Useact Fourth seminar report Ostfold County

USEAct Urban Sustainable Environmental Actions

Fourth Meeting I Implementation Phase Østfold County | Norway 27th I 28th May2014

INTERVENTIONS ON “REUSE” OF URBAN AREAS: MANAGEMENT, PARTNERSHIPS, FUNDING, FUNCTIONS II IMPROVING THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION’S ABILITY TO CONTROL AND MANAGE "HIGH QUALITY" AND "SUSTAINABLE" REUSE INTERVENTIONS

Lead Partner

Host Partner

USEAct Østfold County Fourth 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 Anna Arena Finance officer Maria Luna Nobile Communication officer Vincenzo Fusco LSG coordinator 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: 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, Micheal Fuller Gee Guest expert and USEAct partners that attended the meeting. Anna Arena, Maria Luna Nobile and Vincenzo Fusco, Lead partner team contributed to the editing of this report.

Cover picture: View of Halden city / Østfold County Council © Maria Luna Nobile All the photos are taken by the USEAct Team. And images are taken from the ppt presented during the seminar.

NB. this report Should be read in conjunction with the Power Points presented during the meeting, which you can download here

Contents 3

1. Introduction and Concept paper p. 4 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Concept paper 1.3 Introduction to the topic of the meeting 2. The Host Partner: Østfold County p. 6 2.1 Welcome by the Hosting Partner 2.2 Østfold and the County master plan, “area audit” and “land accounts”.

2.3 Focus on host partner: Presentation of the Østfold Local Support Group 2.4 Focus on host partner: the Ostfold LAP 3. The USEActTheme: Interventions to “reuse” urban areas: management, partnerships, funding, functions p.13 3.1 Subtheme: Improving the public administration’s ability to control and manage high quality and sustainable reuse interventions.

3.2 Quality in transformation and densification projects 3.3 Naples LAP Stakeholder: AUDIS (Associazione Aree Urbane Dismesse - Urban deprived areas Association) the AUDIS Matrix and Protocol 4. The life of the USEAct network p.19 4.1 The USEAct Thematic Network: programme and outline of network activities 4.2 USEAct Bi/Trilateral Meeting on “Real estate investement trust for housing”: outcomes of the London (UK) meeting 4.3 Mid Term Review : Outputs and Learning / feedback following the Lead Partner/Lead Expert meeting in Paris 4.4 Bilateral/trilateral meetings: updating and programming activities of each subtheme groups 4.5 USEACT Local Activities WORKSHOP “LAPs Review Cafè!”

4.6 General issues of the Network Management. Next steps - organization calendar of the all the next seminars and bi/trilateral meetings 4.7 Fifth Thematic Seminar in Riga

Appendix 1 programme of the meeting p.29

4

FOURTH THEMATIC SEMINAR IMPLEMENTATION PHASE INTERVENTIONS TO “REUSE” URBAN AREAS: MANAGEMENT, PARTNERSHIPS, FUNDING, FUNCTIONS II

Fourth meeting participants Sindre Martinsen-Evje, Mayor of Sarpsborg Elizabeth Dahle, Head of society planning department Østfold County Council, Linda Iren K. Duffy, Local Coordinator, Siv Jacobsen, Kjersti Aune, Emilie Cosson, Karoline Bergdal, Espen Sørås, Vibeke Arnesen, Terje Pettersen, Ingeborg Langeland Degnes, ULSG Members Østfold County Council | Gaetano Mollura USEAct Coordinator, Maria Luna Nobile, USEAct Team, City of Naples | Vittorio Torbianelli Lead Expert | Pauline Geoghegan Thematic Expert | Michael Fuler Gee Ad hoc Expert | Marius Ecea, Baia Mare Metropolitan Area Association | John O’ Hara, Kehinde Olowatosin City of Dublin | Álvaro Cerezo Ibarrondo, City of Barakaldo | Jim Sims, Richard Harringhton Buckinghamshire Business First | Štefan Lancarič, USEAct coordinator, Miroslava Hanakova, City Architect Department City of Nitra | Agnese Bidermane, Uldis Apinis, Riga Planning Region | Beatrice Michovilovich, Michela Crevatin Trieste City Council | Enric Serra del Castillo, City of Viladecans

1.INTRODUCTION AND CONCEPT PAPER 1.1

Introduction

The fourth USEAct thematic seminar, held in Norway, began with a focus on the hosting county of Østfold. This included an input on innovative planning tools: the ‘area audit and ‘land accounts’ aiming at balanced development betweenmunicipalities in the County. Partners also heard the results of the first USEAct trilateral meeting on ‘Real Investment Trust for housing’ hosted by Buckinghamshire.

The meeting was also the occasion to discus the outcomes of the USEAct Mid Term Review in which all had taken part, and which had provided helpful pointers towards further deepening the work within the thematic network.

5

The discussion on the second day again focused on interventions to reuse urban areas: management, partnerships, funding, with a specific focus on quality, with the support of guest experts Michael Fuller Gee, on Quality in Transformation and densification projects, and the Naples LAP Stakeholder AUDIS (Associazione Aree Urbane Dismesse - Urban deprived areas Association) on the AUDIS Matrix and Protocol. Relevant partners’ case studies were presented by Nitra (regeneration of the site of a former brewery), Buckinghamshire (Aylesbury Town Centre regeration), and Naples (the NaplEst public and private transformation of a former industrial site).

the Lead Expert, local Guest Experts, and associations specifically oriented, at national level, at promoting “quality guidelines” in urban reuse, the

In addition partners gathered in small groups to discuss progress on their Local Action Plans, and the themes of future Bilateral/trilateral meetings.

1.2

Concept Paper

USEAct Lead Expert, Vittorio Alberto Torbianelli

As during the previous thematic seminar, the USEACT meeting in Østfold was dedicated to the second USEAct theme ("Interventions to reuse urban areas: management, partnerships, funding”). On this occasion, however, specific attention was paid to the following subtheme: "Improving the public administration’s ability to control and manage "high quality" and "sustainable" reuse interventions". Case studies and cross-learning activities therefore mainly dealt with approaches and tools that public administrations can adopt to define and reach "quality targets" in urban reuse. The quality issue is, in particular, a very sensitive matter for planning and development schemes aimed at urban "densification". The capacity to control the outcomes (specifically when key roles are played by private bodies) and the ability to set-up appropriate guidelines/procedures/etc. for reaching specific qualitative targets (from potentially very different points of view, such as energy sustainability, users’ perceptions of the quality of life, economic development targets, etc.) appear as an essential conditions for implementing effective urban growth management policies.

The quality issue is also directly linked to the fundamental aspect of the engagement of citizens through participation. Thanks to presentations by

meeting allowed partners to discuss and compare their specific approach to “managing the quality”.

As a secondary subtheme, the issue of “Inducing local added value in reuse interventions” was also focused on. This subtheme specifically dealt with

the approaches that public administrations can adopt to encourage redevelopments that are able to attract business activity to the area. This subtheme will be also focused on during a forthcoming bilateral/trilateral meeting of the USEAct network.

Although “managing the quality issue”, in its different features, has to be recognized as the key issue of the meeting, integration with further USEACT "themes/sub-themes" was welcomed. The meeting was also the occasion to recall and analyse themes that have already been discussed in greater depth.

2. THE HOST PARTNER: ØSTFOLD COUNTY 6

2.1 Welcome by the Hosting Partner Sindre Martinsen-Evje, Mayor of Sarpsborg The mayor welcomed the participants to Sarpsborg, highlighting the cooperation with neighbouring municipalities in Østfold County which contributes towards reducing area consumption and increasing transport efficiency in the municipality and is the basis for their territorial planning strategy and municipal plan. The aim is to make the city centre more active and attractive for modern urban people, and to strengthen the identity as a town as it approaches its 1000 years jubilee in 2016.

2.2 Focus on the host partner: Østfold and the County master plan, “area audit” and “land accounts”.

Elisabeth Dahle, County Director, Østfold County Council

State agency boundaries are not always the same as county boundaries. The government has started the process of reforming municipalities, with social developers, social providers and local democracy, maybe resulting in fewer, bigger counties. The main responsbility for planning is with the County Councils.

Regional and Local Government Structure in Norway 19 counties: County Councils, elected, County Governors, and representatives of the central government, and State agencies.

430 Municipalities: Municipality Councils, elected, include Østfold County County Council, with a County Governor, 18 Municipalities, 6 Cities and 4 Local regions.

In the Norwegian planning system the planning tasks are divided into three levels. The Planning and Building Act regulates spatial and land use planning at all three levels.

The National Planning authority is the Ministry of Environment. It provides guidelines for planning at regional and local level, through white Papers and national policy guidelines, and resolves conflicts: if conflicts arise, they are first referred to the governer then to the Ministry.

The Regional Planning authority is the County Council: it prepares county plans for the

development of the county, Including guidelines for planning in the municipalities, and sectorial planning.

The Local Planning authority is the Municipal Council; it prepares municipality master plans and legally binding zoning plans.

The national level planning guidelines cover, for example, coordinated land use and transport planning to reduce pollution and use of energy, children`s and young people`s environment, coastal preservation and development, and protected waterways.

Councillors generally do not use plans in a strategic manner. In Østfold they do. With 83% of land in urban use conflicts can arise regarding land use. ”USEAct is helpful to work towards the vision”.

Regional level - County master plan The County planning procedure is based on the Planning and Building Act. The main principles are: democratic and decentralised, main responsability in the municipalities, and an open planning process: concerned individuals and organizations have a right to contribute to the planning process.

Roles and tools at the Regional Level: The analysis model: the County Council’s roles are both authoritative and communicative, when preparing county plans with guidelines for the municipal land use-planning this presupposes stronger steering of the municipalities. It is crucial that the County Council has a communicative approach in preparing the county plan and that it makes sure that the guidelines are accepted by the municipalities. The County Council can have a more responsive/ communicative role as well, when advising on municipal land use planning, and an appropriate tool may be a collection of examples of “best practice”. The County Council can also have an authoritative and responding role as a controller of the municipal land use planning and by supervising the national regulations.

The vision is to create development and innovation by focusing on borderless cooperation: between the municipalities, between the counties and between countries. Three main subjects with importance for a sucessful sustainable development are: health and the living environment, business development and environmental conditions.

Strategies are: improving our competence and our skills, developing sustainable compact cities and preserving open rural areas, and developing efficient and sustainable transport systems, emphasizing public transport and non-motorised transportation systems.

Guidelines for land use and energy use include low energy use in all new buildings, less car dependency, low emissions and reduced energy comsumption, better public transport services, reuse of infrastructure and previously developed land,

high quality of life, preservation of green space and enhanced business and trading.

Municipal planning includes a Municipal Master Plan, thematic municipal plan and local Zoning plans for land use.

Implementing Regional strategies in Local Land Use Planning: County Councils prepare County plans with guidelines for municipal land use planning, involving the municipalities in preparing the County plans through communicative and deliberative planning processes to secure acceptance of the guidelines.

Why do we need land use planning strategies?

Land use policy and planning are key tools to reach the main objective - sustainable development, coordinated land use and transport planning to reduce emmisions and energy consumption. If the County Master Plan was going to succeed in developing a tool to break the trend for area consumption in Østfold, it was important to involve the municipalities in the planning process, so the plan would be accepted and carried through.

Collaborating with the municipalities in making the County Master Plan, the first thing we did was to analyze the current state of affairs, to understand what was the estimated growth of the population, what was the status for area consumption in the county and which values and interests were connected to these areas.

What is crucial for a balanced adaptationMetropolitan areas and density in Østfold governance at the regional level is to involve civil society and the regional and local governments A ’Konflict-map’, was drawn up to show challenges more, to improve parliamentary control over the for land-use: we mapped all the different values and adaptation activities for the sake of a more holistic interests and created a conflict-map. The darkest responsibility and to make the overall system more brown colours show places where there are many legible, accessible and participatory for people, and interests that «on top of each other», like foodthe accountability mechanisms, activities and production/farmland, biodiversity, landscape values, performance made more easily controllable by cultural heritage sites and so on. These are naturally parliaments at regional and local level according to in and around the same places as where most the principle of subsidiarity, that is, the downward people live- these were the places where people devolution of power and authority. settled in centuries past and where towns and The County Councils can strengthen the adaptation villages evolved. capacity and spatial planning capacity of the municipalities by preparing county plans with Area-needs vs current municipal plans:

Fremtidig arealbehov v/ tetthet omtrent som i dag Areal lagt ut i kommuneplanene

Behov for areal ved lav tetthet

50 45 40 35 30

Km2

7

County plan – planning procedure: the Planning Tasks of the Municipalities are to develop healthy and sustainable cities and towns. Local planning is municipal planning. The municipalities frame the physical environment through their planning processes. The guidelines and objectives set by government agencies and county councils frame the plans of the municipalities.

regional guidelines for adaptation in the land use planning. However, a good result presupposes communicative and deliberative planning processes and that the County Councils involve the municipalities in preparing the County plans.

25 20 15 10 5 0 Mosseregionen

Nedre Glomma

Indre Østfold

Halden

Østfold totalt

Regioner i Østfold

The above chart shows the size of new areas that are designated for development in current municipal plans (blue) compared to the needs for new land if the current denisity levels are continued, in the different part-regions of Østfold. The current area-

consumption creates many conflicts of interest. At the same time land-use is an important tool in developing the region. If the County coucil wants to be relevant, it needs to have oppinions on land-use.

This graph clearly shows how much more land is

8

needed if we do not succeed in densification and reducing land consumption.

municipalities, the County Governor, the Public Roads Administrations etc.

Prerequisities for planning and options for areause We got help from the consultants Asplan Viak, who assisted us in developing different models to discuss land-use:

Extensive urban sprawl The «Protection alternative» causes a great increase in urban sprawl, a lot of the development would be outside the current towns to avoid conflict with protected interests. The result could be increased need for transport, more private car-use and more pressure on the areas along the roads between the towns and the new developed areas.

Corridor-development along the E6 would result in more houses being built near the coastline.











The reference alternative = «the municipal plans laid out next to each other» without any regional areastrategy in the County Master plan, to coordinate and provide guidelines for planning and land-use.

The protection alternative = The values that need protecting, like farmable land, biodiversity and recreational areas, important landscape and heritage sites, are given more weight than development. This means that areas for housing and commerce must be found where none of these protected values are present.

The transport efficiency alternative= developing in the hubs for public transport and along the main public transport axis in the towns and villages to create higher density. In these transport hubs the interest for development can outweigh the interest for protection.

Market based development = Least posssible interference from authorities and planners - let the market run the development.

The climate-alternative = bigger focus on reducing CO2-emissions-even more intense land-use in the transport hubs, but puts great demand on public transport.

The different models were discussed and compared on maps in extensive workshops with the

The «Market alternative» could lead to a «corridordevelopment» along the E6 motorway, because commercial interests prefer to establish themselves as close as possible to this main road in order to be visible to the public and to customers. A lot of the residential buidings would most likely be along the attractive coastline, creating conflict with recreational interests, and blocking the access to the sea for the general public. (This is seen as a big problem already, because of holiday homes «privatizing» beaches and fishing places.). This building-pattern would also lead to increased need for transport, and likely more use of private cars.

The ”Reference Model”: The municipallities of Nedre-Glomma allready have coordinated area-and transport planning as a principle in their planning practice. The greatest challenge would probably be to succeed in densifying and using areas better because of competition between the municipaliteies when it comes to offering attractive commercial areas and attracting more inhabitants.

«Transport-efficiency Model» = coordinated areaand transport planning- higher intensity land-use, because the County Master Plan works as a tool for coordinating the municipal planning and giving guidleines for density and reduced area2 consumption. Higher density means 15,6/km in 2 new development areas instead of 24 / km , with 2 605 m area in towns and villages per inhabitant, 2 insteeead of 701 m : a 14 % reduction in 40 years, 2– and an annual reduction of 2,5 m like today’s trend since 2000. When weighed against each other the «Transport-efficiency» alternative provided the best goal achievement.

The County Master plan’s expectations for municipal follow-up.

Area- and transport-efficiency is going to be the basis for all territorial-planning. Partnerships for environment, economic growth, public health and living conditions, cooperation between the municipalities about regional commercial areas, common norms for residential areas and parking regulations. An outer long-term boundary for the expansion of towns and villages over the next 40 years will be determined in the comming municipal plan process. Areas will be distributed between 3 municipal plan periods with a set order of use.

Because of this a common area pot has given great challenges in making the municipal plans.

9

Guidelines (§5.3.1) Areas for future urban development shall not be used until the municipalities have specified and defined the land-use through a revision of their municipal plans. (This also applies to areas that remain unresolved according to the last municipal plan review).

The County Master plan says that : «Landaccounts» or «Area-audit» should be developed as a part of the implementation of the County Master Plan, and will be used as a principal for revising.

There will be a long term building limit in the plan.

The ”Area-pot” in the guidelines is smaller than the «possible future areas» for urban development (2023-2050). The area-pot in the 40-year perspective is common for the region.

The ministry also expected some form of landaccounting. When the government were to approve the plan they remarked in the Royal Resolution that ”A thorough analysis of the land-use must be conducted after a four year period.» The ’Landaccount’ is to be a barometer for the area strategies in the County master plan, to secure equality in the follow-up on the area strategies/guidelines, by having a current account for area development when making new plans: a planning-tool for the municipalities/regions. Pilot project land-accounts create an objective method and a tool, to be run as a GIS-analysis, to lead a running land-account for area development. The regional area-pot is distributed between the municipalities in the region.

The other regions and municipalities are involved to such a degree that the above mentioned principles, techniqes and other politically neutral prerequisites for this job are known and discussed. Differences exist in historical and acctual land-use between the municipalities in the region. (§5.3.2) Sequence: current area plans are a part of the total area pot. Differences arise between the municipalities in the region. In the coming municipal plan process the municipalities shall prioritize a sequence for the future areas for the next two planning periods.

1. 0-12 years: Current urban area and adopted municipal plans.

2. 12-24 years:Future Urban areas, defined in the municipal plan.

3. 24-40 years: Future Urban areas, defined in the municipal plan.

Technical method for land-accounts involves mapping unambigous and agreed status of areas as of 01.01.2010. This forms the basis for discussion about criteria for distributing the regional area-pots: what is done as densification, what does rural development mean, what will diminish the common area- pot? (§5.3) Regional limitations in the County Master plan: the responsibility of the County Council was to contribute to the development of the land-account

model-method, contribute to the legitimacy in municipality and county, take the initiative to start the work, hiring consultants and defining the mission, and organising a common meeting where all the municipalities were invited. Meetings were held in the regional councils, workshops with all the municipalities separately and together.

Municipal/regional responsibility: distribution key, discussion, anchoring and coordination, and followup on the guidelines/ principles for land-use.

Different standpoints arise in the municipalities: for example ”Are we to be punished because we have done well”? Hvaler needs development of its own, Fredrikstad did not have time for regional cooperation, and protests from Hvaler and Sarpsborg to the municipal plan for Fredrikstad because of a lack of consideration for distribution of future area pot.

Results were: agreement on the status map, Sarpsborg recieved a small extra pot as compensation for a lower potential for densification, introduced a factor for unequal population- growth.

Sarpsborg withdrew its protest in August on condition that Fredrikstad joined the land-accounts, and Fredrikstad adopted its municipal plan and joined the land accounts in September.

Thus a solution through the land-accounts made the parties agree. There was a great fear in Sarpsborg of being treated unfairly because they had a «stricter» starting point than Fredrikstad in the current municipal plan for histrocal reasons. We found a compromise that everyone could live with (the extra area-pot for Sarpsborg).

This gives us hope that we can also reach our goals in other parts of the county, and the other municipalities who have adopted new municipal plans which reduces their area-consumption. In the Indre Østfold region, where Askim and Mysen are situated, there is the added challenge that their land-account starts in the negative, and the discussion will really be: who will have to give up their future development areas. This is a very big political challenge. The method will have to adapt to local conditions. The land-accounts will be very useful to monitor the area-development.

As to how the follow-up on the area strategy in the county master plan has gone apart from this, the County Council has had 12 municipal plans up for consideration in public hearings after the adoption of the county master plan. The County Council has had objections to all 12 of them, for not following the county master plan. All of the objections have been solved regionally in dialogue and mediation with the municipalities. It has not been necessary to ask the ministry to solve the conflicts. The conclusion is that we beleive we have succeeded in breaking the pattern of area-consumption in Østfold.

Discussion The railways are a central state agency. The County Council is responsible for bus transport, and will work with municipalities and the transport authorities.

Concerning municipalities ‘buying’ the ‘selling’ rights without 10 rules, the model is a ‘market model’, planning authorities can do nothing. Farm land was discussed with the Ministry of Agriculture because farmland is cheaper than development land. As a result national guidelines on land prices are being developed.

In cases where some municipalites take up their ‘quota’ first, they come back to seek a new plan, for example shopping centres want to establish themselves everywhere, but there a strong guidelines that shopping centres should be in towns, not villages.

There is also good cooperation between municipalities to define land for housing

The County does not have the competence for social housing. Municipalities have now formed a social housing network. In order to build social housing, there are conditions. The municipalities deal with housing management, including rental for private owners.

In Halden the municipality owns a lot of new areas, bought from former industrial areas: ownership with low costs. In Halden there are a maximum of four flats in each building. With housing cooperatives, after some years you own your own home. It is difficult to get ‘social housing’, since this is only available for the very poor. On the other hand it is expensive to buy a house. ‘Starter’ homes are being discussed.

2.3 Focus on host partner: Presentation of the Østfold Local Support Group Linda K. Duffy and Østfold County USLG Members Six towns are involved. The focus of the LSG is on the planners from these towns, plus the international department, the county governor’s office, and the National Housing Bank. They meet four times per year, to look at what is going on. They are going to analyse the situation and make a toolkit for other planners. Each case involves the private sector, as well as a politician, leader in the County Council.

The National Housing Bank is a national housing finance institute, and is the main implementation agency for housing: the policy is for ‘adequate housing’, and one of its main roles is to implement quality housing that is user friendly and energy efficient. Their priority is social housing, working with other public and state agencies.

In Halden 1000 houses are planned, including transforming old industrial areas for housing, and connecting etween new and old. They are also planning for a smart city, including a centre of expertise.

In Sarpsborg: physical upgrade to stimulate transformation, and improving living conditions in an area with high unemployment, and therefore lower incomes than in other areas. The goal in Norway is that everyone should own their own home. They plan to ask people what they feel about their quality of life, and also indentify the interest of owners, and develop cooperation wih private owners and workshops, starting with smaller areas, to get them involved.

A mapping of social factors has been carried out, to know where the deprived areas are (the scientific approach); they then need to understand the perception of people aout their area.

Discussion The railways are a central state agency. In discussion, the Lead Partner points out that it is important to involve inhabitants in the Local Support Group, and to inform tha URBACT secretariat of the names and contact details of LSG members!

2.4 Focus on host partner: the Ostfold LAP Linda K. Duffy,USEAct Project Coordinator Østfold County Council

11

Regarding the objective of the Local Action Plan, more and more goals are appearing! Expected outputs are better cooperation between towns.

Cases will be local, in the towns. Housing is in common across all the towns, especially the aspect of quality. There are many car based shopping centres, plus competition with trade across the border (in Sweden), so small businesses are struggling in Halden. They plan to take what is relevant from the USEAct partners, for example the Dublin LUAS (tram) experience, as this is the same, with tracks passing through urban areas which turn their backs to the line. All cases have some relevance.

Expected outputs/results are: better cooperation and coordination between towns when it comes to urban planning, empowered urban-planners, an easily accesible toolkit for transformation and densification projects, and better awareness of high quality transformation and densification among politicians, developers, administrators and the general public.

A sociological analysis was carried out in Sarpsborg on why families either stay or move out. Sarpsborg is not so expensive but a deciding factor is part of the identity about living in the town centre: they want urban quality but on a smaller scale. They have even mapped children’s movements, e.g. where they play or ‘hang out’. They want to create a web based solution, which will need to be updated.

Temporary parks are a new idea in the Sarspborg plan, for example when a building has been burnt down: an application to rebuild is required before pulling down a building. The site can be used as a park for example, so the owner has to invest even if he is not ready to rebuild. This is being tried in Halden.

The goals of the Local Action Plan are: reducing area consumption, higher quality in transformation and densification projects, attractive town-centers in Østfold and better quality of life for our inhabitants.

The Sarpsborg case will include: • Sociological analysis, mapping children’s movements, densification potential • Involvement: «Suprising the town», Interviews, meeting the owners, and working with immigrant organisations.

• Planning/ regulations: detailed town center plan, temporary parks, active surfaces, courtyards, estetical guidelines • Financing/ practical tools: Strategic buying, encouraging culture and education, using other prosesses.

• Evaluation: Action 1 is to create relevant, effective and cooperative arenas for dialogue and sharing knowledge about urban planning in Østfold, to achieve better cooperation and coordination between towns and the regional level when it comes to urban planning. This will be done by: being aware of what is going on in the other towns, not being «alone» with your issues, better information about the processes that are going on regionally and nationally, empowered urban-planners. It will also be-achieved by sharing knowledge, knowing and (hopefully) trusting the other planners so you can call them and ask for advice, presenting an united approach to certain issues.

12

Networking will also be done by summarizing and evaluating existing networks and meeting points between urban planners at different levels and seeing which are most relevant for these issues and how they can be organized to encourage a more integrated and sustainable approach to planning, electing an arena and making it both interesting and predictable enough that planners prioritze it in their schedules, and trying to organise one field trip every year.

Discussion In Spain, the administrationis very powerful and strict: they cannot have an agreement with private partners, for fear of corruption.

In Norway there is oil but also ‘trust’!

The Lead Expert indicates support to developing a general strategy to support local authorities to cooperate with the plan. Why not force one aspect of the plan, for example social housing, since this could be more manageable?

The more general approach is on a national scale, with so many municipalities. Social housing is on a very small scale: around 10-20 dwellings so should be encorporated into the general plan.

13

3. THE USEACT ISSUE: INTERVENTIONS TO “REUSE” URBAN AREAS: MANAGEMENT, PARTNERSHIPS, FUNDING, FUNCTIONS 3.1 Subtheme: Improving the public administration’s ability to control and manage high quality and sustainable reuse interventions.

Vittorio Torbianelli, USEAct Lead Expert Quality is not an absolute concept: it depends on what we want to receive, to provide satisfactory outcomes, i.e. a ‘relative’ quality. Quality is a vehicle to promote ‘efficient developments’ within the community. Densifying means preserving the soil, but for what quality?

What is global interpretation? Develop activities in our city to preserve the quality of life, how to improve the possibility to attract business. What is the conflict between the quality of life and developments? What is best? For example in Trieste there is conflict between communal and individual.

What can be the role of the public administration in promoting quality development? Proposals and design, administration, legal, skills, are all related to the quality issue.

What are the most important challenges in terms of quality? Politics/community, quality in the adminsitrative process, and design issues all arise.

What are your challenges in managing quality?

Discussion In Spain, the administrationis very powerful and strict: they cannot have an agreement with private partners, for fear of corruption.

Quality and economy can be a conflict… sometimes there is a conflict to achieve development (Lead Partner).

It is important to promote the quality of public spaces: the finishing of public spaces is important.

Regarding architecture, investors have their own opinion of quality of architecture; ownership is also an issue, as the municipality does not own many plots, so it is hard to set conditions. We need an understanding of the ‘rights’ to build in a certain way (Nitra).

The former UK national institution to upgrade the environment, the Commission for the Environment, no longer exists. Development plans guide the environment… however, these plans are more ‘reactive’. Quality is traded against development, leading to negotiations (Buckinghamshire).

The town has to identify neighbourhoods with policy on energy efficiency. Regarding investment, it is a problem to redevelop the economy with public and private investments. They want to raise the quality of land and investment (Baia Mare).

There is nowhere to go to address the quality of built areas. Urban quality is linked to maintenance, accessibility, including urban space. Social quality depends on public facilities (Barakaldo).

In Barcelona, there is a quality of urban spaces, due to a strong model of public space, and the same for surrounding municipalities. The quality of building, energy issues is not sufficient. Regarding the quality of citizen involvement there is no tradition of involving people (Viladecans).

Communities have no experience of urban quality; the experience of densification has been negative, so we need examples of how it can be done, and sell the idea that is can be positive. Regarding the processes, the challenge is getting departments talking to each other. At present there is no full understanding of what we want. Regarding design… build in a way suited to the environment.

Due to fragmented ownership, there is no big investor to ensure quality, for example, owners renting out houses have no interest in quality.

Difficulties arise when treating planning pallications if too many demands of quality are imposed, investors will go to another public authority. The role of the municipality is not so much as controller, but more as a partner: we need a new role, to support, to give and to take (Østfold).

In Halden city centre, the challenge is to include the new area as part of the old city centre, how to bring quality into the new area, and how to live in a ‘smart’ city, as part of the city centre. It is close to nature, so bring nature to the city centre, the quality of the new area is important: quality of new and old!

Connect quality with the context, how to attract

Connect quality with the context, how to attract investors? For example investors withdrew from a waterfront project because they would receive less 14 from the project, resulting in economic income damage to the community. There must be strict control in historical areas… if not, the historical memory is lost: balance the interest of the community with the economy (Naples).

Density/densification is perceived as a reduction in quality. Since 2008 no houses have been built in Dublin City. Now 80 000 people are on the waiting list for housing. What can be the model for social housing? Formerly 20% of new housing had to be set aside for social housing, but this maybe a deterrent to investment, and may undermine the policy of mixed use. Getting investment in infrastructure very early must include transport and schools, as well as social infrastrutctre such as community spaces. There is also a demographic issue: different typologies are needed for a different mix of housing. The ‘market’ wants 3 bedroom, 2 storey housing. Apartment blocks have a bad reputation, being expensive to run, and with poor management, so they need to be overhauled to ensure quality. There is also the question of green infrastructure: how to provide green infrastructure, and diversity? (Dublin).

3.2 Quality in transformation and densification projects Michael Fuller Gee, USEAct Guest Expert The most successful waterfront redevelopment in the world, attracting more than 20 million visits per year, is Cape Town's V&A Waterfront, a cosmopolitan mixed-use property development situated in a historic working harbour, with “… museums, boat and helicopter charters, aquarium, IMAX cinema, annual special events and street musicians and the Nelson Mandela Gateway to Robben Island, with more than 400 specialty stores, craft markets and 70 eateries and 7 Hotels and 14 conference venues… as well as 600 Flats with 200 boat moorings.

The Trieste town plan has been adopted, with the aim of improving quality; a new code exists to give the private sector an interest in abandoned areas, and to improve the quality of what is built. For the first time people are involved in the town plan, with round tables, for example on energy efficiency, and building a balance between new and old (Trieste).

There are many unused areas in Riga: old factories etc, so the city must invest. Planning is chaotic. Before the crisis real estate business went up, but this was done without services etc. Balance is needed between investment and business and investment in quality.

With more and more unused spaces, how to maintain quality? (Riga).

The goal for the Arendal Town Plan 2023 is to have more people living, working and playing in the town centre – and the centres of our local communities (”Villages”), more people visiting these centres to shop, work and recreate there, creating ”Critical Mass” through synergy and quality of shops, services and entertainment. ”Are we developing dense or ”dense (stupid) places?” : Post-war Town planning in Norway and Europe is creating ”stupid meaningless places”... e.g. ”250 000 customers within a quick 2 hour drive!”... It is important to define your customers: Who is the real target audience? The young people in every country are searching for the “Good Life”. 200 000 children go to schools which are ’illegal’ – due to their bad indoor environment .

"Vote With Your Feet": it is generally a waste of your time to try to change your town. You can get far better personal results by moving to another town that has the qualities you are looking for (see http://www.votewithyourfeet.com/); As Frank Sinatra said: ”I want to wake up in a city that never sleeps”.

There is layer upon layer of action: housing, work places, shops, entertainment, schools, parks, and

15

civic facilities. New York with 8 million people today wants more people. They want another 1 million people to live in the city by 2025. They need to provide new jobs, offices, houses, leisure, parks and services for these people: within the existing City areas. Not by expanding into the countryside... and they will achieve this.

Attractive towns are all about people, and the concentration of people using and enjoying their city, town or village centre. ”People like people”.

This means: ”minimum distances to maximum

pleasures and minimum distances to maximum activities”so we should focus on walking distances – not driving distances!

buildings! ”Product Oslo” is developing along the seafront – in the City Centre: the Oslo Opera House is helping to transform the old harbour to a waterfront open to the public; it is a popular meeting place: a public park with no grass. You can swim from your flat in the middle of Oslo harbour. Young people especially love the city. Is it a question of mental and physical health – or just sport? What is the walking distance from your home to the swimming pool, in your dressing gown?

What makes places attractive for people?

Kongsberg won the prize in 2013 for being the best municipality for children and youth in Norway, and in 2014 as the most attractive place. Kongsberg has 800 students who want to be in the town centre!

Campus Kongsberg is ”in a field” 1 km from the town centre. Kongsberg has 2500 new flats and 5000 new innhabitants in the town centre. The most important is location in the town centre: reduction of CO² from cars contributes to a living centre, uses space/land effectively, contributes to quality and aesthetics, saves historical buildings, is easy to get to by public transport, has a synergy effect with many functions close together, and universal design. Arendal High School: (1 000 pupils) was built in 1881 – but will the County Council move it out to ”the middle of a forest”?

Challenges: a lot of Norwegians are round, relaxed, lonely (”sad and lonely”) and getting old. 2 out of 3 Norwegians are overweight. Norwegian 15 year olds sit still more than people between 65 and 85 years old. The population of Noway is amongst the most inactive in all of Europe.

Lots of local authorities in Norway will – and have decreased in population over the last and next 10 years, with the consequence that young people (mainly women) leave, “only the old remain”, companies move and shops and schools close.

Cities like Oslo and Stavanger are the growth areas in Norway: the Oslo region is the fastest growing region in Europe.

We waste land area in Norway – because we have so much of it. 45 000 people live within 4,6 sq km in Grünerløkka, Oslo. They create life between

Public Heath - or just ”beautification”? ”The Quality of Life” in Norway wins no 1 in the world…. but – are we happy people? ”Loneliness is the biggest health problem in Norway” (Red Cross, 2014). Loneliness is highest amongt people between 18 – 29 and those over 70. 1 person lives alone in 40 % of all houses in Norway. Loneliness kills – In Norway 2014 147 die in traffic accidents; 550 kill themselves - each year in Norway, and more young people than ever before.

people (”Mayor Einar Halvorsen , Arendal). ”Create quality places so People will use them– and live in town centres!”

16

In Arendal there is population growth. 10 000 engineers are needed in Norway: they have a focus on the quality of life and the quality of education when they choose a new job. There are many more pensioners in the town: the aim of the Town Plan for 2023 is to enable more elderly to be able to live a life independent of public health care or having to move to old peoples homes. We need to provide opportunities for people to live together.

Universal Design - accessibility: many wish to move from their existing house to a flat - in the centre of their town. There are many single dwellings, e.g. 72% of all homes in Arendal, so forbid building of more single dwellings, and focus on walking and cycling. ”Electric bicycles are the only solution to getting more people in Norway to get out of their car - and get onto a bike” People who use buses walk a lot more than people in cars.

The ”Village Planning” strategy is to concentrate as much development and activities within a defined area. ”Village planning” requires focus and discipline. Places must wish to renew themselves – and make it happen. The town centre must be more concentrated, higher, more child-friendly and full of

Discussion It is possible to do the same in small villages too… we tend to drive the circle too big!

10 years ago people left Arndal, as no one wanted to live there. Then the ‘Culture House’ was built, as a public/private venture: the town hall was built around the culture house, and people started appying for jobs in the town, people invested more, and people moved to the city centre, and so business was encouraged too to invest in the centre.

In Spain it is not possible at all to develop in rural non urbanised areas in Spain, by law.

In Norway housing is a political issue: let ‘old people’ move from single dwelling homes to homes where they are within walking/wheelchair distance from facilities.

17

3.3 Naples LAP Stakeholder: AUDIS (Associazione Aree Urbane Dismesse - Urban deprived areas Association) the AUDIS Matrix and Protocol Marina Dragotto, AUDIS director, Interview by Skype Audis is an independent non-profit association that was started in 1995 to help spur discussion and debate regarding the recovery of abandoned areas, which can be regenerated by means of newly proposed solutions from the professional field or by legislative measures. It is made up of three types of members: public administrations; and private enterprise: land owners, or management & development groups; research centers and universities.

Some basic premises We have to: remove obstacles and redefine objectives to serve a collective advantage (the role of the city). The limits are that we cannot innovate State policies in short-term periods. The opportunities are to innovate the culture of urban planning, innovate the private and public policy procedures; to be able to truly recognize and seize existing opportunities This not only concerns the environment: environment and energy are central themes, but they do not exhaust the theme of quality. We must go back to focusing on the reproduction of social capital, thus allowing those inhabiting a place the levels of exchange and encounters that can contribute to an enhanced quality of life. For this reason it is necessary to keep the principles of sustainability aligned with society, relationships and exchange between people, their education and work occupations, and to re-generate the existing city.

This means today to define clear and proficient requests with tools that are capable of managing responses that are flexible. The projects must set out given the context at hand: social, economic, environmental and cultural situations can vary significantly even within the same city; and technical and administrative aptitude. Tools are needed that can help in building efficient procedures and establishing clear and flexible references (as part of proposed solutions) in order to effectively manage the relationships between the public and private sectors.

The AUDIS Charter of Urban Regeneration To facilitate the project planning and the shared legibility of the impact that urban regeneration can produce on the physical, economic and social fabric of the city, AUDIS has published the Charter of Urban Regeneration (2008). This is a tool for promoting the main principles of reference for programmes of areas of urban transformation, which, having lost their original function, are the

areas of major potential for cities. The guiding principles are: a culture of dialogue and participation as part of the conviction that the complexity of processes of urban transformation can be dealt with through an effective definition of tools for dialogue and exchange that can be fully shared between public agencies, private enterprise and citizens, and the dense European City that finds itself addressed in the cultural profile of European Sustainable Cities indicates integrated urban regeneration as the key to sustainable city and its social and economic development.

From the Charter to the Urban Quality Protocol From 2009 to 2012, the AUDIS Charter developed a prototype system of evaluation for the quality of complex urban projects that aims at defining a Urban Quality Protocol, in support of sustainable development of cities by bringing the quality of project planning to a feasibility check, while also assessing the economic and social impacts of project interventions. The Urban Quality Protocol presents itself as a process of evaluation for complex urban projects that integrates the most advanced principles of sustainable development, the results of which can generate a Certification of Qualities.

The Urban Quality Protocol is a operational tool for:  the promotion of cultural changes in the construction of urban projects;  the creation of a common language among Public Entities, Private Enterprise and Citizens in order to better understand and share project objectives;  the management of complexity as a positive character trait of the city;  bringing transparency to choices and decisions, and confer them with a readable legitimacy;  optimizing the use of existing tools of certification;  the acceleration of administrative procedures to optimize the work and time for everyone involved.

An instrument of cooperation and a participatory work method for planning The Protocol is an instrument constructed through the direct participation of different actors with varied legal standing and legitimate interests:  Local Authorities: in adopting a decision support tool that can best plan projects for the community, while accelerating complex and costly administrative procedures.  Developers: in streamlining the length of administrative procedures and improving the transparency of their relationships with funders.  Funders: in improving the guarantees of the project’s premises and reducing the risk of their investments.



18



Public and private research bodies: in contributing to the construction of operational tools that take into account the ongoing national and international debates; Professionals: in bringing their contribution of field experience to develop planning approaches that are capable of governing urban complexity while giving recognition to competence and skills.

the Public Administration to declare precise objectives of community interest regarding the project area, and require developers to provide transparent and exhaustive descriptions of the project’s elements of urban planning and architecture, as well as its social, economic, environmental and cultural factors; 

The Urban Quality Protocol is developed in two parts: 

the Matrix of Urban Quality: a checklist of criteria points and parameters that call for

the proposal to restructure administrative Procedures: this allows for accelerated project approval and implementation for those who accept the Protocol conditions in the development of their project.

The Matrix is composed of an Identity Card and nine Qualities. Each Quality is articulated and takes into account: objectives, criteria and parameters. In total there are 9 Qualities, 31 Objectives, 41 Criteria and 96 Parameters. Some themes cut across all 9 qualities.

The nine qualities of the matrix Qualities

Sustainability

Urban Architectural Cultural Landscape Public space Social Economic Environmental Energy

Cultural

The schematic represntation of the qualities indicates the problems to be solved: the real and transparent quality of projects and their clarity; the definition of objectives of public interest and proper scheduling; the trust relationship between those who want to do projects (developers, public authorities) and local communities. Important issues for  the public authority include: organising the structure; guaranteeing quality control and the defence of public interest; adopting a time frame that best suits everyone; and solving issues of public works management in the long run.  the promoter incude: sound programming of functions; thorough verification of the actual demand (functions, target, types); verifying the actual conditions given by the context; considering competition effects of other similar projects in the area; balance of the Economic Financial Plan.

Social Economic Energy

4 THE LIFE OF THE USEACT NETWORK 19 4.1 The USEAct Thematic Network: programme and outline of network activities Gaetano Mollura, City of Naples, USEAct Lead Partner

The second question is who are the actors? The ‘maturity’ of the market differs across the EU, e.g. national Government Departments, National Housing Funding Agencies, landowners, Private Sector Developers, Public Sector Developers (Local Authorities), Housing Associations (UK), tenant Groups, institutional Investors and/or retail Investors (Individuals) The third issue 3 is the diminishing Government Funding

The meeting occurs half way through the life of the network, this is why it is important to have a more concrete feedback on the network: the Mid Term Review provides the opportunity for this feedback, to improve the management and organisation of the network if necessary. Among the positive feedback from the review is the appreciation of the Bilateral/trilateral meetings. Regarding the organisation of project meetings partners requested more time for discussion, they also appreciate the meeting reports, which are used as a model for other meetings. Upcoming URBACT meetings include the conference in Riga on May 6 – 8 2015, where the results of URBACT II will be presented, as well as the plans for URBACT III. Future USEAct meetings are outlined in the final section of this report.

The fourth issues concersn the returns sought by investors

4.2 USEAct Bi/Trilateral Meeting on “Real estate investement trust for housing”: outcomes of the London (UK) meeting LE , LP City of Naples, Buckinghamshire; Barakaldo, Østfold, Nitra The London meeting provided a good model for future bi/trilateral meetings. A draft report is now available. It had focused on how to finance social housing, and a discussion was held on the use of Investment Trusts for housing: the private sector collects low risk investors to promote social housing investments. Starting from UK expertise of social housing outside of public bodies, the local level is more and more important to solve this problem. The report also includes more recent documents, for example from the Joseph Rountree Foundation.

Discussion on the First B/T meeting Jim Sims, Buckinghamshire Business First The first question is an issue of definition: What do we mean by Social Housing? Rent to Buy, Private Rented Sector, Making Deposit Affordable, making the purchase affordable, and/or aking it affordable for children of local residents to live locally? Also How do you ‘means test’? For example: local residents, high skills needs, ‘Disadvantaged’ or ‘Marginalised’ Groups, or rreatest Risk?

Issue 5: Gearing in the Sector Gearing; • Loan to Equity rates in the Sector • 3 Existing Houses = 1 New House

20

Alternative Funding Solutions could include subsidy from other ‘commercial’ activities, such as care contracts, the Private Rented Sector, property sales or student accommodation, subsidies to help people afford to buy: ‘Home to Buy’ and rRetail investment?: individuals or businesses (Bourneville, Saltaire).

Structures across Europe include Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) in the UK and SOCIMIs in Spain: corporation shares traded in the Spanish or European stock exchanges; minimum share capital 5 million euro; minimum of 50 initial investors are requested. 80% of its value must remain in urban assets, with renting purpose, and fully owned or shared with some other REITs. 80% of the yearly incomes must be rents or dividends from other REITs. REITs must hold the rental properties for a minimum period of 3 years for bought buildings or 7 years for the self developed building plots.

They must own three real estate properties; each not representing more than the 40% of the total value of the REIT at the acquisition time. On profit sharing, they will have to be allocated to dividends: at least the 90% of the total rental incomes; at least the 50% of the total real estate sales benefits or other share dividends; 100% of other REITs dividends.

Spanish REITS will have a special tax regime: 0% corporate tax, and 19% tax for the share dividends.

Other REITs and non-resident partners with less than 5% of the total shares are excluded from the share dividend tax.

The definition is ‘grey’… with different models, e.g. using EU ‘Jessica’ or ‘Jeremy’ funds or EIB loans to housing associations. Some investors want returns that are too high, and in addition many companies are at maximum lending capacity, so looking for other sources. Some housing associations subsidise activities from investing.

Concerning REITs (Real Estate Investement Trusts) in Spain, this is only available for rental housing in the UK for rental and ownership. REITs only work up to 1000 units, due to the management of the funds, so there is a mis-match between regulations and what can be done. In Spain there are only 15 REITs, mainly fomed by family groupings who wish to invest. Social housing is only thought of as a marginalised issue: people move around before buying. It is not possible to rely only on public authorities: involve real estate finance etc. maybe revitalise previous frameworks, such as building cooperatives for example: get investors to the people concerned, for example link with social services where the disabled are concerned. The social system of the whole city should be involved.

.

4.3 Mid Term Review : Outputs and Learning / feedback following the Lead Partner/Lead Expert meeting in Paris

21

LP Gaetano Mollura, LE Vittorio Torbianelli The USEAct MidTerm Review process: the steps 





  

     

Early 2014 - Mailing to each partner of a letter containing general information on the Mid Term Review (MTR) targets and process, enclosing the documentation provided by the Urbact Secretariat.

End of February 2014 – During the Istanbul Thematic Meeting a session was dedicated to the Mid Term Review. The Lead Expert and Lead Partner also had the chance to discuss the main aspects of the MTR together with each partner.

Downloading on “Dropbox” all the MTR. reports provided by the partners, to allow, in a transparent framework, a thorough exchange of opinions th th 15 -25 March, 2014: reading of the “reports” produced by the partners (Lead Expert and Lead Partner).

Specific analysis of the financial changes proposed (Lead Partner team) th 27 March 2014 LP/ LE meeting, organized in Naples, General discussion of the reviews produced by the partners and the finalization of the Mid Term Review Draft produced by the L.E. Finalization (LP) of the «Network Dissemination Plan» Finalization of the Plan of financial changes (LP) April 2014 – Sending the MTR Report, «Network Dissemination Plan, Plan of financial changes to the Secretariat (Drafts) May 2014 (Paris) – MTR meeting Draft review and production of the Final MTR Report End of May (Ostfold Meeting) – Reporting on MTR to the partners and discussion

Overall strengths and weaknesses: the main strengths recognized for the network are: relevance of the topics (reducing land-take) and scope for the “integrated approach”, a strongly committed partnership, occasions for sharing experiences/knowledge (also with multispectral scope)/projects and solutions, flexibility, geographical and cultural diversity, competent internal and guest experts, opportunity to be involved in URBACT programmes (with related activities), ability to find “coincidence” with other partners (although great differences exist), feeling of being supported in developing policies at local level, information on innovative tools and methods, potential opportunities for forthcoming deeper collaboration, bilateral and trilateral meetings, as an opportunity to focus on specific issues of interest for specific partners, remarkable heterogeneity among the “targets” of the partners (in particular with regard

to LAPs and local case studies) and of planning scales and local situations/legal frameworks.

Too many partners with some difficulties in efficiently utilizing the short time available during the thematic meetings and to promote interactive approach during these meetings (also for questions and exchanges between partners), lack of resources, lack of “follow on” projects (so far!), too much expected outputs at local level in comparison with personnel resources and too short time to develop LAPs. Lack of resources for personnel time is a common theme: given that some partners highlight this difficulty, this point could be made for guidance for future programmes.

The most relevant suggestions to “do better” include dividing the participants into more groups during the thematic meetings and providing more time for discussion/interaction among partners (pushing harder for specific collaboration), encouraging people who want specific outcomes to play the role of “promoters” and facilitators on the occasion of the B/T meetings, increase the duration of the thematic meetings, pushing the B/T meetings approach (less partners, specific “on demand” focus), linking action plans to funds. As regards other difficulties mentioned by the partners, areas of concern that have been identified during the Mid term Review can be addressed directly by one-toone (telephone/Skype) interviews between partners and the Lead Partner or Lead Expert prior to transnational meetings.

WP1 – Project Management WP1 Strengths : the USEAct Project management approach is focused on: “flexibility”, (different needs of the partners and the different local visions, priorities and approaches towards a very wide, multi-level and complex policy-field) developing – through the thematic meetings and other activities a “process” able to provide to the partners a wide range of opportunities and information (also through a variety of experts), also to stimulate “selfdeveloped” approaches on how to exploit the network at the best, shaping a good relationship and cooperation framework and adapting the framework to the requirements of the partners (e.g. bilateral trilateral meetings). The partners, through the MidTerm Review questionnaires, stressed: good network cooperation (Baia Mare), effective collaboration (Dublin), Lead Experts/Thematic Experts contribution (Barakaldo), good strong team, clear demarcation of responsibilities and the strong financial management (Buckinghamshire), integration between the project management and the Management of the URBACT programme (Viladecans).

WP1 Weaknesses: It has to be recognized that the broad – and challenging - scope of the project, the “flexible” approach and the relevant differences among the partners created some difficulties also from the project management perspective...

Weaknesses from the partners’ point of view include a perceived lack of a single consolidated project

22

plan showing all planned visits, dates, topics (Buckinghamshire), the very short time available to discuss both about thematic and project management issues during the thematic meetings (Riga), “too democratic” and “diplomatic” approach toward the partners, in particular with reference to the requirements about “outcomes” - e.g. focus of the cases studies and LAP development. (Nitra, Riga), need to “stimulate” partners to better identify specific targets, within each specific legal/social political system, avoiding “generalisations” (Buckinghamshire).

Further weaknesses include the problem of a not very strong “individual” participation by the partners due to high number of the partners (Viladecans); more “individual guidance” (Ostfold) could be provided by the Lead Partner and Lead Expert, communication with the Lead Partner and Lead Expert was not fully satisfactory (Ostfold, Nitra), and the excessive burden of producing documents (Ostfold).

A not minor share of the partners stressed the need to improve interaction among the partners themselves, which is not always strong due to the (widely recognized) heterogeneity of the partner needs. A specific remark (Buckinghamshire) was a feeble focus on the “partnerships life beyond the project”.

WP1 What could be done better and how?

Publish a more detailed plan, with the active participation of the partners, recalling outcomes expected, deadlines, and including precise meeting dates (done!), emphasise a strong “managerial role of Lead Partner and Lead Expert in “arguing”, reviewing and addressing the LAPs, increase “face to face” (“remote”) meetings on the LAPs, stimulate more interactivity during the thematic meetings, reduce time assigned to the thematic presentations and more to small group work, promote more Skype activities to monitoring partner LAPs implementation, stimulate discussion and proposals on how to improve partnerships, and on life beyond the project (in cooperation with URBACT Secretariat?).

WP2 – Transnational exchange and learning Targets (from the Lead Partner and Lead Expert point of view) are offering, through ideas and good practices provided by several “experts”, a wide/relevant display of stimulus examples and cases studies specifically focused on the themes of the project, to stimulate a bottom-up approach towards specific “practical” themes, giving room to specific issues proposed by the partners themselves (B/T meetings e.g.), thus favouring interactive exchanges. Good quality of reporting (meeting reports, case study catalogue, etc.). It has to be recognized that the strategic role, high complexity and wide articulation of the “reducing land take” issue and the diversity of the partners are an important challenge, also from the point of view of the WP2. The “Integrated approach” is a cornerstone of the URBACT programme: partners

have been required, from the beginning, to work together with the aim of developing the ability to build integrated approaches toward the “reducing land take”, harmonizing each specific local/secondary target with the main strategic goal, and not vice versa...

WP2 Strengths from the partners point of view: the exchange of knowledge between partners is considered very good or good (Baia Mare, Dublin, Buckinghamshire, Ostfold, Riga, Trieste), good practices identified in the cases studies and the presentations of LE and other experts are considered as a valuable point (Barakaldo, Baia Mare, Buckinghamshire), as is the good quality of the “pre-event” material (Buckinghamshire).

Bilateral/trilateral meetings (not tested yet before MTR) appear to be generally well perceived, maybe because of the smaller scale of meeting.

WP2 Weaknesses: the USEAct project shows “spotty” outcomes on WP2 and some weaknesses have to be recognized. Although the general aim of the project (reducing the land take) is commonly acknowledged, very different local situations and local needs do not always allow partners to find specific and “on demand” answers to local problems, with the consequence of not benefiting from case studies, and/or avoiding dealing with truly strategic aspects at local level. Not all partners appear to be able to play the role of pro-active “knowledge givers” and “promoters” of international exchange and discussion.

From the partners point of view… there are difficulties: “adapting” the local concrete/practical issues to the strategic target of the project (Nitra, Buckinghamshire), or dealing with the differences among partners (in terms of legal/planning frameworks and tools adopted) (Trieste, Ostfold). As far as the “transfer of knowledge in the partner cities” is concerned, some partners state that they are not highly satisfied (Buckinghamshire, Riga, Trieste).The “transnational meeting tool” allows only a “satisfactory” result, for some (but not all) partners, mainly in terms of follow-up, participation, facilitation, interactivity and capturing knowledge.

Limited time is available for “free discussion”/interaction (Ostfold) and for carrying on in depth analysis of the “work progress” of each partners (Viladecans), and too rigid “presentation templates (Dublin). As already stressed (for WP1) the “follow up” in terms of capability to boost other projects (e.g. Interreg, Horizon 2020) ideas and partnership is weak (Buckingamshire).

WP2 What could be done better is to recall the need to “complement” the local approaches to the USEAct project strategic aims, providing more room for discussion and interactive sessions in the forthcoming thematic meetings, as well as bilateral/trilateral meetings to develop exchanges.

(This opportunity is also a challenge for all, since further elements must be fitted into an already busy schedule. All partners should be able to benefit from these exchanges and this learning will also depend

23

on how speedily the results of the bilateral/trilateral meetings are made available to the non participating partners.) Recalling the purpose of the partners Case Studies plus a feed back process for partners to discuss these case studies, and a review of the usefulness of the case studies for the other partners can also be suggested, as well as stressing with the partners the need to intensify the activities related to the local issues and laying down a more stringent “managerial” framework (periodic face to face “remote” meetings with LP/LE on local knowledge transfer), avoiding focus on the differences between the local contexts (and to search for a “uniform” model) and giving preference to “federated solutions”, incentivising and developing the longterm learning potentials of the partnership (maybe with some role for the Urbact Secretariat?) .

WP3 – Impact on local policies and practices: many partners affirm that the ULGS and LAP are positive experiences, and that the toolkit provided at Programme Level is useful… However…local administrations and communities seem to focus on mainly operational aspects/actions (site specific “reuse” developments) that are not always really significant in terms of reducing land take “integrated policies” and are difficult to coherently link to the project framework. Moreover, in some cases (“weaker partners”), the Lead Partner and Lead Expert have difficulties in supporting LAP and LSG activities if the partners themselves face difficulties in developing the activities at local level.

WP3 the point of view of the partners… regarding LSG activities: low public involvement and participation not very strong (Nitra, Trieste), together with a recognized not very high political support (Nitra, Ostfold, Riga). As for the LAPs there is not always a strong coherence between local and transnational level (Baia Mare, Dublin) due sometimes to a strong “project specialization” (Barakaldo), and/or to the limited possibility to looking forward for further funds (Baia Mare, Viladecan, Barakaldo, Riga).

WP3 What could be done better? Re-focusing on “reducing land take” : after the MidTerm Review Process, a “reminder” could be officially mailed to the policy makers, to kindly recall that the “commitment” accepted with the participation in the USeAct project, firstly refers to the explicit support to integrated “urban growth management” policies and that such a framework should be at least clearly recognisable as the frame of any LAP developed within the project. Improvement of Political support is needed. There is a striking lack of appreciation of the training for public representatives in many, but by no means all, partners. These needs should be to be addressed urgently in order for cities to get political support on board for completion of the LAPs. More ‘hands on’ following of the partners’ Local Action Plans by the Lead Partner and Lead Expert including more formalized peer review process of the Local Action Plans (these are challenging requests, also from the partners’ perspective, since a stronger focus on the LAP

process could be required) – (hence the Peer Review Planned for the meeting in Ostfold).

WP4 – Communication and dissemination: Strengths: Reports of seminars and newsletters published are useful tools for communication and dissemination activities, content and results achieved to date by the USEAct network. There is appreciation at programme level of the format of the reports of the seminars and interviews with political representatives of the partner cities contained in USEAct newsletter. The “format” chosen for the case studies works well, and will also facilitate the dissemination of the contents outside the networks.

The relation between contents and communication outputs is also appreciated. Connection has been made with National dissemination Points (Romania / Italy / Spain / Norway) the “reducing land take” issue is considered as a rather sensitive issue at local level and this can facilitate the dissemination of the projects results; many partners have developed a variety of communication actions and tools in local languages.

WP4 Weaknessess: limited resources do not allow for communication activities to be developed permanently. There is difficulty in developing dissemination activities at national level, even though the issue, for many aspects, is linked to constraints and problems that depend on a “national” level. The specific contents of the projects are in fact rather technical, and this does not help to easily communicate them to a broad public; the political sensitivity of the issue and the limited incidence of “non institutional” stakeholders, could reduce the local dissemination activity.

WP4 What could be done better? Some partners seem to be struggling on the communication aspect: clarifying the difficulties experienced, improving the communication activities of the partners at the local level (website, newsletter, etc. in local language), improving involvement of the stakeholders in the communication tools, as articles/contribution in the newsletter; creating interactive forum for each local context USEAct partners, etc, improving communication about LAP first results (on the minisite, and using the USEAct Blog), improving communication outside the network to involve stakeholders and other organization interested in the activities of the Network, improving the “spot-life news” as a tool to promote all the different communication web tools, (USEAct Minisite, URBACT main site and newsletter, USEAct Blog/Case studies Catalogue, URBACT blog, USEAct Flickr channel, USEAct Facebook page), and USEAct main communication outputs, because the variety of tools make sometimes partners confused about it.

Financial rearrangements proposal Rearrangements proposal summary per budget categories *

The latest news is that the joint technical secretariat will review the request in June, and the Monitoring Committee will be asked to approve the changes in September .

24

Rearrangement proposal total budget * The amount of â‚Ź4 800 has been moved from Trieste to Naples considering that Naples paid the costs for organizing the third USEACT seminar (in Istanbul, 25-25 February 2014) and it is not expected to organize other seminars in Trieste. This change is awaiting approval.

TOTAL COSTS already claimed * * See the Budget overview attached to the Mid Term Review document.

At the end of 2014 the projects that did not fully spend could have a reduction in the budget for this reason after the submission of the next payment claim (deadline 30.09.2014). The possibility will be examined to transfer the underused amounts from the partners who are spending less to the partners

who are spending better in order not to lose possible further European co-financing!

Feedback from the Secretariat during the Mid Term Review Meeting, Paris, 15-16 May 2014: Strengths that were highlighted include the “transparent and comprehensive" report, the interesting innovative approach for transnational exchanges (B/T Meetings) and communication tools (the final local action plan exhibitions, the Newsletters and interviews), and the seminar reports as a model for the other URBACT Networks Weaknesses noted are the slow progress of the LAPs (with the suggestion that it would be important for the LP/LE to follow the partners much more closely during the preparation of their Local action Plans, including organising visits wherever possible, to include direct contact with the political representatives with responsibility for ensuring that the project is completed), not the same level of involvement in the activities of the network of the partners, and the very low percentage of claimed expenditure.

4.4 Bilateral/trilateral meetings: updating and programming activities of each subtheme groups

25

LP Gaetano Mollura B/t meetings, proposed structure: Within 20 days before the meeting, each partner will be requested to send to the Lead Partner and Lead Expert (and to other partners of the working group) a very brief thematic contribution, containing know-how and experiences, expectations/ problems/ ideas/ questions related to the specific thematic issue. At least a week before the meeting the Lead Expert produces and sends to the partners a short concept paper (of 3/4 pages) containing material useful for the discussion. During the meeting, the issues, good practices, ideas and problems will be discussed, with the Lead Expert facilitating the discussion and if useful and possible -optional contribution(s) of external subjects proposed by the local organizing partners. After the end of the meeting (within a maximum of seven days), each partner will write down a very brief outcome paper (one sheet) about the issues faced during the meeting and the "main results“. The Lead Expert will collect all the materials and will produce a "report" of the meeting, with the main important conclusions, to be sent to the partners for any further improvement.

Finally the report is published for to be shared by all partners of the Network Programme of the 1st bi/trilateral meeting in Buckinghamshireon 3/4 April 2014 First day morning / 3rd April 9.30 The targets of the Bilateral Meeting: Gaetano Mollura, Lead Partner 9.45 Innovation in Funding Social Housing: opportunities and tools: Vittorio Torbianelli – Lead Expert 10.00 Social Housing finance – the UK perspective: Josef Carr – (National Housing Federation) & Kathryn Mallet (KPMG) 10.30 Buckinghamshire’s proposed approach to addressing these issues: Jim Sims (Buckinghamshire Thames Valley LEP) & Alison Haddon (Paradigm Housing).

11.00 The REITS Spanish Experience – Strengths and Weaknesses: Alvaro Cerezo – Municipality of Barakaldo 11.15 Social Housing and private properties: challenges for historic centres: Gaetano Mollura – Municipality of Naples 11.30 The Italian “Cassa Depositi e Prestiti” case study: Vittorio Torbianelli – Lead Expert 11.45 Group Discussion: How can municipalities better exploit innovative new financing models to deliver Social Housing.

First day afternoon/ 3rd April 13.30 Group Discussion: The USEACT partners current Social Housing policies – state of the art and challenges 14.30 Social Housing finance & working with the European Investment Bank: Piers Williamson (Housing Finance Corporation) 15.30 Workshop: innovation in social housing; funding and governance – what could we do locally and together?

16.30 – 17.00 The outcomes of the workshop: Gaetano Mollura - Lead Partner, Vittorio Torbianelli Lead Expert.

Second day /4th April 9.30 Capitalization of the meetings results: identifying the main topics and suggestions 10.10 Workshop: How could we link the outcomes of the meeting with the local action plans?

11.00 Workshop: Reporting the meeting to the UseAct community 12.15 - 12.30 – Conclusions: how to valorize the meeting results 2nd b/t meeting in Viladecans, 25th June 2014 Theme: real estate developments based on innovation and knowledge based activities.

Working Group: Baia Mare/Østfold/Viladecans + LE and LP Draft Agenda: 24th June: arrival of the partners involved in the 2nd bilateral/trilateral meeting 25th June 9.00 - 13.00 meeting 13.00 - 14.00 lunch 14.00 - 18.00 meeting 20.30 dinner 26th June: Departure of the partners involved in the 2nd bilateral/trilateral meeting 3rd b/t meeting in Viladecans, 26th June 2014 Theme: urban uses and textures. Working Group: Viladecans/Trieste/ Barakaldo/ Baia Mare + Lead Expert and Lead Partner Draft agenda 25th June arrival of the partners involved in the meeting 20.30 dinner 26th June 9.00 - 13.00 meeting 13.00 - 14.00 lunch 14.00 - 18.00 meeting th 26th/27 June Departure of the partners involved in the 3rd bilateral/trilateral meeting.

4.5 USEACT Local Activities WORKSHOP “LAPs Review Cafè!”

26

During small workshops with the Lead Partner, Lead Expert and Thematic Expert, the partners discussed progress with the Local Action Plans: In Buckinghamshire they are working on visualisation tool (cost £ 30 000 – 40 000). The process has been facilitated by the URBACT process. The PPP, Buckinghamshire Advantage, was also faciliated by the URBACT process. Joint work is being caried out with NGOs, on tourism and a bus plan, and on how to collaborate related to respect for natural environment. They are also discussing finance options. Final goals are: linkage between players, and tools. Other parties may be required re the environment… residents ‘can be negative’…link to land use planning. Concerns could be finance and being too abstract.

In Viladecans there is a difficulty of motivation… entrepreneurs, promoters, investors, municipality, administrations… parallel thinking: using the ‘six hats’, was successful… want mixed uses. They are working on relationships/connections, a model to put into mixed uses. There is a need to promote more activity: improve the current situation, connect the fabric, identify future use, and design a sustainabilty profile. The are managing the process of the Local Action Plan with small groups (not all together).

The aim of the Nitra Local Action Plan is not only to ‘heal’ but to break down barriers through cross cutting actions. They are analysing acitivities/sectors. An experts’ pool looked at other models (e.g. san Francisco). The aim is to increase quality for investors, and evaluate the quality for tourists; analysing life in the city centre. The LSG consists of professionals, NGOs and the general public. The aim is to link the potential to the near future, for example with temporary parks, connected to public spaces, housing, cycling and transport, so the quality of public space is important. They are considering the short and long term. Funding is still to be found. They aim to create a new view of the city by the Local Support Group, which is considered to be strong: top down and bottom up.

Riga is working on a regional scale on a toolkit to control sprawl, also coordination between plans.

Barakaldo are drawing up a concrete methodology and indicators related to the area: identifing the area, and the indicators, now in four packages.

Weaknesses are: timing, an ‘integrated’ approach.

Cross cutting across a wide span.

The LAP is linked to the general plan in Trieste, identifying heritage areas, incentives, and energy efficiency.

Dublin is concentrating on a clear area. Weakness may be carrying it through, as ownership is complex.

Baia Mare is working on a strategy for business.

Seven different areas want a common strategy, to clarify if they can be developed. A weakness is that documents are not so clear.

Naples: focussing on deprived areas, and working with stakeholders.

In Ostfold the LAP needs to be concrete enough, addressing concrete issues. There is now more freedom in planning.

The Lead Partner will share all the Local action plans from the partners. He will requests feedback from partners on the format for the final presentation of the Local Action Plans: a document was circulated at / since the meeting for partners’ comments.

4.6 General issues of the Network Management Next steps - organization calendar of the all the next seminars and 27 bi/trilateral meetings Lead Expert, Lead Partner

Administrative and Financial Duties 2nd certificates: on 31.03.2014 : once the second ERDF quota is received from the secretariat, it will be transferred to the partners.

2nd certificates: the shared costs have been claimed by the Lead Partner

3rd reporting session deadlines 3° REPORTING SESSION PERIOD: EXPENDITURED PAID FROM 01/01/2014 TO 30/06/2014

ALL PPs UPLOAD THE EXPENDITURES ON PRESAGE (TO BE APPROVED BY THE LP); ALL PPs SEND AN UPDATING OF THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT AT LOCAL LEVEL – ULSG, LAP, Communication, etc. (for the Progress Report)

9/07/2014

ALL PPs SEND THE DRAFT CERTIFICATES TO THE LP by email BEFORE SUBMITTING IT! (CONSIDERING THAT THE LP MUST CHECK THEM )

08/09/2013

ALL PPs PROVIDE 2 SIGNED ORIGINAL CERTIFICATES

BY ORDINARY MAIL TO THE LP

19/09/2014

THE LP SUBMITS THE COMPREHENSIVE PROGRESS REPORT WITH PAYMENT CLAIM AND TOTAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION SUMMARY

30/09/2014

The Lead Partner asks partners to meet the deadlines! NB: In case your First Level Controller needs more time, please let the Lead Partner team know in advance in order to agree a timetable in advance with the Lead Partner Financial Officer.

3rd Reporting Session: futher steps Each partner will upload the expenditures (for the period January 2014-June 2014) in the Presage platform by the deadline 15/07/2014. NB: All partners are required to send an update of the activities carried out at local level from January 2014 to June 2014 for the III USEACT Progress Report (ULSG, Communications, LAP, etc.) by 15.07.2014.

The Lead Partner will validate the uploaded expenditures in the Presage platform within 10 days.

Once validated, the expenditures will automatically pass into the “certification process” and can be controlled by the First Level Controllers. The FLC produces the draft version of the certificate.

08/09/2013. The LP will check the draft version of the certificates. After this check the FLCs can produce the submitted version of the certificate and will sign three original copies (for each partner) of the certificates. The Partner will archive 1 copy of the certificate and will send only 2 original signed copies of the certificate to the Lead Partner respecting the deadline of 19/09/2014 (or exceptionally deliver by hand during the Fifth Seminar in Riga on 25th-26th September). Once the Lead Partner receives all the certificates, the

Progress Report, the Payment Claim and Financial Contributions Summary will be submitted.

Let’s bear in mind! ...  Report as much expenditure as possible!!!

At the end of 2014 the projects that did not fully spend could have a small reduction in the budget operated by the secretariat. After the submission of the next payment claim the possibility will be evaluated to transfer the underused amounts from the partners who are spending worse to the partners who are spending better in order not to loose possible further European cofinancing! 

Archive the following documents: contractual documents (incling audit trail documents), bank account statements, original invoices in order to support all the incurred expenses, 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 services and goods (studies, brochures, newsletters, minutes of meetings, participants’ list, boarding passes, travel tickets, hotel invoice, etc.), calculation of administrative costs, records of costs

included in overheads, etc. These documents can be requested for audit!

28

2. The Joint Technical Secretariat willll review the request and if acceptable willll open Presage CTE for the changes to be incorporated.

3. The deadline for submission in Presage is 11th July 2014.

4. The decision is planned by written procedure in August (subject to agreement from the Member States) or at the latest in September by the Monitoring Committee during their meeting.

The reprogramming procedure: new deadlines are as follows: 1. Our official reprogramming request will be sent in letter form along with revised budget tables by no later than 20th June 2014 (earlier if possible). In the meantime partners are asked to check the agreed rearrangement proposals for correcting possible mistakes.

USEAct next Bilateral meetings calendar ACTIVITY

PARTICIPANTS

THEME

OUTPUTS

2nd b/t meeting Viladecans (SPAIN) th 25 June ‘14

Baia Mare/ Ostfold/Viladecans

REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS based on INNOVATION AND KNOWLEDGE BASED ACTIVITIES”

b/t meeting Report

3rd b/t meeting Viladecans (SPAIN) th 26 June ‘14

Viladecans/Trieste/ Barakaldo/ Baia Mare

URBAN USES AND TEXTURES

b/t meeting Report

4th b/t meeting Naples (ITALY) th th 15 -16 July ‘14

Naples/Buckinghamsh ire/Riga

SMART USE OF DATA/VISUALISATION TOOLS

b/t meeting Report

5th b/t meeting Dublin (IRELAND) th th 4 -5 Nov ’14

Dublin/ Nitra/Riga/ Buckinghamshire

NEW USES FOR HERITAGE (residential) BUILDINGS

b/t meeting Report

6th b/t meeting Dublin (IRELAND) th th 5 -6 Nov ’14

Baia Mare/Dublin/ Buckinghamshire

“(UP FRONT) INFRASTRUCTURES FINANCING

b/t meeting Report

USEAct next transnational meetings calendar ACTIVITY

THEME and FORMAT

MAIN OUTPUTS

Fifth Thematic Seminar Riga (LATVIA) th th 25 – 26 Sept 2014

THEME: Refitting and regenerating inhabited buildings and areas FORMAT: Exchange/ field visit/ thematic seminar/ management contents

Fifth thematic Report

Capitalization and MAs Workshop Buckinghamshire (UK) th th 9 -20 Jan 2015 tbc

FORMAT: Steering committee and MAs/ management contents and LAP results

Capitalization and MAs Workshop Report

Final Conference Naples (ITALY) th 23th 24 April 2015 tbc

FORMAT: Open meeting / dissemination event

Final Conference Report

4.7 Fifth USEAct Thematic Seminar in Riga

29

Theme: Refitting and regenerating inhabited buildings and areas Subthemes: Integrated „regeneration- oriented” public strategies through refitting and maintenance of existing buildings. Involving flat-owners in integrated refitting strategies through energy efficiency improvements Partners Case studies: during the next seminar in Riga USEAct Partners will present the following case studies: Barakaldo: Quality Standards of the urban environment (existing building and urban areas) - CUERs Project, Naples: Sirena Project, Viladecans: Urban remodeling of residential Ponent Renewal of the extension of the Montserratina.

LAPs: during the next seminar in Riga USEAct Partners are going to discuss the 1st Draft of their Local Action Plan document, first Ideas and feedbacks on the Local Dissemination event / LAP Exhibition (people involved, target of invited persons, place, dates, involvement of politicians at local level and Managing Authorities), as well as a first update of involvement of the Managing Authorities on the occasion of the Capitalization and MAs Workshop in Buckinghamshire (in January 2015).

SAVE THE DATES! Activities at Programme Level: URBACT_Next activities:  

3rd National Training Seminars November / December 2014 th the URBACT Annual Conference 2015 6 / th 8 May 2015

Activities meetings   

at

USEAct

network

level:

next

Thematic seminar in Riga, September 25 – 26 2014 Thematic seminar in Buckinghamshire, January 27-28 2015 Final conference in Naples, April 23-24 2015

30

APPENDIX 1 PROGRAMME OF THE MEETING

31

USEAct Thematic Network Fourth Thematic Seminar Interventions to “reuse” urban areas: management, partnerships, funding, functions /2 Implementation Phase Østfold County (Norway) 27th 28th May 2014

USEAct partners Østfold County (Norway) hosting partner 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) City of Trieste (Italy) City of Viladecans (Spain) Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality BIMTAS/IMP (Turkey)

26th May 2014 Arrival of participants Thon Hotel in Halden (Langbrygga 1, 1767 Halden, Norway)

32

19.30

Meet and greet in the lobby

20.00

Informal dinner at hotel

27th May 2014-Meeting Venue : Østfold county council offices, Town Hall in Sarpsborg – Sarpsborg radhus , Glegsgata 38 1706 Sarsborg 08.00 Bus leaves for Sarpsborg 08.30 Arrive to Østfold county council offices/ Sarpsborg 8:45 Welcome of the hosting partner Sindre Martinsen-Evje, Mayor of Sarpsborg 9:00 Introduction USEAct Thematic Network: presentation of the programme and outline of network activities Gaetano Mollura, City of Naples, USEAct Lead Partner 9:15 Introduction to the USEAct issues of the Third Thematic Seminar Vittorio Torbianelli, USEAct Lead Expert 9.45 Focus on host partner /1 Presentation of the the USLG Members 10.45 Focus on host partner /2 : presentation of the Ostfold LAP Discussion with the network led by the Lead Expert, Vittorio Torbianelli 11.30 VISIT ON THE SITE guided walk in «Østre bydel» 12.30 Lunch break at Østfold county council offices/Sarpsborg town hall 13.30 Focus on host partner /3: presentation of the context of Ostfold and case study - County master plan, and “area audit” Elisabeth Dahle, Head of society-planning department, Østfold county council Discussion with the partners 15.00 Bi/Trilateral Meeting “Real estate investment trust for housing “ : outcomes of the London (UK) meeting LE , LP City of Naples , Barakaldo, Nitra, Buckinghamshire Business First, Østfold County Discussion with the network led by Lead Expert, Vittorio Torbianelli 15 40 Mid Term Review : Outputs and Learning / feedback following the LP/LE meeting in Paris LP Gaetano Mollura , LE Vittorio Torbianelli Discussion with the network led by Thematic Expert Pauline Geoghegan 16.30 Bus leaves for Halden with stops at Greåker and Fredrikstad for guided walks at case study sites 18.00 Bus back at hotel 19.00 Meeting in lobby for walk up to the Fredriksten fortress.

19.30 Dinner at the fortress 28th May 2014: Meeting Venue: Moss Campus 08.00 Bus leaves for Moss 09.00 arrive at Moss Campus Fourth THEMATIC WORKSHOP - PLENARY WORKING SESSION: Moderator : Vittorio Torbianelli. Lead Expert

09.15 Interventions on “reuse” of urban areas: management, partnerships, funding, functions: Controlling the quality of developments: some lessons from Germany

Vittorio Torbianelli, Lead Expert

33

- Discussion with the network Led by Pauline Geoghegan, Thematic Expert 9 45 The Contribution of the Guest Thematic Expert Quality in Transformation and densification projects” Michael Fuller Gee ,USEAct Guest Expert

- Discussion with the network Led by Pauline Geoghegan, Thematic Expert 10.30 The contribution of Naples LAP Stakeholder : AUDIS ( Associazione Aree Urbane Dismesse - Urban deprived areas Association) the AUDIS Matrix and Protocol

- Discussion with the network Led by Thematic Expert, Pauline Geoghegan 11.00 Focus on the Fourth USEACT Seminar Theme and related partners case studies Moderator: Vittorio Torbianelli, Lead Expert 12.00 Lunch 12.30 VISIT ON THE SITE: guided walk around the Peterson area and the City lab: (brief description of each of these sites) 13.30 PARALLEL WORKSHOPS : USEACT Local Activities WORKSHOP “LAPs Review Cafè!” (guidelines to follow). Lead Expert Vittorio Torbianelli (moderator), Thematic Expert Pauline Geoghegan Lead Partner: coordinator Gaetano Mollura and Communication officer Maria Luna Nobile 15 30 PLENARY WORKING SESSION: Reporting feedbacks of each “LAPs Review Cafè” group Partner rapporteurs 15 45 PLENARY WORKING SESSION – Introduction to the workshops on bilateral – trilateral meetings: subthemes, working groups management, meetings calendar, outputs Lead Partner, Lead Expert, Thematic Expert all Project Partners

16 00 PARALLEL WORKSHOPS: 5 groups /5 subthemes bilateral – trilateral meetings : updating and programming activities of each subtheme groups All Partners 16 30 PLENARY WORKING SESSION: Reporting feedbacks of the “bilateral/trilateral” groups Partner rapporteurs 16.45 General issues of the Network Management - Next steps - organization calendar of the all the next seminars and bi/trilateral meetings Lead Expert, Lead Partner 17 15 Closure of the USEACT Fourth seminar

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

is

financed by ERDF and the Member States.

www.urbact.eu/useact

jointly