2. Progress in Preparing Venues

2.1 As the boroughs most closely located to the development of the principal site for the Olympic Park and the major venues we are encouraged by the progress which the Olympic Development Authority (ODA) has made in a relatively short space of time since taking responsibility for the Park site. We would congratulate the LDA on the successful conclusion to the process of land assembly and transfer to ODA in July 2007. We recognise that this process was not without its challenges but through close working of all parties and the commitment of boroughs to assist in the process this was achieved with the minimum amount of disruption and impact on surrounding communities. The visible transformation of the site through remediation and demolition is rapidly advancing and we anticipate the start of major construction activity on site in 2008.

2.2 Maintaining a close working relationship with ODA in particular will be vital to the ongoing success of the build programme. It is vital that all parties continue to build the confidence and trust of local people and communities, through the provision of timely information regarding site development and potential impacts upon communities to minimise and mitigate the situation. We welcome the introduction of the Construction Hot Line which provides immediate contact and resolution of issues for local people and the establishment of construction newsletter informing residents of activity and progress.

2.3 We have sought to impress upon ODA the importance of engaging with our people and local communities throughout this process and emphasised the role which Boroughs can play in facilitating this through existing and established channels for community communication and engagement.

2.4 Our senior officer teams have been closely engaged with ODA in the progress of the design development of the individual venues. Whilst we have an interest in the design development of the Park and principal venues for their Games time use our principal concern is for their transformation and use in legacy and our detailed comments are given under that section heading. We recognise that the design development of the Park and key venues for the Games is now reaching critical path decision points and that decisions must be taken to ensure infrastructure is delivered on time for the Games. At the same time many of these decisions will establish critical "fixes" which will determine the scope of subsequent legacy opportunity. As the legacy to be derived from hosting the Games in East London is our primary concern we continue to press for the closest possible involvement in decision making process where this has a direct bearing upon legacy and have welcomed the creation of the Olympic Park Regeneration Steering Group (OPRSG) which provides governance and oversight on these issues of strategic importance to Boroughs.

3. Developments in Securing Funding for all aspects of the Games

3.1 Pronouncements during 2007 summer gave greater clarity and visibility to the funding of the Games infrastructure, contribution towards legacy transformation and contingency. Boroughs do not have a direct involvement in the costs and budgetary provision of delivering the Games time infrastructure, save that in the event of any scope and or cost escalation we would wish to be assured that this was not met from budgetary provision to the detriment of available budgets to deliver transformation and legacy.

3.2 With regard to the funding of legacy it is very early days in the process of defining the Legacy Master Plan to have certainty with regard to budgetary requirement and funding provision. From the joint work undertaken to date it is however clear that the budgets available to the ODA for transformation of the Olympic site and venues will only provide the basic facilities and infrastructure to initiate the legacy. The legacy aspirations of all parties displayed at the Vision Day event, held on 20th September were rightly ambitious but suggest that to deliver against such expectations will require greater funding than identified to date.

3.3 As a consequence we remain concerned that the currently identified levels of funding for legacy will be insufficient to deliver on the original Games commitments to deliver the "best ever legacy". We seek assurance and firm commitments to an agreed sum for legacy transformation, and that this sum is protected against further pressure from Games related costs.

3.4 This will require clear visibility of the legacy business plans for individual venues, the park itself and an overall legacy business plan which takes account of the delivery mechanisms for legacy and the opportunities presented by the development platforms identified in the Legacy Masterplan. Securing sufficient funding to deliver and sustain a high quality legacy will require appropriate capital and revenue funding. There is a clear expectation amongst some stakeholders that a significant element of this funding will have to be generated through the development of the post Games site. We are particularly concerned to ensure that in a desire to generate revenues, principally to repay the HM Treasury and the Lottery, this does not place unacceptable pressures on the development of the area, leading to unacceptable densities of housing development and/or inappropriate forms of economic activity undermining the ability to create sustainable communities.

3.5 To date we have been given assurances by LDA as the land holder and nominal legacy client that it would not seek to promote development strategies which negated the ability to deliver sustainable community outcomes. This is the overriding objective of Boroughs and we will continue to press for that commitment to be honoured through the development of the legacy plan proposals. Nevertheless we recognise the need to generate financial returns from the development of the post Games site and we will work with partners through the legacy Masterplan process to examine innovative proposals for delivery mechanisms which will address financial imperatives whilst securing sustainable outcomes.

3.6 Beyond the funding of the Games legacy there are a range of wider aspects of funding associated with the Games that require commentary.

3.7 Boroughs together with key partners have embarked upon an ambitious programme to create jobs for local people, enhance skills capability amongst our communities and deliver support to local businesses, predominantly in the SME sector to secure opportunity from the Games and embed long term capacity and capability. Whilst our early efforts are demonstrating successes, this will require long term financial support to intervention initiatives. We are grateful for the financial contribution from LDA (to December 2009) to fund the Local Employment and Training Framework (LETF) and the commitment of further financial support to 2015. We are concerned to ensure that further monies will be available (post 2009) to ensure that these essential programmes can be carried through.

3.8 The development of the site and principal venues and Games time itself will place a significant burden upon the existing resources and services of boroughs. The recent planning permission and associated Section 106 agreement makes provision for payments to boroughs to mitigate the increased burden on borough departments to deliver these services to mitigate the adverse impact on our communities. At this point in time as we work with London 2012 to assess the level of additional demand we cannot be certain that the monies offered by ODA will be sufficient to meet this burden and we need to be assured that equivalent recognition of their responsibility and therefore financial contribution will be forthcoming from LOCOG in respect of additional Games time impact.

3.9 Whilst there is recognition and a proposed contribution towards the creation of a legacy in respect of the Park and venues, and the contribution to mitigating the additional services burden there appears as yet to be no recognition of, and therefore no contribution toward enhancing the wider public realm. If London is to present itself favourably whilst in the glare and spotlight of the world then there must be recognition of and funding support to enhance the wider public realm. Failure to address this issue risks creating a visible gap between the infrastructure and environment created within the Park and the un-enhanced communities and neighbourhoods adjacent. To date there is no visibility or proposals as to how this critical issue is to be addressed and there is increasing risk that it will be too late to address some of the more challenging issues. We would urge that consideration is given to funding initiatives that will support such projects.

3.10 A final aspect of funding which requires to be addressed is that of the Cultural Olympiad In spectator and participation terms this creates even grater levels of attraction and engagement than the Games themselves. For the 5 Host Boroughs this represents the greatest opportunity to engage our communities in the opportunity to celebrate the talents that exist whilst building cohesion and inclusion. LOCOG's budgets do not contain provision to fund this tier of cultural activity. Whilst fully committed to the opportunity that the Cultural Olympiad presents for our communities without recourse to funding the aspirations espoused by Government and London 2012 will not be achieved.

4. Legacy Use of Venues (& impact on grass roots sport)

4.1 This has been an issue of primary concern for Boroughs to ensure that in legacy there is a clear plan to achieve long term viable utilisation of individual venues and that there is a coherent business plan for the Park as a whole. It is acknowledged that in legacy venues will have to address a range of expectations and uses from elite to community use; to the hosting of international, national, regional and local events but if there is not clear accessible community use within the legacy plans for each individual venue then the Legacy will fail to deliver on a key objective. We have a particular contribution to make to this aspect of the development of the Legacy plan in that as representatives of local communities, actively involved in the current provision of community services and facilities and engaged in raising active participation in sport and recreation we can input knowledge into this process.

4.2 To date boroughs have been consulted in the development of individual venues with mixed outcomes. In respect of the main stadium and the aquatics centre we remain of the view hat these represent missed opportunities to embed from the outset clear provision for community use and for the development of viable legacy plans. We are keen to ensure that our contribution is fully integrated at the outset. The creation of the Olympic Park Regeneration Steering Group where the 5 boroughs are now fully engaged as partners is a positive step forward and welcomed by boroughs. Similarly the establishment of the Sports Venues Legacy Group is a welcome forum within which to apply specific focus to the long term legacy use and viability of individual venues.

