Local Gov 2009

London 2012 Olympic Games: scoping the analytical and legacy issues for Communities and Local Government
www.communities.gov.uk
community, opportunity, prosperity
Cambridge Policy Consultants September 2009 Department for Communities and Local Government
The findings and recommendations of this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Communities and Local Government.
Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 020 7944 4400 Website: www.communities.gov.uk Queens Printer and Controller of Her Majestys Stationery Office 2008 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown Copyright and the title of the publication specified. Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp or by writing to the Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU. Email: licensing@opsi.gov.uk. If you require this publication in an alternative format please email alternativeformats@communities.gsi.gov.uk Communities and Local Government Publications Tel: 030 0123 1124 Fax: 030 0123 1125 Email: product@communities.gsi.gov.uk or online via the Communities and Local Government website: www.communities.gov.uk September 2009 Product Code 08ACST 05549/r ISBN: 978 1 4098 0950 0
Contents
Contents
Foreword Executive summary 1. Introduction 1.1 Aims of the study 1.2 The structure of the report 2. Key connections between the Olympic agenda and policy 2.1 London 2012 legacy and the fit with the Departments objectives 2.2 The key connections 3. Lessons from previous Games 3.1 Lessons from previous Olympic Games 3.2 Lessons from the 2002 Manchester Commonwealth Games 3.3 Issues arising for the London Olympics 4. A framework for how the Olympics can help address regeneration issues 4.1 Regeneration issues 4.2 Where the Department can help to realise these benefits? 4.3 How the Olympics can help increase employment and skills? 4.4 How can the Olympics help strengthen and diversify business? 4.5 How the Olympics can help address social cohesion? 4.6 How can the Olympics support affordable housing? 4.7 How the Olympics can help increase sports participation and healthy living? 4.8 How the Olympics can help develop tourism? 4.9 Benefits for the wider region and the national economy 5. Conclusions and recommendations Annex A Bibliography Annex B Acronyms 4 6 14 14 15 16 16 19 23 23 29 31 33 33 37 39 43 45 47 48 49 51 54 58 64
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 Departments 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 Departments 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 to take 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 report have 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.
Foreword
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.
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 Departments 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. 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 Departments 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
Executive summary
What are the primary benefits that the Department and its partners should 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. Figure 1: How the London 2012 Games relates to the Departments Strategic Objectives
London 2012 Olympics
Primary Impacts
Building prosperous Communities/Regeneration (objective 2)
Facilitating sustainable development (objective 5)
Secondary Impacts
Catalyst for improving local service delivery (objective 1)
Additional housing supply (objective 4)
Indirect Impacts
4
Creating cohesive communities (objective 3)
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 UKs diverse communities are engaged with and benefit from the Games, and how they relate to five out of the Departments six departmental strategic objectives (DSOs), as well as a number of the existing PSA targets in the 2004-7 Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR).
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 Councils 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. 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. 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 not elaborate or evidence how these benefits are brought about. 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 between Games-related infrastructure and wider infrastructure to realise broader regeneration goals. 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.
Executive summary
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 Sydneys case, concerns have been expressed that the Games did comparatively little to promote social inclusion for its Aboriginal community. 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 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. 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
11
12
How the Olympics can address physical, economic and social regeneration 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?
10
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 minority ethnic 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 (including Thames 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 other departments 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. Tourism and inward investment are outside the responsibility of the Department and will have limited impact on the Departments PSAs. However, they are important to support the perceptions of a successful Olympics, and as contributors to past Games economic impact. 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 within the governance structure to ensure that these opportunities are not overlooked.
16
17
Executive summary
11
18
At a policy level, the department should provide leadership to enable Gamesrelated 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. 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
21
12
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. 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 Londons diversity was central to the winning bid for London 2012. At a policy level, the Department should provide leadership to enable Gamesrelated 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 why these 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
23
24
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 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
Executive summary
13
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 Departments 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.
14
1 Introduction
1.1 Aims of the study
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 Departments key policy interests.
1.1.2 This scope of this study is defined by Communities and Local Governments 1.1.1 The Housing Markets and Planning Analysis (HMPA) division in Communities
policy remit. 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.
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 Governments 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/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
Introduction
15
1.2
The structure of the report

and areas of policy responsibility, particularly sustainable communities and regeneration) 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.
1.2.1 The main connections between the Olympic agenda and policy priorities (PSAs
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 the City Councils 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 Departments policy agenda.
16
2 Key connections between the Olympic agenda and policy

2.1 London 2012 legacy and the fit with the Departments objectives
remit and the objectives of the Olympics. The Departments 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 communities and 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 2.1.1 This section of the report explains the linkages between the Departments policy
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
Delivering Our Priorities, Department for Communities and Local Government, London, 2007.
Key connections between the Olympic agenda and policy
17
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
2 The relationships between the 2004 and 2007 based PSA indicators, and between the PSAs and Departmental Strategic Objectives are explained in the annexes of Delivering Our Priorities.
18
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 through regeneration 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: Table 2.1: Olympic & Paralympic Games Programme Strategic Objective 3 Lead stakeholder Government Sub Objective 3.1 Maximise the economic, social, health and environmental benefits the Games bring to the UK and all sections of the UK population. 3.1.1 Maximise the employment and skills benefits for the UK arising from Games-related business. 3.1.2 Maximise the wider economic benefits of the Games across the UK, including those for tourism and business promotion. 3.1.3 Maximise cultural benefits from hosting the Games and the Cultural Olympiad. 3.1.4 Maximise social benefits, including in Cabinet Office health, education and volunteering, of hosting the Games. 3.1.5 Ensure that the Games contribute to Sustainable Communities priorities, including the wider Thames Gateway. 3.1.6 Agree and promote sustainable development and procurement policies, including commitments to sustainable energy and waste management goals. 3.1.7 Promote positive images of the UK to an international audience. 3.1.8 Ensure the UKs diverse communities Local are engaged with, and benefit from, the changes and opportunities arising from hosting the Games in the UK. 3.2 Maximise the economic, social, health and environmental benefits the Games bring to London and all Londoners.
BIS & DWP DCMS/GOE & BIS
DCMS/GOE DoH, DCSF,
Communities and Local Government Communities and Local Government
FCO Communities and Government
Mayor of London
National Audit Office (2007) Preparations for the London 2012.
19
Table 2.1: Olympic & Paralympic Games Programme Strategic Objective 3 (continued) Lead stakeholder LDA LDA Sub Objective 3.2.1 Maximise the employment and skills benefits for Londoners arising from Games-related business. 3.2.2 Maximise the wider economic benefits of the Games to London, including those for tourism and business promotion. 3.2.3 Maximise cultural benefits to Londoners from hosting the Games and the Cultural Olympiad. 3.2.4 Maximise social benefits to Londoners, including in health, education and volunteering, of hosting the Games. 3.2.5 Ensure that the Games contribute to Sustainable Communities priorities, including the London Thames Gateway. 3.2.6 Agree and promote sustainable development and procurement policies, including commitments to sustainable energy and waste management goals. 3.2.7 Promote Londons image as a leading world city to an international audience. 3.2.8 Ensure Londons diverse communities are engaged with, and benefit from, the changes and opportunities arising from hosting the Games in London.
GLA DoH, LSC, LDA
GLA
GLA
Visit London GLA
2.2
The key connections

