Buildings on the Olympic Park are linked through coherent design of Parklands and the public realm

Aerial view of the Olympic Park – March 2011

An artists impression of the Olympic Park during the Games

Learning legacyLessons learned from the London 2012 Games construction project

Effective management of masterplan changesMajor developments are always subject to some changes following granting of planning permission. On the London 2012 construction project, the tight timescales for delivery meant that a new masterplan planning application could not be submitted to cover changes to the venues and infrastucture. Hence a robust ‘slot-in/slot-out’ change programme was established between the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) so that elements of the masterplan could be added and removed without the need for a completely new masterplan application. This process allowed changes to be implemented in a controlled manner, within the tight time constraints and at a reduced cost.

Planning permission granted for the Olympic Park masterplan in 2007 Planning permission for the venues and facilities for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, and their legacy use was granted by the LPA, the ODA Planning Decisions Team (PDT), in 2007. This planning permission effectively fixed the location of all the venues, parklands and related infrastructure (including bridges, roads and utilities) within a masterplan for the 246 hectare Park site.

Managing changes to the masterplan Inevitably, as part of the normal detailed design development process and other factors, numerous changes to the masterplan were required. As such, the PDT, as the LPA, and the ODA Town Planning Promoter Team (TPPT), acting as the applicant, needed to agree a legally robust mechanism. This mechanism, known as the ‘slot-in/slot-out’ process, meant that changes to the masterplan could be made without recourse to a completely new masterplan application.

The ‘slot-in/slot-out’ process The ‘slot-in/slot-out’ process used a ‘jigsaw’ approach which allowed

for elements of the 2007 masterplan to be removed (‘slot-out’) and new replacement pieces to be put in their place (‘slot-in’). This approach was agreed with the legal advisors to both the PDT and TPPT.

In order to be legally robust, the ODA, as the applicant for the original masterplan development, was required to give an undertaking that it would not implement that part of the original development which was being superseded, as specified in a Statement of Superseded Development. This was achieved by an amendment to the 2007 section 106 legal agreement which accompanied the Olympic Park planning permissions. The agreement also restricted the ability of the ODA to make changes as the applicant (or joint applicant) in order to retain control over the amendments brought forward.

4-step protocol implemented A protocol for dealing with changes to the masterplan was agreed between the PDT and the TPPT. This set out an agreed process for evaluating the nature of the changes and their likely impact. This involved four main process elements:

1. Change management formThe change management form was devised by the two teams and set out the nature of the change, the reason for its impact on the approved masterplan and any likely significant environmental effects which may result. This was prepared by the ODA TPPT and submitted to the PDT.

2. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening On receipt of the change management form, the PDT assessed the extent of the change and its likely impact, and confirmed whether a new ‘slot-in’ application should be made. If a ‘slot-in’ application was required, the TPPT then prepared and submitted an EIA screening opinion to ensure that PDT could assess the likely significant environmental impacts which might result from the new proposal. Once a ‘slot-in’ application was submitted and approved, the scheme baseline for EIA purposes was amended so that subsequent assessments for screening purposes could take into account the previously agreed changes to the London 2012 project.

3. The Statement of Superseded DevelopmentThe Statement of Superseded Development was agreed between both TPPT and PDT and was appended to the planning decision notice. This clearly specified which aspects of the 2007 Olympic Park planning permissions, with reference to drawing numbers and development description, were no longer to be implemented.

4. Monitoring the number of slot-in applicationsThe final step involved monitoring the number and extent of slot-in applications to ensure that the original

planning permission was not changed to such an extent that it became unrecognisable from that approved in 2007.

Benefits Time and cost savings The principal benefit has been to enable changes to the originally approved development in a legally and environmentally robust way, without recourse to a new ‘masterplan’ planning application. The 2007 London 2012 project applications ran to some 15 volumes of EIA and other supporting statements and some 1,000 drawings and took around six months to prepare. The programme for the construction of the Games would not have been able to withstand the time associated with the preparation, submission and determination of a new masterplan application for every change in terms of both cost and construction delay.

Robust change process In terms of applicability to other major development projects, most if not all are likely to be amended to a greater or lesser extent following a grant of planning permission, particularly those which are likely to be built out over a long time period. It is in the interests of both the LPA and the developer to have an agreed mechanism for managing change. Ideally, this should be built into the structure of the planning permission and any related section 106 agreement. This would then enable the timely consideration of changes and maintain the momentum of development. Having an agreed, robust process from the outset would also ensure clarity and certainty for all parties about the nature and extent of change.

ProjectProgramme-wide

SupplierODA Town Planning

AuthorAnthony Hollingsworth – Chief Planner, PDT

Steve Shaw – Chief Planner, TPPT

© 2011 Olympic Delivery Authority. The official Emblems of the London 2012 Games are © London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Limited (LOCOG) 2007. All rights reserved.

The construction of the venues and infrastructure of the London 2012 Games is funded by the National Lottery through the Olympic Lottery Distributor, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Mayor of London and the London Development Agency.

For more information visit: london2012.com/learninglegacy Published October 2011ODA 2010/374