The government's spending watchdog has hailed the £9bn of public money spent on the London Olympics as good value, but said strong leadership is needed if promised legacy benefits are to be realised.
The government announced after the Games that £377m of the total £9.3bn public sector budget was likely to remain unspent, but the final figure will not be known until 2014.
The National Audit Office (NAO) said: "By any reasonable measure the Games were a success and the big picture is that they have delivered value for money."
But in its final report on the finances of the Games it said the Cabinet Office – now responsible for co-ordinating the various expansive legacy promises made to justify the investment – would have to bring together the many disparate organisations involved in delivering them. "There has been progress in setting up arrangements to strengthen co-ordination and oversight of delivery of the planned legacy of the Games," said the comptroller and auditor general, Amyas Morse.
"The Cabinet Office will now have to exercise strong leadership to ensure the longer-term benefits are delivered."
Lord Coe, chairman of the London 2012 organising committee, has taken on a new role as the government's adviser on legacy issues, based within the Cabinet Office. He will report back to a special committee chaired by the prime minister every 12 weeks.
As well as delivering economic benefits for British business and tourism, Coe had promised to use the Games to inspire more people to take up sport and to regenerate the east end of London.
The NAO report hailed Danny Boyle's opening ceremony as a great success, with only 5% of the media coverage of all four ceremonies found to be negative. The report said the final bill for the ceremonies, including money allocated to the separate unit formed to cover transport, catering and logistics, was £110m.
It found that the final investment in the Games included around £1bn of operational costs, including £514m for venue security, that were not included in the original 2007 £9.3bn public sector spending package. That £9.3bn had more than trebled from the £2.4bn estimated during the bid phase.
The extra £1bn could only be found because contingency funds became available within the overall funding package. The NAO highlighted the lack of planning on venue security – which was not budgeted for and then saw costs soar as a "finger in the air" estimate of 10,000 guards swelled to 23,700 – as the only example of poor forward planning.
"Most aspects of the Games were well thought out and planned in advance, while planning for venue security was characterised by underestimation of the cost and scale of the task," said the review.
The NAO accorded no blame to Locog for the last-minute security shambles that arose when the contractor G4S admitted it would not be able to supply the guards it had promised, and troops were drafted in to fill the gaps. Negotiations are ongoing over the level of compensation that will be provided by the security firm.
"The precise extent of the shortfall is under discussion between Locog and G4S, but the Ministry of Defence has told us that it provided 135,000 additional days of military personnel time, at an estimated cost of £36m," the NAO said. "The Home Office told us that the police service provided some 12,000 additional police shifts at an estimated cost of £6m."
The report listed the public sector costs that the government has always insisted fell outside the scope of the £9.3bn funding package, including £766m to buy the Olympic Park land in the first place; the £826m spent on the legacy programme; £86m spent by government departments and agencies on Olympic-related work; the cost of staffing Olympic teams within government departments, including £52m for the government Olympic executive; and the £110m grant made to the affordable housing in the athletes village.
The NAO said the Department for Culture, Media and Sport recognised that these additional costs were associated with the Games "but does not consider them to be net additional costs of the Games because they include costs to be recouped from subsequent receipts or spending on 'business as usual' activity".
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010
image: © Fighting Irish 1977