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 exception of 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.
2.2.1 Although Communities and Local Government is identified as the lead
20
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. Table 2.2: Key Linkages Between Olympic & Paralympic Games Programme Strategic Objective 3 and the Departments DSOs 2012 Programme Strategic Objective (SO) 3 (see Table 2.1 above) 3.1.5 ensure that the Games contribute to Sustainable Communities priorities, including the wider Thames Gateway 3.1.6 Agree and promote sustainable development and procurement policies, including commitments to sustainable energy and waste management goals 3.1.8 ensure the UKs diverse communities are engaged with, and benefit from, the changes and opportunities arising from hosting the Games in the UK Contributes to DSO DSO 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5
DSO 4 & 5
DSO 1, 2, & 3
2.2.3 This assessment does not take into account the overall balance of the
Departments policy remit or the relative importance of the 2012 Games in achieving the targets. However, certain parts of the 2012 programme read across 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 Departments 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.
21
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. Figure 2.1: Olympic Impacts on the Departments Policy Remit
London 2012 Olympics
Building prosperous Communities/Regeneration (objective 2)
Facilitating sustainable development (objective 5)
Primary Impacts
Catalyst for improving local service delivery (objective 1)
Additional housing supply (objective 4)
Secondary Impacts
Creating cohesive communities (objective 3)
Indirect Impacts
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).
22
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 mainstream programmes. (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 in
combination, 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
23
3 Lessons from previous Games

3.1 Lessons from previous Olympic Games
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 3.1.1 There are a number of sources reviewing the impacts of previous Olympic
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 began in 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.
24
Table 3.1: Legacy benefits identified in UELs Beijing to Bow Bells Report Short Term: visible The Event: Sports success community Development Olympic Employment Pre-Events OLOG Revenue Media rights Merchandising Marketing Sponsorship Ticket sales Lottery Donations Interest Earnings Subsidy/Tax Transportation Rents & Fees Village OLOG Costs New temporary construction & removal Event Ceremony Security Insurance Admin & PR Volunteers Medical Care Test Events Housing Media & IT Short Term Invisible City/regional brand/image Can do or Cant do approach Political message Displacement of resources from other uses Displacement of other sources of demand - expenditure switching Long Term Invisible Olympic-related jobs disappear Knowledge/skills retained Volunteer Ethos retained Regional Pride/Image/Brand National Pride/Image/Brand Structural displacement effects Long Term: visible The Legacy: Sports Legacy Community Regeneration Non-Olympic Employment Additional Housing Leisure and sports facilities Convention/Exhibition/Office Spaces Telecommunications Infrastructure Transportation infrastructure Environment (parks, space, water, air, ecology) Tourism Public Services education, health Public Labour Market skills, knowledge Volunteer organisation - % change in host city & compare to other cities
25
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 will
arise 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 Barcelonas 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 Citys development over the last 16 years. A more robust analysis for attributing the benefits of hosting an Olympic Games is crucial to establishing 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
26
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 be addressed 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 into the 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 GamesThere 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
27
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 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 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.
28
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 governments failure to recognise indigenous peoples rights (op cit p36). However, there have subsequently been complaints that this pre-Games engagement 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 to promote 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.
29
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

(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.
3.2.1 Lessons Learned: A review of the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games,
3.2.2 The 2002 Games are uniformly regarded as a great success, locally and nationally,
enhancing both Manchesters and the UKs 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
30
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 capital and 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 Manchesters 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 more efficient and effective negotiations, an important factor for the bidding and planning for the Commonwealth Games.
3.2.5 CPCs 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
31
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 of what 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
32
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 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. This is being delivered through the London Employment and Skills Taskforce (LEST) action plan 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 the impact on community cohesion and particularly multiculturalism has yet to be tested. The Aboriginal community did get the attention of Sydneys 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 Departments 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 a successful 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.
A framework for how the Olympics can help address regeneration issues
33
4 A framework for how the Olympics can help address regeneration issues
4.1 Regeneration issues
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 4.1.1 The bid for the London 2012 Olympics was successful largely because it
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?
34
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, the support 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 based events; Greenwich, Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest.
35
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 minority ethnic 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 estates characterised 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 social capital) but weak connections between different community groups (ie bridging social capital), requiring a wide range of support to develop crosscommunity 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)
36
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 Governments 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 local communities. 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 Londons economic development agency has a lead role in the
Olympic project in delivering the legacy and integrating the legacy development with the wider Lower Lea Valley (LLV) regeneration strategy. The LDAs work on the Olympic project also aligns with the Agencys 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 Newhams main website http://www.newham.com/2012games). Olympic
37
stakeholders are working together on a London Roadshow to promote Gamesrelated 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 highprofile 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?

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), for which 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 (for employment)
4.2.1 There are a number of areas of benefit that the department needs to ensure are
38
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 in East 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 key issues 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 to recognise 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.
39
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 impetus
to 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)
40
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 general regeneration 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 required to 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 legal procurement 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 not found 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.
41
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 mismatch 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 not appear 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)
42
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 advanced
apprenticeships 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 minority groups. 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 Londons 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
43
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 preemployment 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. 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 be addressed. The Department can support this process by promoting/hosting a learning network of providers and commissioners.
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.
44
4.4.2 In relation to the preparation and staging of the Games, much will depend on
ODAs 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 inward migration 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 technology is 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.
45
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. 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.
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 Londons 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 which
specifically 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)
46
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. How the Department can help?
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 Departments 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.
A Framework for how the Olympics can help address regeneration issues
47
4.6
How can the Olympics support affordable housing?

Gateway 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.
4.6.1 The regeneration of East London associated with London 2012 and the Thames
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 that housing 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 governments desire to recover the cost as quickly as possible. However, developers fear that this will force them to release housing units for sale too quickly, which will flood the market and depress prices. How the Department can help?
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 underwrite the 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.
48
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 affordable housing 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.
4.7
How the Olympics can help increase sports participation and healthy living?
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).
4.7.1 The North East London Health Authority has already brought together a range
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.
49
How the Department can help?

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 promoting curriculum 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. 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.
4.8
How the Olympics can help develop tourism?

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.
4.8.1 The five boroughs have a number of key London tourist attractions, although
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 Londons tourism efforts on attracting international conferences to Excel/O2 through the additional exposure provided by London 2012.
50
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 market would 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 the Games 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 areas tourism assets (Chatham, Bluewater etc) and seek to gain a larger slice of both 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.
51
How the Department can help?

4.8.10 Increased tourism and inward investment are consistently linked to
improvements in an areas image as a result of the investment undertaken to stage 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 postGames, 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 coordinated, 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 the
Departments 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.
The Department to set minimum standards for quality of place and incorporate these into planning approvals and new schemes.
4.9
Benefits for the wider region and the national economy

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 for international Olympic/Paralympic teams
4.9.1 All the evidence from previous Games suggests that the primary focus for
52
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 find housing 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 targets for 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.
53
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 Departments 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 Departments constituency, regeneration programmes and other community networks.
54
5 Conclusions and recommendations

