
English Partnerships is the key public sector agency tasked with delivering regeneration in the Greenwich Peninsula through its management of the deal with the private sector. Part 1 of this report looks at the The key risks to the successful achievement of the project agreements underpinning the deal and the project's governance and accountability arrangements. This section also explores the project's risk management processes and its ability to deal with change.
1.1 Between 2001 and 2002, the Dome Sale Unit, consisting of officials from the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and English Partnerships (EP), entered into a sale process to find a sustainable future for the Millennium Dome and secure the regeneration of the surrounding area. The Government adopted a limited competitive process, against a background of little market enthusiasm for open competition, widespread cynicism about the risks and costs of participation and little specific interest in the Dome. A 20 year deal with Meridian Delta Limited (MDL) and the Anschutz Entertainment Group Europe (AEG), a subsidiary of the Anschutz Entertainment Group was agreed. This was the only consortium to come up with a viable bid during the process - to regenerate 170 acres of land on the Greenwich Peninsula and to redevelop the Dome. (See Key Facts for a list of the features of this redevelopment project and Appendix 3 for a timeline).
1.2 The aim of this project is to establish the Peninsula as a landmark urban development. This process has already begun with the opening of the Dome as The O2, a major leisure and entertainment complex. EP's vision is that this once derelict parcel of land will in the future become a sustainable, mixed-use community within London and the wider Thames Gateway. Figure 1 outlines the key risks and associated sensitivities to be managed if the project is to achieve its long term objectives but given the difficult circumstances in which the deal was signed EP's obligations in delivering its objectives are challenging.
1 | The key risks to the successful achievement of the project | ||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
Key risks | Key sensitivities | ||||||||||
Managerial risks
| No overall strategic forum bringing together all key stakeholders. The Department and EP have to rely on their influencing and brokering skills rather than on contractual levers to influence delivery, particularly where development would not be economically viable. EP has to maintain relationships with multiple stakeholders with diverse interests. The project is inherently subject to uncertainty and change. | ||||||||||
Delivery, market and environmental risks
| The project is influenced by the external housing market which is inherently uncertain. Environmental and design standards are continually evolving. The definition and expectation for what constitutes a sustainable community is continually evolving. These risks have an impact on progress towards achieving a sustainable community. | ||||||||||
Financial risks
| Delays to the development on the Peninsula (excluding the O2) will reduce financial returns to the public sector. There is still uncertainty about the level of expected financial returns from The O2. There is uncertainty about the effectiveness of open book accounting between EP and AEG. There are additional risks that could potentially reduce returns from the land deal. | ||||||||||
Source: National Audit Office analysis | |||||||||||