Useact First seminar report Viladecans by URBACT Napoli / USEAct project

USEAct Urban Sustainable Environmental Actions

Kick Off Meeting I Implementation Phase Viladecans I Spain 27th I 28th May 2013

Planning tools and Planning governance for Urban Growth Management / Reusing urban areas â&#x20AC;&#x201C; I

Lead Partner

Host Partner

USEAct Viladecans Kick off meeting Report Urban Sustainable Environmental Actions 2

Lead Partner City of Naples Urban Planning Department

URBACT Projects_and Networks on Integrated Urban Development Policies - Central Direction Urban Planning and Management - UNESCO Site Gaetano Mollura USEAct Project coordinator Emilia Trifiletti Finance officer Maria Luna Nobile Communication officer Anna Arena Project officer Contacts: phone +39 081 7958932 - 34 - 17 email gaetano.mollura@comune.napoli.it urbactnapoli@comune.napoli.it Lead Expert Vittorio Alberto Torbianelli USEAct Project Lead Expert Contacts: phone +39 040 5582749 email vittorioalberto.torbianelli@arch.units.it Thematic Expert Pauline Geoghegan USEAct Project Thematic Expert Contacts: email paulinegeoghegan@hotmail.com www.urbact.eu www.urbact.eu/useact The report written by the thematic expert Pauline Geoghegan refers to the seminar work, with contributions of Gaetano Mollura Lead partner, Vittorio Torbianelli Lead expert and USEAct partners that attended the meeting. Anna Arena, Maria Luna Nobile and Emilia Trifiletti, Lead partner team contributed to the editing of this report. NB. this report Should be read in conjunction with the Power Points presented during the meeting, which you can download here

Contents

1. Introduction and Concept paper p. 5 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Concept paper 2. The Host City: Viladecans p. 6 2.1 Welcome by the city Mayor 2.2 Viladecans case studies and context 3. The USEAct issue: Urban growth Management p. 9 3.1 Starting From The Baseline Study 3.2 The Issue of quality 3.3 Planning tools and Planning governance for Urban Growth Management and reusing urban areas 3.4 Problems of peri urban development: results from the PLUREL project 3.5 The LUMASEC URBACT II Project experience in the framework of the first USEAct thematic issue 3.6 Planning tools to reduce land consumption: case studies from Spain 3.7 Integrated strategies towards land management – Best Practices 4. Focus on the other partners/ state of the art baseline study p. 23 4.1 Baia Mare Metropolitan Area Association, Romania 4.2 Barakaldo, Spain 4.3 Buckinghamshire Business First, United Kingdom 4.4 Dublin, Ireland 4.5 Naples, Italy 4.6 Nitra, Slovak Republic 4.7 Østfold County, Norway 4.8 Riga Planning Region, Latvia 4.9 Trieste, Italy 5. The life of the USEAct network p. 38 5.1 URBACT II programme and objectives 5.2 USEAct results achieved in phase 1 and outline of network activities 5.3 Administrative and financial management issues 5.4 Communication and dissemination of results on local and project level 5.5 Project Implementation Phase 5.6 Case study methodology 5.7 Local activities - ULSGs and LAPs/ progresses, identification of priority, problems, achievements, next steps 5.8 Next steps - Organisation of the next seminar – Conclusion Appendix 1 programme of the meeting p. 46

KICK OFF MEETING

IMPLEMENTATION PHASE

PLANNING TOOLS AND PLANNING GOVERNANCE FOR URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT / REUSING URBAN AREAS – I

Kick – off meeting participants Enric Serra del Castillo, Carles Ruiz Novella, Marina Jarque Fernández, Raquel Millan, Antoni Chaves Barragan, Francesca Solà Serrano, Mònica Pastor Tatjé, Carmen Pèrez Figueras City of Viladecans //Antoni Montseny, Diputaciò de Barcelona // Adolf Sotoca, UPC Barcelona //Ivan Sànchez, Abel Porcar, Battle i Roig Arquitectes //Lourdes Salto, City Council of Sabadell //Emmanuel Moulin Head of the URBACT Secretariat //Iván Tosics – Thematic Pole Manager of the URBACT Programme //Gaetano Mollura USEAct Coordinator City of Naples //Vittorio Torbianelli Lead Expert //Pauline Geoghegan Thematic Expert //Didier Vancutsem ad hocThematic Expert //Paul Pece, Marius Ecea, Baia Mare Metropolitan Area Association //Luis Rodríguez Ortiz de Zárate, Álvaro Cerezo Ibarrondo, City of Barakaldo //Jim Sims, Buckinghamshire Business First //Kehinde Oluwatosin, Lorna Maxwell, City of Dublin //Stefan Lancaric, Miroslava Hanakova, City of Nitra //Knut Ramtvedt, Linda Iren K. Duffy, Østfold County Council //Agnese Bidermane, Riga Planning Region //Carlotta Cesco Gaspere, Beatrice Micovilovich, City of Trieste

1.INTRODUCTION AND CONCEPT PAPER 1.1

Introduction

Hosted by the city of Viladecans in Spain on May 27th and 28th 2013, the USEAct „Kick - Off‟ Conference marked the official launch of phase II of the Network. The event aimed to create a common understanding of the project‟s objectives and intended results/outputs while creating a common spirit for the upcoming 27 months. More specifically the following aspects/topics were discussed: the results achieved in phase 1; the theme starting from the baseline study and the expected project results/effects and outputs/deliverables; the URBACT LUMASEC project outputs relevant for the implementation of the USEACT project; the URBACT programme aims and activities; the USEACT Partnership; the thematic methodology for the project; case study methodology; planning network activities: the working structure and work plan; involvement of and co-operation with Managing Authorities, local

support groups and local action plans; organizational issues and finance; communication and dissemination of results on local and project level. Thirty-three participants attended, from all the network partner cities, and the meeting was enriched by contributions from the URBACT secretariat and thematic experts. Members of the Viladecans Local Support Group also took part. The lead partner, experts and partners of the network wish to express their great sadness on learning the loss of Raquel Millan, international Relations Department, City of Viladecans, who had been so instrumental in the successful hosting of this meeting.

zones, Zoning or small lot zoning, are just examples of Urban Planning Tools which could be play a role within a local UGM IP. However, Urban Planning Tools have to be integrated strictly with further tools, as taxes and financial tools for promoting and funding integrated "reuse" interventions. Partners will also have the occasion to discuss how these tools can be integrated into the Urban Planning process. With reference to the point b), Use-Act baseline study recalled that in Europe, authorities have become increasingly dispersed through a variety of different levels, actors and agencies, creating a multilevel basis for governance and that horizontal and vertical coordination of policies has to be improved in many cases. This issue is highly relevant for an effective UGMIP as well. Partners will be required to identify what are the most relevant governance challenges to enforce effective Urban Planning Schemes, to be harmonized with the local UGMIPs.

1.2

Concept Paper

Urban Planning Tools are a crucial factor for an effective â&#x20AC;&#x153;Urban Growth Management Integrated Policyâ&#x20AC;? (UGMIP). During the first Thematic Workshop of the USEACT Project, partners had the occasion to discuss what is actually and what could be the role played by these specific tools within the UGM strategies carried on in the different local contexts. Specific attention was paid to two main aspects: outline and functionality of urban planning tools within UGMIP frameworks, and governance issues and problems in Urban Planning within UGMIP frameworks. With reference to point a), it will be useful to identify, by each partner, the categories of UGM tools in force (or which could be required) within the UGMIP, to stimulate partners to raise awareness on the possibilities to innovate the usual approaches towards UGM tools and to blend articulated packages of tools. Development moratoria, rate of growth control, Urban Growth Boundaries, Green Belts, Buffer

Adequately measuring and monitoring soil consumption trough specific integrated tools shared, at a regional level, by different administrative/ planning levels and geographical scales could be a starting point to better identify the issue and promote multilevel approaches for UGM. With specific attention to the above framework, partners are invited to share (trough cases studies, if any) their owns experiences with other partners on the following issues: 1) Implementing UGM at different administrative levels and scales; 2) planning tools to manage land property fragmentation for integrated "reuse" interventions; 3) taxes and financial tools for promoting and funding integrated "reuse" interventions; 4) transportation and planning for Urban Growth Management. Further experiences and cases studies will be proposed and discussed thanks to the participation of the Lead Expert of the URBACT II project LUMASEC, Mr. Didier Vancutsem and of the external expert of the University of Barcelona (UPC), Professor Adolf Sotoca.

2. THE HOST CITY: VILADECANS 2.1 Welcome by the city Mayor City of Viladecans â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Carles Ruiz Novella, Mayor Welcoming participants, the Mayor spoke of the housing plan in Viladecans for the next 5 to 20 years, when the population is expected to grow by 10 000. It is planned to build 5 000 homes, half of which will be in a new quarter, and the other half will be in the old part of the city, by renovating and converting older buildings. In the same way economic developments take place partially in new areas, and also in existing industrial areas. The plan has been the subject of strategic discussions for many years, but also there is a need to think about what happens after the plan is implemented. They are now looking at all the existing houses in the city, to decide what is needed to make them comfortable to live in. Already services (cable etc) are available in and around Viladecans. The nature of industries is changing: must be able to live comfortably; where houses have no comfort, or communications (cable etc) or air conditioning, it is no planned to demolish these houses but rather help these people to improve their houses and remain there.

to Catalonia., bearing in mind that the GDP would rank 150 in Catalonia, while in the population would rank 19. This difference reflects the field of potential development for the revitalization of economic activity. As local and regional organizations, which largely determine the decision-making process, it is worth mentioning that both administrations are based on performance from the election of a Parliament (called municipal Plenary). This plenary elects the Mayor, who is the President of the Municipal Corporation. With specific reference to urban change, different territorial and urban plans which define the development potential and its conditions must be taken into account. Similarly, various sectoral laws regulate generically the rights and duties of landowners and developers.

2.2 Viladecans case studies and context Enric Serra del Castillo, Head of Territorial Planning, Viladecans City Council, local project coordinator Viladecans is a coastal city, covering an area of over 20 kmÂ˛, located in the metropolitan area of Barcelona, about 12 km from the city center. Currently, the population exceeds 65,000. The municipality is located in the delta of the Llobregat River, which also contains the Port and Barcelona Airport. About 20% of the airport service area is within the city boundaries. The shape of the municipality is almost rectangular with approximate dimensions of 8 km from mountain to sea and 2.5 km in the other direction. Land uses are disposed according to topographical conditions and flooding of the land. As for the productive sectors, over two-thirds are dedicated to services. 95% of companies are SMEs. Currently, the unemployment rate exceeds 19%. On the other hand, the local GDP reached an index of 64 with reference to an index of 100 corresponding

Looking at the example of processing a development plan, the process usually begins with the drafting of a progress document. With this development on the one hand makes the process of participation and on the other, it contrasts the need for the complete procedure of environmental assessment of plans and programs. Once these initial stages are completed a document for initial approval, is drawn up on the basis of the contributions. This document is subject to public information and consideration of sectoral administrations. With the evaluation of the submissions and the incorporation of the provisions of the sectoral reports, the Plan document is finalised. These phases are validated with the approval by a majority of the Whole City. The regional government has to give its final approval. With regard to the USEAct theme the initial situation as mentioned corresponds to an environment that needs to improve its economic production capacity and has a high rate of unemployment. These issues

led us to choose for our collaboration in this programme an industrial area which has a number of shortcomings due to its age: the area known as the Central Industrial Sector. Issues include mobility problems, deficiencies in the sustainable energy and service networks, especially those relating to telecommunications, also problems in building typologies. Another added effect is that in recent years the city has developed new areas of economic activity that have accentuated the problems of the old areas like this.

Business Park, where the meeting is taking place, have also been built at this time. Reflecting the effects of the economic crisis and structural deficiencies in this area, plots that are currently inactive, can be estimated in total at almost 30%.

The field of study is an area of around 40 hectares. It is framed by two of the main entrances to the city from the highways that cross the territory, and the railway and the historic county road. The land is substantially flat. In 1917, Roca Radiators established the factory in this environment. Today it is a multinational leader in the field of items for bathrooms. Our industrial land was still occupied by farmland. Viladecans had a population of about 6,000 inhabitants. The following expansions were accompanied by the establishment of some industries that were unrelated. Construction began on the Central Industrial Sector. Roca Factory, 1929 Source: ICC, Fons Gaspar

Opportunities for the transformation of the area are related to the use of the current dynamics of development of the municipality as a compact city and strategic location (near the airport and port). The need to improve the balance between environmental protection and economic production is a key factor to ensure future competitiveness. And providing capacity for technological innovation to the territory may be another factor in the attractiveness for the establishment of new businesses. Of note is the potential to transfer the experience gained in the development of the city through urban planning and operations to transform residential environments.

Discussion

In 1976, the Metropolitan Master Plan was approved, and is still in force. This plan sets out in detail the conditions of building and the uses allowed in this area. The definitions of the industrial activities of the time are certainly obsolete today. These deficiencies are overcome by processing specific modifications of this plan. The city population has very significantly increased, reaching 45.000 inhabitants in 1985. Between 2000 and 2010, the city was structured to connect all the quarters. Large urban infrastructures in the

Regarding the Local Support Group, it is difficult to work with other administrations; entrepreneurs still to be identified, as are promoters and politicians. They have experiences of creating groups between mayors and businesses for the creation of pedestrian streets. Under the neighbourhood Act it is compulsory to have a local support group for each district and under the District contracts all residents talk with the city hall and draw up a document describing what they want. Next will be the USEAct Local support group. Adolf Sotoca: Renewal of industrial areas is very important for all municipalities around Barcelona. The area was very dynamic, now there are many industrial sites without a target. Concerning the issue of quality, sites are not well prepared for new industries: new infrastructures are needed.

Regarding residential transformations we can share our experiences of the past years. Of particular interest may be those that are developing under the Districts Act. This Act is a regional government initiative to promote the transformation of slum areas in the cities of Catalonia through the definition of integral projects to be financed. The level of cofinancing is set at 50%. The first neighbourhood that was chosen to implement this initiative was the Ponent neighbourhood in 2007. It is a social housing environment configured with isolated dwelling buildings. The whole project is based on actions included in 8 compulsory action fields: Improvement of public space and the facilities, rehabilitation and furnishing of the common elements of buildings, Increasing the facilities for collective use, Incorporating information technologies in buildings, promoting the sustainability of urban development Gender equity in the use of public space and the facilities, social urban and economic improvement programmes, accessibility and removal of architectural barriers. Most programmes have been developed. Currently, urban planning needed to complete the renovation of the district is being developed.

Recently, we started the renovation of a square will be the new heart of the district. This urban renewal project is being carried out through a private public partnership process (between the city and a private company). With regards to the Local Action Plan, in recent months we have been working internally and with contributions from external consultants in the initial diagnostic phase of the urban problems. We also have begun the preliminary stages of proposed alternatives to the strategic level. As in a residential environment, it is clearly crucial to involve the stakeholders. It is therefore important to study this subject carefully. We are also working on defining the basic working methodology We study the Barakaldo proposals, which are in a more advanced state than ours but greatly in tune with us. The Local Support Group will be developed during the next meeting scheduled in the programme. Finally, a brief comment about another fundamental aspect according to us: local communication. This issue is central to reduce the chances of failure. We propose to use all media currently in operation at the municipal level. Municipal Websites, the Municipal Journal, meetings with stakeholders, telematics communications… And surely it would be interesting to consider as a possible system of sharing knowledge advances and the instrument of webinars (web seminars).

The past 20 years have only been concerned with housing, so the old industrial sites were not being cared for. Until now all was based on increasing value because of the market dynamic. Now the market has stopped, so having more floor area means nothing. The planning system is changing: municipalities are not confined to growth. There is a need to look more long term towards quality conditions for promoters and developers, but this does not fit with the political cycle. There is optimism at regional scale, with some draft tools planned in the midterm. The territorial Plan is an opportunity. Abel Porcar is more optimistic: during the building bubble extension of the city was based on profits. Developments did not affect the industrial areas. Vittorio Torbianelli asks what is the Land policy for available land: What criteria for the choice of quality? What is the role of super municipality plans? What transformation of industrial lands? Abel Porcar.: the last industrial development was not planned. Renewal of areas should go in a new direction. Adolf Sotoca: now is a good moment to plan because of the real estate market, but usually municipalities do not see the use of planning. Viladecans is very proactive “a special situation” so manages quite well. In Catalonia planning is very static (unlike the Anglo Saxon situation where things can change). It is a „French‟ tradition, going as far as defining the shape of buildings, details etc, as in Italy too. Some city councils prefer to do nothing, avoiding wrong decisions, and it takes a long time (up to 5 years) to change a Master Plan. According to Jim (Sims) there is no systematic review of plans in the UK. In some places traditional planning can be more flexible. In most places it is a regulatory process, on an „application by application‟ basis. Gaetano Mollura: how to link opportunity with sustainability of development? How to push (?) in the longer term in our interest? In Romania there are metropolitan plans: how are they enforced or is it agreed at local level? Erric Serra: a Master Plan was drawn up in 1976, then a regional plan. One single metropolitan plan was created for 27 local authorities. Each Local authority has its own local development plan. The 1976 plan is being changed all the time, through “Modifications of the Master Plan”; these modifications need municipal then regional approval. There is now a new metropolitan government, elected by each municipality. The metropolitan area is a public body in Catalonia. The regional government has full powers.