4.3 The following provides specific comments on individual venues;

Main Stadium;

4.4 Notwithstanding the decisions that have already been made regarding the legacy size of the main stadium, boroughs remain concerned that the failure to adopt a premiership football club as an anchor tenant, thus providing a strong financial cornerstone and embedded community programmes, was in our view a missed opportunity. If this option is closed, we are committed to working with partners to secure the long term viability of the stadium under the proposed tri-partite sports legacy. However, we are concerned that
• agreements with anchor tenants have yet to be signed
• the legacy solution must provide commitment to appropriate and affordable local community use, for which Boroughs have provided potential uses relating to sport and education
• The legacy scale of the venue is driven by proven need and viability, which may not warrant a permanent capacity of 25,000 seats.
• in the absence of a strong financial sporting anchor tenant there will be increased pressure for commercially focussed legacy uses of the non-play space in legacy at the expense of community utilisation.

4.5 On a positive note boroughs have welcomed the recent announcement from ODA to secure provision in legacy for the capacity for an athletics warm up track, making more viable securing major athletics events and alleviating some of the issues relating to incorporating community based athletics in association with the stadium. However, we do not believe that this area should be limited to permanent athletics, but provide a dual function as an event warm up track and a valuable open space for public and / or educational use.

Aquatics Centre;

4.6 Boroughs have engaged closely with the design development and legacy use proposals for the Aquatics centre, having consistently advanced the need to secure a strong community legacy offer. The main building will provide an iconic building that will be an asset for the Park in legacy. Undoubtedly the nature of the design not withstanding the cost reviews undertaken by ODA will present a cost premium as against a more functional design and the Boroughs area of concern will be to ensure that this is closely managed to ensure that it does not compromise functionality in legacy. In parallel with discussions on the core facility boroughs, led by LB Newham and Tower Hamlets, have worked closely with ODA to secure a solution for the provision of leisure water as a core legacy provision. Both boroughs have offered to make a capital contribution to the solution as long as this investment is reflected in affordable access to the centre for residents. Whilst boroughs are fully engaged in the development of an agreed design solution they remain concerned that as yet there is no overall funding proposal to secure this important provision.

Eton Manor

4.7 There has been considerable uncertainty surrounding confirmation of the proposed legacy offer for the Eton Manor site following its use as a key component of the Paralympic Games. This has been a particular frustration to boroughs who had accepted the amendments to the original plan which saw the Velodrome on this site in anticipation that the proposed mixed use legacy provision of hockey and tennis would provide significant community benefit in legacy. Boroughs are concerned that clear commitments must be made by the Lawn Tennis Association that represent a long term commitment to East London tennis as a legacy offer, and if this is not forthcoming boroughs have accepted a revised recommended legacy option combining hockey with a commercial 5 a side football offer.

IBC/MPC

4.8 Boroughs led by LB Hackney have welcomed the close engagement they have had in the process to define and develop the proposals for the IBC/MPC facility and its potential legacy use. The scale of the facilities and the opportunity they present in legacy is immense in contributing to the creation of a vibrant mixed economy solution that can contribute to the regeneration of the valley in legacy.

Indoor Arena

4.9 Boroughs, led by LB Hackney, have been closely involved in the planning of this arena. The range of legacy sports envisaged for this indoor centre match the identified need in the surrounding boroughs. The proposal that there should be a central focus on basketball, first made at the bid stage, is still at the heart of the plan. Borough led studies substantiating the basis for the arena's legacy viability, have been largely confirmed by the ODA's own work. The ODA's design brief has strongly reflected legacy needs while retaining a building that could host elite events. The ODA and LDA are actively working to find anchor tenants, while seeing the boroughs as having a key role in helping to build a local base of community users.

5. Standards of performance by UK participants

5.1 The involvement of boroughs in seeking to promote and foster enhance performance amongst local participants to encourage involvement at all levels has identified that income constraints plays a major barrier in enabling talented sportsmen and women from accessing higher levels of specialist coaching, competition and lifestyle support. Recent British Olympic teams have been significantly under-represented from low income and state schools citizens.

5.2 We believe that a real legacy from the 2012 Games would be a team that more equally represented the income profile of the UK population.

5.3 Borough funded initiatives such as the Newham Sports Academy, led by Tessa Sanderson, have had a significant success in improving local athletes' confidence, performance and belief in their ability. The Academy aims to ensure that athletes compete based solely on talent, not background, income or opportunity.

5.4 We are pleased that some National Sporting Agencies have responded positively to these initiatives. However, concern remains that traditional sports systems, and a lack of financial support for athletes from low income backgrounds, is perpetuating a significant barrier for many talented individuals.