A group of Lords who questioned the legacy of London 2012 said that the Olympic Stadium "is not being used as well as it should be," according to the BBC. The House of Lords Committee on Games Legacy said the £429M ($691M) stadium was a "national asset that should be used to the full." But it remained "unconvinced" that present arrangements would deliver an "effective and robust" legacy. The report's authors said that "there are no white elephants among 2012 facilities" but there is "little evidence" that a step-change in sport participation levels has materialized -- a key pledge from London's bid for the Games. There is also criticism over the geographical spread of the economic benefits -- "with foreign investment as a result of London 2012 resulting in 15,000 jobs for the south-east, but just seven in the north-east." And it said there may have been too many "closed minds" about potential options for how the Olympic Stadium could be used (BBC, 11/17). In London, Ben Rumsby wrote League One football club Leyton Orient Chair Barry Hearn will seek an "urgent meeting" to discuss Leyton Orient sharing the Olympic Stadium with West Ham "after a parliamentary select committee decreed they should be allowed to do so." A House of Lords report entitled "Keeping the flame alive: the Olympic and Paralympic legacy" on Monday recommended that the London Legacy Development Corporation "think further" about how the two clubs might co-exist at the arena. Having been "thwarted at every turn" in his bid to force a judicial review into the LLDC's decision, Hearn "was understandably encouraged by the House of Lords recommendation." Hearn said, "We welcome the report and its comments and accept them" (TELEGRAPH, 11/18).