3. THE USEACT ISSUE: URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT 3.1 Starting from the baseline study USEAct Lead Expert, Vittorio Alberto Torbianelli

The objective is to identify what land management policy could be for a municipality. What are the main pillars? Integrated policy is difficult to develop. The key thematic elements are: the planning framework and tools, supporting cities to better manage interventions to re use, avoiding further land take and improve the area, and guaranteeing the quality of interventions. The „conceptual pillars‟ of the project can be found on page 9 of the baseline th study.At the start of the 6 EU Environmental Action Programme (2002 – 2012) the document “Towards more sustainable Urban Land use: advice to the European Commission for Policy and Action” (2001)

outlines EU guidelines for local communities to improve land use management: 1. The difficulties of implementing UE policy, the strategic role of the states and the lacks at national levels, 2. The need to give attention to the “market processes”, 3. The “Mapping urban brownfield” issue, 4. Convincing citizens, involving operators and spreading good practices to municipalities; 5. Facing “mismatch”, “involving all levels of government” and the “higher level blockage” problems. Some of the issues should be addressed at the national and regional level, and the governance issue is relevant to the project. Mapping urban brownfields is less of an issue, but rather it is often not clear what land could, and could not, be used. Involving local communities means working in depth, creating tools to explain to citizens, and defining what benefits can arise from new land take? Each city should shape its own “tool box” (urban planning and financial tools) so it will be helpful to better know aspects of different types of tools. It is important to support municipalities to develop partnerships for the re use of areas. Starting from the thematic structure below, which was agreed with the USEAct part 1 project partners the structure and case studies to be exchanged can be decided. USEAct thematic, frame themes and subthemes:

Theme 1

Subthemes

Planning tools and planning governance for Urban Growth Management and reusing urban areas

1.1 Implementing UGM at different administrative levels and scales 1.2 Planning tools to manage land property fragmentation for integrated “reuse” interventions 1.3 Taxes and financial tools for promoting and funding integrated “reuse” interventions 1.4 Improving social awareness towards positive effects of UGM, renewal and densification and involvement of communities 1.5 Transportation and planning for Urban Growth Management

Theme 2

Subthemes

Interventions to “reuse” urban areas: management, partnerships, funding, functions

2.1 Designing, managing and funding successful Public Private Partnership and proactive community participation 2.2 Improving public administration ability on controlling and managing “high quality” and “sustainable” reuse interventions 2.3 Inducing “local added value” in reuse interventions

Theme 3

Subthemes

Refitting and regenerating inhabited buildings and areas

3.1 Integrated, “regeneration-oriented” public strategies through refitting and maintenance of existing buildings in the urban fabric: residential blocks in central areas and historic centres 3.2 Involve flat-owners to join refitting integrated strategies through energy efficiency improvements

3.2 The issue of quality Pauline Geoghegan, USEAct Thematic Expert

The baseline study had focused on quality issues as a key to intervention, for example on page 39 „social awareness, communication and (not populist) participation are prioritised concerning these shared issues around the question of quality that had been highlighted by the USEAct partners during the preparation of the Baseline Study, the most frequest references were: Community, Participation, Communication, Sustainable development and environment: 

Community, for example avoiding gentrification of newly revitalised central areas, onterventions in deprived neighbourhoods, or avoiding evictions



Participation, for example generating „Ownership‟ of plans to densify inner city areas, Neighbourhood development plans.



Communication, for example communicating to the community, developers and administrations of the benefits of newly developed densities.

Sustainable development and environment, for example cooperation with the third sector associations on Sustainable Development of European Cities for a zero increase in land use; developing relationships with anti development lobbie; historical areas as an asset, not a threat, to development, reaching higher densities in urban areas to favour preservation of surrounding areas for agricultural activities. The project experts will provide support for seminars, local action plans and the LAPs Local exhibitions with a focus on social inclusion, local development and the revitalisation of disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Alsos support in the elaboration of final outputs and final conference: reports, thematic outputs, and support for cooperation with the Third Sector Associations on Sustainable development of European Cities with zero increase in land use.

3.3 Planning tools and Planning governance for Urban Growth Management and reusing urban areas USEAct Lead Expert, Vittorio Alberto Torbianelli A strategic approach is needed. The USEAct project aims to focus on the issue of integrated urban growth management policy, to minimize (not necessarily avoid!) land take and soil sealing.

Partners are required to work together to build or improve, at strategic level, to create a framework for an effective design and implementation of integrated policy. They are in particular required to clearly identify the general targets of this policy, at local level; identify what are the “management tools” needed and potentially available to implement this policy and to “manage” the implementation process; recognizing the constraints that, at local level or at a superior level, represent a problem for designing and/or implementing the framework. As far as the “constraints” are concerned, specific attention should be given to the “planning mismatch”, between different authorities… partners should clearly identify, in their respective cases, the “effects” on the land use induced by the mismatch between Administrative Urban Areas, Functional Urban Areas and Morphologic Urban Areas. Should the mismatch problem be relevant, involving the different authorities in the LSG is strongly desirable. Regarding the right scale(s) to face the issue, the delimitation methodology developed by GEMACA (Group for European Metropolitan Area Comparative Analysis) in 1996 consists in the application of 3 criteria: the economic core is the set of contiguous units with more than 7 jobs per ha and more than 20,000 jobs; the morphologic agglomeration is the set of contiguous units with more than 7 inhabitants per ha and more than 60,000 inhabitants ; the functional urban region (hinterland) is the set of units with over 10% commuting to the economic core. The focus of the project should remain the whole integrated policy and strategic planning frameworks useful to “minimize” land take. All the different components of the integrated policy have therefore to be identified and shown within a coherent vision. In particular, the “land take containment” facet of the policy should be clearly identified (and stressed) by the partners which have situations with more “risks” (now or in the future) of further land take. Specific redevelopment schemes are an aspect of the integrated policy. Specific area based re-development/densification schemes have to be considered as an implementation part of the general policy and cannot be considered as the sole “goal” of the project. With specific reference to the areas to be “redeveloped or densified we are mainly interested in discussing the “links” between the general strategic framework to reduce land take and the specific schemes for the areas to be renewed/redeveloped, and the “general” approaches and methodologies that can be applied

to reuse these area, as a coherent component of the integrated urban growth management policy.

establishing qualified compensation measures, facilitate new alternative land uses.

The discussion about the strategic policy framework should be focused on issues such as: what is the best “scale” to implement an effective policy? What are the targets of the integrated Urban Growth Management policy? (Are there “quantitative” targets for land take? How are they determined?) Are these “targets” more (or less???) stringent than the ones proposed by the concurrent authorities (e.g. at regional level)? What are the criteria and indicators used to “manage” the land use and in particular to limit the urban perimeter and to “select” the soils/areas that can or cannot be “taken”, or to select the best functions for the areas? Is there a clear identification of the “target areas” for reuse? What are the criteria to select them within the policy scheme? How are these interventions “linked”, 1 through urban planning, to the preservation policy? In the 2012 EU Guidelines the main drivers are land take targets, land planning guidance linked to the “soil quality”, soil quality in city planning, protection of agricultural soils and valuable landscapes, land planning restrictions (Peri-urban areas and “urban perimeters”), brownfield regeneration, improving the quality of life in large urban centres, sustainable buildings (lower sealed soil per capita), ecoaccounts and compensation systems, Water management (Sustainable drainage systems): Tier 1: Limitation of Soil Sealing: policy, monitoring, realistic land take targets, streamline existing funding policies accordingly, steer new developments to already developed land, provide financial incentives for inner urban development, improve the quality of life in large urban centres, make small city centres more attractive, protect agricultural soils and valuable landscapes; Tier 2: Mitigating Soil Sealing as far as possible: respect soil quality along planning processes, apply technical mitigation measures, to conserve at least a few soil functions (i.e. permeable surfaces on parking areas); Tier 3: Compensate soil losses:

What are in fact the instruments available to planning and other competent authorities to limit soil sealing?

References: Proposal for a Directive of the European

Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52 006PC0232:EN:NOT Functions of the soil: Ecological, Economic/social. See the 2012 EU guidelines, European Commission, Brussels, 15.5.2012, swd(2012) 101 final/2, commission staff working document (i.e. not yet adopted officially): Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/soil_sealing_guidelines_ en.pdf

Making maximum use of the existing city area in general is a priority goal, without the need to sacrifice green spaces, by making more use of existing brownfield sites. Experience shows that effective approaches to tackling soil sealing: 1) Spatial planning follows an integrated approach, with full commitment of all relevant public authorities in particular those governance entities (e.g. municipalities, counties and regions) which are normally responsible for the management of land: participatory input, Strategic Impact Assessment (SEA). 2) Directive and, establishing suitable indicators, regular monitoring, and critical assessments, as well as information, training and capacity building of local decision-makers. 3) Taking into account unused resources at local level, for example a particularly large number of empty buildings, or brownfield sites. Appropriate planning tools, dedicated administrative procedures, financial support and the like help speed up the rehabilitation process and provide reliability for investors. 4) Funding policies and financial incentives have been carefully analysed, with a view to reducing those subsidies that act as drivers for unsustainable land take and soil sealing. These may include subsidies for private housing and other construction projects on undeveloped land and green areas, commuter bonuses that may indirectly favour urban expansion and require a larger transport network, and municipal budgets depending mainly on urbanization fees by virtue of which more soil sealing means more revenues for local authorities. «Soil abilities» and «soil quality» assessments and maps can be useful for making communities more sensitive to the re-development and densification issue. To ensure protection of soil in urban areas, planners should integrate soil quality into evaluation procedures for planning. To this end, a study partly conducted under the EU-funded TUSEC-IP project2 has developed a method to

evaluate soil quality by combining soil quality indicators (SQIs), such as texture, pH and 2 contamination levels.

An example of a basic soil quality indicator set includes soil quality indicator: soil organic matter content, soil texture, soil pH, soil depth, soil structure, heavy metal contamination, contamination with organic pollutants, buffering, filtering and decomposing capacity, general soil fertility/productivity. Introduced in 2008 by the city council of Osnabrück, new ecological standards have to be applied in spatial planning. This includes designation of protective zones for soil and calculation of water infiltration capacity for all planning zones. Stuttgart has developed the Urban Soil Protection Concept to deliver strategies and use of soil to planners and policymakers. Soil resources in the municipality are qualitatively evaluated with the help of a „soil indicator‟, supported by a planning map on soil quality for the entire city area. The map indicates soil quality as the sum of soil functions to be protected and anthropogenic influences like pollution and sealing. The quality of soils is 3 characterised by six levels.

Low densities…To recognize the possibility to build in the «city»…is better than on the outskirts! A common case….(for example, the city of Tomar, Purtugal): “The dominating typologies are the detached single family housing, both in the close vicinity of urban settlements or on the outskirts of the city, and the isolated single family house, aimed for the weekend- or summer-house market.” The lack of an adequate supply of building plots within urban perimeters or the difficulty in acquiring them from landowners unwilling to either build on them or sell them to those who will, may have contributed to the strong building pressure outside urban settlements. The slim supply of housing in the city and the slow or stalled rate of conclusion of some large-scale urban plotting and urban plans situated inside the city‟s boundaries were also identified as probable causes for this sprawl.

Methodologies to delimit “consolidated areas” (within the planning schemes): Morphological delimitation of “urban fringe”, as defined by N.U.R.E.C. 1994 (Network on Urban, Research in the European Community): morphological delimitation takes into consideration the United Nations‟ concept for contiguous built-up area, where the distance between buildings must be less than 200 m. That is, by generating a buffer of 100m around buildings it is possible to delimit builtup continua. This sort of criteria, well suited to cities with very uniform expansion, is insufficient when these processes are a complex blend of suburbanization, sprawl and the incorporation of existing settlements.

Questions to the partners

see Borut Vrscaj, Laura Poggio, Franco Ajmone Marsana (2008), A method for soil environmental quality evaluation for management and planning in urban areas, Landscape and Urban Planning 88 (2008) 81–94 3

Peccol, A, Movia, E. (2012), Evaluating land consumption and

soil function to inform spatial planning, proceedings of 3rd International Conference for Ecological Sustainability, Venice, 1923 September 2012, http://www.venezia2012.it/wpcontent/uploads/2012/03/WS_3_FP_PECCOL.pdf

Do you have any planning rule linked to «soil functional abilities»? …and to «soil qualities» to guide urban planning? Do you think that the «consolidated city delimitation» issue is relevant/problematic in your case, at the moment?

Inter-municipal developments: Rheintal,

Austria, is an agglomeration of several small cities and highly affected by urban sprawl. 29 municipalities have committed themselves to an integrated approach for the whole region, with special focus on the reduction of land take and soil sealing.

received funding, of which 60 % were renovated and 40 % newly built. The renovation programme influenced the local job market positively, since renovation is more work intensive than building.

Inter-municipal business settlements: TMG is a public agency in charge of facilitating new business settlements in Upper Austria. The development of new business locations is an important tool for municipalities to attract new business settlements and new income. However, many Austrian municipalities have already failed and have in fact created new brownfields. As a reaction, TMG has developed the concept of “intermunicipal business location” (INKOBA16). Municipalities co-operate in developing and advertising one common location and share the costs and revenues. By concentrating the efforts of several municipalities the overall land take is lower compared to several smaller projects and the chance that developed locations are efficiently used is higher.

Austrian good practices at province level: 1/ Building permits with expiration date: land with a building permit is considered as a good long term investment and owners have in many cases no intention to actually use their land. New building permits usually expire after 5 years. This means that building permits are withdrawn if the owner has not started to build after five years. This instrument proved to be very efficient for recently acquired building plots. However, there are still numerous building plots with old permits, where this tool cannot be implemented. 2/ Real estate funds at provincial level: five out of nine Austrian provinces have their own real estate funds. The provinces provide low interest loans to municipalities primarily for the acquisition of real estates that are of strategic importance and shall be used for public purposes (schools, kindergartens, homes for elderly, public housing). This tool allows municipalities to realize public developments at strategic places respecting inner urban development and minimal land take. 3/ New funding schemes for housing to improve intensification of settlements. Tyrol supported 2,500 housing units in 2008: two thirds were directed to new buildings and one third to renovation of the already existing housing stock. One year later the funding rules were changed in favour of renovation. With about the same budget 4,100 housing units

Questions to the partners What is the role of supra-municipal authorities (provinces, e.g.) in supporting inter-municipal agreements? What‟s the role in funding re-developments carried on by municipalities? …and renovations of buildings carried on by private citizens?

Quantitative extra-urban development thresholds at supra-municipal level. In 1997 the Spatial Structure Plan for Flanders (RSV) was enforced for the period 1997-2007. It claimed a spatial limitation for new developments, with 60 % to be realized in urban areas and only 40 % in rural regions until 2007. With regard to Flanders spatial planning policy the following conclusions are drawn: the policy target of 60 % development in urban areas until 2007 was not reached. The Brownfield Covenant is an agreement between the Flemish Government and one or more private or public parties which foresees arrangements in order to promote a smooth and efficient realization of a Brownfield project. The process is managed by the Flemish Enterprise Agency (VLAO). As soon as a Brownfield Covenant is concluded, a number of facilitating measures come into force in the form of juridical administrative as well as financial advantages for developers and investors.

Protection of the best agricultural land (Czech Republic): based on the Act on the Protection of Agricultural Resources, the conversion of agricultural land to building land requires a compensation fee. Since the fee is not very high (less than 1 Euro per m²) many experts are of the opinion that the instrument cannot be considered as a barrier for investors. The Rome town planning scheme includes incentives to promote area-based redevelopment.

3.4 Problems of periurban development: results from the PLUREL project

Ivan Tosics, URBACT Thematic Pole Expert

Territorial government mismatch: Europe has a 21st century economy, 20th century governments, and 19th century territorial systems. „America‟s metropolitan areas can no longer afford the crazy quilt of tiny, fragmented governments that they have inherited from the 19th century. The result is a fundamental mismatch between the real metroscaled economy of innovative firms, risk-taking entrepreneurs and talented workers and the inefficient administrative geography of 4 government”. Democracy deficit in planning and governance: Planning is dominated by private interests and by authoritative decisions of local municipalities. In many Central and Eastern European cities opportunity led local development dominates. In many Western Europe cities tax-income maximising policies are behind the efforts to make inner city areas attractive again. The consequence is increase in socio-spatial segregation (growth of gated communities of the rich vs growing ghettoization of the poor and migrants), leading to dissatisfaction of people. The importance of functional urban area cooperation: To avoid the negative effects of competition (investments, services, taxes) between local authorities ; to integrate policies – economic, environmental and social challenges can best be addressed at once on broader urban level; to reach the economy of scale – size matters in economic terms and in services. However, functional urban areas are undefined and usually weak in administrative-political sense. Potential ways to delimit metropolitan areas, city regions: there is no universal agreement, neither on the term (metropolitan area, functional urban zone, city-region, …) nor on its content. Parameters for definition may be grouped as follows: Labour-market definitions, predominantly focused on TTW (travelto-work area) ; economic activity-based definitions. Besides access to labour markets other factors might also be important (e.g. the supply chain, proximity of international airport); Housing-market definitions: the city-region might be defined as the

area in which households search for residential locations; Service-district definitions. For example retail catchments, access to hospitals, theatres, etc. OECD delimitation of functional urban areas: the OECD defined four categories (total functional urban area): small urban areas with a population of 50 – 200 thousand; medium-sized urban areas (200 – 500 thousand); metropolitan areas (500 thousand – 1,5 million); large metropolitan areas (above 1,5 5 million population). 29 OECD countries: 1175 functional urban areas. European OECD countries: 659 functional urban areas (29 large metropolitan areas and 88 metropolitan areas).