5.1
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, 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 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
Conclusions and recommendations
55
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 the impact on community cohesion and particularly multiculturalism has yet to be tested. The Aboriginal community did get the attention of Sydneys 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 Londons 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 Departments policy agenda, because who benefits is as important as how many benefit. The ability of the London 2012 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. 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
5.3
56
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 this will 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 the very 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. 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 of available statistical data with very limited surveys of peoples attitudes and perceptions
5.5
5.6
At a policy level, the Department should provide leadership to enable Gamesrelated 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
Conclusions and recommendations
57
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 were incomplete 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. 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 Departments 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.
5.9
58
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 Olympics could 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 at http://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
59
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-andskills-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-4B24-86D05AE2C87EE811/2481/5BoroughSportsDevelopmentFramework.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 200607 Oral and written evidence, 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) Kents 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
60
Kornblatt (2006) Setting the bar preparing for Londons 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-lp.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 Olympic and 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-A4398ED8988D7FE4/0/SustPolReprint2.pdf London 2012 (2005) London 2012 Candidate File. Online at http://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-B3C9894D2036AED9/0/OlympicParkProgramme. London 2012 (2006) The Olympic Park Masterplan. Online at http://main.london2012.com/NR/rdonlyres/62FE00F2-1E00-442D-AA71ED36AA1DE7F2/0/FINALOlympicMasterplanbrochure.pdf
61
LSC (2005) London East Learning and Skills Council Annual Plan 2005-06. Online at http://readingroom.lsc.gov.uk/lsc/2005/ourbusiness/strategy/london-eastlocal-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/00006717-77A7-4285-90ADA1896E051202/0/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 at http://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.londonfirst.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
62
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 Greater London. 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-AF00B58418DBE534/0/ODABusinessPlanSummary0708.pdf ODA (2007) Sustainable Development Strategy. Online at http://main.london2012.com/NR/rdonlyres/CB65E7CA-4F70-42F6-B7ABD837AE89509D/0/SustainableDevelopmentStrategyExecSummary.pdf ODA (2006) Draft Sustainability Principles and Progress Report. Online at http://www.london2012.com/NR/rdonlyres/59D448F0-4F39-43B5-8A31E6CC95A38AE2/0/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-B8262F19F21374F8/0/OlympicGamesImpactStudy.pdf
63
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.thamesgateway.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-andinitiatives/olympics-and-paralympics-action-plan-20062009.en;jsessionid=aZcShW0QS_eb Yorkshire Forward (2006) 2012 Olympic Bid Document. Online at http://www.yorkshire-forward.com/asset_store/document/2012olympicbid_20270.pdf
64
Annex B Acronyms
BERR CPC CSR DCSF DCMS DfES DoH DSO DTI EEDA FCO GLA JC+ LA LDA LEST LETF LLV Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Cambridge Policy Consultants Comprehensive Spending Review Department for Children Schools & Families Department of Culture, Media and Sport Department for Education and Science Department of Health Departmental Strategic Objective Department of Trade and Industry East of England Development Agency Foreign and Commonwealth Office Greater London Assembly JobCentre Plus Local Authority London Development Agency London Employment and Skills Taskforce Local Employment & Training Framework Lower Lea Valley London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games Learning and Skills Council Olympic delivery Authority Public Sector Agreement Regional Development Agency Registered Social Landlord University of East London
LOCOG LSC ODA PSA RDA RSL UEL
ISBN 978-1-4098-0950-0
ISBN: 978 1 4098 0950 0
9 781409 809500

Local Gov 2009

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Local Gov 2009

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

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

London 2012 Olympics

Building prosperous Communities/Regeneration (objective 2)

Facilitating sustainable development (objective 5)

Catalyst for improving local service delivery (objective 1)

Additional housing supply (objective 4)

Creating cohesive communities (objective 3)

Lessons from previous Games

The structure of the report

implications for the Departments policy agenda.

2 Key connections between the Olympic agenda and policy

Key connections between the Olympic agenda and policy

BIS & DWP DCMS/GOE & BIS

DCMS/GOE DoH, DCSF,

Communities and Local Government Communities and Local Government

FCO Communities and Government

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

Key connections between the Olympic agenda and policy

GLA DoH, LSC, LDA

Visit London GLA

The key connections

2.2.1 Although Communities and Local Government is identified as the lead

Key connections between the Olympic agenda and policy

London 2012 Olympics

Building prosperous Communities/Regeneration (objective 2)

Facilitating sustainable development (objective 5)

Catalyst for improving local service delivery (objective 1)

Additional housing supply (objective 4)

Creating cohesive communities (objective 3)

Lessons from previous Games

3 Lessons from previous Games

Lessons from previous Games

Lessons from previous Games

Lessons from previous Games

Lessons from the 2002 Manchester Commonwealth Games

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

Lessons from previous Games

Issues arising for the London Olympics

Where the department can help to realise these benefits?

How the Olympics can help increase employment and skills?

access to job opportunities in public services

Ian Sanderson et al, Barriers to Employment in Newham, June 2004, p34.

4.5. How the Olympics can help address social cohesion?

4.5.4 There is an opportunity to use London 2012 to focus on building understanding

How can the Olympics support affordable housing?

How the Department can help?

How the Olympics can help develop tourism?

How the Department can help?

Benefits for the wider region and the national economy

4.9.6 Potential benefits:

5 Conclusions and recommendations

Conclusions and recommendations

Conclusions and recommendations

LOCOG LSC ODA PSA RDA RSL UEL

ISBN: 978 1 4098 0950 0

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi