G.3Transforming communities

(iii)Evidence available: Evaluation and research

The first is 'Delivering London 2012: parklands and waterways'²⁰⁴ which provides insight into the situation prior to the award of the Olympic Games. It notes that the area in question was "largely derelict, polluted, inaccessible and prone to flooding", before concluding that as a result of the Games the following has been achieved with regard to the Olympic Park's parklands and waterways:²⁰⁵

Seamless parkland and restored waterways;

Integrated water management comprising sustainable urban drainage, water capture, cleaning and reuse, flood risk management, water demand reduction, habitat creation and non-potable networks;

Invasive weed eradication;

Habitat and species relocation, collection of seeds and plant cutting prior to demolition;

Perennial meadows used extensively to create habitats and parklands;

The Landscape Institute's 2009 Peter Youngman award for outstanding contribution to landscapes.

The second paper: 'Delivering London 2012: master planning'²⁰⁶ summarises the development of the three master plans that guided the delivery of the Olympic Park. In doing so, the paper highlights the extent to which the plans for the Olympic Park were developed in conjunction with the local community noting that the 'initial master plan' in 2004 was shaped by "over 500,000 questionnaires" and "70 public consultation events held in an around the Lower Lea Valley" with the intention being to "ensure that the overall master plan was tuned to local conditions and needs while still meeting regional requirements and the specific demands of the IOC in terms of transport, sustainability, security, environmental issues and legacy benefits".²⁰⁷

An important source of primary research evidence for this theme as a whole is the host boroughs resident survey. This survey was specifically commissioned to inform this evaluation as it sought to gather information of the views, behaviours and attitudes of the residents in the six Olympic host boroughs. The survey was conducted between February and April 2012, with 1,320 responses received (see Appendix C for fuller details of the survey methodology along detailed analysis of the results).

This survey provides valuable evidence into the impact of the 2012 Games in transforming East London. It offers insight into resident mobility, perceptions of the area, community cohesion and satisfaction with the Olympic Park legacy plans and the consultation process for the Olympic Park master plans.

Resident mobility

The majority of respondents (75%) had lived in the same East London borough for more than 5 years, although this headline figure did vary between the individual boroughs with respondents in Newham and Tower Hamlets appearing more 'mobile' than those in Barking and Dagenham and Greenwich. Nearly one-third of the respondents in Tower Hamlets (32%) and Newham (30%) had moved into the borough within the last five years compared to only a fifth in Greenwich (18%) and Barking and Dagenham (22%). A pattern of variation that is further supported by the fact that 20% of respondents resident in Newham, and 19% resident in Tower Hamlets had lived at their current address for less than a year, while the corresponding figures for Barking and Dagenham and Greenwich were 10% and 9% respectively.

For those who felt that the regeneration effects of the Games were an 'important' factor in their decision making, the three most commonly cited factors were the improvements to infrastructure/facilities that had resulted (20%); the role the Games played in increasing money/revenue/business and being generally good for the economy (17%); and the transport improvements that had resulted (14%).

The question of resident mobility is an important one, particularly so in assessing the extent to which community transformation and convergence (see section 6.5) in East London have genuinely occurred and are additional, as opposed to being the result of new higher skilled, better paid and healthier people moving in and squeezing out the lower skilled, poorer and less healthy residents. It is an issue that it common to many large scale regeneration projects and it is argued by many that flagship regeneration projects do contribute to displacing existing residents and creating new divisions within areas.

The evidence currently available on mobility is, however, limited in terms of the depth in which it explores the issue, the timescales it covers and the cross-sectional nature of the data available. The latter issue is particularly important. For instance, the survey results show that the majority of respondents (75%) had lived in the same East London borough for more than 5 years suggesting that resident mobility is fairly low. However, to make firm conclusions this figure would need to be compared to other London boroughs which may have a higher or lower rate. This data is not available as the East London survey did not cover local authorities outside the host boroughs.

The issue is further complicated by the significant growth in population in the host boroughs which has been much higher than the London average, with resident population rising from 26.4% in Tower Hamlets, 23.5% in Newham and 18.9% in Hackney for example compared to the London average of 12%. The mobility issue will be explored in more depth in Report 5, particularly the extent to which the Games have impacted on property prices which is a key driver in mobility.