URBACT projects have provided evidence on metropolitan governance issues: CityRegion.Net: fair sharing of costs and burdens between the cities and their neighbouring municipalities, role of city-regions; Net-Topic concerns the case of intermediate urban areas around large core cities – towards policentricity with daytime and multifunctional medium cities; NODUS is about: how to steer interventions into neighbourhoods from the city-region level; LUMASEC considers strategic land-use management from city-region level to address supra-local challenges; Joining Forces deals with how to handle complex challenges in large-scale metropolises crossing regional and national boundaries; EGTC concerns how to manage crossborder metropolitan areas with efficient governance models. Summary of the experiences can be found in the ‟URBACT Project Results, study by Peter 6 Ramsden . Eurocities has a working group on Metropolitan Areas and has carried out a survey, with some preliminary results from North-western Europe: Birmingham, Brussels, Ghent, Helsinki, Lille, Linköping, Malmö, Manchester, Oslo, Rennes, Stockholm, Stuttgart, Vienna, Zurich; Southern Europe: Terrassa, Turin; East-central Europe: Bratislava, Brno, Budapest, Katowice and Warsaw. Main types of metropolitan governance are Structured, pre-defined, fixed boundary metropolitan area organisation, for example stuttgart, Flexible and/or bottom-up models of territorial governance, such as Birmingham, strategic planning lead metropolitan areas such as Malmö-Lund. Difference between the agglomeration and the metropolitan area: It is possible to differentiate the agglomeration area (day-to-day cooperation) and 5

Katz, 2010

www.oecd.org/gov/regional/measuringurban

http://urbact.eu/fileadmin/general_library/Rapport_Urbact_II.pdf

the metropolitan area (broader economic cooperation area), according to the differences in the functions: Agglomeration area: transport, housing, sewage, garbage; Metropolitan area: business relations, cultural links, leisure-tourism. There are big variations, whether real cooperation exists in formalized way or at least informally on agglomerational and on metropolitan level. The importance of financial and sectoral policies (PLUREL, FP6): The local government financing system from where and according to which parameters the local governments receive their revenues – externalities; The taxation system : the existence of different types of local taxes and the spatially relevant consequences of these taxes – tax competition; Sectoral policies : infrastructure, economic development, transport, housing – regulations and subsidy systems. Transport in urban – peri-urban areas. Antisprawl policies: the share of public transport use in the urban, peri urban and rural areas is high. There are financial contribution and other special public subsidies given to encourage the use of public transport. There any no transport-linked public subsidies which strengthen urban sprawl (such as tax deduction of travel-to-work costs by car). The RUR area is covered by public transport associations. There are efforts to ensure the internalization of external costs of transport. Mobility management tools are considered in the densest urban areas in order to reduce congestions and improve the environmental conditions of transport. Housing development Anti-sprawl policies: there are supra-local (regional, national) regulations, prescriptions existing, e.g. minimal share of social housing, which influence local housing policy. There are no housing-linked public subsidies with the effect to strengthen urban sprawl. There is cooperation between the municipalities of the RUR area (or smaller subsets of it) regarding housing policy. Regulatory tools and policies on local level against sprawl: public land ownership : landbanking; growth management e.g. balance between jobs and homes, transport services, physical and social infrastructure requirements; financial regulations: provide possibilities for the public sector to recapture some part of land value increase; taxes on green field investments, subsidies for brown field redevelopment. EU level interventions required for integrated urban development: For the success of EU2020 integrated planning (green and social economy

strategies) is needed on the level of functional regions. This new approach needs policy guidance and financial support from the EU, initiating crosssectoral and cross-territorial planning on the functional region level. Integrated solutions are needed: green economy (retrofitting), social economy (including the low skilled).

New elements in European policy making for the 2014-2020 period: ITI (Integrated Territorial Investment): a place-based integrated approach, potentially on metropolitan level (larger cities); CLLD (Community Led Local Development): people-based integrated interventions on local (smaller municipalities) and neighbourhood level; Horizon2020: spatially blind innovative economic actions. With regards to ITI, funding comes from different programmes, and finances an integrated approach. „It is not as easy as it sounds, but the idea is nice... Decision on how it will work depends on the national level. An innovatives aspect is that it is not a territorial approach. It will be important to build the results of USEAct into the ITIs. In smaller neighbourhoods integrated approaches should be applied„. Results which are useful must be based on decisions made with other actors”. Keep the train on the tracks with strategic thinking! The metropolitan agenda and the new EU planning period (2014-2020): The development of tools of different policies is speeding up: Cohesion Policy €320-350bn, within ERDF the ITIs, within EAFRD the CLLDs , innovative urban actions around €0,3 bn, Innovation Policy: Horizon 2020 approximately €80bn. Potential links between metropolitan ideas and European policies: narrow metropolitan areas (zero-sum game): ITIs, led by cities, in conjunction to CLLDs, led by public-private-thirdsector partnerships in smaller areas. The need for defined boundaries and (at least delegated) fixed institutional structure; broader metropolitan areas (win-win type cooperation): link to regional innovation strategies, led by administrative regions and to Horizon2020 innovation partnerships can and should be kept on a flexible spatial level.

3.5 The LUMASEC URBACT II Project experience in the framework of the first USEACT thematic issue

Thematic Expert, Didier Vancutsem LUMASEC Project Lead Expert The project involved different partners within different planning cultures: 5 city partners, i.e. Baia Mare (Romania), Bristol (United Kingdom), Bytom (Poland), Kavala (Greece) and EPURES SaintEtienne (France); the 3 “knowledge” partners were CERTU (the Centre for Development of Urban Development and Transport, France), the University of Ljubljana (Slovenia), the University of Karlsruhe (Germany) as Lead Partner, Lead Expert Didier Vancutsem (Germany/Belgium), within the URBACT family.

Different perceptions of land use. The project started with a discussion with partners and poiticians, with the public and private sectors. The Trialogue between

in France the population growth is low, yet the consumption of land is greater than 25%. Urbanisation outside of legal urban planning is increasing. Understanding Sustainable Land Use Management. In the past, steering urban land use was a simple matter of permissions and land exchange. Today changing framework conditions: land issues are more interlinked and globalized in urbanisation context. Local Authorities are responsible for delivering sustainable development for today and future generations. Cities have a huge impact on natural resource management, consumption of land and global warming, combined with brownfield land within cities and urban sprawl. Sustainable Land Use Management is an integrated process of managing use and development of land, in which spatial, sector-oriented and temporary aspects of urban policy are coordinated. The LUMASEC project started with a „problem tree‟, then started the discussion process, each step with a topic:

public actors, private sector and politics aims to integrate the diverging perceptions of a problem and by this means to overcome the gap between planning and implementation and between longterm and short-term objectives. The context of land use in Europe: Origin of artificial land uptake as % of total, 1990- 2000, 7 EUR23: What has been artificialised? Arable land permanent crops: 49%; pastures and mixed farmland: 36%; forests and transitional woodland scrub 9%; natural grassland, healthland, scelophylous vegetation: 6%; other uses include open spaces with little or no vegetation, wetlands and water bodies. Analysis of the situation in Europe (Baseline Study): More and more urban environment – 80% urban in 2020; On-going suburbanisation process, together with increasing spatial and social segregation; Urban Sprawl as a process of urban change rather than a type of urban form or pattern of urbanisation, with consequences on transport, density and conversion of rural to urban land; Derelict land (brownfields) as abandoned or underused industrial and/or mixed-used facilities (more then 20.000 km2 in EU); Attractiveness and Competitiveness: capacity to develop flexible, adaptable and diverse economic structure / branding – in relation to the use of land; Real Estate Market – Land Use Interaction. Each person is consuming more land than necessary, for example 7

EEA, Land Use Report – Corinne Land Cover 2005

The Main Focus of the project was on strategic land use management for sustainable development of cities, considering issues of urban sprawl and brownfields on the strategic level (strategic planning methods, process of cooperation between public and private bodies, fiscal measures and observation tools) and the operational level (actions plans related to case studies) of land use management. The aim of the Project is the elaboration of strategies, methods, tools and practical recommendations. The first discussion was on Spatial planning and land use management, focusing on the real world, with targets and understanding, and an analysis of instruments: Creating an image of the reality by different professions; mapping by indicators and competences; getting (and sharing) an understanding of the use of land; Identifying and analyzing instruments, tools as well as involved stakeholders; defining or executing policy aims in

land use; setting up a management approach of land use (process) by intervention on different layers. The discussion on Spatial pattern in Bytom (19-21 November 2008) – “Information and data for land use management” covered the occurrence of urban sprawl, GIS tools for mapping and steering land use, and government by building permits. The discussion on Governance took place in Bristol (4-6 November 2009) – “Governance of land use management”, with Stakeholders involved in land use management and examined Structures, processes and tools of governance. The discussion on Capacity took place in Kavala (5-7 May 2009) – “Involving people!” with participation of inhabitants and other (non professional) stakeholders, on awareness and political backup for land use and its management, and competences to deal with complex problems and tools. An Example of a Lumasec LAP is the Local Action Plan of LUMASEC Partner EPURES/SaintEtienne: Developing a Land Use Strategy as a Governance tool: an Operational Tool to limit urban sprawl and promote urban renewal, preserve natural spaces and promote social housing and a Strategic tool to establish a governance capacity without new institution. Actions were proposed to promote a smart green and incentive city: public Land Banks in peripheries (organizing urban development, prevent uncontrolled development) and existing urban areas (urban renewal, public investment with incentive role); identify strategic places for social housing development, transport, etc ; development of mixed-uses programs, organization of land exchanges with investors, etc. The Karlsruhe URBACT Knowledge Support Group developed a learning kit on sustainable land use management, with the aim of creating awareness and impact knowledge on land use management. The learning kit consists of teaching material for high school onwards – environmental education, containing commonly understandable information, ready to use teaching units, interactive media like video or online tools as well as games on land use management. The learning kit was developed in cooperation with the Local Agenda 21 in Karlsruhe. Some learning from the Local Action Plans: problems of use and data management; lack of citizens involvement and participation; lack of intermunicipal cooperation / governance; Brownfield and Urban Sprawl challenges in cities combined with a lack of instruments to contain sprawling process; problem of short-term projects vs. long-term spatial

strategy; limited capacity of authorities to develop effective land use management due to administrative and institutional fragmentation; inefficient dialogue within existing horizontal structures / lack of vertical integration at city and city-regional level. Conclusions and recommendations included policy implications for European cities: multi-level approach coordinating land use policies on horizontal and vertical levels of governance; knowledge before action (e.g. local land market); elaboration of land use policies between strategic planning and opportunities (public regulation, direct land acquisition, private involvement by initial public investment, local taxes, etc). Tools proposed: „good governance“ tools; actions by local authorities (internal management structures, networking city-region, information system, capacity building, tax systems,…); new generation of financial tools oriented to future governance structures (EIB Programmes, innovative PPP structures); Land Banking and Land Accounting Systems. Towards a Toolkit for Sustainable Land Use Management: Land Use Management contributes to Prevention and adaptation to climate change; Need to link the different layers of intervention merging to an integrative approach; Elaborate processes of intervention on the different layers. The European Investment Bank has been very participative in the project. Lumasec developed a communication network: st 1 “post-project” Newslettter ; Addressing Networks such as: ISOCARP, IFHP, ECTP, DIFU, ADEF, CERTU, etc:; European Environment Agency; European Investment Bank; ESPON; DG Regio, DG Agriculture, DG Environment; Committee of the Regions: municipalities, regional agencies. The results of the LUMSEC project can be found on the URBACT website.

Discussion Regarding the Local Support Group Concerning data management, there is now more data available than at the time of the project. In one city data was made available to the public. In Greece there is no data available, in France it is being organised. Data is very important. LUMASEC did not address indicators, but the USEAct could. Discussion also focused on the difficulties of getting people together in the current economic climate. Also considering environment and social aspects can lead to cooperation between actors. In the UK there is no more cash so innovative funding is needed.

3.6 Planning tools to reduce land consumption: case studies from Spain University of Barcelona, Adolf Sotoca

The real estate boom: there are 3,5 milion empty housing units (increased up to 10,8% in the last 10 years), the amount of land financed by the bank sector will allow the construction of 3,5 milion more housing units. The amount of potential land for urbanization covers the housing demand for the next 45 years. A decentralized planning system: central government: basic regulations on land value and finantial valuations (national land act). Regional government: full compenent in urban legislation and (strategic planning). Municipalities are responsible for planning tools aprouval (masterplan). Land act: 1998 act: market orientated law: market value of land once the real estate product is offered; act 2008: balanced orientated law: existing status of land value, independent of future potentialities. The land Act caracterised land as: „not for building‟, as „potential urbanisation‟ (growth containment) or as „urban land for integrated urban regeneration‟. Most actions are at regional level; only recently have there been discussions at national level for more rehabilitation, regeneration and renewal.

size of potentially renewal sectors; set up of urban renewal consortiums (bluring of public/private domains); distinction between owners and promoters (= to previous urban extension processes). Programmes: seven programmes (rental market promotion, public housing stock, rehabilitation fostering), one programme focused in urban regeneration; land taking by public administration diminishing; size of interventions; market integrated interventions (critical mass). Policy instruments are under three main headings: Rural land custody (Landscape plans and Rural land custody), Urban growth containment( Urban growth threshold, the National housing plan and Partial housing plans) and: Neighbourhoods act, Low density urbanisation (Land for regeneration, rehabilitation and renewal). In 2004 17 landscape plans were drawn up in Catalonia, with classification and guidelines. Of these only two were implemented, and two more only partially implemented. Seven territorial plans were drawn up in Catalonia, with planning at a regional scale, to promote rational use of existing resources, with a more coherent approach. This entailed potential categorisation as well as two on protected urban land. These were very strictly applied, though less so now, following political changes. Master plans are drawn up by municipalities, subject to final approval by regional government. Now most plans are de clasifying land, at regional level. Now they won‟t compensate on further losses. This process avoids conflict at local level, because the plan has to be approved by the master plan.

The policy for regeneration, rehabilitation, renewal, instrument no 8: originally conceived at the building scale (rehabilitation) and local scale (regeneration), later consideration of urban renewal (relevant changes in the current land act), motivation was the stimulation of the seriously damaged building industry (73% less activity than in 2007); updating of the housing stock through energy efficiency actions; promotion of rental market (today it only means 7% of total); adaptation of the legal framework towards an urban renewal orientated planning; taking of public land; planning agreements: flexibility in changing the basic urban parameters for renewal interventions; fiscal bonus for renewal interventions (depending on conditions);

Urban Growth Management implies potential growth of every municipality. This means that renewal can only be undertaken within existing land, leading to a lot of conflict with planning bodies. Land cannot really be de classified that has already been prepared. As soon as streets are built, it becomes considered as urban land, which has tax implications.

Discussion In France cities have to have a strategic plan; interdisciplinary teams are needed, in „agences urbaines‟ to work together and to prepare and implement a strategy. In UK „opportunity sites‟ have to be promoted.

The National housing plan (guidelines for UGM) 2008, was not approved. Some houses are used

only a few days per year, so either pre-emption was proposed (not approved) which would give local authorities the right to buy the stock (in Catalonia there are one million empty housing units) or mandatory housing rental, also not approved; this is happening in Andalucia; banks owning housing are being taken over by the government to make them availabe for rent. The regional housing plan (strategic residential areas in obsolete urban land) is in seven areas in Catalonia: in response to the lack of social housing, decided to take advantage of housing need to create strategic housing: 30000 for social housing, but this depended on continuing to extend cities. The majority have stopped this due to the crisis, so the initial objective of 9 000 was not reached. Some of the deregulated areas are in urban renewal land, so not only about locating in central areas. This is not a good policy, though 2005-7 was a dynamic market.

public/private domains), distinction between owners and promoters. Programmes in law: rental, new housing, rentals etc…, and just one programme on urban regeneration, land taking by public administration diminishing, size of interventions, market integrated interventions (critical mass). There have been three changes in the legal framework: diminishing land take, size of interventions, market integrated interventions: bonus for all interventions where many actors intervene in integrated actions. It is good to focus on urban land; however the legislation on urban regeneration is very weak.

Urban land: neighbourhoods Act, for improving land. The Catalan programme for improving: mass housing estates, informal settlements, old city centres was a successful programme, and coordinated, but municipalities responsible for further action. All the money comes from indistrial developments plans for renewal of urban areas. 92 neighbourhoods, 1500 M€. The aim is to integrate physical interventions with social. Participation is important. The regional government funded 50% and the municipalities 50%. The „Low density urbanisation act‟: in the 60s and 70s developed around Spain: cannot uild sinle houses on its own land; people are now moving to live there; initally developers did not provide services but now they have to . Regional government 50%, local residents 50%. Density is low: 40 homes/hectare (in Belgium „low‟ = 20/hectar). This measure is only partially implemented, due to the crisis. The new law for regeneration, rehabiliation and renewal at national level is still under discussion…going into land values… with urban renewal rather than urban growth. The goal is to keep building in the city with regeneration. Originally conceived at the building scale (rehabilitation) and local scale (regeneration), later consideration of urban renewal (relevant changes in the current land act). The motivation was the stimulation of the seriously damaged building industry (73% less activity than in 2007), updating of the housing stock through energy efficiency actions, promotion of rental market (today it only means 7% of total), and adaptation of the legal framework towards an urban renewal orientated planning, taking of public land. Planning agreements: flexibility in changing the basic urban parameters for renewal interventions, fiscal bonus for renewal interventions (depending on conditions), size of potentially renewal sectors, set up of urban renewal consortiums (blurring of

Discussion We must include social housing; basic rules have to be agreed. In Germany offices are being converted to housing. In the UK before the crisis there were few mixed developments. New initative to convert offices to houses depends on the relationship between office and housing costs. In the UK government offers local authorities £ 12 000 to build houses, but schools etc are not following… In Nitra the Local authority sold some housing land, to meet other needs such as roads etc, but this land is now needed. There are no tools to get private investors to build social housing. In Catalonia 30% of housing must be social housing, in the basque Country this precentage is 70%. In Nitra the strategy to make housing available must be agreed between elected representatives. In Dublin every plan has to comply with 17-20% affordable housing. In new member states strategies for social housing must be approved; there are no local strategies for building social housing: municipalities have no funds or plots for social housing. In Spain social housing is seen as an opportunity, paid for at natonal level. In Italy the government has no cash for social housing. In the Basque country cannot sell social housing: this is defined by the administration.

3.7 Integrated strategies towards land management – Best Practices Thematic Expert, Didier Vancutsem

Land as a resource: Every year in the EU more than 1000 km2 of undeveloped land is appropriated for housing, roads, industry and recreation. The EEA has estimated that there are as many as 3 million brownfield sites across Europe. Past suburbanisation / planned urban sprawl bring spatial and social segregation. No common legislation at European level for the sustainable use of soil resources has been adopted until now. Challenges for our cities: key urban issues involved are land consumption, urban sprawl, brownfields and an Increase of urbanized areas not proportional to urban growth. Negative consequences are higher demand on energy consumption, increased cost of development externalities resulting in reduction of competitiveness of cities and diminishing of soil environmental services capacity resulting in global climate problems. Focus on peri-urbanisation by using e.g. the DPSIR method: the model used to try to understand what is happening in the peri-urban: Drivers / Pressures / State / Impact / Response. Modeling approaches to test the anticipated land use changes arising from land use development scenarios include the Regional Urban Growth model (RUG), MOLAND (Monitoring land use cover dynamics), and testing residents‟ responses to environmental change affecting their quality of life (QOLSim).

Elements of integrated land use management strategy: Spatial patterns • Getting an overview regarding land, land use, land value, including brownfields, sprawl, etc. by developing a GIS mapping tool for the territory, respecting the INSPIRE regulations. •

Development of a strategic integrated vision / strategic plan for the territory, including territory outside the borders, controlling growth without sprawl and compliant with environmental and other EU procedures, taking into account the actual trends in demography, climate change, economy, social changes and energy.

•

Combination of the strategic plan with strong rules including fiscal instruments like land taxes, land banking as well as consideration of the added value of development for public interest.

Governance • Building up a culture of cross-sectoral working between the different levels of administration and developing structures for the integration of multilevel partnerships in land use processes: public, private and citizenship. •

Developing leadership in territorial land use policies to achieve vertical and horizontal integration of stakeholders.

•

Combining long- and short- term interests in the processes: developing financial engineering techniques for long-term land use strategies to establish integrated urban strategies.

Capacity Building • Active communication of land use tasks to stakeholders and citizens by sensitizing to the land as resource and not as tool.

Benefits of Land Use Management include prevention and or adaptation to climate change, building of resilient areas, Interlinking different layers of intervention to integrative approach against political fragmentation, building sustainable financial policy for the municipality, environmental protection and development, building sustainable transport infrastructure, capacity building

•

Building up co-operations with existing participatory networks like e.g. the Local Agenda 21 to establish two-way learning processes.

•

Considering public administration and other stakeholders as target groups in addition to the involvement of citizens. Education and training of institutions and people in order to develop skills regarding tools and the processes.

Best Practices

ICT related: Stuttgart Region: moved from a master paln to a land use plan to a building plan, then, in order to attract investors created a detailed online database, indicating all available plots for development: housing, industry etc. This alos indicates clusterse of strategic importance, as well as plan density. The database is updated every week by an agency inside the administration connected to a property agency. Impose quality, for example an architectural competition; this operates both inside and outside the city centre, also a lighting plan, and a well developed marketing plan. This information is communicated to citizens, linked to the building plan consultation, where the value of land is visible. Process related: City of Munich: no master plan. The process is a continuum. More effort is needed from the administration which is always producung documents. There were 12, now 16, principles, illustrated with actions and projects, for example principle no 5 is „compact- urban-green‟. The city had to build on brownfields and for example an old railway has been re planned and integrated into the urban structure. The land use plan is integrated with the „process‟. A new „land use tax‟ was decided for the realisation of green spaces: part (20%) of the plot deveopment must be a green space: this can also include green space on the roof. Each square meter built in Germany, has to be compensated with 1 square metre of green space. The city is working a lot with the Regional Planning Agency and the regional board (a meeting of mayors on a monthly basis). All housing developments are located around public transport, so there is concentration along public transport routes. Next steps will be restructuring mixed areas, densifying single family housing, and urban border developments. An integrated approach can be developed to link developments on one plot. Governance related: Amsterdam. Participation in the food industry, including food production land use by involving people: an urban farm, culture… aim for 17 sq m/habitat public space within a 5‟ walk. Highlight heritage or outstanding landscape features; re densifying traffic: no cars in central areas.

Discussion Highlight the different role of local authorities in different countries. Learn from examples across Europe… the plan should be a „living thing‟.

4. FOCUS ON THE OTHER PARTNERS / STATE OF THE ART BASELINE STUDY 4.1 Baia Mare Metropolitan Area Association Paul Pece – Project manager development, Baia Mare, Romania Metropolitan areas are new in Romania. It is now national policy. They are now creating a legal framework to create regions, which are now only „statistical‟ regions. Baia Mare consists of 5 cities, with a population of 20 000. The total population is 120 000. Baia mare is an association of local communities. Baia Mare is the capital of the county. Strengths are: accessibility by all means of transport (road, rail or air); proximity to the Hungarian and Ukrainian border; good road connection with regional poles of Cluj-Napoca, Oradea, Satu Mare; Baia Mare International Airport; a well developed university, school and vocational education; well qualified and available workforce; territorial cooperation between localities that are members of the Metropolitan Area; the existence of functional metropolitan governance mechanisms. Weaknesses are its isolation from the panEuropean transport corridor; residual soil pollution; fragmented ownership of land; built heritage in an advanced state of decay; demographic population decline due to natural growth and labour migration; insufficient financial resources of local budgets for infrastructure investments; lack of administrative capacity of local governments. The Metropolitan development vision 2010 – 2020 is for a competitive economic area dominated by non polluting productive activities (transfer areas, industrial parks, agriculture and tourism); comfortable living in a clean environment, accessible through public utilities; an attractive destination in European multicultural landscape, through various ways of expression: language, music / traditional costumes, architecture, gastronomy. The development motto is WE INNOVATE! Strategic objectives are: Improving quality of life and removing social and economic disparities between member localities; strengthening the Baia

Mare metropolitan pole, by attracting private investments, structural and cohesion funds; promoting Baia Mare Metropolitan Area at a regional, national and international level through the national and European associative structures. The Metropolitan development strategy: Baia Mare Metropolitan Area has a development strategy for the period 2010 – 2020, assumed by all the associated municipalities, by vote in the local councils, and also has a set of priority projects and programmes for the European programming period 2014 – 2020. Moreover, a Development Concept of the metropolitan area has been defined for the period 2014 – 2030, which splits the area into two st development areas: the 1 Development Area: Baia Mare City and the surrounding municipalities nd no more than 15 km radius (first ring); and the 2 Development Area: the other municipalities, covering the surrounding area up to a 35 km radius (second ring). The development will be realised in two different stages, by implementing programmes and projects in the two areas: Stage 1: 2014 – 2020 st period, for the 1 Development Area; Stage 2: 2020 nd – 2030 period, for the 2 Development Area. Metropolitan projects include :1-Modernization (upgrade) of the Baia Mare Ring Road with an increasing result of accessibility and mobility within the metropolitan area; 2; Increase traffic mobility by creating an intermodal terminal, including parking facilities and logistic transfer stations; 3. Organizing the metropolitan transport system and developing an electronic monitoring system; 4. Development of business support structures, such as industrial parks and scientific/ technologic parks; 5. Managing the metropolitan development data through a Geographic Information System (GIS). 2010 – 2020 programmes and projects: In the 1st Development Area, a Development Corridor it has been identified (on the west – east axis), on the territory of the Tăuţii Măgherăuş, Baia Mare, Recea, Groşi, Baia Sprie municipalities, which focuses the most important local investments (Adiss, Optibelt, Weidmuller, Eaton, Metro, Arabesque, Real, Praktiker, ATP Exodus, Aramis, Italsofa), and also the business and transport infrastructure (Airport, Customs, Local public transport, Ring road). The most important metropolitan programmes are to increase accessibility and mobility within the metropolitan area, to promote local economic development in the metropolitan area; the decontamination and cleaning of the brown-field areas and placing them in business; creating the metropolitan transport system; modernizing and expanding the Baia Mare City ring road; the development of business support infrastructure:

industrial & technological parks, business incubators, exhibition centres.

A priority is creating one or more industrial parks, within the proposed Development Corridor, in order to generate business infrastructure and tax incentives for the potential investors Locations for the industrial parks include the Industrial Park West Area, by creating a partnership with the land owners, Recea and Dumbravita communes. The total surface will be around 100 ha and could permit the establishment of a business incubator, an exhibition centre and land areas for proper investors ; the industrial Park East Area, by creating a partnership with Baia Sprie City Council and other private land owners in the area. The total surface will be around 50 ha, but initially it could be needed a decontamination of the polluted and brown-field areas of the CUPROM industrial platform. Another priority is organizing the metropolitan transport system that will mostly contribute to an improved mobility and accessibility within the metropolitan area of Baia Mare City. Another project is represented by the modernization of the Baia Mare City ring road, this road being the axis of the Metropolitan Development Corridor and of the Development Area 1. Industrial and technology parks: Industrial Parks will support the economic development of the area, facilitating the attraction of investors and the creation of jobs. Accessibility within industrial parks will be ensured through the modernization and expansion of the ring road. Labour mobility will be ensured by creating the metropolitan transport system that will optimize the flow of people. Planning Tools and Strategies supporting urban interventions and Managing Urban Growth: the Metropolitan Area Strategy for 2010 – 2020: the strategy for the whole metropolitan area of Baia Mare developed by the communities involved in the Association, aims at working on different intermunicipality themes, such as land management at territorial level, industrial and production development, transportation. In detail, the metropolitan projects are: the Baia Mare City Belt; the development of the Metropolitan Industrial Park; management of the Metropolitan Public Transportation System; Baia Mare City Sustainable Development Strategy. It is aimed at interventions on public services and network facilities (rehabilitation of water and sewage system), the upgrade of transportation network. The tool is supported by the Baia Mare City Administration in collaboration with local population and companies; General Urban Plan of Baia Mare

City. The plan manages the administrative territory of the City, regulating building activities and the use of city land (green field and brown field). Among other sectors, the plan focuses on areas to regenerate and on urban areas with social problems; Integrated Urban Development Plan of Baia Mare City (PIDU). The plan, to be implemented through urban projects within 2015, is managed by Baia Mare City with local population and companies, is a local tools at city level. It is aimed at the rehabilitation of Vasile Alecsandri Neighbourhood. Especially, the plan is focused on interventions on various infrastructures: road networks, public transportation and green, open spaces. The Plan is a tool both for regulation aimed at the management of urban growth and at the protection of open spaces with zoning; Local Urban Planning Regulations. These are the urban plans for each of the 18 municipalities forming the metropolitan area. The plans regulate all the aspects of the building process. Moreover, the documents define abandoned/ unused & damaged buildings” and imposing their rehabilitation in order to prevent citizens‟ safety and to improve urban design; the facilitation process of the transfer in public domain of the buildings that are part of the urban sustainable redevelopment plan; urban spaces functions – residential, green areas, law protected/ restricted areas (historical centre), river side areas; the directions and functions of the metropolitan development areas (real estate, industrial, commercial, touristic). Experiences on “Urban Reuse” projects: Baia Mare City has already developed some projects concerning the reuse of inner-city areas: During the LUMASEC project, Baia Mare developed Zone Urban Plan for the Ferneziu neighbourhood, where still in-use factories could be redeveloped as cityhubs (Rompumb factory and Herja mine), by especially facing the reclamation of the polluted area. For this area, the idea of creating attractive tourist areas, supporting tourist sector at urban level was at the base of the project. The importance of the project implementation for Baia Mare City: Local Action Plan for a damaged industrial area (brown field site at the moment) with the purpose of „redevelopment” and change of the urban function; Zone Urban Plan (Ferneziu neighbourhood) was defined during the implementation period, becoming an output of LUMASEC; Defining an approach of recovering the mining brown field areas as possible touristic facilitates (objectives) in order to support the tourism in the city area. Expectations from USE Act project and network: Baia Mare Metropolitan Area aims at strongly

cooperate with network partners to: gain knowhow on land use efficiency and on models of propertyasset management, so to better deal with property fragmentation between different municipalities and local authorities; learn good practices concerning models of sustainable development in abandoned/deprived urban areas; gain models of land use management within economic crisis framework, promoting plans towards “zero-growth” models and at the same time ensuring economic growth. Contribution to the project & network: expertise in intercommunity development and metropolitan governance. BMMA is also member of the Metropolitan and Urban Areas Federation in Romania (www.fzmaur.ro), ensuring the secretariat of the federation; know-how in urban sustainable redevelopment, as Baia Mare City is an example of good practice at European level regarding the historical center regeneration with EU Funds. (Business Center Millennium III Baia Mare project). The Local Action Plan (LAP) of the Baia Mare Metropolitan Area Association shall propose an integrated approach of land use management in the entire metropolitan area, to deal with territorial management and land use policies with a shared vision, and it could be focused on the creation of a common land management policy at metropolitan level. Key problems (transition period): brown field areas; urban sprawl – due to weak legislation in the urban planning domain; green field consumption for productive areas, real estate & building sector; Challenges: sustainable redevelopment of brown field areas; cleaning and reusing the polluted areas, with change of urban function; strengthen the urban planning regulations, both in real estate & industrial development areas; to promote an integrated approach at metropolitan level, to increase land use efficiency, especially in the areas where the property is divided between the City and its neighbours (common local regulations despite administrative differences). The Local Support Group (LSG) is organized on two levels: a technical support group – formed mainly of specialists on urban planning/ economic development field/ project implementation field representing the 18 municipalities involved; a political support group – the Board of Directors of Baia Mare Metropolitan Area Association, consisting of the 18 mayors, representing the municipalities. Moreover, the LSG may be strengthened with representatives of the Managing Authority and other stakeholders of the USE Act project. The technical

support group will be responsible for developing and promoting the action plan and the political support group will be in charge with assumption of the LAP, both at metropolitan level and at local level (18 municipalities). Communication and tools at local level to disseminate the project activities & outputs: BMMA website: www.zmbm.ro; BMMA newsletter; press conferences; press articles; LSG meetings; the metropolitan network – support group involving at least one representative from each municipality, that will disseminate the activities & outputs of the project at community level. Outcomes for Baia Mare Metropolitan Area: 1. Development of a land management policy for the entire Metropolitan area of Baia Mare City; 2. A Local Action Plan, focused on land use efficiency in the entire metropolitan area of Baia Mare city, which should include: solutions for “sustainable redevelopment” of brown field areas; recommendations on reducing/avoiding land consumption in the metropolitan development areas; roposal for regeneration of urban buildings and increasing energy efficiency; a Local Support Group that will provide sustainability for the project after the implementation period.

4.2 Barakaldo Alvaro Cerezo, URBACT Project and Local Support Groups Coordinator (ULSG) and Luis Rodriguez, URBACT Networks Local Coordinator , Spain

25 Barakaldo is the second largest city of the Basque Country, on the left bank of Metropolitan Bilbao. Barakaldo has become a centre for commerce and services of the metropolitan area of Bilbao, due to the transformation which has taken place over the last 20 years. State of the art of the city about the network theme: Existing “expansion” and “development” zones on “Greenfield” (formal and informal), both at the municipality and “surrounding zones” level; there remain 10% of Greenfield areas to be developed under the current Urban Plan. They are ready for physical implementation; the planning and management are already executed. Existing plan/programs/schemes are aimed at regeneration/recovery/redevelopment/renewal/restru cturing actions, for specific zones/areas/districts, etc.; 90% percent of the areas included in the current Urban Plan to be developed are already executed. Existing “problematic” zones/contexts which could be the target of regeneration/ recovery/ redevelopment/ renewal/ restructuring actions; the new “Urban Plan” has the intention of developing at least 4 integral regeneration areas of more than 1000 flats each. Key problems are the limited management tools for the active urban transformation process of Barakaldo for global and changeable economic and financial scenarios. There are important management obstacles in the task of integral urban regeneration: huge fragmentation of property, low cost relocations of inhabitants and difficulty in persuading users to make special contributions for infrastructure; the property legal framework, with competence at national level, is too rigid and generates difficulties in new ways of management to intervene and to increase density in the consolidate city; problems of active physical urban regeneration and adapt neighbourhoods to the constant change of needs: accessibility, energy efficiency, building and public space quality and lack of maintenance; limited tools and management processes to encourage private-public partnerships: housing sector, construction sector, financial sector, energy sector etc., and homeowners, leaseholders, building managers, regenerator and rehabilitator agents. Challenges: Since the current Urban Plan has developed the transformation process to a new urban model of Barakaldo and has run out of land consumption, the MG_Brk should now face a new scenario: a new urban development model of zero

Growth, together with Implementing urban regeneration strategies., proposing affordable solutions and practices to reach the objectives of the EU 2020 Strategy, either on urban or building scales; encouraging public-private partnerships (including financial and energy sector) towards the self management communities-neighbourhoods; gaining transparency and participation on urban transformation operations, to transmit confidence to the different agents taking part on urban regeneration processes; redirecting policies in other to control the properties speculation; making new job opportunities available in the housing rehabilitation sector (enacting local economy). The overall challenges that the Municipal Government of Barakaldo are to reach new methods and knowledge, for local governments and publicprivate stakeholders, to increase quality and efficiency of urban regeneration processes, and deepening the role of local stakeholders. Potential includes previous experiences on urban renewal integrated operations in industrial areas and Brownfields; recent legal framework change that allows defining new ways of intervention on the consolidated city (Still practical strategies need to be developed); the capacity of Local Government of Barakaldo in defining integrated tools of planning, governance, financing and participation on urbanlocal scale; provable interest of the private investors (including energy companies) on new type of businesses related to energy efficiency and some other local resources (self management communities). Expectations from USEAct are to have the possibility of checking different systems, used in other EU countries; to share urban regeneration information and experiences, either on urban or building scales, based on building preservation, and the implementation of energy efficiency and accessibility measures; to learn detecting incomegenerating mechanisms that allows regeneration process (including financial strategies); to study regeneration operations on mainly residential areas (2.000-1.000 flats), with medium high densities (300-200 flats/ha.), 30%-50% land cover ratio and lower income rate communities. What could you “offer” to the NETWORK in terms of practices and experiences – on what themes? Experience in urban integrated renewal operations; R+D industrial sector on building renovation and energy efficiency ready for new potential developments. Local Action Plan: The Municipal Government of Barakaldo (MG_Brk) has the executive power to develop and implement local urban development

policies, mainly through the Urban General Plan (PGOU) and The Local Development Aid Plans. The Municipal Government plays a key role, from urban planning to neighbourhood urban regeneration and housing rehabilitation, in the management, coordination and, through financial consolidation, in the empowerment of local stakeholders on urban regeneration issues. The Municipal Government of Barakaldo also plays a key role in the involvement processes of local stakeholders on sustainable development policies and, therefore cohesion policies. Intended results and achievements of the Local Support Group are to compare and contrast experiences on viable urban regeneration models taking place in the EU; to define new urban regeneration tools, applied to our legal framework. For that purpose we have the support of the Basque Government (MA) and the Construction Cluster of the Basque region (ERAIKUNE) in order to bring the wide variety of agents to the programme. ULSG organization proposal and activities: in order to organize the ULSG themes and activities, we have developed an initial ULSG working scheme, around 12 different but integral and complementary issues:  The Urban Regeneration Intervention: Definitions, interventions and examples.  Studies and analysis on the definition of the Urban Regeneration Intervention: Urban, social and economic indicators.  Urbanistic vs. integral intervention framework: Social, economic, cultural and urban infrastructure programs.  The “right to participate” and the duties of the Urban Regeneration Interventions.  Definition of the urbanistics parameters on urban areas: Planning standards, transfer of land ownership, flexibility and land value.  Quality standards of the urban environment (existing building and urban area).  Regeneration actions and mechanisms for the added-value generation: Energy efficiency.  Accessibility, underground uses, urban equipment maintenance, building maintenance and public services.  Public housing, new ways to access the “right of housing”.  Cost sharing and profit distribution mechanisms in Urban Regeneration Interventions: Techniques equidistribution of benefits and burdens, reparcelling, alternative ways of sharing, other ways of cost weighting.  Economic and value added public contributions: Public Investments and reinvestments, local administration budget.



payback period, local taxes and permissions, tax relieves and subsidies. “Restoring agent-entrepreneurs (Energy Service Companies, ESC) and the Public Private Partnerships: Alternative public financing models, Joint ventures. Citizen Participation: Process stages, identification, tools, feed back and level of satisfaction.

ULSG organization proposal and activities: At the same time, under the acronym LUCES (LIGHTS translated to English) we propose on each theme a wide variety of participants, in order to be able to focus on the specific aspects related. On each category we will invite all sort of professionals and University members, all related and specialized on these subjects in order to confront their different points of view on urban regeneration and integrated “reuse” interventions. L:Legal; U:Urbanism; C:Construction; E:Economy; S:Sociology. We aim to develop working group activities using the LinkedIn networking tool, so that we will enhance the participant‟s involvement on the cross sharing information and increasing their professional visibility due to the USEAct Network. Communication Tools and Actions will include dissemination of the public information on the Municipal website and local TV and Regional newspapers, through Workshops, Seminars and Forums where we aim to share all the information produced at the different events of the programme. Meetings It is proposed to integrate agents into the process, using web format new technologies, such as LinkedIn working groups.

Discussion “we don‟t need ideas, we need actions”… i.e. how to get there: we need management. The framework is limiting strategies, going far beyond regional strategy: we don‟t know how to implement regional sqtrategy, which is often very rigid. Every problem is an opportunity. Political distribution led to changes, but are based on consensus.

4.3 Buckinghamshire Business First Jim Sims, USEAct project Coordinator, Buckinghamshire Business First, UK

Buckinghamshire is located between Oxford and Cambridge with good motorway connections. The opening up of the Oxford/Cambridge rail corridor has led to growth. Major businesses have settled in the area, such as Silverstone (motor race course), Pinewood film studios and Agri food companies. Facts about The County of Buckinghamshire: th 30,000 businesses, the 4 most productive place in th England (& 5 in the UK); the Entrepreneurial Heart of Britain ; the Applied Research Centre of the UK; Sector Specialism‟s in Life-sciences; Film & Creative Media, Agri-Food and Advanced Engineering.

National Planning Policy: In March 2012 the government produced the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), to consolidate the majority of the national planning guidance and statements into a single document. The NPPF includes a shift in emphasis particularly in: presumption in favour of sustainable development; local authorities are required to add into new plans as they are produced and essentially means that the Council should grant planning permission where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, unless any adverse impacts of doing so would outweigh the benefit, focus on the Economy: the planning system should focus on building a strong, competitive economy, with significant weight placed on the need to support economic growth; previously Developed Land (PDL) in the Green Belt: although great importance is still attached to the protection of the Green Belt, the NPPF identifies that limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment PDL is not inappropriate development in the green belt; local Green Spaces: the NPPF enables local communities through local and neighbourhood plans to identify for special protection green areas of particular importance to them. The NPPF is a key material consideration when the Council considers planning applications. When

assessing proposals for development the Council will still use the adopted plans as set out below, but will also need to consider how consistent existing policies are with the NPPF on a case by case basis. But the system isn‟t working: it is the largest small firm economy and one of the smallest public sector economies; the gross value added per hour worked is decreasing; worklessness is increasing; poor supply of technical skills for our industrial mix; one of the lowest investment rates in commercial property in the UK; lack of core, basic infrastructure; low firm inward investment, accelerated outward investment and an increasing extreme dormitory status; lack of suitable employment land; developers are always keen to convert what development land is available to housing. Why planning isn‟t working Planning has become too focussed on adhering to a regulatory process, rather than managing development sensitively. There is a shortage of good old fashioned town planning skills in the system; the governance of the planning process is too squarely rooted in the political system. Local politicians face clear and present lobbying from current residents with fears while future generations and employees have no voice. There is inconsistency in process across different organisations. Increasing need for some local authorities to trade to balance finances is encouraging some to favour schemes which only happen on their land. Nimby communities view development from the „neighbourhood‟ perspective, rather than from a „global competitiveness perspective‟. Green Belt Policy continues to hold back growth. Governance of the planning & development system: National – Overall Policy: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Lots of initiatives to try and kick start the economy; Private – Private Sector (Buckinghamshire): Buckinghamshire Thames Valley LEP – Public & Private Strategic Partnership; Buckinghamshire Business First – Private Sector Business Support Delivery; Buckinghamshire Advantage – Public & Private Sector Property Development Company; Municipalities: 1 County Council – Transport Planning Authority; 4 District Councils- Local Planning Authority. The Local Action Plan (LAP) will bring residents, politicians, businesses and developers together. The Local Support Group (LSG) will include the BTVLEP Board, Infrastructure Sub-Group, Developers Forum, and a technical (LSG) SubGroup.

4.4 Dublin Lorna Maxwell, Senior Executive officer, Dublin City Council, Planning and economic development, Ireland

28 Dublin is the capital city of Ireland covering an area of 11,761 hectares with a resident population of 527,612. Dublin city is one of four authorities in the Dublin Region with a wider population of 1.273 million. Despite the economic difficulties experienced in the city and country in the last number of years, people still remained positive and upbeat about living, working and studying in the city. A survey carried out in 2011 „Your Dublin, Your Voice‟ 93% of residents indicated that they would recommend Dublin to family as a place to visit. In addition 85% agreed that Dublin always had something interesting going on and 77% felt proud of the city. The Economy: Dublin is one of the most globally connected cities, gathering Foreign Direct Investment companies and experts, a vibrant technology sector, financial services and creative industries. In the 2011 Globe Shopper City index by the economist intelligent Unit (EIU), Dublin ranked th 4 across European cities in the shops category, recognising the excellent variety of shops and international brands in the city. Dublin is home to 48% of all ICT companies in Ireland, 30% of pharmaceuticals, 48% of business services and 86% of financial services. Internationally, Dublin is considered one of the best places to invest globally. The reputation and competitiveness of Dublin still holds strong with the government positioning the country as the „innovation island‟, a hub for new cutting edge industries and a country with a talented, well educated workforce. Planning: The Dublin City Development Plan provides a coherent spatial framework for the delivery of sustainable development to ensure an improved quality of life for its citizens. There are six broad themes which are integral to the future growth and development of Dublin City. The application of the themes at all levels, from Plan making to urban projects and development management will help to deliver a better quality of life for all. The six themes constitute inter-related and essential elements of a sustainable approach to future development of the city. The six themes are: Economic – Developing Dublin City as the heart of the Dublin region and the engine of the Irish economy with a network of thriving spatial and sectoral clusters, a focus for creative talent and creative assets Social – Developing Dublin City as a compact city with a network of sustainable neighbourhoods which

have a range of facilities and a choice of tenure and house types, promoting social inclusion and integration of all ethnic communities Cultural – Making provision for cultural facilities throughout the city and increase awareness of our cultural heritage and promoting safe and active streets through design of buildings and the public realm Urban Form and Spatial – Creating a connected and legible city based on active streets and quality public spaces with a distinctive sense of place Movement – Helping to build an integrated transport network and encouraging the provision of greater choice of transport. Planning and zoning objectives will be brought together to increase the opportunities to live and work close to transport hubs and corridors Environmental – Providing for an overall framework involving key principles, strategies and objectives to drive a vision of „Sustainable Dublin‟ over the next 25 to 30 years, making sure that buildings can adapt to changing needs and encouraging better waste management strategies Challenges include: the unemployment rate is high, especially for young people, including many university graduates, disadvantaged areas, dangers of gentrification, the local authority also has limited funds. Achieving a compact city without apartment blocks, the issue of urban sprawl and the need for strong governance, postponement of major network infrastructure like the Dart Underground, Brownfield sites in the city, increasing vacancy level in historic Georgian Squares. There are other challenges which the city must address, including those in relation to climate change Potential: Within the next 25 to 30 years, Dublin will have an established international reputation as one of the most sustainable, dynamic and resourceful city regions in Europe. Dublin, through the shared vision of its citizens and civic leaders, will be a beautiful, compact city, with a distinct character, a vibrant culture and a diverse, smart, green, innovation-based economy. It will be a socially inclusive city of urban neighbourhoods, all connected by an exemplary public transport, cycling and walking system and interwoven with a quality bio-diverse greenspace network. In short, a vision that will see Dublin city as a place where people will seek to live, work and experience as a matter of choice. This vision is based on the principles of sustainable development contained in the Framework for Sustainable Dublin (FSD) and also on the six Themes approach utilised by City Council in the formulation and implementation of policy.

4.5 Naples Gaetano Mollura, Project Coordinator, City Council of Naples, Lead Partner, Italy

29 Naples is the third largest city of Italy. It is the capital city of the Campania Region, the metropolitan area of Naples covers an area of 1.171 km2. The number of inhabitants in the metropolitan area is 3 078 408 (2011), with a density of 2 630,45 inh./km². The number of inhabitants in the city area is 956.739 (2011), with a density of 8 158,43 inh./km². The unemployment rate is 46,7% (young people in the metropolitan area in 2011). In the city unemployment of young people rises to 60%, with the general population at 20%. However young people can be the most important resource in the city. The population of NAPLES reduced from 1.211.000 in 1980 to 956.739 in 2011. Key business & employment sectors: the port of Naples is one of the most important in Italy, in terms of commercial activities (import-export) and in terms of passenger traffic (cruise traffic). The income produced by the tourism factor and by the cultural activities is a crucial element for the economic growth of the city. The attractiveness comes from the cultural opportunities and the historical heritage of the city, which makes the city being in the UNESCO World Heritage List since 1995. The city has one of the oldest universities, with 100 000 living in the city centre. On the other hand, the city is currently suffering from the economic crisis, influencing especially the manufacturing sector and artisanal activities. Decision-making process: Several measures for the protection of open spaces and the re-use of dismissed building of the inner city are undertaken and managed by different tools aimed especially at the reduction of land use and the transformation of the former industrial areas. Recently, the city has been declaring its commitment to the reduction of land use by supporting the national campaign “Movimento stop al consumo di suolo” (“Stop to land consumption”). Another interesting aspect, of the last decade policy of Naples, is the link between urban interventions, land use management and plans for the development and management of the transportation network. The definition of a large restricted traffic area corresponding to the areas of the historical centre and a part of the waterfront is the main challenge already in progress. Key problems: Naples is currently facing a number of problems connected to different physical situations, and especially in relation to: the trend of urban sprawl, with legal and illegal settlements and

the deterioration of the existing urban heritage, with specific issues in large parts of the historical city; in recent neighbourhoods, built between the after-war reconstruction and the 1980‟s; in brownfields (or underused productive areas). The high proportion of private buildings in the old city makes any intervention all the more difficult. Preventing gentrification arising from building renovation in historic areas is another issue. The challenges that Naples is currently facing are to reduce the trend of urban sprawl and the trend of unauthorized building increasing the quality of residential areas and, where necessary, promote densification in existing urban areas, without further land use and to promote recovery and rehabilitation of existing neighbourhoods, especially encouraging interventions to improve energy efficiency in building renovations. Potential: Different starting situations need different approaches on interventions and especially: re-use in the historical parts of the city should be managed avoiding phenomena of social exclusion (e.g. gentrification effects), by coordinating incentives of refitting and social policies, protecting local commercial activities and residents, to preserve the identity of the areas; recent neighbourhoods, currently deteriorated or undervalued, to be improved with interventions, in which local owners could be involved; undervalued buildings represent an opportunity to give more quality to an area. A challenge is to find ways of carrying out rehabilitation when people are living there. In addition in these areas most buildings have several owners. Rehabilitation of former productive industrial areas, such as the Bagnoli area or Napoli Est, respectively located in the western and eastern parts of the city, that could rehabilitated and reused as boosters for the city development. Planning Tools and Strategies supporting Urban Growth Management: at City level there are the 8 General „Masterplan PRG variante generale‟ (2004) and entailing, among other targets, the reduction of land use and the investment on the re-use of the existing heritage, and the “Indirizzi urbanistici per l‟adeguamento dell‟offerta abitativa” where all the new residential interventions are addressed in former industrial areas or in free areas in already urbanized zones (small-lot zoning). Within these 9 10 11 are the PUA , PUE and PRU . 8

General Master Plan, in Italy [Piano Regolatore Generale] -City level 9

in Italy [Piano Urbano Attuativo] (City Level)

The Provincial level Regional Masterplan 12 (PTR ): protection on the landscape (natural and built), preserving the territory from land consumption and sprawling development and enhancing the multifunctional character of rural areas in peri-urban fringes. The Legge Regionale 1/2011 [1] (Piano Casa) law promotes the interventions on existing built heritage. The Management Plan for the Protection of land and water resources (promoted by the Northwestern Campania Basin Authority) preservation of open space and reduction of land consumption play a key role for the protection of the environment. Naples will become a metropolitan area, seen as positive since this will mean greater control of the land around the city . The regional Level highlights the importance of planning for everyone to have a home… „piano casa‟ scheme, but needs funds. Reform of the transport plan: urban re use is linked with the urban transport structure (cf the 100 stations project, using arts as a tool for identity. Planning Tools and Strategies Experiences on “Urban Reuse” projects: Infrastructural System, the desire to re-develop – from the functional, real estate and environmental sustainability perspective – important sections of the urban fabric is also undertaken in the optimization plan of the infrastructural system. It in fact evolved from the train networks, on an urban and regional scale (the creation of new underground lines to connect the suburbs to the city centre, the regional metro). What does Naples expect from USEAct? Naples would like to acquire know-how about strategies to deal with refitting and rehabilitation of private buildings in inhabited areas, managing correctly the “social aspects”, that means avoiding, as much as possible, gentrification. Also how to attract investors into historic city centres. The key issues (expectations) on which the city would like to discuss within USEACT framework are: to counter urban sprawl (legal and illegal), new strategies for the use of sustainable and efficient energy technologies in existing buildings, Promote the rehabilitation and recovery of existing built heritage, further increasing the real estate value of the areas. On the other hand, the potential contributions are: the transportation system, experience on the 10

production of tools for the reduction of land use and the transformation of ex-industrial areas; sharing the initiatives set up by the Municipality to attract private investment for the upgrade of the private housing heritage and support trade and artisanal activities in the historic centre (see Si.Re.Na). For the LAP key issues are the rehabilitation of the private properties of the inhabited city centre UNESCO site avoiding gentrification; improvement of planning issue at local, metropolitan and regional scale; mapping city areas/buildings with demolition and reconstruction opportunities; Promote strategies to attract investor for the realization of new architectures in the historical centre , with reduction of consume energy. LAP Objectives: Verification and discussion, with the stakeholders, of models of integrated action best suited to development, upgrading, the increase of energy eficiency in some quarters, of diverse types (historic, recent, and ex-productive areas) with the greatest potential for transformation and the possibility of generating economic development, in addition to as a response to the current crisis. Therefore, some of the stations of the new metro lines, situated in diverse types of quarters (historical centre, external and recently built up areas, peripheral quarters near to farming areas, etc.) could ideally represent the central points in the selected areas for the study and application of integrated methods of rehabilitation. These processes vary on a case by case basis, adopting diverse approaches. The city of Naples would like to work on different levels during the LAP: it could be addressed at finding new models for the integrated development of some areas, especially targeted to the increase of energy efficiency and the improvement of economic potential (to contrast the current crisis). Decisions could be discussed and detected with stakeholders; The LAP could detect areas which potentially represent an important draw for investment and urban development, which are being affected by the closure of the metro system in the works; The LAP could be addressed to the creation of a registry of under-used built heritage, to catalogue and monitor the abandoned areas and better address the processes of economic and physical transformation in urban areas. All the actions will be verified and implemented in the framework of the Naples Metropolitan Area.

in Italy Piano Urbano Esecutivo in Italy Piano di Riqualificazione Urbana in Italy Piano Territoriale Regionale

Local Support Group (LSG) As the target areas will be selected, property managers and tenants will have a primary role within the LSGs, as promoters of bottom-up initiatives. The core group could be

composed by the following bodies: City Council of Naples Elected Representatives; City Council of Naples Departments/Offices; Campania Regional Administration (Managing Authority); University of Naples “Federico II”; S.I.Re.Na. ScpA; CNR National Centre for Research;ACEN Builder Associations; ANEA Naples Agency Energy and Environment; WWF Association. Local Support Group (LSG) activities at local level : the first LSG Meeting of the Development Phase was held in June 2012; the first LSG Meeting of the Implementation Phase was held in May 2013. The Local Support Group (LSG) has taken part in

transnational activities: pilot training Scheme for elected Representatives; National Training Seminar for Local Support Group; ULSG Summer University in Dublin 29-31 August 2013.

4.6 Nitra

strategies of the urban development of the city of Nitra according to the new methods and experiences; the search for the possibilities to construct new communal housing structures, to look for new plots, to try to intensify the urban structure or to adapt other existing e.g. industrial structures in the city; decreasing of energy costs by the renewal of the building, renovation of the technical infrastructure network /street lighting, heating, water systems…; intelligent public transport solutions.

Stefan Lancaric and Miroslava Hanakova, Municipality of Nitra City Architect department, Slovakia th

Strategic importance: The City of Nitra is the 4 largest city in Slovakia, situated 80 km from Bratislava. It is the capital of Nitra region, seat of 3 universities, different scientific organizations and departments of the Slovak academy of science, Institutions of Agricultural research, Animal husbandry…, environmental protection and nature preservation managing institutions, a protected landscape area, NATURA 2000 site. It is also a cultural center, with two theatres, five galleries, four museums, five libraries… and seat of the Bishopric of the Roman-Catholic church continuously from 880 A.D. Key business & employment sectors are: Industry: chemical, plastics processing, electro – technical, machinery, constructions, Agriculture, Services: tourism, gastronomy, shopping centres, Academic background: Universities. It is located in the Central part of Western Slovakia, 80 km from the capital by highway, on the border between the lowlands and mountains, with the river flowing through the city. Decision making process: the Town hall has a mayor, 2 deputy mayors and elected representatives. The City council has 31 Members/elected representatives. Eight special committees created by city council members and professionals, advisory body. City Committees: city council members, citizens, an advisory body, Municipality office: executive body professionals, around 200 employees. The network theme: Main Challenges for Nitra are: the need of regulation of the urban development according to the principles of the valid general plan; Preparation of the basis for the new general plan in horizon of 5 – 8years; to define new

Communication at local level is via the Web page in local language: www.comune.napoli.it/useact; th Press conference held on 26 June during the first kick off meeting (Development Phase); the USEACT blog at local level in Italian to dicuss about the Lap and local Activities; the USEAct e-newsletter in local language, and the brochure in Italian.

Potential: According to the legal framework Act 50/1976 of urban planning and construction regulations, there is a duty to adjust the general plan in 4 years period. In this way the Municipality has a certain flexibility to offer solutions for recent problems. Experiences in functional vertical structure of urban planning from the national level to the local and zonal scale, and horizontal structure: harmonization of different strategic documents /general plans, systems of ecological stability, landscape-ecological planning, traffic engineering. Expectations: the city of Nitra seeks to exchange experiences and good practices in the field of innovative tools and technologies concerning the urban planning, energy efficiency of structures, alternative public transport solutions and communicating the tools and methods to the public and local stakeholders and gain economic and management models to fund the interventions and models for the implantation of tools. The contributions of the city of Nitra could be sharing the experiences of implementation of planning regulations from national to local level and sharing the know how about the harmonization of different strategic documents (general plans, systems of ecological stability, landscape-ecological planning, traffic engineering…). Experiences on “Urban Reuse” projects Reutilization of the former military area, Zobor: the object of the formal military barracks, originating

from 1882, is situated in the wider centre of the city to the north of the Centrum /City part Zobor. With the area of around 21 ha it is the largest derelict urban structure within the Nitra city settlement. In 2008 the area was added to the city by the State of Slovak republic. There is continual discussion going on from 2008 how the function of the object should be utilized. This is an example of the reutilization of military land rather than using new land on the outskirts. Municipality of Nitra – 31 buildings, Slovak Academy of Science – Institute of Archaeology – 11 buildings/, Roman – Catholic Church – Nitra Bishopric – the land /plots. Planning tools: In 2012 the Municipality of Nitra – City Architect Department provided the urban – architectural plans, which define the new function of the barracks as cultural, recreational, administrative and housing function. Public-Private Partnerships: purely administrative or contractual PPP. Results: need of agreement of owners upon the new functional use, need of determination of the optimal funding mechanisms. The Local Action Plan is „under construction‟. Firstly the objectives, key problems and challenges are: increasing the density of population within the urban structure by searching for the localities for houses, utilizing the recent structures for a new function /formal military barracks, formal brewery…, new housing – adapting and reconstructing recent housing structures in the city…; decreasing the energy costs by adapting of the new technologies, increasing the public awareness in the matter and searching for the possibilities of funding; solving the problem of static transport – parking in the city, mostly in the Centrum and housing settlements; communication of the possibilities of building the parking lots underground or on the roofs, to investors, construction and funding of the car parking; preservation of the historical value of the city centre structures. Structure of the LAP and next steps will be the definition of the main problems and challenges needing to be solved, thorough analysis of current state of matters by means aviable /SWOT, case study....; define the ways leading to the solutions; creation of the Harmonogram of the solutions and Funding schemes manual; approval by the City council and local authorities involved in the process. They are trying to make the LAP obligatory for the next steps. Local Support Group (LSG) state of the art: the stakeholders involved are: the Municipality of Nitra, the Faculty of Management and Faculty of Landscaping of Slovak Agricultural University of Nitra, Nitra Investment Association, Faculty of

Architecture of Slovak Technical University in Bratislava, Local construction office, San Huma ´90 – Atelier of Urbanism and Architecture, Regional Monument board office...and more in process. Intended results and achievements are the creation of a decent and implementable LAP, increasing public awereness towards urban development, and finding the means of funding the LAP . Involvement of key stakeholders: the ULSG is still under construction, the next steps will be the invitation for the new members of ULSG to take part in the project, and a meeting of the ULSG in order to inform the stakeholders about the kick-off meeting. Recently the members of the Nitra ULSG group took part at the URBACT ULSG national training days in Brno, Czech Republic, together with other ULSG groups of the URBACT programme, from Usti nad Labem, CZ, Brno, host city and Košice, SK. Reactions were positive from the ULSH members. There are continuous discussion with the local authority regarding preserving the historic centre. A new planning Act is in preparation..; there are fears that it will be more complicated to change urban plans. In future it will become more important to involve the national level in the preparation o flocal urban plans. Communication at local level are via Web: www.nitra.sk, local televisions and radio stations, local newspapers, newsletters, and via virtual media: facebook, twitter ... Tools for dissemination at local level will be NISYS, the Information system of Nitra Municipality Agency is focused on dissemination of informations from the different aspects of life in Nitra towards the public, visitors and tourists, and cooperation with the Public relations Department of the Municipality office. Meetings : it is expected to the USEACT project at local level, Possibly via the Universities involved. UGM policy: Vertical structure of urban growth National authorities are responsible for the budget. Definition of the basic strategies of the state development which should be adopted at the regional, local, city level by implementation in to the lower level strategic documents /vertical structure/ in the field of urban development, nature conservation, environmental issues… County/regional authorities have a control function, evaluation of construction, environmental and conceptual matters merit at the local/regional level, review of the general plans ad conception document proposals and adjustments… Municipality / city council: Executive and legislative function, local budget affirmation. Responsibilities

for urban development conceptions, implementation of the legal framework through the local level regulation, dealing with the city property, social issues.

Governance and urban growth The main planning tool at city level is the General plan, offering toolls to manage functions, spaces, building design standards, traffic systems, etc. The legal framework (Act 50/1976) for urban planning and building regulation imposes that local plans are updated every four years: this offers a certain flexibility to planning tools and offers the opportunity to adapt the regulatory instruments to the present issues and problems. There is a novelty in the Act in the preparation at the national level, which will bring

4.7 Østfold County Iren Karlsen Duffy, Local Coordinator Østfold County Council, Norway Østfold county is located south east of Oslo, between the Oslo fjord and Sweden, in an area which is mostly forest, and contains 230 000 inhabitants, 5% of the population of Norway. Its area coveres 1.3% of Norway, 19% of the area is given over to growing grain, and 60% to forestry. It has strategic importance since 80% of foreign goods transported into Norway pass through the county. Key business & employment sectors are industry (wood processing, chemical, foodstuffs, energy technology), agriculture, forestry, with the public sector being the biggest employer. In the past the strategy was not to build in the forest. The area is 100 km from Oslo and therfore there is a high level of commuting to the capital. 80% of goods ariving in Norway pass through the County. Formerly it was an important industrial region, before the discovery of oil. Since the 80s industries are no longer big employers and yet the population was still geared to industry (education etc). A lot of industry is now changing from paper to high tech processes. The public sector is the highest employer. The political/ administrative and decisionmaking process: At national level: Planning Authority: Ministry for the environment provides guidelines for planning at the regional and local level. The Ministry for local and regional issues: Housing policy, local and regional development, local government and administrating elections. Priority is given to the outlying districts. At regional Level: planning authority: county council prepares plans for the county, makes guidelines for planning in the municipalities and sectors. The planning

vast changes in to the process of urban planning in the form of for example more firm centralization and control of the urban planning by state authorities.

Discussion Regarding the influx of people, they are coming from immigration and the birth rate. The Housing Bank was used to create cheap housing. It is now up to private developers, but we need to tell them what we need and for whom.

authority stops local plans which are not considering regional or national restrictions. At local level: Planning Authority: Municipal Council prepares municipal master plans and legally binding zoning plans. Key problems and Challenges We want to meet the increase in population with a strategy for land-use that is sustainable when it comes to the environment, economical development and the health of our population. It is also important to value cultural heritage. Issues to be addressed concern abandoned industrial areas, education, limited tools, protection of farmland,preserving Cultural Heritage, and finding solutions through high quality densification. Potential: an attractive location, increased awareness, and an ambitious county master plan. Expectations from USEAct project and network are learning from areas that have dealt with issues of land use much longer than us, in particular about cooperation between the private and public sector, and how to think holistically about development. We offer the network: experience with our County Master plan, which is quite ambitious when it comes to land use and has become a very useful and much debated tool; also experience from a country with a strong government, but where almost all detail planning and development is being done by the private sector. We like to receive knowledge and tools we can adapt to work in our county, Management of relations between private and public sector, and management of integrated and multi-sectorial projects. Local Action Plan (LAP) Objectives – Key problems and challenges are how to create economy in complex urban transformation projects;

when a process meets multiple owners with lacking ownership, how to generate progress and results; creating balanced and sustainable development of smaller station towns and station areas correlated to the urban development of the cities. Intended Achievements are new networks and arenas for exchanging examples, knowledge and planning tools regarding urban development; evaluation of ongoing planning processes; putting new,creative planning tools to use; making positive media coverage. Local Support Group (LSG) stakeholders include planners from the 6 municipalities, the Østfold County Governor, the Norwegian Housing bank, Planners from Østfold county council. Intended results and achievements are better Urban qualities and more attractive cities in Østfold, and a strong reduction of land use. ULSG meetings already carried out and next steps: after being accepted as partner we had a

4.8 Riga Planning Region Agnese Bīdermane Useact Project Coordinator, Riga planning region, Latvia The Riga planning region is one of five planning regions in Latvia, and consists of two statistical regions, Riga & Pieriga (NUTS III level). The total territory amounts to 10 441,5 km² and is the largest region in the Baltic states with almost 1,1 million inhabitants, and 47% of population of Latvia. The capital of Latvia, Riga, is located in the center of the region. 85% of population in the Riga planning region lives in cities. The planning region comprises 20 cities and thirty local municipalities. 2 The area is 10 435 km , with 30 Municipalities, 2 Republican cities and 28 local municipalities. The population (2011) is 1 089 767 inhabitants; 2 population density (overall) is 105 people/km ; the 2 central part (Riga agglomeration) is 280 people/km ; population change (2005-2010) is 0,3 %; gender structure (2010) 54,7 % female, 45,3 % male; age structure (2010) 13,4 % under 14, 66,5 % 15-64, 20,1 % over 65; Ethnic structure: 52,3 % Latvians , 33,5 % Russians , and 4,2 % other. The economy: GDP (2008): 14 000 € per capita. Personal income tax (2009): 480 € per capita. Unemployment rate (2010) 10,3 %. The Average wage (2010) is 725€. Education of employees: 30 % higher education, 35 % professional, 25% general; economically active: statistical units (2009) 66 000. The number of new enterprises (2009): 6 700.

LSG Meeting on April 23 and the next one will be th on June 14 . Local Support Group (LSG) participation in URBACT ULSG National Training scheme in Malmø for the Nordic ULSG training, and the Summer University in Dublin are planned. Communication at local level: no web page yet, but on the agenda. Tools for dissemination at local level: planning to use existing projects and networks that we are involved in to spread the word about USEAct, and it‟s starting to attract a lot of interest. We will make a booklet / webpage sharing examples/tools and experiences in urban development, and use the local media actively. Meetings : when we have made a bit more progress we will meet with the local councils and administrators, and also participate in meetings with local developers and land owners, to inform about the project and hopefully to watch the tools that we will learn through it at work! woodworking, metal industry, textiles, clothing, chemical industry. Riga planning region is a State institution – founded in 2006; Legal form is a derived public entity. Financial sources are the state budget, local and international projects. Functions include planning (monitoring of development planning, teritorrial planning, coordination of planning documents – local, regional, national); elaboration and implementation of development projects (local and international); culture coordination within the region; public transport coordination; EU Structural Funds Information centre. Good practice examples include: Spīķeri (old warehouses) – ERDF financed project (7M Euro). Former factory production was for the Soviet Union, and now no longer interesting for industry. Now things are happening, such as the building of a 13 concert hall / Creative quarter “Tobacco factory 14 and Miera street” . The former tobacco factory now houses creative industries for example. / Creative 15 Andrejsala – business incubator 13

ielu-kvartala-degradetas-teritorijas-revitalizacija/ http://www.solavi.lv/lv/projekti/sabiedriskas-telpas-vide/spikerukoncertzale and http://rdpad.lv/services/Projekti/spikeru_projekts/article.php?id=1 01987 14

Major Business Areas are key sectors such as: trade, real estate, professional services, agriculture, construction, manufacturing, transportation & logistics; and industries such as the food industry,

http://prezi.com/jgfzana7mkva/maskavas-krasta-un-turgeneva-

http://www.liveriga.com/en/5812-creative-quarter-tobacco-

factory-and-miera-iela 15

https://www.facebook.com/pages/CREATIVE-

ANDREJSALA/120020324744627 and http://latinst.lv/video/

4.9 Trieste Carlotta Cesco Gaspere, USEAct local coordinator Beatrice Michovilovich, USEAct project coordinator, Municpality of Trieste, Italy

35 Trieste is the capital of the autonomous region Friuli Venezia Giulia, which is located in the north-eastern corner of Italy. The Region borders Austria on the North, Slovenia on the East (through the Carso Plateau), and the Adriatic Sea on the south. The Municipality of Trieste has an area of 84,5 square kilometres, a population of 211.184 and a density of 2.499,22 people per square kilometre. Trieste is one of the main commercial ports of the North Adriatic together with Monfalcone and Koper (SLO). The city is known as “the City of Science” because apart from University, there are many scientific organizations, such as the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, the International School for Advanced Studies, the Synchrotron laboratory, the AREA Science Park – which is the first multi-sector Science and Technology Park in Italy and one of the most important in Europe. The city‟s economic fabric consists mainly of headquarters of important internationally operating companies such as Generali Assicurazioni, Fincantieri, Illy Caffè and some important plants such as Wärtsilä Italia (formerly Grandi Motori)… but lacks of the presence of SMEs. Therefore employment is mainly concentrated in the service sector. Since the elections held in 2011, the new Administration has started a new framework of town policies, mainly focused on drawing up the new General Town Plan. Approval of the plan is scheduled for November 2013. State of the art on the network theme: The national and local crisis have led to the standstill of the main economic activities. The process started decades ago, but now it is reaching its peak with the closure of large factories and the abandoning of huge areas and buildings. As for demographic trends, Trieste is facing a stop in the growth of population, whereas the death rate is only matched by immigration. Moreover, the amount of elderly is nearly reaching the 30% of the overall population, showing trends that anticipate European forecasts for the next decades. Moroever, in recent decades Trieste has witnessed the change of several background factors that have transformed the geopolitical and economic scenes. Strategies and planning tools must face the new reality: the fall of Eastern trade barriers on the Slovenian border and the need for the Government

of the City to define new roles and new approaches to development and competitiveness in an increasingly wide and complex territorial frame. The strategic location and the quality of landscape and services can be recognized as the main potentials to focus on, in order to enhance tourism, agriculture, craft and cultural-scientific sectors. Sectors that can make the city able to attract new population, investments in the renewal of city spaces and further economic activities (mainly in the fields of light production and green economy). Expectations are: sharing experiences in the field of tools, strategies and projects on the issues of reuse and stop the land consumption; sharing projects and solutions, in order to increase the Energy efficiency and functionality of buildings, with particular reference to historical estate; deepening strategies and planning tools to manage the issue of properties parcellisazion and re-use of brownfields and former military areas; sharing different approaches to coordinate different institutional players in charge of planning strategies; upgrading civil servants‟ skills and competences. We may present: planning and building code models in order to minimize the use of resources and further urban growth, to promote the reuse of existing buildings and areas, greater energy efficiency of buildings, participation models; project experiences aimed to the revitalization of the historic centre by means of economic and comprehensive redevelopment plans; experiences and tools on participatory processes. Thematic focus: The new General Town Plan, currently under way, is the most important planning tool to manage urban growth. The project of Trieste Urban Plan has been developed starting from general guidelines discussed and analysed by means of a participatory process, as well as with a detailed technical analysis carried out by the newest operative tools. The Town Council is due to officially approve the plan in November this year. Afterwards, the Municipality within a time frame of 1 year will process challenges, observations and remarks. 16 Finally the GTP will be definitively accepted and hence in force. Along with the General Town Plan, the City Council is working on the urban traffic plan, the building code and the energy plan (SEAP-Sustainable Energy Action Plan). Because of the presence of different institutional players in charge of planning strategies and plans for strategic areas, a special 16

General Town Plan of Trieste – city level

effort is required. Every General Town Pllan has to be drawn according to the FVG Region Regulation n. 126/1995 that rules urban planning management, setting clear criteria of zoning aimed to soil consumption reduction. 1. Reuse of brown fields areas: as a tool within UGMIP, Trieste GTP identified several zones of the territorial system requiring specific planning criteria: 5 strategic areas, several abandoned urban areas, dismissed buildings and many areas of transformation. Then specific project forms have been made up in order to explore new strategies in the different sectors of economic development and to explore a possible reuse for housing requirement. The property of these areas is mainly public (though owned by different institutions), as the homogeneity of the property simplifies the transformation process. 2. Landscape design planning: tools are represented by green belts, urban growth boundaries and buffer zones: the new GTP enhances the agricultural use of boundaries‟ inhabited areas with three main objectives: to prevent the danger of fire reducing the interface area inhabited-forest; to manage the landscape facing the abandonment and the decay; to settle green – agricultural belts between areas of natural value and building areas. 3. Energy efficiency: concerning the problem of the implementation of UGM at different administrative levels and scales, the Council is developing some financial instruments and incentives regarding energy efficiency. The Municipality recently organized a workshop on energy efficiency with economic and professional stakeholders in order to share ideas and proposals. The topic was the choice of tools to be included in the town plan and in the zoning code legislation to improve the energetic efficiency of the existing building stock. The final aim is to identify urban incentives other than those of national and regional sources for flat owners and construction companies as, for example, primary and secondary urban costs reduction and economic grants. Tools with which the urban growth is “monitored” and “measured” in the area : The Urban Planning office makes use of the tool named GIS (geo-referenced spatial data management) aimed at updating the urban development through the insertion of data relating to all building

transformations. By means of this tool we can have a constant updating of the data concerning: land occupied by new buildings, volumetric profile of the zones, typological features, population density. The consumption of soil by supervising the following data: - number of building authorisation issued, square meters built, with a distinction between new constructions and renovations, and data related to the covered surface. We can monitor the urban growth by collecting and analysing the data of all the construction projects that are subject to planning permission. The problem is that all public works of higher authorities (Port Authority, Region, Ministry of Infrastructure), which are not subject to planning permission but only to the town planning, do not appear in our database. There is a need to create a database able to integrate all the interventions of urban planning and building codes affecting the municipal territory. The FVG Region has actually established a database called IRDAT. The LSG will be made up and will be working according to the participatory approach methodology developed and used so far by the Municipality for the new General Town Plan. For the time being the Secretary of the Association of architects, urban planners, landscape and conservation architects of the Province of Trieste has been included in our LSG composed by municipal officers. Official meetings have already been arranged. Other stakeholders (included the key stakeholders) will be included as soon as possible according to the LAP pattern. The LSG is expected to contribute to outline the LAP according to the specific expertise and experiences of each ones. Two members of LSG attended the first session of URBACT ULSG National Training scheme which rd took place in Rome last Thursday and Friday (23 th and 24 May). Summer university arrangements are still to be made. Communications: at local level: at the moment our website doesn‟t contain a page dedicated to USEACT in local language. We don‟t have any communication tools such as newsletter, blog in local language or social media either. Specific strategy and tools for dissemination at local level have not been identified so far. Meetings: We are going to present the USEACT project at local level in any event/meeting concerning such theme attended or organized by the City Council representatives. The deputy mayor attended the URBACT training for local representatives so is aware of the project.

5. THE LIFE OF THE USEACT NETWORK 5.1 URBACT II Programme and objectives Emmanuel Moulin, Head of the URBACT Secretariat Mr Moulin congratulated the partners, welcoming them to the URBACT „Community of Practice.‟ Out of the 81 projects submitted, 15 had been approved: a challenge and a responsbility! The main challenges for the Implementation Phase are how to organise transnational exchanges as a learning process in order to have a local impact on the partner cities, and how to build useful knowledge for the « outside world » with experiences from partner-cities. Cities are networking to address local policy challenges and develop concrete solutions (Local Action Plans).

URBACT is an action orientated process: it entails defining the thematic focus in relation to local challenges, agreeing a shared methodology for exchange and learning (defining contributions and complementarities) and ensuring the quality of the contributions of each partner.

It is also a participative process: cities are requested to involve local stakeholders in the definition and the production of the Local Action Plans. The programme can have a „big political importance‟. Key actions for each partner are to identify a ULSG Coordinator, to agree the local road map as soon as possible, and involve local stakeholders at transnational level. Cities are invited to work with the Managing Authorities to explore linkages between LAP and the Operational Programmes, and USEAct in particular is well in phase with the timing of the 2014 – 2020 Cohesion policy, so it it the right time to discuss project ideas with the Managing Authorities (ERDF and ESF) and to involve them in the project, for example in the Local Support Group. Bringing them together in the context of the project is also helpful, to faciliate an exchange with Managing

Authorities from other countries. 5% of ERDF is now allocated to urban integrated action. Networks capitalise the knowledge produced at transnational level by drawing lessons and sharing them with policy makers and practitioners in Europe. For example, the Commission wants to work on the urban-rural relationship, which is becoming a key issue for Europe. URBACT can help by identifying common ways to deal with this issue. Another issue is strategic planning: to identify where something must be protected, and where financing is needed. Key actions are to define the main thematic outputs, the main target audiences, and organise local dissemination events. The URBACT programme supports Capacity Building Initiatives: National Training Schemes are planned for Local Stakeholders, with a first session in Hungary: Budapest – 9/10 May, Italy: Roma – 23/24 May, UK: London – 6/7 June , Spain: Madrid – 6/7 June, Germany: Berlin- 27/28 June, Portugal: Lisbon – 6/7 June, Cyprus/Greece: Athens – 6/7 June, Poland: Warsaw – 16/17 May, and in France: Paris – 11/12 June. There is also a pilot Training Scheme for Elected Representatives around the theme of integrated urban planning, and the Summer University for Local Stakeholders in Dublin on 28/30 August 2013. Capitalisation initiatives within the programme include thematic poles clustering networks along cross-cutting themes, synthesis publications building on networks‟ results (URBACT TRIBUNE, URBACT Results, etc.), cooperation with urban institutions (National Authorities, EC, CoR, OECD, Urban InterGroup, UN-Habitat, etc.), Seminars, workshops, and city-labs. Communication activities involve the Flagship website: www.urbact.eu, Annual Conferences, Thematic Workshops, Seminars, Social media coverage (UrbactBlog,Facebook, Twitter, Flickr), the monthly newsletter, and National Dissemination th Points. On June 18 URBACT will publish online reports on six themes emerging from the last annual conference. Administrative and Financial support includes training sessions for LP, Financial Officers and First Level Controllers (FLC), guidelines for reporting, accounting and certification. All this is with the support of regular contact with members of the URBACT Secretariat.

5.2 USEAct results achieved in phase 1 and outline of network activities LP Gaetano Mollura

38 The lead partner outlined the Priority fields for the USEAct Implementation Phase: a) Planning tools and planning governance for “Urban Growth Management”/Reusing urban areas” integrated policy is dedicated to planning and strategic tools of a broad nature, generally designed and implemented via formal instruments (norms, schemes, etc.) and at institutional level. b) Implementing interventions to "reuse" urban areas: management, partnerships, funding, and functions in the management and the implementation of “individual” reuse interventions, principally traceable to the “practices” and know-how of the administrations in dealing with the market, rather than the legislative framework. c) Concerning Focus 3 (the matter of targeting - “Refitting and regenerating inhabited buildings and areas), is interpreted as a specific deepening of the implementation of“reuse” interventions in the cases whereby the intervention is not planned on a “brownfield” site, but instead concerns neighbourhoods with inhabited residential buildings. USEAct Development Phase Actions implemented so far include two transnational project meetings: the Kick off Meeting th th in Naples 25 - 26 June 2012 and the final Meeting th th in Dublin 11 - 12 October 2012. Outputs include the Baseline Study, Useact Brochures, the Useact Brochures in local languages. They can be found on our outputs page of URBACT-USEAct minisite USEAct Development Phase/Communication activities include the completion of the Logo, the project mini-site, Social Networking, E-Newsletters, and the press conference for the launch of the project in Naples June 2013. During the USEAct Development Phase ULSG activities have included the setting up of ULSGs, by identifying stakeholders, engaging and selecting them. At least one ULSG meeting has been held by most partners, to identify issues to be addressed at

network level, and the focus of the Local Action Plan. Approval of the Implementation Phase: the EAP (External Asessment Panel) assessed the project proposal as follows: Critriteria 1 - Relevance of proposal and European value added (out of 25) 19; Criteria 2 - Coherence of proposal (out of 25) 19; Criteria 3 - Quality of expected results (out of 20) 16; Criteria 4 - Quality of partnership and lead partner (20) 16; Criteria 5 - Budget and Finances Development phase (out of 10) 8; total (out of 100): 78. The EAP commented that the USEAct project is based on a solid partnership with clear objectives and a joined-up and relevant work plan interlinking local policy making with transnational exchange of experience. They stated that the participation and involvement of further local stakeholders in the project implementation will be needed, however, in order to increase the likelihood for achieving sustainable results. The EAP made four recommendations for the implementation phase: concentrate – especially during transnational activities - on a limited (smaller than stated in the application) number of subtopics; support partner cities and carefully manage the involvement of local universities in order to ensure that the ULSG remain the guiding force of the local processes; encourage further development of local communication activities in order to ensure the concrete involvement of a wide range of different local stakeholders; and provide guidance and support to all partners regarding their ULSG – especially concrnings the involvement of residents and civil society. USEAct Implementation Phase Partners: the city of Athens, which had participated in the first phase, was unable to continue due to local problems. The final partners in the implementation phase are ten partners from eight countries: these include seven cities (including the Metropolitan Area of Baia Mare), one Region, one County, one „Equivalent Public Body‟, EPB, and a Local development agency. The partnership, rather different in terms of the sizes of the city/territory concerned, demonstrates that both the issue and the approaches and methods to be developed to reach the project targets are of interest for many different sizes of cities.

Project Management

PRODUCT

DELIVERY DATE

JC, audit trails, subsidy contract

February 2013 – March 2013

Expertise request forms for the LE and TE

February 2013 – July 2013

Expertise request forms for other ad hoc expertise

February 2013 – January 2013

Approval documents for the first level controls

February 2013 – March 2013

Mid term review report

February 2013 – March 2014

Offocial reporting documents (progress and financial reports, payment claims, certificates)

February 2013 – April 2014

In support of the USEAct project programme, as well as the lead expert, Vittorio Torbanielli, the project is supported by thematic experts: Adolf Sotoca, from the University of Barcelona and Pauline Geoghegan, plus one specialist at each transnational meeting: this time Didier Vancutsen, lead expert of the URBACT LUMASEC project, which dealt with some of the isssues covered in the USEAct project. Transnational meetings will take place approximately every three months: the

kick off meeting, five thematic meetings, a meeting to include representatives of the Managing Authority, and the final meeting. Some partners will also be able to organise bilateral (or trilateral) meetings to meet with othre partners to study a common issue topic in greater depth. This will be of particular interest to the cities who do not have the opportunity to host transnational meetings.

Expected deliverables WP2 - Transnational exchange and learning PRODUCT

QUANTITY

DELIVERY DATE

Thematic Seminars

February 2013 – September 2014

Thematic Seminar Reports

April 2013 – November 2014

Intermediate Thematic Papers

February 2013 – November 2014

Intermediate Case Studies Catalogue

February 2013 – November 2014

Capitalization and MAs Workshop

October 2014 – January 2015

Capitalization and MAs Workshop Report

November 2014 - February 2015

Bilateral / Trilateral meetings

5 (min)

June 2013 – January 2015

Working Bilateral / Trilateral meetings Reports

5 (min)

July 2013 – February 2015

Final Conference

February 2013 – September 2014

Finl Thematic Papers Booklet

April 2013 – November 2014

Final Report and Good Practices Guide

February 2013 – November 2014

Final Case Studies catalogue

February 2013 – November 2014

FINAL PRODUCTS

October 2014 – January 2015

PROGRAMME Activities URBACT Programme Events

November 2014 - February 2015

Expected deliverables WP3 – Impact on local policies and practicies PRODUCT

QUANTITY

DELIVERY DATE

USEAct URBACT Local Support Groups

February 2013 – April 2015

USEAct URBACT LSG Meetings

140

February 2013 – April 2015

USEAct Local Action Plans

February 2013 – April 2015

Final Local Dissemination Meeting

October 2014 – April 2015

Local Action Plan - Local Exhibition

October 2014 – April 2015

ULSG capacity – building scheme

February 2013 – April 2015

Expected deliverables WP4 – Communication and Dissemination

PRODUCT

QUANTITY

DELIVERY DATE

USEAct minisite

February 2013 – April 2015

USEAct project brochure

December 2013

USEAct project local brochure

1 for each partner

January 2014 – April 2015

USEAct project online spotlife news

February 2013 – April 2015

USEAct blog

February 2013 – April 2015

USEAct Dissemination Plan

March 2014

USEAct press releases

1 for each partner

February 2013 – April 2015

USEAct Final press conference

April 2015

USEAct project newsletters

February 2013 – April 2015

USEAct Outputs CD rom

April 2015

USEACT Activities at Programme Level The Pilot Training Scheme for elected representatives is dedicated to the elected representatives of cities involved in the (3rd call) networks that are approved for the Implementation phase. Objectves are to strengthen the skills and capacities of the elected representatives in the field of integrated and sustainable urban development, to provide support to elected representatives in the development of local action plans, to gain a better understanding of the EU landscape and context regarding urban development and funding opportunities, and networking with other elected officials from cities across Europe. Three seminars are being organised in Brussels in 2013: on April 8th and 9th and 10th, on September 16th, 17th and 18th and on December 2nd, 3rd and 4th. During the Training Session for Lead Partners and Lead Experts held in Paris on 16th and 17th May 2013, the URBACT Secretariat presented the results of the URBACT Annual Conference, the report “Cities of Tomorrow”, which covers Shrinking cities, motivating mobility mindsets, more jobs, supporting young people through social innovation, building energy efficiency, against divided cities in Europe. The final results and findings of the 6 URBACT thematic capitalisation workstreams appear in the series of URBACT Thematic Reports "Cities of Tomorrow – Action Today" on the URBACT website. ULSG National Training Seminars have been planned for Romania, on 21-22 May in Bucharest, for Italy-Switzerland on 23-24 May in Rome, for Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden on 29-30 May in Malmo, for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania on 5-6 June in Riga, for Spain on 6-7 June in Madrid and for the UK and Ireland on 6-7 June, London. The scheme has several objectives, with the starting

point being to provide a deeper understanding of the URBACT method and how to develop a participatory approach that includes all the relevant stakeholders. The training also aims to provide a broad set of skills that will help Local Support Group coordinators and key members to run their activities efficiently throughout the life of the project. Enabling them to exchange ideas and to share experiences with their peers is a further objective, as is developing their ability to engage with their project's Managing Authorities. Partners are encouraged to take part in these training seminars, and especially to involve members of their Local Support Groups. The ULSG Summer University in Dublin is specifically designed for people participating in the URBACT Local Support Groups (ULSG). The second URBACT Summer University will take place in Dublin, Ireland, from Wednesday 28 August to Saturday 31 August 2013. European Cooperation Day Children contest: Draw your ideal city! This is the theme of the URBACT Children Drawing Contest taking place within the framework of next European Cooperation Day. Children aged from 6 to 12 from all URBACT partner cities are asked to participate and express their vision of an ideal city.

5.3 Administrative and financial management issues LP Gaetano Mollura

A financial officer and a communications officer have been appointed to assist in the running of the project. During the USEACT phase 1, prepatory phase, there were four partners plus the Lead Partner: Convergence Project Partners from Naples (Italy), the Lead Partner, Athens (Greece), and Baia Mare Metropolitan Area (Romania); Competitiveness Project Partners were Barakaldo (Spain), Dublin (Ireland). For the USEACT Phase 2, implementation phase, there are now nine Partners plus the Lead Partner. Convergence Project Partners are Naples (Italy), Lead Partner, and Baia Mare Metropolitan Area (Romania). Convergence NEW Project Partners are Nitra (Slovak Republic) and Ostfold County (Norway). Competitiveness Project Partners are Barakaldo (Spain), Dublin (Ireland), plus Competitiveness new Project Partners: Buckinghamshire (UK), Trieste (Italy) and Viladecans (Spain). Observer partners in phase 2 are Istanbul (Turkey) and South Bank (London, UK). Overall expenditure in PHASE 1 was € 60 000, out of a budget of € 100 000. The lead partner is currently transferring funds, so as to be able to close Phase 1. In the meantime there has been a „second level control‟. This project has a „mixed financial management‟ accounting system, that means that each partner will manage directly their own budget, except for an amount that will be transferred to the LP (Naples) for the management of shared costs. The shared costs are the common expenses for the whole network, as the communication activities, the realization of the outputs, the coordination of the work and the financial activities, that will be centralized to facilitate their management. Each partner should be responsible for its own budget assigned to: Participation of 2 persons to 7 transnational meetings (Travel costs); participation of 1 person to the URBACT Programme activities; visit on sites – bilateral trilateral meetings; hosting a USEACT seminar providing for restaurants for all network participants and meeting room - only 6 partners + LP); printing, translation and dissemination in local language of some USEACT outputs; organization of LSG meetings and implementation of the LAP.

The Phase 2 budget is summarised on Slides 14 and 15 of the Power Point presentation by the Lead Partner.

Next steps will be reporting rounds for Phase II: the first reporting period covers the period from February to June 2013. Presage, the on line monitoring tool, is secure and access is restricted by personal log-in and password (user types: LP, PPs, FLCs). Each project must undertake an official reporting every 6 months using Presage–CTE: accounting and validation of expenditure; certification of expenditure and FLC certificates; production of a payment claim; submission of a progress report; monitoring project expenditure and ERDF payments. Eligibility of expenditure for the first reporting round : only expenses incurred between 1st February 2013 – 30th June 2013, strictly connected to Useact activities / outputs, and stricty connected with USEAct budget. The budget of the project has to be considered as a whole; the internal subdivision among partners is a point of reference and to be liable for the own expenses; the subdivision among budget lines have to be respected. The Factsheet 6b of the Programme Manual p.126 outlines in detail the types of costs which are considered to be eligible by budget category: 1) Project coordination (incl. Overheads): general costs, administrative costs, legal costs, etc. 2) Personnel: costs for the personnel employed by the partner/lead partner‟s institutions officially listed in the AF 3) Meeting organisation: costs for the organization of meetings, conferences and seminars (venue, interpretation, catering, etc.) 4) Travel and accommodation: costs for travel and accommodation of personnel and experts involved in project activities 5) Communication and dissemination: costs for newsletter, brochures, other communication and dissemination tools 6) External expertise: Costs for external experts (excluding Lead/thematic experts paid by the Program) Guidelines for the accounting and validation of expenditure prepared by the Secretariat are available on URBACT website.

Accounting and control of expenditure in Presage CTE: attention when reporting expenditure type in cash / in kind; add comments concerning the expenditure declared, especially for meetings organization (place, date), travel and accommodation costs (name of the person who travelled, date of the trip/meeting, exchange rate used if conversion to euro, etc.) and for personnel (name of the staff, number of hours worked, hourly/daily/monthly rate, etc.) in the comment box; attention to allocation of costs to specific actions and/or budget categories – responsibility of LP to carefully check before validation of costs in Presage CTE; reporting of costs not in euros: attention to use the monthly exchange rate to convert national currency into euro – calculation of the eligible amount should be explained in detail in the comment box.

services and goods (studies, brochures, newsletters, minutes of meetings, participants‟ list, travel tickets, etc.); calculation of administrative costs, records of costs included in overheads; etc. this information will be requested for audit! Partners were to be informed as to how many particpants can attend the USLG Summer University at the end of August.

Once validated, it is the role of the First Level Controller to check and, if eligible, certify the expenditure incurred by the controlled project partner. The controller has to check 100% of expenditure based on all documentary evidence (pay slips, invoices, proof of payment, etc.): clearly identify in PRESAGE-CTE the amounts of noneligible expenditure deducted from the partner‟s claim explaining the reason of non-eligibility (using the dedicated “comments” section for each item of expenditure); clearly note in PRESAGE-CTE any additional comment and information which might be considered relevant in the framework of the first level control. On-the-spot checks (vs. desk base) can be carried out if necessary. The controller has to produce an “interim” or “final” certificate. All of this is carried out in Presage CTE – special status for controllers

Activities eligible for financing must take place st during the project period, i.e. betweeen February 1 th 2013 and April 30 2015. Following that deadline the prject has three months to close, i.e. up to July st 31 2015. In September it wil be possible for the lead partner to request a reprogramming if necessary.

The main aim of the certification is to provide a guarantee that projects costs are accounted for and claimed in accordance with the legal and financial provisions of : EC Regulations; the URBACT II rules (Programme Manual); the Subsidy Contract; the Joint Convention; the applicable national legislation in the fields of public procurement, states aids, equal opportunities, the environment etc.; the approved application form (incl. breakdown of expenditure per main budget category and per objective-action).

Deadlines for each period occur every six months, closure three months later. It is likely to take around 3 to 4 months for money to be refunded to partners. Gaetano confirms that the partners will receive an invoice for the contribution to be transferred by the partner cities to the Lead partner. Within the budget, it is possible to change up to 20% between budget lines.

Documents to be archived at the partner‟s premises are: contractual documents (incl. audit trail doc.); bank account statements; original invoices; time records of personnel working for the project (including timesheets); copies of all contracts with external experts and/or service providers; documents relating to public procurement, information and publicity; proofs for delivery of

Bilateral/ trilateral meetings between partners are still to be decided, firstly favouring cities who will not have the chance to host a transnational meeting, since there are seven meetings and ten partners in all. Potential host cities are reminded that there is a budget for interpretation between English and the local language during the transnational meetings if requested. This can facilitate the participation of LSG members during the meetings.

All eligible expenditure must be accounted for in the Présage-CTE: Financial management and monitoring system, which must then be validated by the Lead Partner. Following this, certifying bodies named by each partner must certify the expenditure. The Lead Partner will then make a payment claim to URBACT, accompanied by a progress report and an expenditure report. The URBACT secretariat then checks the reporting before authorising payment to the lead Partner.

5.4 Communication and dissemination of results on local and project level

5.5 Project implementation phase Animated by Lead Expert and Thematic Expert

LP Gaetano Mollura

The URBACT secretariat recommends using the main communication tools adopted by the Programme: the URBACT II website www.urbact.eu; the USEact minisite of the project www.urbact.eu/useact; the URBACT blog http://www.blog.urbact.eu; URBACT on social network; USEAct on social networks (Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/Useact, Twitter, Flickr, Daily Motion...); URBACT publications/newsletter; USEAct outputs. The URBACT communication priorities for 2013 are to position URBACT as a point of reference for integrated, sustainable urban development based on URBACT results ; to promote and disseminate URBACT‟s results and activities (at programme and project level) to raise URBACT‟s profile by developing strategic relations with other organizations, by : providing local-language information on URBACT and its projects, acting as national relays for updates on sustainable and integrated urban development, publishing on their websites monthly newsletter and articles on URBACT projects, cities and evens, and communicatinge with the National Dissemination Points. “At some point we have to make sure the words are right, define the terms and adapt our techniques to an idea, not an idea to our techniques.” (Bill Bernbach). USEAct network communication tools during the Development Phase are the: USEAct brochure and USEAct brochure in local languages. During the implementation Phase the tools will be the USEAct Project brochure, USEAct spot-life news and the USEAct Newsletter. It is important to set up a local website contain a page dedicated to USEACT in local language.

Brainstorming keywords for the implementation phase Communication/collaboration: ULSG (3 partners): their interest and cooperation; good partners; constructive collaboration: with private sector, community, public representatives; communication between partners and knowledge exchange; public awareness-raising. Topics: Urban regeneration; long term planning; commitment to strategic planning; overlap and/or matching local and European planning; economic planning; strategy for brownfield areas; financial incentives and tools; attracting investors; legal frameworks: national, local and in the USEAct network; tools for development in constrained areas; data. Qualifying the priorities: reasonable expectations (3 partners); implementation; practical: “do-able”; focus on results; quality.

Partners‟ priorities: as a start to the selection of case studies to be offered and/or received, partners indicated their priorities: 

Strategic planning and our needs.



Re-use: focus on pre existing city.



Revise development plan: with stakeholders.



Link strategic goal and finance for strategy: implementation.



Revise strategic plan: gather information, find financial tools.



Re-think delivering local development plans: funding, engaging developers.



Bringing stakeholders together, plus skills, especially for re use.



Change view of communities on links, e.g. between long-term strategy and job creation.



Getting developers to build what/where we want: housing and industry: incentives and quality.



Territorial planning: economics and community, political views of development, funding for the Local Action Plan, bottom up process: specific and realistic.



Promote the role of strategic planning, vs financial values, to the public in Slovakia, proactive rather than reactive.



New view of the master plan: listen to requirements (e.g. business), revise extent of development (no longer realistic); start with change at national level.

5.6 Case study methodology Animated by Lead Expert The most important topics will be identified within the framework of the topic of the network in order to be able to identify relevant case studies to present during the transnational meetings. As a reminder meetings will be held as follows: two meetings on the first theme, two meetings on the second theme, one meeting on the third theme, one meeting with the Managing Authorities, and the final meeting. Subthemes have been ranked as proposed during the last meeting of the first phase in Dublin. Work within the thematic framework through case studies: partners offer/provide case studies for other partners and others require case studies on specific subjects. Case studies must be coherent within the framework, and partners should select case studies of interest to them. Key words are useful to decide studies. In a month‟s time we need a plan for selecting case studies: Sub topics which you are interested in having a case study on for example financial tools etc, and sub topics that you are willing to present related to the thematic framework; this can include a problematic case study. By mid July the Lead partner and Lead expert will propose a „programme‟ of case studies to the partners. A case study is a way to present an issue or a problem. Vittorio will provide an example of a case study to the partners: only three pages long and a maximum of fifteen self explaining PowerPoint slides. Following this a catalogue of case studies will be created. Case studies can be linked to the Local Action Plan, or not. Vittorio will send information on exactly what is required. The choice of case studies can also be the base of a bilateral exchange.

5.7 Local activities - ULSGs and LAPs/ progresses, identification of priority, problems, achievements, next steps Animated by Lead Partner

The Summer university: two people per partner: one who attended the Valdecans meeting and one member of the Local Support Group. Partners are also reminded to send an updated list of their Local Support group members to the URBACT secretariat. The URBACT secretariat asks cities to name a coordinator for each Local Support Group, for which there is a budget line. Vittorio will also produce a summary of the guidelines for Local Support Groups, including stakeholder selection. The lead partner reminds partners to involve members of the Local Support group members in the transnational meeting in their city. Gaetano highlighted the importance of sharing responsibility for the outputs of the Local Support Group. It is good if Local Support group members take part in transnational meetings, especially if they are linked to the case studies presented there: „participation should start with ourselves‟. Another point will be to give publicity to the meetings. Partners are also asked to devote part of their website to the project if possible. Use all possible means possible to involve local community members; community events can count as Local support group activities. Vittorio will send the draft tool kit for Local Support groups to the project partners. They are also encouraged to make contact with their respective URBACT national dissemination points, in order to give coverage to their project at national level.

5.8 Next steps - organisation of the next seminar – Conclusion Animated by Lead Partner The next meeting will be hosted by Nitra (Slovakia) on October 1-2 2013.

Partners are again reminded that the next deadline for submitting expenditure reports is June 30th 2013

APPENDIX 1 PROGRAMME OF THE MEETING

Thematic Network USEAct Urban Sustainable Environmental Actions Kick off Meeting Implementation Phase Viladecans (Spain) City Council of Viladecans - Barcelona Meeting Room - Viladecans Business Park (Canada Building)/ Tecnologia st, 17 - Floor 0, Viladecans

27th and 28th May 2013

USEAct partners City of Viladecans (Spain) / host city City of Naples (Italy) / Lead Partner Baia Mare Metropolitan Area (Romania) City of Barakaldo (Spain) Buckinghamshire Business First (UK) City of Dublin (Ireland) City of Nitra (Slovak Republic) Riga Planning Region (Latvia) Ă&#x2DC;stfold County (Norway) City of Trieste (Italy)

Sunday, 26 May 2013

Arrival of the participants 20:00 Informal welcome meeting – Hall of the AC Hotel Gavà Mar 20:30 Dinner th

Monday, 27 May 2013 Meeting Venue: Barcelona Meeting Room - Viladecans Business Park (Canada Building)/ Tecnologia st, 17 Floor 0, Viladecans 8:45 – 9:15 Arrival and Registration of participants 9:15 Welcome of the host city City of Viladecans – Carles Ruiz Novella, Mayor 9:30 Introduction USEAct Thematic Network : presentation of the programme - results achieved in phase 1 and outline of network activities Lead Partner, City of Naples, Gaetano Mollura 10:00 Introduction to the USEAct issues: starting from the baseline study Lead Expert, Vittorio Alberto Torbianelli, Thematic expert Pauline Geoghegan 10: 30 Focus on host city/1: presentation case studies and context Enric Serra del Castillo, Head of Territorial Planning, Viladecans City Council 11:00 Focus on Viladecans Local Support Group Viladecans Key stakeholders 11:30 – 13: 30 Focus on the other partners / state of the art baseline study Each partner city, max. 10 minutes 13:30 – 14:30 Lunch break 14:30 Administrative and financial management issues LP Gaetano Mollura and Financial Officer 15:00 Communication and dissemination of results on local and project level LP Gaetano Mollura and Communication Officer 15:30 Discussion with all partners 16:00 - 18:30 Focus on host city/2: visit on the sites Central Industrial Area of Viladecans 18:30 - Closure of the first day Kick off Meeting Coffee and snacks will be available during the meeting sessions 20:30 Dinner

Tuesday, 28 May 2013 Meeting Venue: Barcelona Meeting Room - Viladecans Business Park (Canada Building)/ Tecnologia st, 17 Floor 0, Viladecans

8:30 – 9:00 - Arrival and Registration of participants 9:00 - Introduction second day USEACT Kick Off Meeting Gaetano Mollura, Lead partner 9:10 - URBACT II programme and objectives Emmanuel Moulin, Head of the URBACT Secretariat, Paris FIRST THEMATIC WORKSHOP 9:30 - Theme “ Planning tools and Planning governance for Urban Growth Management and reusing urban areas Lead Expert, Vittorio Alberto Torbianelli 9:50 – Problems of per urban development – results from PLUREL Project URBACT Thematic Pole Expert, Ivan Tosics 10:10 - The LUMASEC URBACT II Project experience in the framework of the first USEACT thematic issue Thematic Expert, Didier Vancutsem (LUMASEC Project Lead Expert) 10:30 - Planning tools to reduce land consumption: case studies from Spain University of Barcelona, Adolf Sotoca 11:00 – Integrated strategies towards land management - Best Practices Thematic Expert, Didier Vancutsem 11:30 Discussion with all network 12:30 - Introduction to the afternoon Plenary Session: transnational activities, bilateral and trilateral meetings: planning the phases of the project after final seminar of the USEACT Development Phase Lead Expert and Lead Partner 13.00 – 14:00 Lunch break PLENARY WORKING SESSIONS - Workshops on project implementation phase 14:00 - 15:00 - Workshop 1: The thematic methodology Animated by Lead Expert 15:00 - 16:00 - Workshop 2: Case study methodology Animated by Lead Expert 16:00 - 17:00 - Workshop 3: Local activities - ULSGs and LAPs/ progresses, identification of priority, problems, achievements, next steps Animated by Lead Expert 17:00 - Next steps - organisation of the next seminar - Conclusion Animated by Lead Partner 17:30 - Closure of the Kick off Meeting Coffee and snacks will be available during the meeting sessions 20 30 Dinner

URBACT is a European exchange and learning programme

promoting

sustainable

urban

development. It enables cities to work together to develop solutions to major urban challenges, reaffirming the key role they play in facing increasingly complex societal changes. URBACT helps cites to develop pragmatic solutions that are new and sustainable, and

that

integrate

economic,

social

and

environmental dimensions. It enables cities to share good practices and lessons learned with all professionals involved in urban policy throughout Europe. URBACT is 500 cities, 29 countries, and 7,000

active

participants.

URBACT

financed by ERDF and the Member States.

www.urbact.eu/useact

jointly