USEAct Urban Sustainable Environmental Actions
CAPITALIZATION AND MANAGING AUTHORITIES WORKSHOP 26TH 27TH JANUARY 2015 “LIFE BEYOND USEACT” WORKSHOP 28TH JANUARY 2015
Lead Partner
Host Partner
USEAct Buckinghamshire Business First Sifth 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 Contact: email vittorioalberto.torbianelli@arch.units.it Thematic Expert Pauline Geoghegan USEAct Project Thematic Expert Contact: email paulinegeoghegan@hotmail.com www.urbact.eu www.urbact.eu/useact The report written by the thematic expert Pauline Geoghegan refers to the seminar work, with contributions of Gaetano Mollura Lead partner, Vittorio Torbianelli Lead expert and USEAct partners that attended the meeting. Anna Arena, Maria Luna Nobile and Vincenzo Fusco, Lead partner team contributed to the editing of this report. th
Cover picture: Poster of the 6 USEAct Seminar hosted by Buckinghamshire Business First Š 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 4 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Concept paper 2. Buckinghamshire the host partner 6 2.1 Welcome on behalf of High Wycombe District Council 2.2 Welcome on behalf of Buckinghamshire Business First 2.3 The emerging Local Development Plan for Wycombe district 2.4 The High Wycombe Business Improvement district 2.5 Suburban design tour of High Wycombe 3. USEAct Managing Authorities 13 3.1 Slovakia 3.2 Ireland 3.3 Feedbacks/Output/recommendation from USEAct MA workshop to the Programme level 4. The life of the network 23 4.1 USEAct Local Action Plans 4.1.1 Common glossary and review guidelines 4.1.2 USEAct Keywords 4.1.3 Reporting feedback of each “LAP Review Cafè” 4.1.4 Glossary 4.2 USEAct Network management: administrative and financial issues 4.2.1 USEAct Network final outputs 4.2.2 Capitalization and dissemination of USEAct results, transnational and local activities/New URBACT website 4.2.3 Barakaldo final dissemination event! 4.3 Next steps towards URBACT III Call and URBACT City Festival in Riga 4.3.1 5th Bilateral meeting: New Uses for Heritage buildings (Dublin, Nitra, Riga, Buckinghamshire) 4.3.2 5th Bilateral meeting: Upfront infrastructural provision and financing (Baia Mare, Buckinghamshire, Trieste and Dublin) 5. USEAct Workshop on “Life Beyond USEAct” 27 5.1 Introducing the topic 5.1.1 Funding example 5.1.2 Partner inputs on the first issue 5.1.3 Identifying the funding streams 5.1.4 Proposal from Barakaldo for a European Housing association, a non-profin organization (NPO) for urban regeneration 5.1.5 Discusion and moving forward 5.2 Second thematic proposal “Smart data and territorial planning in a participatory perspective:how to invest in urban big data as a driver for urban renaissance” 5.3 Next steps Appendix 1 programme of the meeting and meeting participants 32
4
SIXTH SEMINAR
IMPLEMENTATION PHASE
USEACT CAPITALIZATION AND MANAGING AUTHORITIES WORKSHOP
1.INTRODUCTION AND CONCEPT PAPER 1.1 Sixth meeting participants Jim Sims, Buckinghamshire Business First, Cllr Richard Scott, Wycombe DC (UK), Penelope Tollitt, Wycombe DC (UK), Oliver O'Dell, HWBidco (UK), Charles Brocklehurst, Wycombe DC (UK), Gaetano Mollura USEAct Coordinator, Maria Luna Nobile USEAct Communication officer, Vittorio Torbianelli Lead Expert, Pauline Geoghegan Thematic Expert, Germana Di Falco Ad hoc Expert, Paul Pece, Baia Mare Metropolitan Area Association, John O’ Hara, City of Dublin, Derville Brennan Dublin Managing Authority, Álvaro Cerezo Ibarrondo, City of Barakaldo, Štefan Lancarič, Miroslava Hanakova City council of Nitra, Kamila Gejdosova, National URBACT Authority, Ministry of Transport City of Nitra, Linda Iren K. Duffy, Østfold County, Einar Stefanussen, ULSG Member Østfold County Council, Carlotta Cesco, Mario Vivian Trieste City Council, Enric Serra, Sonia Dominguez City of Viladecans
Introduction
For the last transnational seminar before the final USEAct event planned in Naples in April 2015, the network partners met in the Buckinghamshire New University, in the heart of High Wycombe, a town which has undergone many transformations, with the installation of major shopping facilities in the centre, juxtaposing several core heritage buildings. On the outskirts the development of major new commercial facilities on land owned by the District Council, close to easy motorway access from London, is presenting the challenge of how to maintain life in the existing centre, the key issue for USEAct partners, and for whom? Contributions from a broad range of actors represented the District Council, planners, university, the Business Improvement District and a Council major property and projects executive, as well as Buckinghamshire Business First, who hosted the meeting. The partners had the support of guest expert Germana di Falco, to discuss and fine tune the final
5
phases of their respective Local Action Plans, and in particular to clarify a number of key concepts involved in action planning. To complement the work on the Local Action Plans, the partners heard valuable information on future EU funding perspectives for sustainable urban actions from two USEACT Managing Authorities, from Ireland and Slovakia. Building on the strong partnership that has evolved during the life of the network, a further high point was the optional opportunity to discuss further cooperation on topics that have emerged during the project, within or beyond the future URBACT programme. Given the tight deadlines looming for a number of EU funded programmes, the final event of USEAct, to take place in Naples on April 22-24 2015, will no doubt be another occasion to develop further any proposals for continued cooperation, as well as to present the outcomes of the current project.
1.2
Concept Paper
USEAct Lead Expert, Vittorio Alberto Torbianelli
The 6th USEACT Seminar in Buckinghamshire aimed to foster the exchange among the project partners in view of supporting the elaboration processes of the Local Action Plans as one of the main final output of the network. During the LAPs Review Cafè, the partners’ “Local Action Plan Template” was discussed in the plenary as well as in smaller groups and all partners received feedback on their proposals. The discussion was based on a common analysis of different LAPs, addressing different focus and solutions implemented in the USEACT network. The comparison stood as an introduction to the separate group working that was supported by Lead and Thematic experts. In a forum for discussion with two USEACT associated Managing Authorities the access to financial resources (EU Structural Funds and others) and their involvement in the USEACT / URBACT II Local Action Plans was discussed, together with suggestions for the future. A session of the second day was dedicated to the USEACT Network capitalisation to have a shared overview with the partners on dissemination of the final outputs, including the final European conference in Naples and within each partner city.
In order to give insight into the local challenges and approaches, the hosting partner Buckinghamshire Business First organized visits to the sites of case study/ies and presentations. Last but not least, the 6th USEACT Seminar also provided a platform to discuss organizational and administrative issues, communication strategies and finances An added optional participation in a half-day session was also included in the programme of the seminar, for USEACT partners interested in exploring (as requested) “Life beyond USEACT”. This session focused on opportunities of European calls related to themes highlighted by bilateral /trilateral meetings activities such as the First B/T Meeting on “Real estate Investment Trust for Housing” and the Fourth B/T Meeting on “Smart Use of Data /Visualisation Tools”. The session went into projects along the same lines already funded by the Commission and into the topics for the suitable calls that can be used in 2015 to submit joint proposals. Opportunities related to Erasmus+, LIFE, Horizon 2020 and Interreg Europe were explored and shaped in an integrated path for funding the two main themes highlighted by the partnership.
1.3
The USEAct issues of the Fifth Thematic Seminar
USEAct Lead Expert, Vittorio Torbianelli The importance of the integrated approach was emphasised, focussing on improving housing in the city centre and energy questions. Specific actions use existing housing stocks and identify small areas to focus on. Reducing land take also means an equilibrium between government policies and small scale policies. The meeting was particularly important for the Local Action Plans, supported by the contributions of an external expert.
6
2. THE HOST PARTNER: BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUSINESS FIRST 2.1 Welcome on behalf of High Wycombe District Council Councillor Richard Scott On the eve of the meeting the partners were welcomed in the town’s Guild Hall by the leader of the High Wycombe District Council, Councillor Richard Scott, who gave a presentation of the past and present of the town and its surroundings. The name Wycombe comes from the river Wye, which runs through the town, and the word ‘combe', the old English word for a wooded valley. Wycombe appears in the historic record of the Domesday 1 Book and because of the river it was noted for then having six mills. The existence of a settlement at High Wycombe was first documented in 970 and the parish church was consecrated in 1086. The town received market borough status in 1222, and built its first market hall in 1476, which is a very nicely preserved building. High Wycombe remained a mill town through medieval and Tudor times, manufacturing lace and linen cloth. It was also a stopping point on the way from Oxford to London, with many travellers staying in the town's taverns and inns. The paper industry was notable in the 17th and 18th Centuries. The river Wye's waters were rich in chalk, and therefore ideal for bleaching pulp. But the paper industry was soon overtaken by the cloth industry. However, because of the abundance of local wood, Wycombe's most famous industry, furniture (particularly chairs), took hold in the 19th century, with furniture factories setting up all over the town. In 1875, it was estimated that there were 4,700 chairs made per day in High Wycombe. Wycombe was completely dominated socially and economically by the furniture industry and, consequently, there was considerable unemployment and social problems when the industry declined in the 1960s. Today, the furniture industry is still in evidence, albeit on a much smaller scale. In the 1960s the town centre was redeveloped. This involved culverting the river Wye under concrete and demolishing most of the old buildings in the town centre. Two shopping centres were built along with many new multi-storey car parks, office blocks, 1
A Survey of much of England and parts of Wales completed in 1086
flyovers and roundabouts. A further town centre regeneration project was completed in the 1990s: the Eden shopping centre. Today, High Wycombe remains the principal town in the district, which covers some 324.57 km and has a population of 172,000, approximately 86 % white, 8% Asian and 6% black and mixed race, and in recent years there has been substantial growth in east Europeans settling in the town – there are now three Polish supermarkets in the town. In terms of geography and topography, Wycombe District Council is also a very diverse district - in the north it tends to be flatter, the centre is quite hilly and wooded and in the south, the district reaches down to the river Thames. 75% of the district is covered by green belt and has a status known as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and whilst it is good to have these protections from major development, it can be quite challenging in finding areas for new housing or business and industrial growth. Like most countries and communities in Europe, High Wycombe suffered from the economic downturn after the 2008 banking crisis. This however mainly affected the retail and service industry and there were many empty shops in the town. The town is fortunate in having a very diverse business and industry base across the district, the majority of which are in the service and light industrial sectors. We are home to a number of significant international businesses, who have chosen this area because of its fast connections to London by rail and road and our proximity to Heathrow airport. Over 70% of our businesses are in the small to medium sized category with under 20 employees. The council currently has a number of major regeneration projects under way and is investing £60m in a major development on the edge of the town to replace a 40 year old sports centre complex with a brand new state-of-the-art sports and leisure centre, together with a new major supermarket, a new transport hub with fast coach services to London and Heathrow airport, a major hotel and numerous new office blocks. In the town centre itself, on an area that originally housed industrial premises, the development of residential accommodation for students from our university has been facilitated, together with a major housing development for retired living, two new care homes and a day care centre for elderly residents. And a new inner ring road will be built to get more traffic out of the town centre. They are working hard to revitalise the town centre and as this council is financially strong they have been buying strategic properties within the town to help with regeneration.
2.2 Welcome on behalf of Buckinghamshire Business First
7
Ruth Farwell, Pro-Vice Chancellor of Buckinghamshire New University, Board Member of Buckinghamshire Business First and Buckinghamshire Thames Valley Local Enterprise Partnership
The meeting took place in Buckinghamshire New University, a practice based, professional university, focusing on the skills necessary for employment sectors, and to contribute to society and the community. The university has an employer focus, through partnership with, for example, professional bodies, and employers in specialist areas, to enable students to get practical experience. There is a business school, where the students benefit from real life studies, for example working for companies such as the local radio station, entrepreneurial companies, and local companies being helped to grow. They are also involved in the local enterprise partnership. This fits in with the public sector i.e. it has a good reputation with the National Health Service, education services and social work, and with the IT sector, for example tele-health services, music, video and TV production, and management training
for the aviation industry.
2.3 The emerging Local Development Plan for Wycombe District Penelope Tollitt, Head of Planning 2 Sustainability, Wycombe District Council
and
The Chilterns are an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty: Wycombe is a working town in a beautiful landscape. Over the past three years government has dismantled the land use planning system. There are now only local plans, no national plans, and strategic planning through the ‘duty to cooperate’. With the aim of capturing the value of development to feed back into the community, the Community Infrastructure Levy is in effect a ‘land tax’: a flat rate per square metre (of ‘useable space’) built, mainly to fund ‘off site’ works such as roads, schools, sports fields etc. On-site works are still collected through legal agreements by negotiation, for example the building in which the meeting took place was funded by a former campus elsewhere where a housing estate has been built. In Wycombe amounts charged are around 125 – 150/ Sq metre. Steps to setting CIL include assessing the infrastructure needs (infrastructure delivery plan) and financial viability, setting the flat rate at a viable rate (may not fund all the infrastructure), followed by government examination (‘testing’). The advantages of CIL are that there is no scope for negotiation – it has to be paid, and charges are known in advance, so can be built into viability appraisals (in theory), and can be ‘pooled’ to build up funds from several sources for large items. The disadvantages of CIL are that this not in fact taken into account when buying land – so has no impact on land value, it is a complex system. Government has granted so many opt outs, e.g. for ‘self build’ (which is not clearly defined). Separate administration systems are needed from normal financial controls, leading to extra additional costs. In practice the Planning Directorate respects the CILs: 46 out of 52 failed because of the ‘duty to cooperate’ was not respected. A major consultation took place on the Wycombe Local Plan, with a leaflet delivered to (nearly!) everyone in the District. The aim of the Big Challenge Plan is to achieve high quality and 2
Penelope Tollit is responsible for the three key areas of development management, spatial planning and building control. The service overall covers all aspects of planning applications (including pre-application advice, appeals and compliance); building regulations; planning policy including the Local Development Framework; infrastructure and environmental planning; urban design; conservation and tree projects.
8
sustainability, with new infrastructure, new jobs and new homes. Since High Wycombe is located 30 miles from London, it includes part of London’s green belt, so development is very constrained. Working out housing numbers is difficult since there is no information on regional trends. However graphs show that not enough housing is being built. Jobs have been declining compared to other areas. There is a national housing Issue, since homes are the main crisis point for planning. At present 1800 homes are needed in green field areas: if the need increases even more will be needed in greenfield areas. There are six main options: known sites, within towns and villages, on previously Developed sites in the countryside, and reserve sites; new options include expanding Villages, Green Belt review and Princes Risborough expansion, in the North of the county. The Issue is how much from each option rather than which option to run with and which to drop. The current Core Strategy is for 8,000 homes (over 20 years). The known supply Scenario B is for 10 900 homes (2011-31), and Scenario D for 14 300 homes (2011-31). The ‘Duty to Co-operate’ with adjacent local authorities is a new national policy framework. (In Scotland there is a map to suggest where building should go, but no longer in England). Under the National Planning Policy Framework, Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) amounts to a 5 year land supply, with a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Previously in the regional spatial strategy needs of overlapping areas were clear; this is no longer the case. Now partnering is being arranged with other neighbouring districts. Luckily the administrative and functional boundaries match. The Duty to Cooperate entails: agreeing an area for the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, agreeing the Objectively Assessed Need, agreeing constraints – including Green Belt Review, agreeing the housing target and agreeing with others that they will take the ‘spare’. This is followed by drafting the plan, consulting on the plan, revising the plan, submitting the plan, getting the plan examined, and adopting the Plan. The current dilemma is that since there is no strategic planning, we are spending two years discussing, and at the same time developers are coming forward with plans, whereas we will have to wait until 2017 to agree plans. It is all about process, but it should also be about quality! … The ‘Race Horse’ scenario: 5 year land supply, the local plan no longer provides for this on a long term basis, plus development management without a guiding plan. The ‘Cart Horse’ scenario: Duty to Co-
operate, Objectively Assessed Need (OAN), and the Local Plan. This is the best means for managing development. … “We must harness the race horse to our ends.”
A local resident has written “Our major settlements need to receive new mixed development in a thoughtful manner in delicate, serious and sensitive process, established over time, so complementing our geological and historical legacy and our more recent architectural heritage.” We must harness the race horse to our ends. Bridging the gap: Under the old plans sites were released to close the gap. Most houses were built on brownfield sites, but soon we will be incentivising current businesses to sell land for housing. Although there is no strategic plan, land can be built on by developers who develop agreements with land owners then sell land for houses, or form a consortium if local landowners. There is no democratic basis for this. Many sites are still in employment (business) use. There is also a need therefore to have a pro-active Council ‘workspace’ programme to ensure there are value for money premises for relocation. Concluding thoughts: CIL is better as a land tax ‘capital gains’ based on value uplift, not administered by planning; Duty to Co-operate is impractical as a means of strategic planning, … but has had a good output of getting us to look better at functional geography. We now need to think as a developer, in terms of land values, ease of delivery, not as a ‘planner’, in the absence of a local plan.
2.4 The High Wycombe Business Improvement District 3
Oliver O’Dell - Chief Executive of HWBID Co
9
BidCo is run by business, for business, with a focus on the town centre, with 87 business members, it is a controversial localised management mechanism, breaking cultural chains, ensuring a local economic vision.
“Dull, inert cities, it is true, do contain the seeds of their own destruction and little else. But lively, diverse, intense cities contain the seeds of their own regeneration, with energy enough to carry over for problems and needs outside themselves.” (Jane Jacobs) Defining what we are as a town… High Wycombe is not a creative district, or a destination town: it is a Buckinghamshire market town surrounded by affluent middle class villages and within easy commute to London, whilst being a multi-cultural “London suburb” with the associated pressures of being the hole in the middle of the ring-doughnut.
intrudes, threatening to shatter their dearly won learning, they must shrug reality aside.” (Jane Jacobs) A controversial, localised, management mechanism… The finance model is to bring in money from business; a business voice to influence statutory framework. It is legally independent, not for profit; business vote for the town centre plan. Funded by 1% extra on top of business rates (taxes on property tenants); they are legally entitled to collect the levy. Annual fees are agreed for 5 years. It is business led and business approved. There will be a new vote for its existence at the end of 5 years; it has been running for 2 years so far. The added value is to make business life easier. Plus the businesses determine the agenda. “Under the seeming disorder of the old city, wherever the old city is working successfully, is a marvellous order for maintaining the safety of the streets and the freedom of the city. It is a complex order. Its essence is intricacy of sidewalk use, bringing with it a constant succession of eyes. This order is all composed of movement and change, and although it is life, not art, we may fancifully call it the art form of the city and liken it to the dance — not to a simple-minded precision dance with everyone kicking up at the same time, twirling in unison and bowing off en-masse, but to an intricate ballet in which the individual dancers and ensembles all have distinctive parts which miraculously reinforce each other and compose an orderly whole. The ballet of the good city sidewalk never repeats itself from place to place, and in any once place is always replete with new improvisations.” (Jane Jacobs).
“Planners, architects of city design, and those they have led along with them in their beliefs are not consciously disdainful of the importance of knowing how things work. On the contrary, they have gone to great pains to learn what saints and sages of modern orthodox planning have said about how cities ought to work and what ought to be good for people and business in them. They take this with such devotion that when contradictory reality 3
A Business Improvement District, or BID, is a partnership in which businesses make a collective contribution to improve their commercial area. They most commonly operate as an independent, not-for-profit, company limited by guarantee. Oliver O’Dell’s background is in planning and regeneration, with eighteen years of grass-roots experience in town centre partnerships. He has extensive experience of BIDs, taking three from initial concept to full ballot. He has worked previously with a broad range of business and community groups to develop business strategies and to realise project ambitions.
Breaking the janitorial chains to become more economic in focus… Part of the role is to understand how things work, to create enough momentum of ‘good things’ happening. Audiences are business and the public. Part of the role is to educate on how things happen.
into the new centre were not replaced by others. The shopping centre is a ‘managed space’, with no possibility to take ‘ownership’. Secondly, ‘Eyes upon the street’: how to reutilise empty commercial spaces (10%)? Pop up shops etc… “Empty spaces make most noise”. How to keep people interested?
10
“A city street equipped to handle strangers, and to make a safety asset, in itself, out of the presence of strangers, as the streets of successful city neighbourhoods always do, must have three main qualities… First, there must be a clear demarcation between what is public space and what is private space. Public and private spaces cannot ooze into each other as they do typically in suburban settings or in projects. Second, there must be eyes upon the street, eyes belonging to those we might call the natural proprietors of the street. The buildings on a street equipped to handle strangers and to insure the safety of both residents and strangers, must be oriented to the street. They cannot turn their backs or blank sides on it and leave it blind. “Empty spaces make most noise”. And third, the sidewalk must have users on it fairly continuously, both to add to the number of effective eyes on the street and to induce the people in buildings along the street to watch the sidewalks in sufficient numbers. Nobody enjoys sitting on a stoop or looking out a window at an empty street. Almost nobody does such a thing. Large numbers of people entertain themselves, off and on, by watching street activity.” (Jane Jacobs)
Three main qualities of the initiative are: Firstly, “Public/private demarcation”: there is still a big discussion on the impact of the shopping centre. A retail destination, there is still a lot of debate on the impact of the shopping centre, as those who moved
Thirdly, street activity: this is relatively easy on single days but activity every day is more difficult to organise. ‘Café culture’ is talked about but not achieved. How to regenerate a critical mass in space that already exists?
Ensuring that economic vision becomes economic growth… We can do different things, discuss the vision of what is the ‘offer’ of the town: not bohemian, low level to attract artisans, or trendy areas: create a place where people want to invest. Attract betting shops, second hand shops etc. What do people want to do in the town, i.e. accountability to the general population. Regarding the re use of former Brunel railway shed: a mural was added showing what its function used to be… now seeking investor interest. Another example is the Enterprise HQ incubator unit, to give businesses the opportunity to ‘business test’ ideas, by providing a “space and a cuddle”, and is supported by a lawyer, marketing expert etc., for which a fee is charged. Whereas previously they were town centre managers they now have to be more economic in their focus. BIDs need to be very local, a ‘commercial’ organisation, funded not only by the levy. Voting is by majority vote: for each rates bill there is one vote. The total budget is £ 400 000. Setting the agenda is as transparent as possible: often ideas arise from problems. 3 people are employed in the company.
2.5 Suburban design tour of High Wycombe
11
Charles Brocklehurst, Major Projects and Property Executive Wycombe District Council. An economist and architect, Charles Brocklehurst presents himself as ‘poacher turned game keeper’… The issue is the ‘narrow vision’ of councillors: they are risk averse, yet property is about taking risk. High Wycombe was a coaching station between Oxford and London, with all traffic passing through the High Street. As early as the 1950s an inner relief road was proposed. In the 60s the relief road became an elevated flyover, chopping off the town centre. In the 70s the town acquired the land where the Eden Shopping Centre is located. Shopping was built under the flyover. Retailers wanted more space. The old town could not provide units, with the result that people went shopping elsewhere in the region. To create the site for the Eden shopping centre, 36 separate landowners were involved, costing £¾m in legal fees, over 2 years. Private sector developers wanted to expand and develop a new centre. It cost £150m in 2008, for 80 000 m². There was a sudden change from no shopping to lots of shopping. It attracts 14 million people every year, of whom 70% are A/B (‘upper middle’ and ‘middle’ class). The night time economy has been boosted, with branded restaurants. The Eden is busy 15-18 hours per day, and shifted the centre of gravity leaving the old town behind, hence the current emphasis on ‘old town renewal’.
The town of two halves: the High street is active and vibrant, but is better quality needed? The town is buying old leases, refurbishing shops and letting at economic rents, and may buy the old shopping centre. Other ideas include ‘frogboxes’ i.e. pop up
shops in containers, street food, ‘decluttering’, street seating, shared space, opening up parts of the river Wye that runs beneath the town John Lewis launched a store near the motorway 20 years ago, hence a ‘distortion’ to travel distances: people come from 30 miles away, but only go to John Lewis which is located on the top of a hill, outside the shopping centre, not into the town… 100M£ trading., plus other retailers. The student village (under construction) consists of 400 units, plus a retirement village, of 7 stories 25 000 m². 50 000 m² of heavy industry buildings were demolished (which cost £1m to clear). On the site of a former stamp printing factory housing and apartments are planned. The town has a very high rate of two car ownership. Former derelict factory buildings are in a disadvantaged area. They are working with the county Council to develop cycle lanes. Post war a lot of businesses moved here. The council acquired land from the Carrington Estate. 70 hectares of the business park are owned by the Council, and 40 hectares are not owned by council: the council owns the freehold to buy back long leases. The council built a recycling centre which works very well. 4-5000 people work in the business park, which becomes very congested: a link road connects the business park to the motorway. John Lewis is expanding to 8000 m², opening on March st 31 : in order to get permission for this development John Lewis have been forced to extend their lease in the Eden centre. However there is little evidence that shoppers in John Lewis drive to the town centre. Schools in the town are very high quality: they include a famous girls’ private school, a boys’ and girls’ grammar schools.
12
USEACT LAP REVIEW CAFÈ
3. USEACT MANAGING AUTHORITIES 13
In view of the potential next stages for the respective Local Action Plans, and of other potential future sustainable urban projects, representatives of two USEAct Managing Authorities, from Slovakia and Ireland, accepted the invitation to join this meeting to discuss the access to financial resources (EU Structural Funds and others) and their involvement in the USEACT / URBACT II Local Action Plans, together with suggestions for the future.
3.1 Slovakia
OP II and OP KŽP have no specifically defined urban agenda, nevertheless some activities may be financed through these OPs, too, for example quality of environment, or capacity-building. ESF includes measures not specified for urban agenda. The OP Human Resources includes soft measures in addition to the IROP. The measures and the amount of ERFD and ESF funds for social innovation projects in regional and national 2014-2020 OPs : though not orientated for local government OP Research and Innovation (OP VaI) – social innovation in business, cooperation between research and industry/services (allocation for social innovation not specified). Measures and the amount of ERDF and ESF funds for energy efficiency, refurbishing and retrofitting of buildings in regional and national 2014-2020 OPs include IROP 115 000 000 for energy efficiency in housing and OP KŽP (OP Human resources) 474 900 000 for renewal of public infrastructure including public buildings. Measures and the amount of ESFR and ESF funds for capacity building in urban governance and participatory planning related issues in the regional and national 2014-2020 OPs: OP Effective Public Administration (OP EVS) (ESF), every OP has some measures regarding capacity building and participatory planning in relation to the implementation of the programme and OP ĽZ – soft measures in addition to IROP – CLLD.
Kamila Gejdošová, URBACT MA Representative, Dept. of Urban Development, Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development, Slovakia. Kamila Gejdošová is responsible for the Operational Programme on Integrated Infrastructure (CF, ERDF), for ESPON and URBACT, and expert on Urban Development within the Integrated Regional Operational Programme (the Managing Authority is the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development), currently preparing the first National Concept of Urban Development in Slovakia. European Structural and Investment Fund resources available for Slovakia cities in 20142020 include the OP for Integrated Infrastructure (OP II) (CF, ERDF), the OP for the Quality of environment (OP KŽP) (ERDF), the OP Human Resources (OP ĽZ) (ESF), and the Integrated Regional OP (IROP) (ERDF), which includes Regional Integrated Territorial Strategies (RIUS), Strategies for Sustainable Urban Development (URM), other investment priorities, Community Led Local Development, and the European Territorial Cooperation Programmes INTERREG, ESPON and URBACT. The IROP, Integrated Regional OP, includes a minimum of 5% of national allocation from EFRD (368 100 000, 21% of IROP). Other OPs such as
How can the actions of the USEACT network be continued in the next programming framework? ITI – RIUS and URM can be seen as a form of ITS, now in the preparation phase. CLLD in rural areas and rural–urban or urban areas. Towns above 20 000 inhabitants cannot be beneficiaries of the funding, they may be members of LAGs, but the beneficiaries may only be entities registered in the territory of the town. As to measures that can support national networks among URBACT cities? , an official network does not exist, as only two cities took part in UII; the Ministry of Transport, Construction and
14
Regional Development (MDVRR) will be the NDP for UIII and will work together with the cities. There is no priority criteria for URBACT cities; The U-LAP can be used in URMs, OPs should prioritise project which are part of the URM strategies; the Ministry (MDVRR) will be expert guarantor for URM, so there is a chance for us to steer the OPs towards favouring URBACT LAP projects. Do ETC programmes addressing the urban issue include (INTERREG VA) Cross border Cooperation SK-HU (SK-CZ, SK-PL, SK-AT), (INTERREG VB) Danube Region, Central Europe 2020, ENI HU SK RO UA 2014-2020 and (INTERREG VC) – INTERREG EUROPE.
3.2 Ireland Derville Brennan, Research and Communications Officer, Southern Regional Assembly Managing Authority There is now a single national Regional Development Fund in Ireland. During the recent regional reform process 2 NUTS II and NUTS III authorities were dissolved and replaced with 3 Assemblies. The Southern Regional Assembly with 28 members is not directly elected but nominated by their respective local authorities from within the Region, with headquarters in Waterford, 160 k from Dublin, and enhancement of role particularly in relation to spatial planning and economic development. They manage and monitor the ERDF co-financed Regional Programmes, as Managing Authority, develop Regional Spatial and Economic Strategies, monitor and make proposals in relation to the general impact in the region of EU funding, and play a role in relation to ETC programmes and make public bodies aware of the regional implications of their policies and plans. The ERDF co-funded Regional Operational Programme (ROP) 2014-2020 (500M€) focuses on five main areas: strengthening Research, Technology Development and Innovation,
information and Communications Technology Infrastructure, SME Competitiveness, support for the shift towards a low-carbon economy and sustainable Urban Development, for example supporting investment in broadband, SMEs and microenterprises, low carbon economy and sustainable urban development. Sustainable Urban Development is one of the aims of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through integrated strategies (i.e. not stand alone) that tackle the economic, environmental, climate and social challenges of urban areas. Urban areas are recognised as engines of growth and hubs for creativity and innovation, in Ireland – NSS – NPF designated Gateways and Hubs. The NSS key objectives align with the overall goals for the European Investment and Funds, namely to sustain economic and employment growth, improve competitiveness, foster balanced regional development, improve quality of life for all and maintain and enhance quality and diversity of natural environment and cultural heritage. Eligible areas will be selected in line with the principle of the PA; urban areas will develop integrated urban strategies; from these they will select, in accordance with art 7.3 of Reg 1301/2013, the most appropriate actions. Dublin city is a ‘primary gateway’. Sustainable urban development is agreed with the partnership principle. The Priority 5 Sustainable Urban Development budget is €52 million (50% intervention rate), 10% of the OP budget. Specific Objectives (SO) are: SO 1, to revitalise, regenerate and improve the environment in the urban centres as part of integrated urban strategies, and SO 2, to support low-carbon urban mobility in designated urban centres. The SO 1 result will be the improvement in the social, economic and physical conditions in selected urban growth centres, based on an urban development index. Indicators for Urban Development are: population living in areas with integrated urban development strategies, and the number of integrated growth centre strategies implemented. The actions to be supported could include green regeneration, physical enhancements and social revitalisation including open public/community spaces; rehabilitation of brownfield sites including renewal of existing and/or demolition and construction of new buildings and landscaping; and rehabilitation/development of cultural infrastructure/assets. To achieve the result ofnon-private car commuting levels in the designated urban centres, with indicators on Non-private car commuting levels in the designated urban centres, SO 2 Actions will support sustainable, multimodal urban mobility initiatives i.e. pedestrianisation,
15
installation and extension of a network of cycle lanes, installation and extension of bus lanes, reduction in short-distance car journeys through the introduction of good quality travel information and alternative infrastructure and improved walking and cycling access to public transport, consistent with Ireland’s Smarter Travel Policy. Complementarities: fast-track MA associated with OPENcities and CTUR – learning/cross fertilisation, timing, also programming of the ROP 2014-2020 took cognisance of Art 4 (2) of the CPR, in complementarity with other Union instruments. The timing is good, as the programme is now being fine-tuned by the Department of Environment. Local authorities involved on selection boards will propose sustainable urban plans and propose elements to be funded. The Managing Authority will decide; other bodies can be delegated: they do not have to be local authorities. There can be investment in all cities, depending on the quality of proposals.
at political level. County Councillors approve the overall principal priorities, but are not involved in decision on projects: allocation of funding is considered quite fair. Now with a regional urban development strategy they will need to cooperate more between regional and local government. In Ireland there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution: they had to reinvent complementarities in all the programmes…and were surprised that URBACT was not mentioned by the ministry in discussions. Under article 4.2 they have to lay out complementarities between programmes, and discuss synergies.
3.3 Feedbacks /Outputs / recommendation from USEACT MA workshop to the Programme level Facilitated by Vittorio Torbianelli, USEAct Lead Expert Not all regions have agreed to the 10% for the urban programme, in Italy for example it is 5%, except for metropolitan areas, where it is 10%. In Italy the government department in charge of URBACT is different from department in charge of regional funds. URBACT help cities organise themselves in a horizontal way but afterwards ‘things stay the same’. The Italian ministry for transport is trying to connect cities. In Romania there are no dedicated funds so it is not clear how they will be allocated. In Romania there is no connection between URBACT and national programmes… URBACT should create an award for Local Action Plans. In Slovakia it is not clear whether smaller municipalities will be able to promote programmes. It is pointed out that sometimes it is only people in charge of finance who participate in creating development plans, whereas these should combine finance and quality. When the operational programmes were being prepared in Slovakia, different regions had different attitudes towards regions and cities: some regional authorities did or did not discuss with the cities. It is confirmed that in Slovakia cooperation between cities and regions is not so good. In Ireland, the selection board includes experts from the Department of the Environment, plus representatives from the city and county managers’ association: decisions are not only made on the basis of financial issues, and are not so influenced
In the UK they need to educate stakeholders on how to plan. In the UK the different levels dislike each other … with every part looking after itself… leading to different solutions in different regions, depending on large or small regions, with no standard set of rules. In Spain programmes are funding movements not policies. Regarding creating a ‘label for URBACT projects they were told ‘this would not work’. There is a centralised system in Latvia as regions are not involved in decisions, and documents are difficult to read. Østfold looked at national and regional programmes in Norway to see how to fit in: the National Housing Bank related to run down housing, the Municipalities of Norway are fighting inequalities, and new city region programming involves a big municipal reform to get cities to work with their surrounding areas. Vittorio suggests making a submission to the European Commission on the role of URBACT and the Commission, and on expertise. Derville agrees to contact other Managing Authorities to make a submission regarding the visibility of the URBACT programme amongst managing authorities.
4 THE LIFE OF THE USEACT NETWORK 16 4.1 USEACT Local Action Plans As USEAct partners finalise their respective Local Action Plans, the meeting in Buckinghamshire provided the opportunity to discuss and clarify outstanding issues with the experts present, and to benefit from learning from their peers on the challenge of achieving successful and tangible outcomes arising from the learning and exchange within the network.
small slots and based on future trends and projections. Outputs are physical, concrete results, for example in terms of square metres or number of actions: concrete and measurable evidence. Indicators: how your plan measures up against others?
4.1.2 USEAct Keywords Having taken into account the keywords used by each partner Germana di Falco, USEAct guest expert summarised them into the following list: Smart revitalisation Smart mobility and intelligent mobility Urban growth hackers City eco districts Governance at urban metropolitan level Real estate development (Urban identity / Urban finance)
4.1.3 “LAP Review Cafè” groups
4.1.1 Common glossary and review guidelines Germana Di Falco, USEAct Guest Expert Partners have worked on key words to identify if the original idea was considered in the same way by all the partners: this has led to a list of very different words and solutions. Keywords should communicate the ‘intimate sense of your LAP’: read them again, and avoid overlap, create synergies across the Local Action Plans. Keywords are powerful to express your vision: we need to attract interest for our LAP. Keywords should express the competitive advantage of your Local Action Plan. For example in the Wycombe Local Action Plan, the challenge is to achieve a high vision, of a working town in a beautiful landscape. The mission is to catch value in order to give it back to the community. The vision is declined in an operational way, with aims, goals and targets. Vision is always expressed in short sentences. Challenges come from outside and provoke a credible response. Try to decline visions, impact in the long run (you can facilitate, not manage…), ideas, purpose, structure, vision, relationships and values. Targets must be aggressive, and stimulating, based on empirical data (e.g. from the Baseline study but not always), meaningful to stakeholders, targeted into
The USEAct partners shared the outcome of their work in small groups to take stock on the progress with the Local Action Plans. The format is an issue: keep ‘boxes’ in final version or not? Why limit the length of the boxes? Local authorities are interested in concrete proposals, so show how each partner has the support of the stakeholders. In one group all have followed the template, length is 36 – 40 pages. The type of information for Dublin is more discursive, for Naples and Nitra more on statistics. The style is linked to language… differences between vision and mission statement still need to be clarified. All have a long term vision, in Dublin a ‘strategic target’. Section 2 includes discussion on problems, challenges and solutions. Difference between problems and challenges also needs to be clarified… solution at the beginning, or start with challenges then objectives, then solutions? Or start with solutions and implementation, summary? Clarification by the Lead Expert: the first part should be a summary of the Local Action Plan, then the detail: he clarifies that it is a ‘western approach’ to have a summary at the start (rather than at the end)! Section one gives a general description of the region, plus the challenges, so stay within the framework as much as possible. Partners are encouraged to use graphs, photos etc. in final versions It is agreed that analysis is needed to set goals. All is done through a process with people from the start until now. Some have a problem fitting into the ‘new’ template, for example it is difficult to limit oneself to 30 words, and the section on ‘risk assessment’ is challenging: more descriptive approaches are needed, as per the first template. We ‘should be
17
clear about what a LAP is’: a plan of plans, or a plan related to a particular site. The timescale for the implementation of the LAP needs to be made clear. The lead partner clarifies that the ‘local’ version of the LAP may be longer, for the local audience in local language.
people using the shops. Why invest in street maintenance is the outcome; outputs is the physical outcome. Impacts are long term, outcomes and outputs are short term. The Dublin example is to develop a GIS platform on unused sites. Outputs are a database showing the number of sites, and the number of people using them will be the result.
4.1.4 Glossary Germana di Falco, USEAct Guest Expert
Several partners have not completed sections 3-6, except for the Local Support Group membership. For Østfold there are organisational solutions: governance of the process of implementation. Trieste has added some outcomes, so implementation is very important. Is the SWOT for the LAP or the process? Since partners have not completed details for all actions. There is now a problem of timing: partners have not been able to discuss the new template with their Local support Groups. In Norway, funding is less of an issue, as most actions can be carried out within existing funding. Lead Expert: identify the time line in the general action description, if no detailed information is possible. Section 6 is looking forward: a summary of LAP plus what to do, and find solutions plus stakeholders. Buckinghamshire has followed a similar process, placing the LAP within the existing strategy. Germana: risk analysis is more detailed. (Dublin include a risk analysis in its corporate plan.). It is pointed out that it is easier to read in three columns… Further clarifications by Germana: a goal is singular, objectives are plural. Guidelines suggest identifying a timeline, mostly between 6 months and 5 years, this can be for something concrete in the short term. A goal is clearer with a deadline. According to the vision and mission, objectives are more specific than a goal. An outcome is an achievement by the end of the Local Action Plan: it depends on you. Impact does not just depend on you, and should be related to vision and mission. For example in Naples, the city council is responsible for the rehabilitation of streets and squares in the LAP area, and expected outcome is the rehabilitation of the streets. Indicators would be for example the % increased income from the shops, or the % of
Following request for clarification, the guest expert recalled a number of key terms with a view to clarifying the language to be used in the Local Action Plans. Local Action Plan (LAP) is a Plan produced by a local URBACT partner, as a result of exchange and learning activities within the network or working group setting out objectives and activities proposed to reach that objective. Local Action Plans (LAP) are intended to bring concrete solutions to problems and challenges identified by partners, improve local policies, create closer connections between the city and the Managing Authorities, build on actions with real opportunities to be funded (EU and/ or others) and be an instrument of further change. Goals, objectives, outputs and activities are the four key central elements of an action plan and establishing agreement on them is a crucial part of the action planning process. The goal is the broad objective. Given the project topic and the particular Local Action Plan define and make explicit the overall goal. A goal is an observable and measurable end result, with one or more objectives, to be achieved within a more or less fixed timeframe. A goal can be summarized in the phrase “Dream with a deadline.” An objective is a desired change. Objectives will be a more limited and more specific version of the goal. It is suggested that the plan should focus on the medium term (5 years) but you can make it longer (or shorter). Outputs set out what outputs are needed to achieve the objectives. Outputs are the measurable results of projects or activities (e.g. the number of trees planted). Outcomes are benefits generated by the outputs/activities related to needs of target groups. Impact is related to the vision and to the mission. Activities set out what tasks and actions are needed to achieve the outputs. An indicator is something used to measure progress in relation to achieving objectives (e.g. counts of number of service users). Risk is an internal or external factor (unexpected but possible) that can affect activities or break the logic connection between outputs/outcomes/impacts
closing date (as indicated in the application form) i.e. 30 April 2015. b) Staff/external expertise costs linked to administrative closure within the 2 months following the project closing date i.e. 30 June 2015, c) costs to cover participation to the National Infodays (from Sept 2014 to Jan 2015), and exceptionally, costs to cover participation to the Riga event on 6-8 May 2015.
18
4.2 USEACT Network Management 4.2.1 Administrative and financial issues Maria Luna, on behalf of Anna Arena, Lead Partner, City Council of Naples Between September 2014 and January 2015 the 3rd claim has been successfully closed: 10 submitted certificates, thanks to all partners! Concerning the closure of the NEW financial adjustments, the NEW Adjusted Application Form was submitted in December ’14, and we are now waiting for the approval of the NEW Adjusted AF by the Monitoring Committee. The partners will receive the new revised/amended application form once officially approved. ERDF III Quota: transfers: the partners are going to receive their quota by February. The URBACT Secretariat is sorry for this delay. The LAST Reporting session for July 2014 till the end of the project is simplified: there is no reporting session in March 2015. Attention: this leaves only 2 months to close and pay! NEXT STEPS DEADLINE: 30th June 2015. Please start to upload the costs already paid on the system, in this way the Lead Partner can start to check and put the costs into the validation process. Next Steps for the final financial closure: submission of the Final Certificates of Expenditure, the Final Payment Claim and the closure documents, i.e. the Financial Contribution Summary, Closure report (online survey) and a CD rom/USB key with all outputs. Eligible costs: the end date for the eligibility of expenditure is 30 June 2015. Shall be considered eligible to be refunded with ERDF: a) expenditure linked to activities implemented between the project’s starting date and the
Shall be considered eligible to be refunded with ERDF only expenditure actually paid and certified by the Partners/Lead Partner’s institution and included in the certificate and statement of expenditures issued by the Lead Partner within the 2 months following the project closing date i.e. 30 June 2015. Expenditure is considered to be paid when the amount is debited from the Partners/Lead Partner’s institution’s bank account. The payment is usually proven by the bank statements.
Deadlines to be met: most of the expenditures (except for under b) and c) listed above)
must be uploaded on the PRESAGE system not later than May 10th This deadline must be compulsorily respected by each partner.. Keep in mind: try to have everything (or as much as possible) paid by April because you have only 2 months to make the closure (which is one month less than usual) and the certification process can take a long time. The new link to Presage is http://presage-cte.org. Your login and password remain the same and all your project information should also be unchanged. Final payment: all project reporting documentation will be reviewed by the JTS (URBACT Joint Technical Secretariat) within 6 weeks after submission deadline; payment requests require additional checks for official closure by the CA so can take a little longer than usual; the Lead Partner and other partners need to be reactive when responding to queries; the aim is to have all projects paid at latest end of September 2015. 10% kept in case of audit will be paid in early 2016 if not selected for audit. Documents to be archived until to 2020 for the Audit include: contractual documents (incl. audit trail doc.), bank account statements, original
19
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! Very important recommendations on budget management: partners are recommend to spend all the money at their disposal to implement the latest important project activities. In particular the main budget categories/lines not fully used are: - communication and dissemination tools (dissemination events and tools; printing project documents; LAP exhibition), - external expertise and meeting organization (local final dissemination meeting). Partners are reminded to be careful to manage their remaining budget in the best way they can by constantly checking their excel budget file.
4.2.2 USEACT Network Final outputs sharing the URBACT Meeting feedbacks (November 2014) Gaetano Mollura LP , Vittorio Torbianelli LE Key outputs for Thematic Networks are the Local Action Plans (WP3), and the Thematic/Knowledge Outputs (WP2). The Local Action Plans are the main compulsory output for all partners. This is a strategic document that addresses identified needs, analyses problems and opportunities and puts forward sustainable, feasible solutions. It translates the knowledge from other cities and it is coproduced by ULSG, and it is first and foremost a concrete and useful tool for the city to solve a local problem. Local Action Plans include the following headings: City context and definition of initial problem/ policy challenge, setting of focus and objectives, actions / schedule, funding scheme, framework for delivery, description of the process and risk analysis. See the USEAct Local Action Plan guideline! The main objective of the Final Thematic outputs is to capture the knowledge produced by the networks. They have different contents (process, achievements, lessons learnt), different formats (case studies, policy recommendations, thematic papers, etc), different target audiences (practitioners, policy makers, etc.).
USEAct Final Outputs include the Local Action Plans (WP3), 10 Partners Local Action Plans (April 2015) PP, 10 Partners Local Dissemination Event (Feb-April 2015) PP, partners’ LAP Final Exhibition (April 2015), LAP Brochure (April 2015) Lead Partner. Thematic/Knowledge Outputs (WP2) include the USEAct Thematic Booklet (April 2015) by the Lead Partner and Lead Expert, the USEAct Case Study Catalogue (April 2015) Lead Partner and Lead Expert, and the USEAct Final report + CD (April 2015) Lead Partner and Lead Expert. Partners are reminded to use the URBACT Graphic Charter … and to include the URBACT and ERDF logos on all publications. When outputs are ready spread the word around them (gather readers from the web) and spread the publications (multipliers, influencers, policy makers). Resources for sharing your publications include the website (newsletter, blog, news) and printed copies (institutional stakeholders, dissemination points, events). 300 copies are to be sent by the lead partner to the URBACT Secretariat by 15 April 2014.
20
4.2.3 USEAct final conference: first draft of the agenda, Naples (22nd-24th April 2015) and final Local Dissemination Events! Regarding the presentation of Local Action Plans, it is suggested to use PechaKutcha… http://www.pechakucha.org/ : this involves a presentation of 20 PowerPoint slides maximum, each one lasting 20 seconds: an efficient and lively way of making a presentation without being too long. Partners are also asked to suggest a keynote speaker for the final conference.
The Lead Partner suggests organising a panel of Managing Authorities at the final event, plus to invite mayors who were interviewed in the USEAct newsletter to meet in Naples, to give feedback to the recommendations from the project. Inviting mayors is a problem for some partners, due to elections, in Trieste and Barakaldo. In Nitra the mayor has no English. Baia Mare is not likely, Riga maybe, Østfold possible but hard, Buckinghamshire possible. In order to invite the mayors it must be made clear why they are invited… avoid them feeling they are ‘being used’. Mayors want to be with other mayors! In Dublin a local mayor from the Local Support Group could be interested. Barakaldo organised their local dissemination event early to avoid clashing with the local elections. The Lead Partner will draft an invitation letter to be used to invite mayors and managing Authorities to the final conference.
Final Conferences & Local Events: each partner should organise dissemination events at local level, in national languages, to promote the results of the project (project conclusions, policy recommendations, tools, etc.) and to present their Local Action Plan. Partners are requested to send details of their planned local dissemination events to th the Lead Partner by February 15 . Why? The power & benefits of events: events talk about you and Your Organisation: a quick and effective way to raise the profile of your project and your content. Building and strengthening networks. Meeting directly with your target groups, and disseminating with a concrete and immediate impact.
