Public Reports Pack Tuesday 01-Mar-2016 10.00 Regeneration Committee[1]

8/20/2019 Public Reports Pack Tuesday 01-Mar-2016 10.00 Regeneration Committee[1]

1/84

v1 2015

AGENDA

Meeting Regeneration CommitteeDate Tuesday 1 March 2016

Time 10.00 am

Place Committee Room 5, City Hall, TheQueen's Walk, London, SE1 2AA

Copies of the reports and any attachments may be found at:www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/regeneration-committee

Most meetings of the London Assembly and its Committees are webcast live atwww.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/webcasts where you can also view pastmeetings.

Members of the Committee Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman)Navin Shah AM (Deputy Chair)

James Cleverly AM MP

Andrew Dismore AMLen Duvall AM

A meeting of the Committee has been called by the Chairman of the Committee to deal with thebusiness listed below.

Mark Roberts, Executive Director of SecretariatMonday 22 February 2016

Further InformationIf you have questions, would like further information about the meeting or require special facilitiesplease contact: Joanna Brown/Teresa Young, Senior Committee Officers; Telephone: 020 7983 6559;email: [email protected] / [email protected]

For media enquiries please contact Lisa Lam, External Relations Officer; Telephone: 020 7983 4067,email: [email protected]. If you have any questions about individual items please contact theauthor whose details are at the end of the report.

This meeting will be open to the public, except for where exempt information is being discussed asnoted on the agenda. A guide for the press and public on attending and reporting meetings of localgovernment bodies, including the use of film, photography, social media and other means is availableat www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Openness-in-Meetings.pdf .

There is access for disabled people, and induction loops are available. There is limited underground

parking for orange and blue badge holders, which will be allocated on a first-come first-served basis.Please contact Facilities Management on 020 7983 4750 in advance if you require a parking space orfurther information.


2/84

Certificate Number: FS 80233

If you, or someone you know, needs a copy of the agenda, minutes or reportsin large print or Braille, audio, or in another language, then please call us on020 7983 4100 or email [email protected].


3/84

3

AgendaRegeneration CommitteeTuesday 1 March 2016

1

Apologies for Absence and Chairman's Announcements

To receive any apologies for absence and any announcements from the Chair.

2 Declarations of Interests (Pages 1 - 4)

Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.

Contact: Joanna Brown, [email protected] and Teresa Young,

[email protected] 020 7983 6559

The Committee is recommended to:

(a) Note the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table at

Agenda Item 2, as disclosable pecuniary interests;

(b) Note the declaration by any Member(s) of any disclosable pecuniary interests

in specific items listed on the agenda and the necessary action taken by the

Member(s) regarding withdrawal following such declaration(s); and

(c) Note the declaration by any Member(s) of any other interests deemed to berelevant (including any interests arising from gifts and hospitality received

which are not at the time of the meeting reflected on the Authority’s register

of gifts and hospitality, and noting also the advice from the GLA’s

Monitoring Officer set out at Agenda Item 2) and to note any necessary

action taken by the Member(s) following such declaration(s).

3

Minutes (Pages 5 - 48)

The Committee is recommended to confirm the minutes of the meeting of theCommittee held on 2 February 2016 to be signed by the Chairman as a correct

record.

The appendices to the minutes set out on pages 11 to 48 are attached for Members and

officers only but are available from the following area of the GLA’s website:

www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/regeneration-committee


4/84

4

4

Summary List of Actions (Pages 49 - 50)

Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat



The Committee is recommended to note the outstanding actions arising from a

previous meeting of the Committee.

5

Action Taken Under Delegated Authority (Pages 51 - 56)




The Committee is recommended to note the recent action taken by the Chairman,

Gareth Bacon AM, under delegated authority, following consultation with the

Deputy Chair, namely to agree the contents of a letter to the Mayor on issues

relating to Intensification Areas, as set out in the letter attached at Appendix 1 to

this report.

6

Response to Transport-led Regeneration; has TfL's Growth Fund risento the challenge? (Pages 57 - 64)




The Committee is recommended to note the response from the Deputy Mayor for

Transport to its report, Transpot-led Regeneration; has TfL’s Growth Fund risen to

the challenge?

7

Public Consultation and its Impact on Regeneration Projects(Pages 65 - 68)


Contact: Reece Harrris, [email protected]; 020 7983 5802.

The Committee is recommended to note the report as background to a discussion

with invited guests regarding public consultation and its impact on regeneration

projects, and to note the discussion.


5/84

5

8

Regeneration Committee Legacy Report 2013-2016 (Pages 69 - 78)


Contact: Richard Derecki, [email protected]; 020 7983 4899

The Committee is recommended to note the Regeneration Committee Legacy Report

2013-2016, as attached at Appendix 1 to the report.

9

Date of Next Meeting

The establishment of committees and dates for committee meetings in the 2016/17 Assembly

year will be agreed at the London Assembly’s Annual Meeting, scheduled to take place on

Friday, 13 May 2016.

10

Any Other Business the Chairman Considers Urgent


6/84

This page is intentionally left blank


7/84

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AAEnquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk v7/2015

Subject: Declarations of Interests

Report to: Regeneration Committee

Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 1 March 2016

This report will be considered in public

1. Summary

1.1 This report sets out details of offices held by Assembly Members for noting as disclosable pecuniaryinterests and requires additional relevant declarations relating to disclosable pecuniary interests, and

gifts and hospitality to be made.

2. Recommendations

2.1 That the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table below, be notedas disclosable pecuniary interests1 ;

2.2 That the declaration by any Member(s) of any disclosable pecuniary interests in specificitems listed on the agenda and the necessary action taken by the Member(s) regardingwithdrawal following such declaration(s) be noted; and

2.3 That the declaration by any Member(s) of any other interests deemed to be relevant(including any interests arising from gifts and hospitality received which are not at thetime of the meeting reflected on the Authority’s register of gifts and hospitality, andnoting also the advice from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer set out at below) and anynecessary action taken by the Member(s) following such declaration(s) be noted.

3. Issues for Consideration

3.1 Relevant offices held by Assembly Members are listed in the table overleaf:

1 The Monitoring Officer advises that: Paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct will only preclude a Member fromparticipating in any matter to be considered or being considered at, for example, a meeting of the Assembly,where the Member has a direct Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in that particular matter. The effect of this isthat the ‘matter to be considered, or being considered’ must be about the Member’s interest. So, by way ofexample, if an Assembly Member is also a councillor of London Borough X, that Assembly Member will beprecluded from participating in an Assembly meeting where the Assembly is to consider a matter about theMember’s role / employment as a councillor of London Borough X; the Member will not be precluded from

participating in a meeting where the Assembly is to consider a matter about an activity or decision of LondonBorough X.