Perceptions of the area

When asked whether they thought that the 2012 Games would be good for London as a whole, based on what they had seen or heard, two-thirds (69%) of respondents felt that it had with 37% 'strongly agreeing'. This headline view was broadly reflected across the different age groups, genders and working status, although in terms of ethnicity, non-white respondents (75%) were notably more positive than 'white' respondents (66%). Given that this survey was undertaken before the Games had taken place, and following a period of disruption (due to Games preparation activities) with little realisation of the longer-term benefits of the Games, this can be seen as a positive finding.

Across the six host boroughs opinions varied more significantly with residents of Barking and Dagenham and Greenwich generally less positive than those in Newham (20% and 23% respectively, disagreed that the Games would be good for London compared to 11%).

Figure 6: Proportion of respondents 'agreeing' that hosting the 2012 Games would be good for London as a whole



Source: Host boroughs resident survey.

Note: Red line shows the total for all respondents.
Over three-quarters (79%) of respondents were satisfied with their local area as a place to live, a third of whom (31%) were 'very satisfied'. Only 5% of respondents were 'very dissatisfied' with their local area as a place to live. This finding compares²⁰⁹ favourably with DCLG's 2008 Place Survey which found that across the host boroughs resident satisfaction with their area as a place to live was 65%, a finding that at the time was notably lower than the London average of 75%.²¹⁰

Figure 6: Respondent satisfaction with their local area as a place to live



Source: Host boroughs resident survey.
A quarter (26%) of the respondents felt that hosting the Games had made them more satisfied with their area as a place to live, 10% felt that it had made them less satisfied and the majority (63%) felt that it had made no difference. Respondents who lived in Newham were more positive than those in the other host boroughs with 39% stating that hosting the Games had made them more satisfied with their area as a place to live.

Figure 6: Extent to which hosting the Games has made respondents more satisfied with their area as a place to live

Retail and shopping facilities (with 48% of respondents agreeing, most likely because of the opening of Westfield and the fact that it is a tangible benefit);

The image of the local area (48%);

Public transport (43%).

Figure 6: The extent to which the preparations for staging the 2012 Games have positively impacted the local area



Source: Host boroughs resident survey.
In terms of the negative impacts to date, respondent views were again mixed (see Figure 6 ). Half of the respondents agreed that the preparations for staging the Games had increased transport congestion in the area (50%) and 44% felt that the Games had increased the numbers of people moving in and out of the area (a perception that is not supported by the questions about mobility which suggest that three-quarters of the respondents had lived in the area for more than five years).

Figure 6: The extent to which the preparations for staging the 2012 Games have negatively impacted the local area

The image of the local area (54%);

Sports facilities in the local area (54%);

Retail and shopping facilities in the local area (50%).

All of these suggest that respondents are aware of the potential future benefits arising from the transformation of the Olympic Park.

There were only two factors where more respondents disagreed than agreed and these were the extent to which the Games will improve housing in the local area (38% thought that it wouldn't compared to 34% who thought that it would) and the extent to which it will improve education, health and community facilities (where the same proportion of respondents at 33%, thought that it wouldn't as those who thought that it would).

Figure 6: The extent to which the 2012 Games will positively impact – over the longer term – on the local area



Source: Host boroughs resident survey.

With regard to the negative factors, increased transport congestion (49%) (despite the implementation of significant improvements in local transport facilities) and increased numbers of people moving in and out of the area (48%) remained the two most common longer term concerns, with respondent views generally mixed across the remaining factors.

Seventy-one percent of respondents felt that they 'belonged' to their local area, a finding that was more true for non-white (79%) respondents that 'white' respondents (65%), and across the six host boroughs the figures ranged from 76% in Hackney to 65% in Barking and Dagenham.

However, there was again significant variation between the six host boroughs with a 21 percentage point difference between Hackney (the highest at 88%) and Barking and Dagenham ( the lowest at 67%). This pattern was also apparent in the 2008 Place Survey where 49% of respondents in Barking and Dagenham and 77% of respondents in Hackney agreed that people from different backgrounds 'get on well together'.²¹²

Over a third (37%) of respondents agreed that the Games has made people from different backgrounds in their local area get on better, while the same proportion disagree. Again, there is a disparity of views across the host borough with respondents living in Newham more likely to agree (51%) and less likely to disagree (27%), as opposed to respondents living in Barking and Dagenham who were less likely to agree (29%) and more likely to disagree (49%).

When asked about a series of specific community issues (eg vandalism, graffiti, rubbish, litter, noisy neighbours) the majority of respondents did not view them as a problem in the local area and perhaps more significantly, an overwhelming majority of respondents felt that the preparations for hosting the 2012 Games had made no difference to these problems in the local area.

Just under half of the respondents (45%) had heard about the plans to improve the Olympic Park and the surrounding area a 'great deal' or a 'fair amount', but only a quarter (23%) of respondents had actually seen the plans to improve the Olympic Park area. A fifth of respondents (21%) had heard 'nothing at all'.

A larger proportion of respondents in Newham had seen the plans to improve the Olympic Park area (33%) than those who lived in Barking and Dagenham (15%) or Greenwich (16%). This is also reflected in the fact that 53% of the respondent who live in Newham had heard a 'great deal/a fair amount' about the plans compared to 43% in both Barking and Dagenham and Greenwich. It is a finding that is most likely and simply explained by the proximity of the Olympic Park to these two boroughs.

Figure 6: The extent to which respondents that had heard about – and seen – the plans of the Olympic Park

Source: Host boroughs resident survey.
A quarter (23%) of the respondents are satisfied with the community consultation process on the plans for the Olympic Park and surrounding area and the opportunity to input their views, with 18% dissatisfied and 37% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. The proportion of satisfied respondents rises to 40% for those who live in Newham and falls to 15% for those who live in Barking and Dagenham.

In terms of specifics, of those respondents who had seen the plans over half of them were satisfied with the plans for sustainability (53%), venues and sporting facilities (62%), retail and shopping facilities (65%), transport infrastructure and services (65%), leisure and cultural facilities (54%) and the Olympic Park and green spaces (64%). Less than 10% of respondents were dissatisfied with any aspects of the plans. Only 30% of respondents were satisfied with the plans for education, health and community facilities and 36% satisfied with the plans for housing, a finding that is consistent with respondent's views on the extent to which the 2012 Games will impact on these facilities in the local area (see Figure 6-15 above).

(iv)Conclusions: Outcomes and additionality

It is clear that the LLDC has developed a comprehensive programme of activity which if delivered as intended will see the development of a significant number of new homes (both affordable and family) as well as a number of high quality community and social facilities, including both primary and secondary schools and health centres across five new neighbourhoods. The scale and nature of this development, coupled with the transformation of the facilities developed for, and used during, the Games (such as the Athlete's Village, the Athletes Health Centre and the Operation Centre) has the potential to drive forward the transformation of the East London community, not least in bringing about the development of a number of additional new homes (a notable proportion of which will be affordable and family homes) and bringing forward a number of much needed community facilities.

The positive outcomes emerging from the transformation of the facilities developed for, and used during, the Games will begin to become apparent from as early as mid- to late-2013. This will include the conversion of the Athlete's Village and the delivery of 2,818 additional apartments and town houses – 1,379 of which will be social housing (managed by Triathlon Homes) with the remaining 1,439 (managed by Qatari Diar/Delancey (QDD))providing a significant increasing in the availability of private sector housing stock. In addition to this, the Athlete's health centre will become a community health centre and the Operations Centre will become a new Academy (Chobham Academy). However, given that this transformation process has only just commenced with the completion of the Games, and with completion of the LLDC's activity not expected until post 2015 (at the earliest), the full extent of this activity on transforming the East London community remains to be seen.

The host boroughs resident survey does however provide some insight into the extent to which the Games have already contributed to transforming the community in East London. Through this survey, it appears that regeneration of the area was important for a notable proportion of those who had moved into the borough within the last year which suggests that as the regeneration effects of the Games have become more visible they are yielding a bigger influence on mobility.

The survey did however show that while there was generally a good level of support for the Games, with two-thirds of respondents thinking that the Games would be good for London as a whole. Notably, fewer respondents thought that hosting the Games had made them more satisfied with their area as a place to live (a quarter) or that it had helped make people from different backgrounds get on better (a third). Based on the views of survey respondents it would appear that to date the preparations for the 2012 Games have impacted most on improving retail and shopping facilities, improving the image of the local area and improving public transport.

These views may in part be a reflection of the fact that less than half of the survey respondents had heard much about the plans to improve the Olympic Park with only a quarter having actually seen them. It may also reflect the fact that at this stage (pre-Games) people have had to face a lot of disruption and not yet seen or experienced many of the benefits which may be associated with hosting the Games.

(v)Progress in answering the research questions

How were the plans for the Olympic park and the surrounding area (including the Legacy Masterplan Framework) developed in conjunction with the local community, and to what extent did they reflect the needs and aspirations of different groups?

In answering this research question the evidence currently available provides two slightly conflicting answers. On the one hand, evidence provided by the Institution of Civil Engineers notes the breadth and depth to which the local community were consulted around the initial master plan – with over 500,000 questionnaires returned and 70 public consultation events held. Something which, it concludes, ensured that the "overall master plan was tuned to local conditions and needs".²¹³ However, on the other hand, the survey of host borough residents suggests that a fifth of respondents had heard nothing about the Park legacy plans and the consultation process for Park master plans and three-quarters had not seen the plans. The result of which is that only 23% of respondents were satisfied with the community consultation process. Although it should be noted that satisfaction does rise to 40% for those who live in Newham which may in part explain this inconsistency. One possible explanation for this disparity could be the fact that those residents who moved into the area more recently (ie within the last five years) would have missed the consultation on the initial master plan which took place in 2004.

To what extent have accessible new homes and leisure, education, health and community facilities been provided in and around the Olympic Park as a consequence of the Games and to what extent are local people actively making use of the new facilities provided?

The short answer to this research question is that to date no new homes and leisure, education and community facilities have been provided on the Olympic Park. However, the longer answer is that it is currently too early to answer this question and that it may not be possible to fully answer until 2015 at the earliest.

The plans for the legacy uses of the Olympic Park do, however, suggest a significant level of development including in excess of 9,000 homes, three new schools, three new health centres and a number of community facilities as well as the Olympic venues themselves, which the LLDC expect to be used by millions of visitors a year (eg 2.1 million per year to the Olympic Park (excluding venues) and over 3.1 million per year to the stadium, aquatics centre and multi-use arena).

What has been the impact of the Park and venues on the recreational habits of East London residents, and their awareness of biodiversity?

Like the previous research question, it is too early to be able to answer this question. However, what is apparent is that the Games have already resulted in the transformation of a largely derelict, polluted and inaccessible site into an accessible area with seamless parklands, restored waterways and newly created bio-diverse habitats. With this part of the challenge already addressed, the outstanding part is to ensure that the area is used by East London residents.

How has the transformation of the Olympic park and the surrounding area contributed to community cohesion, and what are the key lessons for the integration of existing communities?

Based on the results of the host boroughs resident survey it is apparent that 71% of respondents felt that they 'belonged' to their local area and 81% agreed that their local area was a place where people from different backgrounds 'get on well together'. These views did however vary across the individual host boroughs with those in Hackney notably more positive than those in Barking and Dagenham. With regard to the extent to which the Games had helped make people from different backgrounds to get on better responses were mixed, a third thought that they had and a third thought that they had not. Interestingly residents in Newham were more likely to think that they had and residents in Barking and Dagenham more likely to think that they had not. At this stage it is too early to comment on the lessons in relation to the integration of existing communities.

Directory: images -> publications
images -> New embedded S
images -> Creating Buy-In – Building Relationships
images -> Deadline: Saturday, March 12th, 2016
images -> News items from Raising Our Voices
images -> Last year four of the best Afrikaans Christian singers joined forces to tour Down Under with the production ‘Manne wat Glo’
images -> World-renowned vocal ensemble sweet honey in the rock
images -> Peoples Voice Café History
publications -> Recipients of tickets for the olympic opening ceremony
publications -> Greetings from the iehp atlantic Connection Steering Committee

Download 1.96 Mb.

Share with your friends: