk/ccm/content/your-council/plans-policies-reports-and-

initiatives/olympics-and-paralympics-action-plan-2006-2009.en;jsessionid=aZcShW0QS_eb

Yorkshire Forward (2006) 2012 Olympic Bid Document. Online at

http://www.yorkshire-forward.com/asset_store/document/2012olympicbid_20270.pdf


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


Annex B – Acronyms

BERR – Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

CPC – Cambridge Policy Consultants

CSR – Comprehensive Spending Review

DCSF – Department for Children Schools & Families

DCMS – Department of Culture, Media and Sport

DfES – Department for Education and Science

DoH – Department of Health

DSO – Departmental Strategic Objective

DTI – Department of Trade and Industry

EEDA – East of England Development Agency

FCO – Foreign and Commonwealth Office

GLA – Greater London Assembly

JC+ – JobCentre Plus

LA – Local Authority

LDA – London Development Agency

LEST – London Employment and Skills Taskforce

LETF – Local Employment & Training Framework

LLV – Lower Lea Valley

LOCOG – London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games

LSC – Learning and Skills Council

ODA – Olympic delivery Authority

PSA – Public Sector Agreement

RDA – Regional Development Agency

RSL – Registered Social Landlord

UEL – University of East London


8/3/2019 Local Gov 2009


Local Gov 2009

Documents

Transcript of Local Gov 2009