Agenda Item 2

Page 1


8/84

Member InterestTony Arbour AM Member, LFEPA; Member, LB RichmondJennette Arnold OBE AM Committee of the RegionsGareth Bacon AM Chairman of LFEPA; Chairman of the London Local

Resilience Forum; Member, LB BexleyKemi Badenoch AMMayor John Biggs AM Mayor of Tower Hamlets (LB); Member, LLDC BoardAndrew Boff AM Member, LFEPA; Congress of Local and Regional

Authorities (Council of Europe)James Cleverly AM MP Member of ParliamentTom Copley AM Member, LFEPAAndrew Dismore AM Member, LFEPALen Duvall AMRoger Evans AM Deputy Mayor; Committee of the Regions; Trust for

London (Trustee)

Nicky Gavron AMDarren Johnson AM Member, LFEPAJenny Jones AM Member, House of LordsStephen Knight AM Member, LFEPA; Member, LB RichmondKit Malthouse AM MP Member of ParliamentJoanne McCartney AMSteve O’Connell AM Member, LB Croydon; MOPAC Non-Executive Adviser for

NeighbourhoodsCaroline Pidgeon MBE AMMurad Qureshi AM Congress of Local and Regional Authorities (Council of

Europe)

Dr Onkar Sahota AMNavin Shah AMValerie Shawcross CBE AMRichard Tracey AM Chairman of the London Waste and Recycling Board;

Mayor's Ambassador for River TransportFiona Twycross AM Member, LFEPA

[Note: LB - London Borough; LFEPA - London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority;LLDC – London Legacy Development Corporation; MOPAC – Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime]

3.2 Paragraph 10 of the GLA’s Code of Conduct, which reflects the relevant provisions of the LocalismAct 2011, provides that:

- where an Assembly Member has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter to be consideredor being considered or at

(i) a meeting of the Assembly and any of its committees or sub-committees; or

(ii) any formal meeting held by the Mayor in connection with the exercise of the Authority’sfunctions

- they must disclose that interest to the meeting (or, if it is a sensitive interest, disclose the factthat they have a sensitive interest to the meeting); and

- must not (i) participate, or participate any further, in any discussion of the matter at themeeting; or (ii) participate in any vote, or further vote, taken on the matter at the meeting

UNLESS

Page 2


9/84

- they have obtained a dispensation from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer (in accordance withsection 2 of the Procedure for registration and declarations of interests, gifts and hospitality –Appendix 5 to the Code).

3.3 Failure to comply with the above requirements, without reasonable excuse, is a criminal offence; as isknowingly or recklessly providing information about your interests that is false or misleading.

3.4 In addition, the Monitoring Officer has advised Assembly Members to continue to apply the test thatwas previously applied to help determine whether a pecuniary / prejudicial interest was arising -namely, that Members rely on a reasonable estimation of whether a member of the public, withknowledge of the relevant facts, could, with justification, regard the matter as so significant that itwould be likely to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest.

3.5 Members should then exercise their judgement as to whether or not, in view of their interests andthe interests of others close to them, they should participate in any given discussions and/ordecisions business of within and by the GLA. It remains the responsibility of individual Members tomake further declarations about their actual or apparent interests at formal meetings noting also

that a Member’s failure to disclose relevant interest(s) has become a potential criminal offence.

3.6 Members are also required, where considering a matter which relates to or is likely to affect a personfrom whom they have received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £25 within theprevious three years or from the date of election to the London Assembly, whichever is the later, todisclose the existence and nature of that interest at any meeting of the Authority which they attendat which that business is considered.

3.7 The obligation to declare any gift or hospitality at a meeting is discharged, subject to the proviso setout below, by registering gifts and hospitality received on the Authority’s on-line database. The on-line database may be viewed here:

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/gifts-and-hospitality.

3.8 If any gift or hospitality received by a Member is not set out on the on-line database at the time ofthe meeting, and under consideration is a matter which relates to or is likely to affect a person fromwhom a Member has received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £25, Membersare asked to disclose these at the meeting, either at the declarations of interest agenda item or whenthe interest becomes apparent.

3.9 It is for Members to decide, in light of the particular circumstances, whether their receipt of a gift orhospitality, could, on a reasonable estimation of a member of the public with knowledge of therelevant facts, with justification, be regarded as so significant that it would be likely to prejudice theMember’s judgement of the public interest. Where receipt of a gift or hospitality could be soregarded, the Member must exercise their judgement as to whether or not, they should participate inany given discussions and/or decisions business of within and by the GLA.

4. Legal Implications

4.1 The legal implications are as set out in the body of this report.

5. Financial Implications5.1 There are no financial implications arising directly from this report.

Page 3


10/84

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985List of Background Papers: None

Contact Officer: Joanna Brown and Teresa Young, Senior Committee OfficersTelephone: 020 7983 6559E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected]

Page 4


11/84

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AAEnquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk

MINUTES Meeting: Regeneration CommitteeDate: Tuesday 2 February 2016Time: 10.00 amPlace: Committee Room 5, City Hall, The

Queen's Walk, London, SE1 2AA

Copies of the minutes may be found at:

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/regeneration

Present:

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman)Navin Shah AM (Deputy Chair)James Cleverly AM MPAndrew Dismore AMJoanne McCartney AM

1

Apologies for Absence and Chairman's Announcements (Item 1)

1.1 An apology for absence was received from Len Duvall AM, for whom Joanne McCartney AM

attended as a substitute.

2

Declarations of Interests (Item 2)

2.1 Resolved:

That the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table at

Agenda Item 2, as disclosable pencuniary interests, be noted.

Agenda Item 3

Page 5


12/84

Greater London AuthorityRegeneration CommitteeTuesday 2 February 2016

3

Minutes (Item 3)

3.1 Resolved:

That the minutes of the Regeneration Committee held on 3 November 2015 be

signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

4

Summary List of Actions (Item 4)

4.1 Resolved:

That the completed actions arising from previous meetings of the Committee, as

listed in the report, be noted.

5 Action Taken Under Delegated Authority (Item 5)

5.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.

5.2 In relation to the recommendation to note the summary of the Committee’s site visit to the

Mill Hill East and West Hampstead Interchange Intensification Areas, Andrew Dismore AM

stated that at the Mill Hill East visit, he had understood that the developers had also seemed

to suggest that if the development were sped up it would affect the property prices. TheChairman stated that the developers had vigorously rejected this interpretation on the day.

The Chairman proposed that the difference in opinion be noted.

5.3 Resolved:

(a) That the recent action taken by the Chairman, Gareth Bacon AM, under

delegated authority, following consultation with the Deputy Chair and other

Members of the Committee, to agree the Committee’s report, Transport-led

regeneration; Has TfL’s Growth Fund risen to the challenge? arising from its

scrutiny investigation of transport-led regeneration be noted;

(b) That the report Transport-led regeneration; Has TfL’s Growth Fund risen to

the challenge? be noted;

(c) That the action taken by the Chairman, Gareth Bacon AM, under delegated

authority, following consultation with the Deputy Chair, namely to agree the

arrangements for the Committee’s site visit to an Intensification Area on

1 December 2015 be noted;

(d)

The summary of its site visit to the Mill Hill East and West Hampstead

Page 6


13/84


Interchange Intensification Areas be noted, together with the comments in

paragraph 5.2 above; and

(e)

The joint letter from the Chairs of the Regeneration Committee and TransportCommittee to Lord Adonis, Chair of the National Infrastructure Commission,

be noted.

6 The London Legacy Development Corporation and the Old Oak and ParkRoyal Development Corporation (Item 6)

6.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat as background to

putting questions, in two sessions, on the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC)

and the Old Oak Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC).

6.2 The following guests were in attendance for the first session:

• David Goldstone CBE, Chief Executive, LLDC; and

• Dr Paul Brickell, Executive Director of Regeneration and Community Partnerships,

LLDC.

6.3 A transcript of the discussion during the first session is attached at Appendix 1.

6.4

During the course of the discussion, the Chief Executive of the LLDC undertook to provide:

• An explanation as to why the LLDC’s loan from ArcelorMittal Orbit Limited stood at

£10.6 million in March 2015 (when at the time that the Mayor had unveiled the design

for the Orbit in March 2010, he had indicted that only £6 million might be repayable);

• A breakdown of the running costs of the ArcelorMittal Orbit (including the Podium,

restaurant and café in the adjacent site) in 2014-15 and of budgeted costs for 2015-16

and 2016-17 (highlighting additional running costs associated with the new slide); and

• Details of visitor numbers to the ArcelorMittal Orbit since it opened.

6.5 During the discussion, the Chief Executive of the LLDC agreed to explore the possibility of

linking the apprenticeship schemes at the LDDC with those at the OPDC.

6.6 In the second session, the Committee put questions to:

• Sir Edward Lister, Chairman, OPDC; and

• Victoria Hills, Chief Executive, OPDC.

6.7 A transcript of the discussion during the second session is attached at Appendix 2.

6.8

At the conclusion of the meeting, the Chairman thanked the guests for their attendance and

Page 7


14/84


contributions to the meeting.

6.9 Resolved:

(a) That the report and the discussion with invited guests from the LLDC and the

OPDC be noted.

(b) That the Chairman write to the LLDC with the actions arising from the

meeting.

7

Regeneration Committee Work Programme (Item 7)

7.1

The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.

7.2 Resolved:

(a) That the work programme for the remainder of the 2015/16 Assembly year be

noted;

(b) That authority be delegated to the Chairman, in consultation with the Deputy

Chair, to agree the contents of a letter to the Mayor on issues relating to

Intensification Areas;

(c) That authority be delegated to the Chairman, in consultation with the Deputy

Chair, to agree the Committee’s report arising from its investigation on

Business Improvement Districts; and

(d) That the summary of the Committee’s briefings on Crossrail 1 and Crossrail 2,

as attached at Appendix 1 to the report, be noted.

8

Date of Next Meeting (Item 8)

8.1 The next meeting of the Committee was scheduled for Tuesday, 1 March 2016 at 10am in

Committee Room 5, City Hall.

Page 8


15/84


9

Any Other Business the Chairman Considers Urgent (Item 9)

9.1 There was no other business the Chairman considered urgent.

10

Close of Meeting

10.1 The meeting ended at 12.10pm.

Chair Date

Contact Officer: Joanna Brown/Teresa Young, Senior Committee Officers; Telephone: 0207983 6559; email: [email protected] /[email protected]

Page 9


16/84

Page 10

This page is intentionally left blank


17/84

Appendix 1

Regeneration Committee – 2 February 2016

Transcript of Agenda Item 6 – The London Legacy Development Corporation

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): Item 6 is the main item of business today, which is the London Legacy

Development Corporation (LLDC) and the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC). We will

start with the LLDC. Can I welcome Dr Paul Brickell and David Goldstone CBE, who are our main guests for

this section?

The first question falls to me and I imagine this is going to take some time to answer. It is initially for you,

David. Four years on from the [2012 London Olympic] Games, to what extent has the LLDC delivered on its

promise to provide a sustainable legacy for the Park’s venues?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): We are well on the way to doing exactly that. This alwayswas anticipated to be a long journey. We are transforming an area that was in desperate need of investment

and that was what stood behind the bid. As you said, whilst we are coming up to four years since the Games, it

is not yet two years since the venues reopened and so we are still in early days in that journey to establish the

Park and the venues as the very popular visitor attraction and world-class venues that we anticipate. We have

made really good progress. We have had over 8 million visitors to the Park since it reopened less than two

years ago. The Aquatic Centre has had approaching 1.5 million visitors and the Copper Box around 750,000.

In terms of the popularity of the venues and establishing them as places that people want to come to and use

and will become part of how the area now operates, we have made really good progress.

Long-term financial sustainability is, obviously, a challenge. Most, if not all, publicly owned facilities such asswimming pools typically require some sort of subsidy. We have very bespoke venues here.

The Aquatic Centre was a specific venue designed for the Games and an iconic design in its own right. The

Copper Box Arena is a very successful multipurpose venue. We have had great visitor numbers already.

However, what we are looking for is for that growth as the Park develops and the area develops over the

coming years that those numbers will continue to grow. That will really help to establish them on a sustainable

footing.

If you think, for example, the Copper Box is pretty much adjacent to Here East, which is becoming a new hub

of high-tech employment and it will get over the coming years towards about 7,500 jobs there. Businesses are

moving in now, BT Sport broadcasts from there now, Loughborough University moved in in autumn 2015 andthere are a lot of partners moving into Here East this autumn. The East Wick and Sweetwater housing

developments are also almost adjacent to the Copper Box. We start onsite at East Wick this coming summer

and we will have 1,500 new homes coming there. They are at the heart of what will be new communities with

thousands of new homes coming and thousands of new jobs and I think that will build the long-term

sustainability of the venues that we all sought from the bid and that was promised out of the Games. We are

at early days, but we have made really good progress.

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): The Aquatic Centre and the Copper Box between them lost in excess of

£640,000 in the last financial year. You said that the visitor numbers were very high. How much higher do

they have to be and do you have the capacity to accommodate the extra visitors required in order to get them

on a breakeven basis?

Page 11


18/84

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): Getting them to that breakeven basis, firstly, I should say,

is the policy that the [LLDC] Board wants us to achieve and so it is absolutely an aspiration that we are working

towards. It is not only about visitor numbers. It is about a number of streams of both tackling costs and

maximising revenue.

Some of the factors behind that cost outturn that we saw in our accounts last year are to do with the utilities

cost of running that venue, which was difficult to know until we actually had it functioning in its first year. Itopened in only April 2014. We now have that first-year information and we now have a programme of

measures to try to really tackle the large utilities cost in there. Some of it was about the rates and we have a

challenge going on to the level of rates cost that is being borne. There is an issue about costs that we are

tackling.

In terms of maximising revenue, some of it is about visitor numbers, as we have said. Some of it is about

pricing. Also, we are looking at measures to maximise other revenue. Both venues, the Copper Box and the

Aquatic Centre, are being successful in attracting events and are being used for ad hoc events. We have had a

lot of sports events. We have had very successful netball and boxing. The Copper Box has been pretty much

full for the last two weekends. There are those sorts of one-off events. Also, at the Aquatic Centre, we arelooking, for example, to use some of the unused spaces. There is the large Welcome Zone and we are looking

at how we can maximise the revenues from that as a space that could be used for conferences or other sorts of

events. We are looking at whether there are naming rights opportunities in relation to both venues.

There are a number of revenue streams that we can pursue. There are a number of strands of tackling the

costs that we are also focusing on. All of that is part of making them as efficient as possible and making sure

we can get them on that better financial footing whilst also bringing in that long-term development. That will

bring all of those thousands of people to live in the area and the jobs that will be created in the area. It will

increase demand and usage as well.

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): Are you satisfied that your pricing structure at the venues is the right one?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): The pricing structure is quite a complex challenge. We are

trying to hit some competing objectives. We revisited the policy last year. We are very committed to making

sure that the venues are popular and are used amongst the local community. That is why we reference our

pricing off what is happening in the host boroughs. We look at what is happening in the four boroughs around

the Park area in setting our pricing. We have, as I said, as a Board agreed a policy that the prices should aim

for helping the venues to break even and so we are trying both to hit an objective of maximising usage and

uptake and to help that financial sustainability.

I think it is an appropriate mix. We have a range of concessions. We are encouraging usage. The prices

changes we introduced in 2015 did not appear to affect usage at all. The visitor numbers continued to

increase after the changes in pricing were introduced last year. They have not had any adverse effect.

Therefore, we are in the right place, but it will evolve over time as we learn more and as there is more

development.

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): OK. What period of time are you looking at in order to get the venues on a

breakeven basis? For the moment, restrict your answer to the Copper Box and the Aquatic Centre because we

have some questions about the ArcelorMittal-Orbit tower that will come later and I do not want to tread on my

colleagues’ toes.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): Yes, I can focus on those two venues.

Page 12


19/84

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): Yes. How soon do you think you will be able to get them both on a

breakeven basis?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): I do not know today that we can and I do not think that

we can commit that we will get them to a breakeven in a defined timescale. As I said, it is not unusual for

facilities like this to require some level of subsidy. What the actual take-up will be as we develop the newhousing and the new employment opportunities in the area, to some extent, we are going to see as it comes. I

would be maybe giving you over-optimistic projections if I said that they were going to break even at a point in

time soon.

It is important to remember, certainly in terms of our financial planning, we have recognised that in our ten-

year plan - which we discussed with the Greater London Authority (GLA) as part of the budgeting process - we

have the £10 million a year ongoing precept-based subsidy in those plans. That is part of what helps to make

sure that we can, hopefully, over that sort of time period keep the venues operating.

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): When is the ten-year plan due to expire?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): It was a 2014/15 plan looking ten years forward.

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): The LLDC was supposed to be a sunset organisation that was supposed to

have gradually faded away, was it not? That seems to have changed. You seem to be projecting long into the

future now.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): The timescale has changed rather than the reality that we

are not an organisation that will be a permanent part of the architecture, if you like. I would still say that we

expect in time that we will be wound up and the functions, roles and responsibilities, but it will be --

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): We will all be wound up, eventually.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): John Maynard Keynes said, “In the long run we are all

dead”, did he not?

What has changed? Introducing Olympicopolis has changed that dynamic. If we go back 18 months when

there was talk of us as a sunset organisation, we could see at that time as the Park was established and as

some of the regeneration programmes matured that we were anticipating a decline in the profile of staff and

the organisation’s activity. That was leading into a time in the foreseeable future when we would be woundup.

That will still be the case in time. Olympicopolis is a very large and very complex scheme. It is about a

£1.3 billion spend. We have a lot of partners that we are managing and it is at its very early stages. We are

only just at the beginning of that road. I am still anticipating that we will eventually become a sunset

organisation again, but it is going to be on a later timescale. We are doing a lot of work now at the moment

looking at what our transition strategy should be and taking a full look at our assets, liabilities, roles and

responsibilities and how they might be sensibly managed. We are doing some work on that at the moment and

we will be discussing that with our Board over the coming months to start trying to map out what that looks

like. The idea that we will eventually be wound up and the responsibilities transferred elsewhere has not

changed, but it is on a longer timescale because Olympicopolis is such a major change to that programme.

Page 13


20/84

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): Sure, yes. That is not an unreasonable position. Olympicopolis, clearly, is

very large. It is an addition to the Park. It was not originally foreseen. However, to take it back to the venues,

before the Olympicopolis project was first tabled, there must have been a plan around the venues and where

you were expecting to be by a certain point in time. Are you on track to achieving that?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): In terms of visitor numbers, in terms of popularity and in

terms of achieving a number of objectives around local engagement and local usage, all of those things areahead of target. The general performance of the venues in terms of their contribution to the regeneration of

the area and their contribution to visitor usage and their usage by local communities is really successful and is

ahead of target. As I said, the financial performance is a challenge.

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): I would be inclined to agree with that. The financial sustainability angle is

not really where it needs to be, is it?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): As I said, that is a continuing challenge. We are not

ducking that at all and I am acknowledging that. I think it will improve over time as we exploit the other

revenue streams that we can now see and tackle the cost issues we have, particularly on rates and on utilities.We can see it improving. What you have picked up from the accounting is that it was a worse position that we

had anticipated and so, financially, it is a bigger challenge than we had expected. However, in all of the

performance measures, it has been better and we can see a lot of good reasons why it will improve.

In relation to Olympicopolis, it is worth playing that back. This is a major enhancement to the original legacy

plans. We are going to bring world-class arts, culture and educational institutions. It creates itself about

£3 billion in extra economic value in the area. That is what the business case is predicated on. That includes

more visitors and, again, more jobs in itself. It will bring a lot more people to the Park. It will help to make the

Park a new heart of east London and a new heart for London. Again, that will only enhance the attractiveness

of the venues.

Therefore, it is relevant to think about that and to think about the whole picture of how the Park gets

regenerated, helps to regenerate the local area and helps to create this new heart of London that we are trying

to establish.

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): The argument that you are making is entirely fair and it is one that I accept,

largely. I am just surprised and slightly concerned about what looks to me like a very big underperformance

from a financial point of view of these iconic venues. I have been to see them. I have been there with you and

have looked around them. They are superb and they look great. However, if they are getting lots of visitor

numbers and the costs are, apparently, running out of control - and, again, I accept what you say aboutbearing down on costs and having a look at that and how numbers will increase because the regeneration is

ongoing - it looks very unsustainable and a bit shaky at the moment. Are you able to reassure me that that is

not the case?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): I can reassure you. First of all, it is not out of control. We

are fully aware of the position. We know what the causes are and we are tackling those. In terms of

sustainability, it will improve over time as we get all of those other uses coming in and there is capacity. They

are not turning people away because there is no capacity for further use. There is that opportunity for

increased usage and for improved income not only from uses but also from the other strands of income that I

mentioned. Also, we have opportunities, as we know, to reduce cost.

Page 14


21/84

We are on it. It is a challenge and I am not ducking that and I am not ducking that the financial performance

in 2014/15 was worse than we hoped it would be. That has created a real pressure for us that we are tackling.

It is an important part of creating what will be an area with so much other attraction and other reasons for

people to come that to focus on this in isolation is slightly missing the point. We are creating a place that

visitors will want to come to.

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): It is going to be a long meeting, David. It is not in isolation.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): No, I know.

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): When the 2015/16 accounts come out, David, are you expecting an

improved performance from the venues compared to 2014/15?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): We report. We produce forecasts every quarter. The

overall costs of the venues will probably be similar in 2015/16 to 2014/15. We are doing things now to

improve. Bear in mind that when we only really knew the first-year position we were already into this year and

that is why we have identified a number of steps, we have discussed them with our Investment Committee inthe second half of this year and those will start benefiting in the coming periods. Therefore, 2015/16 will be

similar to 2014/15 but we will hope to see an improvement as more people come in the Park, as we tackle the

costs and as we pursue other income streams going forward.

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): OK. Paul, how are you going to encourage more people to visit the Park?

Dr Paul Brickell (Executive Director of Regeneration and Community Partnerships, LLDC): The key

thing that David has pointed out is that people will start visiting the Park as increasing numbers of people work

there. We have always seen this as a Park where people live. They visit the Park because they live there. They

visit the Park because they work there. They visit the Park because they are moving from one bit of the Parkto another, and they are coming for the attractions. All of those things are going to go to a different level in

the next year, really. You have already pointed out that the east is now beginning to fill up with people and by

the summer you will begin to count in thousands rather than in tens or hundreds the people who are in there.

East Village - and we can probably talk about housing in a minute - is now full. The homes are, essentially,

full. At Chobham Manor there are eight households living there and so that is beginning and there will be a

couple of hundred by the late summer. East Wick and Sweetwater are coming on. That is the residential

component really beginning to ramp up.

You made a point about people using the venues not just as active participants but also as audiences. Theaudiences are building as the pipeline of events comes in. With events, we are going to start having

50,000-plus people coming every other Saturday to the Park for football matches and so that is massive.

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): West Ham?

Dr Paul Brickell (Executive Director of Regeneration and Community Partnerships, LLDC): Yes. That

is not only people coming to football matches, but that is an awful lot of people understanding what else there

is already to do in the Park and gossiping about that to their families, who will come from all across the

southeast. All of those things can only add to visitor numbers. When you then start having in two, three, four

and five years the different elements of Olympicopolis coming in, there are many, many more reasons to work

there, to be a student there and to visit galleries and so forth there. It is very easy to chart a massive ramping-

Page 15


22/84

up in the number of people who are coming there on the plans that are already in place. We have not started

talking about the slide yet. We will make sure we will talk about slides.

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): Yes, I do not want to queer someone else’s pitch, but that is going to raise

its head shortly. OK.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): Just in round numbers, we are going to have about4.5 million visitors to the Park this year, which is --

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): Last year it was 3.1 million?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): It was about 3.5 million last year and about 4.5 million this

year. We exceeded the target of 3.1 million. We exceeded that. The target is 4.4 million this year and we

expect to slightly exceed that again. Then we go to 5.5 million and 6 million and then we will get towards

7 million and 8 million over the coming years. That is based on bottom-up attractions, the things that are

coming, West Ham playing, more people working and more people living there. We will get to those 1 million-

plus-per-year increases year-to-year. It will grow and it will expand and we do have the analysis that supportsthat.

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): OK. You are confident sitting here today that the venues will improve and

will get to a sustainable footing, but it is just going to take time because of the other developments on the

Park?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): I am confident that they will improve. I am not

committing that they are going to break even. They will get so that they are sustainable as a part of the Park,

the venues and the other developments, moving forward. Yes, absolutely. It will improve as we go forward

and as there is more development.

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): The venues are sustainable as part of the Park and so, on their own, they

would not be sustainable?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): For example, we talked about transitioning and whether

we were sunset. One of the things that is in place to create that long-term sustainability for the Park is what

we call a ‘fixed estate charge’. It is about creating one of the great estates that other landowners in London

and in other parts of the country have and that people will pay a charge, effectively, to be part of that

environment. That is an income flow that will help us increasingly and then our successors when we have

reached that sunset point at a future time to keep the Park sustainable and the venues being a very importantpart of that. I am absolutely confident that it will become sustainable as a Park long-term with the venues

absolutely at the heart of it.

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): OK. Thank you.

Navin Shah AM (Deputy Chair): I have a number of questions about the proposal for a slide for the Orbit

tower. As a starting point, I note that your forecast suggests that the ArcelorMittal Orbit tower will make a

loss of £500,000 this year, 2015/16. Given that situation, what difference do you think that a slide will make

to visitor numbers as well as the financial viability of the tower itself?

Page 16


23/84

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): What we are talking about here is the world’s longest

enclosed slide. It is a pretty significant new addition to the Park and to the attractions and we are really

excited about the impact that this will have in terms of people coming.

I do not know if you know. I do not know if you see Time Out . Time Out has - this is global - 30 things to do

in 2016 and number one of 30 says, “Hit the slide at ArcelorMittal Orbit”. That was its number one thing to do

in 2016. That is not us saying; that is Time Out saying it. That is the sort of thing that says to us that this isgoing to be a popular thing that people are going to want to come and do.

For the first year it was open, the Orbit did require subsidy. We had well over 100,000 people use it, which

would put it in the top 20 attractions in London in its first year. It was behind what we hoped it would be, but

that was a pretty significant and successful performance in its own right.

With the Orbit slide, to go to your question specifically, we expect to double the numbers. We will get to

around 250,000 users a year. There will be a charge for using the slide in addition to the entry to the Orbit

and so that is why it will really improve the performance.

To go to your second question specifically, our forecast is that within about five years the Orbit, including the

slide, will have recovered that cost and will be generating a surplus and contributing.

Navin Shah AM (Deputy Chair): What is the cost of erecting the slide and who is paying for it?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): The total cost of erecting the slide is around £3.5 million

and we are paying for it. We are paying contractors and that includes all of the design and the project

management. If you do not mind, we have contractors delivering it at the moment and so I do not want to

break down the elements, but it is about £3.5 million in total. If you think of 200,000 people coming a year,

the charge will be about £5 a head and so you can see that it is a thing that can pay back pretty successfully ina relatively short time.

Navin Shah AM (Deputy Chair): Sorry. Excuse me if I misheard. Can you confirm? When is the

completion? When will it start? When will it become operational? When do you reckon you will start actually

making profits? Can you give us your target here?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): In terms of it being open, we have said this spring. We are

going to announce properly a launch date fairly soon. If you do not mind, rather than giving a specific date

today, we will announce that. We have manufacturing and construction going on at the moment. We have

contractors engaged. It will be before this summer and we will announce the date in the very near future.

I have said that we are talking about five years. In terms of covering the cost, in 2020/21 - or about five

financial years hence - we expect the Orbit, including the slide, to be making an overall surplus and, therefore,

that will be when it has paid back its investment.

Navin Shah AM (Deputy Chair): Beyond 2015/16, you have made projections until you start breaking even

and so what losses every year are you going to be incurring?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): For this investment - as we do for all of our investments -

we do a business case about the upfront investment and the impact on the costs and revenues and then

effectively derive from that when it pays back and generates a return. It is on that basis that I am describing it.

Yes, those figures then feed into our ten-year planned projections that we submit to the GLA.

Page 17


24/84

Navin Shah AM (Deputy Chair): Can you give the Committee some details about the loan from Mittal? The

notes I have here indicate that the LLDC owed £10.4 million, which was repayable to Mittal-Orbit. Beyond the

£1.4 million in interest that there is, why has the figure increased from the original £6 million loan announced

with Orbit in 2010?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): Your second question I would need to come back to youon because I have to say that I do not have the details of the 2010 loan.

Navin Shah AM (Deputy Chair): It is an incredible and quite staggering increase from the original £6 million

loan figure now going up in terms of £10.4 million repayable to Mittal-Orbit. Yes?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): I will say two things. I do not have the details to hand of

the original loan in 2010. I could come back to you on that and why those numbers have increased. The loan

becomes repayable only once the venue generates a surplus. At the moment, there is no repayment of the

loan and we have no obligation until the venue is overall profitable. Therefore, if we reach that point in the

way that I anticipate, we will then start making repayments of that loan. At the moment, it is not a burden onus. It would be if we were in the happy position where the venue achieves what we hope and expect out of

the slide, bringing in those extra people and creating that new attraction so that it will become a surplus.

However, can I come back to you on the details of the loan?

Navin Shah AM (Deputy Chair): Yes, please do. It is very important that you do that, please.

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): Maybe if David writes to all of us on that.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): Yes. We will write to the Committee, yes.

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): Thank you.

Navin Shah AM (Deputy Chair): Clearly, this sculpture, which is what it was originally planned as with the

whole tower, was not part of the original masterplan. This came about as an idea from the Mayor. Somehow it

has failed to be an attractive venue. Things might change over the period. We do not know. Do you think

that the whole legacy has been much of a white elephant that has been - so far, certainly - a huge burden and

a total failure?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): First of all, on the Orbit, with 120,000-odd visitors in its

first year as a brand-new venue and in the top 20 in London, it is not a failure. That is a success. It is behindwhat we hoped we would see --

Navin Shah AM (Deputy Chair): This has been in a steep decline since, has it not?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): No. This year is consistent and we expect it to improve

significantly with the investment that we are making.

Navin Shah AM (Deputy Chair): Can we have the visitor numbers as well when you write to us, since it

opened?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): Yes, of course you can. The Orbit has been a success in

terms of visitor numbers. I think it will be transformed by the slide. It does change the offer very significantly.

Page 18


25/84

It was a sculpture. That is part of the attraction. It is also a great viewing platform. London now has a number

of places - and a number relatively recently - where you can get great views of London and so I know that it is

not unique in that, but the slide will be unique. That is why Time Out picked up on it. It will be a unique offer

and it will really change the attraction.

Clearly, in terms of everything I have said in relation to the venues, we do not think that the Park or the venues

or the Orbit at all have been a white elephant. We had 8 million people in less than two years coming to thePark. Each of the venues had either side of a million users each: the Aquatic Centre, the Copper Box, the

VeloPark. These are very significant numbers. People are using them. They are popular. They will only get

more so as the Park and the surrounding area gets developed.

If we go back to what was hoped and anticipated, Paul was involved - one of the very early people - in terms

of planning the whole thing. This was a very long-term project. It was anticipating investment that would

bring forward regeneration but, nonetheless, regeneration takes a number of years. We are a good way

through that but we have still a way to go. The venues have been really successful and very popular in terms

of usage. We have had great feedback on all of the venues in terms of users. In time, it will only get more so.

Navin Shah AM (Deputy Chair): To me, it is absolutely clear that it has failed as an architectural or

sculptural monument, very clearly. Now, of course, we hope that the leisure element that has been added to it

will let it break even. Otherwise, it is a drain on financial resources. It is a complete failure, definitely. So far,

that has been the case.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): As I said, bringing in more than 100,000 visitors in a year

is not a failure. It has required financial subsidy and I am accepting that, but we are taking the steps that will

enhance the visitor attraction so that it will not going forward.

Navin Shah AM (Deputy Chair): Thank you.

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): I have been in the Orbit tower as well. I do not dislike it. I think back - well,

I do not think back because I was not alive then - to when the Eiffel Tower was built and the Parisians thought

it was a blot on the landscape and everything else. Now it is what it is and the Orbit is fine.

The thing I cannot get my head around, though, is why it costs nearly £2 million a year to run it. What is that

spent on? When I have been there, there is a lift and I can see that. There is an empty room with mirrors in it

and there are lightbulbs. I could not see anything else that could cost any money.

Andrew Dismore AM: And toilets.

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): And toilets; there is some plumbing in there. What costs £2 million to run it

in a year?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): There are, obviously, staff working there. Which costs are

we looking at? The Orbit and the Podium, the restaurant and café in the site next door, are in one contract.

There are rental payments. Again, I could give you a breakdown of that --

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): Perhaps if you could, it would be very helpful. When we were discussing

this beforehand, some of us were more open-minded about it than others but we could not come up with a

£2 million figure and see where that money was actually being spent. It is quite a sparse thing. There is almost

nothing happening in it. Why it costs £2 million a year to run it is a bit of a mystery to us.

Page 19


26/84

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): Let me come back to you.

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): If you can. All right.

Andrew Dismore AM: It just seems to me that you are looking for a triumph of hope over experience here,

are you not? You have had to spend another £3.5 million added to the cost of however many millions it was tostart with. Is it not about time that you cut your losses and stopped reinforcing failure with this?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): This is such a different proposition that I do not think that

that is right. To introduce a slide, which will make it a really popular visitor attraction, is a way of making it

financially sustainable in a way that the visitor numbers to date have shown it is not at the moment. It has

been popular but it does not cover its own costs and this is a way of making sure that it does do so and

enhancing the attractiveness of the Park as a whole as a place to come and where people want to be.

Andrew Dismore AM: It is so popular that it is losing £500,000 a year. You are going to charge the £5 to

use the slide and on top of that you said you are going to have to charge a fee to go up to the top of the thinganyway. That is £15 in total?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): We have reduced it. The entrance fee is £12 and it is £5

per ride on the slide. The price will be somewhere around that amount.

Andrew Dismore AM: It is going to cost £17 to have a go on it?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): You would not pay the entrance fee if you had repeat

goes on the slide. The entrance fee gets you in and then it would be --

Andrew Dismore AM: All right. It is going to cost you £17 for your first slide down the slide?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): Somewhere in an order of that sort.

Andrew Dismore AM: Of that sort of order?

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): You can have unlimited slides. Is that right?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): You could go up and down for £5 a go.

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): I see. It is --

Andrew Dismore AM: Another £5? That is a daily fee, is it?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): When we announce the launch date, we will announce the

prices. It will be around that sort of order.

Andrew Dismore AM: For a family to use it, it is going to be a rather expensive day out.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): There are a number of concessions, then: annual, family

and local resident passes. I am giving you bottom line for anyone just pitching up.

Page 20


27/84

Andrew Dismore AM: Yes, but the bottom line is that for a visitor from outside London, say, it is going to be

quite an expensive day out, is it not?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): If you compare it to other attractions, I do not think it is.

Andrew Dismore AM: The British Museum is free and that is the biggest attraction in London.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): The British Museum receives a massive subsidy from the

Government to enable it to be free and it does not cover its costs through its operating revenues.

Andrew Dismore AM: You are going to wrap this slide thing around the outside for £3.5 million. The

original idea was that it was supposed to be a sculpture, was it not, or architectural feature?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): It was a sculpture and an architectural feature that was

also a visitor attraction. It was always intended to bring in visitors.

Andrew Dismore AM: Is the slide going to add to or subtract from the architectural and/or sculptural meritof the original construction?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): I would not hold myself up to comment on architectural

merit, except to say that the original architect, Anish Kapoor, has supported the development and has worked

with us on the design. He is happy that what we are doing certainly does not detract [from it] and he probably

would not have supported it if it did not enhance it. He is happy with it and has worked with us on the design

and so I do not have any concerns, deferring to his expertise on the architectural merits. I would not say it

myself.

Andrew Dismore AM: How much would it cost to knock it down?

Joanne McCartney AM: Sell it.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): I do not know. I have not asked that question because I

think it is an important part of the attractions on the Park.

Andrew Dismore AM: It is probably cheaper than the £3.5 million to wrap the slide around it.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): I do not know. As I said, I have not asked that question.

Andrew Dismore AM: In fact, this is just Boris Johnson’s [MP, Mayor of London] phallic symbol for the

Olympics, is it not?

James Cleverly AM MP: Here we go. Here is the punchline.

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): Let us tone it down, people. You are just being ridiculous.

Andrew Dismore AM: It was his great idea. It has lost money. It is going to continue to lose money. When

you are in a hole, is it not time to stop digging and just shut the thing down. Have something useful.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): I am confident that it is not going to continue. This not

only stops it losing money; it means that it does start generating money, which will contribute to the Park.

Page 21


28/84

Andrew Dismore AM: All right. When you are back here in a year or two and it is still losing money, will you

think about knocking it down then?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): You can ask me that question at that time.

Andrew Dismore AM: I am going to move on to housing issues. What are your current projections for theproportion of housing that is going to be affordable? Subtext: which definition of ‘affordable’ are you actually

using?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): I will do the headline and then Paul might come in.

Overall, our plans have not changed in aggregate. We are talking about around 24,000 new homes in the area,

which is a very significant development in terms of the new communities and new neighbourhoods we are

creating. The target, which is recognised in our Local Plan, is 35% affordable. That is split between affordable

rent, social rent and intermediate. None of that has changed recently and we are making really good progress

towards that. Paul can give you more detail, I think.

Dr Paul Brickell (Executive Director of Regeneration and Community Partnerships, LLDC): Yes. I will

give you some more numbers in a minute but also, just to give you a sense of these, this is not theoretical

anymore because people are now moving in. These are not theoretical permissions for theoretical houses.

When you go to Stratford, it is alive with construction and it is very busy.

The thing that has been accomplished, of course, is the East Village. The East Village has just under 2,500

homes. This is now essentially full. Obviously there is turnover, but it is essentially full. As you know, around

half of those [homes] are affordable and that is a blend of social 30%, affordable 30% and intermediate 40%

within that affordable half. You have people who were on the housing list or have moved from other social

rented homes across the boroughs and from elsewhere across London now living there.

The other important thing to say is that the social infrastructure is in place and is working. This is works as a

community. The school is open. It had an Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and

Skills) [rating of] ‘outstanding’ last summer. The health centre is busy. Dentistry has moved in. A whole

range of services will be there for people. The space for the community development trust, the East Village

Trust, is just about to be handed over by East Village to add to the existing community facilities. The retail is

coming to life and that is making a very big difference. You have now a community with a good proportion of

affordable homes already up and running and that forms a basis from which to move on into the next phases.

As David has said, the target for across the LLDC area is 24,000 new homes by 2031, of which 35% will beaffordable. There again the definition of ‘affordable’ within that 35% is 30% social rent, 30% affordable rent -

and we know what that means - and 40% intermediate. What is interesting is that just over three-quarters of

those 24,000 homes already have permissions. Just over 18,000 homes already have permissions. Of those,

27% of those sites are affordable - with the same breakdown as before - and, in addition, they will generate

£7.5 million for offsite affordable homes. There are agreements with the boroughs for money that will go to

the boroughs in order to provide affordable homes that they will develop. The final definition --

Andrew Dismore AM: In relation to the ones that are already on track, can I ask you about the East Wick and

Sweetwater developments? They just started this autumn and you told the Assembly in 2014 that the

proportion of affordable was reduced from 35% to 31% as a trade-off for bringing the developments forward.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): Correct.

Page 22


29/84

Andrew Dismore AM: Why was it necessary to reduce it to bring the developments forward?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): It was really to make the scheme viable because, on the

original assessment of viability with the longer period until they were to be developed, there would have been

higher property growth in values. Bringing it forward and accelerating the development means that we are

earlier in the cycle and costs are being incurred quicker and earlier. Just in the way that the viability appraisalworks, we are incurring costs earlier and we are generating income earlier and therefore we are able to borrow

less. Therefore, to achieve a viable scheme, we needed to reduce the proportion of affordable. It is still over

31% on East Wick and Sweetwater --

Andrew Dismore AM: That is 4% less.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): -- and so East Wick and Sweetwater will have roughly a

third affordable, a third private rented and a third for sale, but it is all being developed six years early, bringing

1,500 new homes to the Park --

Andrew Dismore AM: Yes. What you are saying to me about the viability is that if the development is

slowed down the developers make more profit and if it is speeded up they make less profit. Then you have to

reduce the number of affordable to meet the developers’ requirements. Yes?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): In general terms, in the current market, all of those things

depend on your expectations about what happens in the market, what is forecast in terms of the price and

cost --

Andrew Dismore AM: That is your viability assessment, is it not?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): That is the way viability assessments are done.

Andrew Dismore AM: It is not a complicated question, is it?

Dr Paul Brickell (Executive Director of Regeneration and Community Partnerships, LLDC): No, it is

not simply about the developer. It is about the value that we need to get out of the developer in order to

repay the Lottery.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): Yes. That viability assessment is done with expertise

supporting our planning team, which assesses that. It is not just what a developer says and we accept it.

Andrew Dismore AM: The proposition I put is correct, is it not? If it takes longer, the amount that you make

goes up because prices will go up. If you accelerate it, the amount you make goes down. Yes?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): Generally, yes.

Andrew Dismore AM: Yes. You compensate for that by reducing the number of affordable?

Dr Paul Brickell (Executive Director of Regeneration and Community Partnerships, LLDC): Yes.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): Yes, to some extent. It was 35% and it became 31%,

which was reported, announced and discussed here a couple of years ago, but the benefit of getting all of that

Page 23


30/84

development accelerated by six years was bringing those new communities in and helping to meet the trade-

off in priorities and objectives. Some of this is political policy-making. We are getting more, earlier, but we are

getting a slightly lower proportion of affordable and that is the trade-off.

Andrew Dismore AM: The speed at which development takes place depends on property prices?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): That is a very big factor in development becausedevelopers need to be able to see a return on their development, yes. Again, it is our assessment --

Dr Paul Brickell (Executive Director of Regeneration and Community Partnerships, LLDC): I will

make the point again. We, in addition, have a target to meet in terms of the amount of value we make --

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): Sorry, yes, I accept that.

Dr Paul Brickell (Executive Director of Regeneration and Community Partnerships, LLDC): -- to the

GLA and to the Treasury, which is ultimately to benefit --

Andrew Dismore AM: The speed of the development depends on the property prices, yes?

Dr Paul Brickell (Executive Director of Regeneration and Community Partnerships, LLDC):

Absolutely, yes.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): It is not just developers. As Paul was saying, quite rightly,

our financial plan --

Andrew Dismore AM: The speed of the development depends on the property prices?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): You are saying it as if it is the sole thing and we are saying

that that is a factor but it is not the sole factor.

Andrew Dismore AM: What are the other factors?

Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman): Cost, I imagine, because the cost of development adds --

Dr Paul Brickell (Executive Director of Regeneration and Community Partnerships, LLDC): Yes, but

we have objectives ourselves about --

Andrew Dismore AM: If it takes longer and you have not brought it forward, then presumably, with inflation

in real estate, the costs would go up.

Dr Paul Brickell (Executive Director of Regeneration and Community Partnerships, LLDC): It is a

question of whether --

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): It is a question of a trade-off.

Dr Paul Brickell (Executive Director of Regeneration and Community Partnerships, LLDC): -- house

price inflation outperforms construction inflation, which our projections say it will. Certainly in this part of

London, it is a reasonable projection to say that it will.

Page 24


31/84

Andrew Dismore AM: Yes. Is my basic proposition then correct? The motivation is not the issue. The issue

is that the quicker it goes, the fewer affordable homes you are going to provide.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): If all other things were being equal and if there was no

other -- in fact, we have a Local Plan requirement to achieve a level of affordable housing and we are

constrained to that. It is not just the developers’ plans for maximising it. We need viable developments that

developers want to deliver. They need to meet our Local Plan requirements and our policy both for buildingout the 24,000 homes we want to achieve and for achieving our targets for affordable. That is the dynamics

we need to achieve.

Andrew Dismore AM: Fine. Can we therefore expect that having seen a reduction of affordable in these

earlier phases, in later phases we will see an increase in affordable homes?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): Yes, there are higher projections to get to that average of

35% across and so the later phases, clearly, do have a higher proportion of affordable, yes.

Andrew Dismore AM: Those compared to the original projections will be increased?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): The plan was reworked at the time that East Wick and

Sweetwater were in preproduction. To achieve the overall target, yes. Again, it was two or three years ago

that this work was done and so --

Dr Paul Brickell (Executive Director of Regeneration and Community Partnerships, LLDC): So what

has already been happening is that there is 28% on our first development, Chobham Manor, and it is 31% or

thereabouts for East Wick and Sweetwater. For our land, the Legacy Communities Scheme, the site-wide

target is 31%. We can work out from 28% that there clearly will be a higher proportion than 31% in the later

neighbourhoods as we bring them forward.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): Yes. Then, in some of the sites off the Park, there are

higher proportions again to get to the overall target of 31%.


Andrew Dismore AM: Has the Olympicopolis project had an impact on the affordable housing plans?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): The planning consequence of that will be taken through

planning later this year. At the moment we are developing the masterplans for the Olympicopolis sites. It isknown that the sites were previously identified for housing and so it does change the Legacy Communities

Scheme and that will be something we will take through planning later this year. That is when we will have the

full consequences in terms of housing numbers. I do not expect us to change the affordable housing target

because that is something that is set out in our Local Plan.

Andrew Dismore AM: It depends on what you mean by ‘target’, does it not? There are two targets; one is

the percentage and one is the absolute number.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): Yes.

Andrew Dismore AM: Are you saying that the absolute number of affordable homes will remain the same or

will it decrease?

Page 25


32/84

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): I am not expecting us to change it. There was less

housing delivered on the two Olympicopolis-related sites. There will be some but not as much as there would

have been if they were housing sites. That will be reflected in the planning permission we will bring forward

later this year. I recognise that on the Park and on those two sites we will deliver less housing. We are looking

at our other sites off the Park - and we have a number of development sites in other areas, which will get

developed over future years - to see the extent to which we can compensate for that through increasingdevelopment on other sites. I am not going to say today because we will go through the [planning process for]

formal planning permission later this year.

Andrew Dismore AM: No, I am not asking for exact figures, but I am just saying that the net result of this is

that on the Olympic Park site there are going to be fewer affordable homes. Yes?

Dr Paul Brickell (Executive Director of Regeneration and Community Partnerships, LLDC): There will

be fewer homes on the Stratford Waterfront site --

Andrew Dismore AM: It is not a trick question.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): No, there will be fewer homes on those two sites.

Dr Paul Brickell (Executive Director of Regeneration and Community Partnerships, LLDC): There will

be fewer homes there. As we take forward the planning applications for those two sites, the Olympicopolis

sites, we will couple that with a revisit of the outline planning permission.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): Can I just add something?

Andrew Dismore AM: Is the consequence of that --

Dr Paul Brickell (Executive Director of Regeneration and Community Partnerships, LLDC): There is

less to compensate both for numbers of homes and numbers of affordable homes.

Andrew Dismore AM: All right. Yes. Looking at the offsite sites, for want of a better definition, are you

therefore looking to increase the density on those sites?


Andrew Dismore AM: All right.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): Could I just make one point about this that is important?

We have just said what it does in terms of housing and we will work that through planning. The reason we

have made this change is because Olympicopolis brings enormous benefits to the area. We are bringing

world-class arts, culture and educational institutions to the heart of east London and that is something that is

very important to bear in mind.

Andrew Dismore AM: We are going to have some more questions about that later on and so I will not stray

into that.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): I understand, but I am just saying that if you think about

housing without thinking about the benefits that it brings to bring those great institutions to this area and the

Page 26


33/84

economic benefit that brings. We think that it is around £3 billion economically with new jobs and more

visitors. That is very significant and that will be the rationale we will present.

Andrew Dismore AM: You will get some more questions about that later on and so I am not going to probe

that at the moment.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): That is fine, but I would not want to have the housingdiscussion without understanding why we are making that change.

Andrew Dismore AM: Yes. We will come back to that in due course. We have established that you will have

fewer houses onsite and we have established that you will have greater density offsite. How insulated are the

current delivery schedules - and housing projections, for that matter - from the global economic uncertainties

that we are starting to see feeding through from China and elsewhere?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): None of us is insulated from global economic uncertainties

and I am not going to pretend that we are. We have a locality that has become a very popular place for

investment. House price growth is reflecting that. Developer interest in our area reflects that. There is highdemand for people to live there; there is high demand for businesses to move there; there is high demand for

people, therefore, to develop both residential and commercial development there. The International Quarter

site is a Lend Lease and LCR joint venture. We have both residential and office accommodation coming out of

the ground rapidly now. It is going very well. It is very popular. It is in demand for both people and

businesses to move there and for people to develop those opportunities.

Are we vulnerable to global or macroeconomic change? Of course we are, like anyone else. We have

mentioned house price inflation; we have mentioned cost inflation. Those are risks that our business plan

recognises and that in our public budget papers we acknowledge our high risk scores.

Andrew Dismore AM: OK. Can I carry on to the workforce targets now? How have you performed against

the targets for Host Borough workers and Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) and female construction workers?

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): Overall, very well. We are very pleased with it. We have

been quite innovative - this is largely Paul and his team - in terms of setting targets that contractors buy into;

they own their targets. That is developers and that is contractors. We very publicly report progress against

this. Hopefully, you will see - and we talked about the new form of reporting earlier - that it is clear and very

transparent progress. It is not always success. There are one or two areas where we are behind the targets.

However, overall, for me, over 80% of the long-term workforce in the venues, now that they are operating, is

from Host Boroughs. That is a fantastic achievement. We are very proud of our work with 150 apprenticesgoing through apprenticeship schemes. The process of setting and monitoring targets and reporting them

transparently and the performance in those sorts of areas such as local employment and apprenticeships has

been really successful. Again, we can talk about the detail in that published performance report if you want.

Andrew Dismore AM: I have some figures here and, overall, you are right that there are particular locations

where it is a rather more mixed picture. However, if we look at BAME employment, for example, do you think

you have been able to achieve what you have achieved due to any particular strategies you have adopted or

because east London was diverse to start with?

Dr Paul Brickell (Executive Director of Regeneration and Community Partnerships, LLDC): In some

areas, it is very pleasing. In construction, for example, there is a very high proportion of members of the BAME

communities in the workforce, which is reflective of the population. There are some disappointments in here.

Page 27


34/84

I say ‘disappointments’, but the purpose really of monitoring and plans and things is to then do something

about the things that do not look right.

One of the things that will strike you very strongly here is the workforce in the Copper Box and the

Aquatic Centre, which is 35% BAME communities. Actually, it is even more stark; the Copper Box

over-performs and does not do too badly. It just the London Aquatic Centre that is really low. Our attitude

then is to ask why that is because it is clearly completely unrepresentative of the local population in a placewhere we are getting really good local representation. There is an issue there.

We sat down with Greenwich Leisure Ltd (GLL) when these figures became apparent in the middle of last year

and asked them why it was. They said that in terms of swimming and diving and those sectors, this is sector-

wide and industry-wide. You get the sense that they were saying, “That is the answer, then”. We have said,

“It is an opportunity. Why is that? What steps can we take to remedy that? What can we learn that would

work at the Aquatic Centre and what could we also learn that we could roll out across your business?”

We have just started in this new year a really targeted campaign into BAME communities locally to promote

opportunities in the sector. We have a series of skills taster sessions and that will lead them on to swimcoaching qualification courses and into dive coaching qualification courses. Then we will guarantee the people

who go through those systems an interview for a proper job. Coupled with that, the GLL has just appointed a

new company, Lifetime Training, to help to run its apprenticeship programme. Our joint instruction to them is

to really focus on this question of why it is that members of BAME communities are really under-represented in

this sector. Our hope is that we will learn something and that that will good locally and that then we can

spread that out.

That is our general approach to underperformance. It is not to accept it but to try to understand it and, where

we can, remedy it.

David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, LLDC): The figures also do show that it is specific to the venues

because, both in construction and in the operation of the Park and Park management, we are at well over 50%

against what was originally a target of around 25%. As Paul said, we think that there is a sector issue specific

to the venues, which we are taking measure to try to address and try to improve performance. For the other

work types, the performance for BAME communities is very strong.

Andrew Dismore AM: One of the areas that has been a problem is finding unemplo

Date post:	07-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scribdstorage
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Public Reports Pack Tuesday 01-Mar-2016 10.00 Regeneration Committee[1]

Documents