Resources: the URBACT secretariat will be present at the network final events (in person + a stand with materials). They will promote the events though the Programme channels (website, social media), and provide feedback on our ideas/agendas etc (s.lazar@urbact.eu). Participation from the European Commission – contact DG Regio, send invitations etc.. An event guidebook is available at http://urbact.eu/fileadmin/graphic_charter/: a practical and intuitive document to help organise the events (tips, tools, methods etc.) regarding content, logistics and production. Other services include graphic facilitation.
21
4.2.4 Capitalisation and dissemination of USEACT results, transnational and local activities / new URBACT Website
For USEAct Main dissemination Activities at project level see the website.
Maria Luna Nobile, LP Communication officer The new URBACT website will be online from 17th February 2015. What’s new? The graphics, a new modern design keeping the essential identity of URBACT, ergonomy and information architecture: a user oriented approach to build a new user experience (more fluid), mobility: a responsive design website: adaptation of the website depending on the device (mobile, tablet or desktop). New contents include City, Country, Topic and Theme pages. On the Network Pages no content has been discarded. New are related topics and themes, authors, shared from the web and social widgets Functionalities include content tagging, a powerful search engine with faceted results, a calendar for events, comments and profiles and social media widgets (Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Slideshare, Flickr). The CMS (Content Management System) is an Intuitive back-office system (DRUPAL).
LAP dissemination: for the URBACT City Festival in Riga, the USEAct LAP brochure is conceived to promote our Local Action Plans. It will be printed in 2000 copies (by the LP). Each partner will be asked to send brief information on the LAP to the Lead Partner (on the basis of a common template) as a basis of the content for the Final LAP exhibition: th deadline 5 March 2015! LAP dissemination for the LAP final Exhibition in Naples: the USEAct LAP exhibition is an opportunity to involve politicians and media and local citizens; it is planned that the exhibition material will consist of 2 general panels, drafted by the Lead Partner and to be eventually translated by each partner in their own national language, describing the URBACT II Programme (the first one) and the USEAct project (the second one). Format: 2 panels for each partner describing strategy aim and results of their Local Action Plan and Urbact Local Support Group, description of the partner’s context and priorities / Description of LAP methodology, objectives through maps/photos/infographics, LSG members, and main results/actions implemented. A common graphic code and layout framework will be available in our Dropbox folder next week. Partners are asked to fill in two panels and eventually other communication materials (for example video). Deadline to receive templates filled in by each th partner of the two panels: 5 March 2015. The Final LAP Exhibition of the Local Action Plans will be held during the final conference in Naples 23-24 April 2014. A local Dissemination event will be held in your own city between February and April 2015 (before the Final Conference) in your own language, to include a Meeting + Press conference + LAP Exhibition. Let the Lead Partner know your agenda th as soon as possible and not later than 15 February 2015! Local exhibitions will consist of two common panels, plus other local panels. It may be necessary to organise more than one local event in other localities concerned by the project.
22
4.2.5 Barakaldo final Dissemination event Álvaro Cerezo Ibarrondo – USEAct Coordinator Municipality of Barakaldo
ULSG
23 It was explained that Barakaldo held their final event in December 2014, in order to avoid clashing with local elections in early 2015. The objectives and goals of the event were: to explain what the URBACT programme is and its objectives to “Connect cities to create opportunities”, to describe Barakaldo´s path in the URBACT II European projects (2008-2015), and also as recognition to the endorsement of the URBAN programme, to point out the objectives and challenges of the USEAct project, defined in its LAP, to explain the achieved results through the research and knowledge exchanging processes (ULSGs and European cities exchanges), to articulate the Implementation Plan (IP September 2015) and to address the possible initiatives in transnational cooperation European projects.
The Barakaldo final Dissemination Event took place on 11th December 2014 at the Casa de Cultura Clara Campoamor. The final event was presented by urban planning municipal councillor Mrs. Ana Belén Quijada, on behalf of the city mayor, URBACT networks local coordinator, Luis Rodríguez Ortiz de Zárate and USEAct Project and ULSG coordinator, Alvaro Cerezo Ibarrondo. URBACT graphic charter
24
The invitation to the event was done by City Mayor, by post, email, municipal web and press release, and 40 people approximately attended the event. Among them were leading party and all opposition political groups representatives, neighbourhood associations and citizens, ULSG members (University and researchers), clusters and corporations that have taken part in the process and urban planning and other municipal departments involved officers.
Conclusions were: a positive balance considering the participation in the process and the results, the sustainable and integrated urban regeneration intervention methodologies of analysis achieved were considered highly satisfactory and adequate, political consensus was reached about the way to define the models for urban regeneration interventions, the citizen participation process reshaping was tackled in order to define the analysis and decision taking procedures in urban interventions, and the convenience of continuing in the exchange of experience and learning URBACT programmes was addressed, as the best way to improve the new governance models and to access EU finance instruments and Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) programmes.
4.3 Next steps towards URBACT III Call and Riga City Festival Gaetano Mollura, USEAct Lead Partner
4.3.1 URBACT III A resume of the following aspects was presented to the audience: Barakaldo´s participation in the URBACT II European projects (NeT-TOPIC y USEAct), the impacts of the European URBAN / URBACT initiatives for Barakaldo, the new urban interventions scenarios according to the 3RAct (L3R) for regeneration interventions, USEAct project presentation, Barakaldo USEAct project´s LAP explanation and the results of the research process. Exposition of the future Implementation Plan and address to possible future initiatives inside the URBACT III program.
For the final event 6 roll-up panels were done (three panels on URBACT, LAP, IP in both official languages, Basque and Spanish), and two presentations to explain the content of the LAP.
The URBACT III programme has four main objectives: to improve the capacity of cities to manage sustainable urban policies and practices in an integrated and participative way, to improve the design of integrated urban & sustainable strategies/ action plans in cities, to improve the implementation of integrated urban & sustainable strategies/ action plans in cities and to ensure that practitioners and decision makers at all levels have access to knowledge and share know-how on all aspects of sustainable urban development 3 types of networks are proposed: action Planning Networks, Implementation Networks and Transfer Networks Main beneficiaries are cities from EU 28 Member States, Norway & Switzerland including cities, municipalities, towns without limit of size, Inframunicipal tiers of government and Metropolitan authorities & organized agglomerations. Other beneficiaries are local agencies, provincial, regional and national authorities, and universities and research centers. All beneficiaries shall be public or public equivalent bodies Partnerships should include a lead partner city, and a limited number of other partners: 8-12 partners in Action-planning & Implementation networks, and 6-8 partners in Transfer networks. A majority of cities, with 3 non-city partners max, and with a balance between partners from less developed regions and partners from more developed/ transition regions
25
Funding: a network budget of 600.000 – 750.000 euros, includes ERDF + local contributions from cities : for less developed & Transition regions: 85% ERDF, for more developed regions: 70% ERDF, plus an additional envelope for expert support of up to 127.000 euros/ network, and ongoing support by the URBACT Secretariat (tools, methods, training, etc.). Provisional calendar: Beginning 2015: 1st call for Action-planning networks, and at the end of 2015: 1st calls for Transfer networks and 1st call for Implementation networks, for transnational Exchange.
4.3.2 The URBACT City Festival in Riga, May 6/8 2015 The objectives of the festival are to make the bridge between URBACT II and III, to present the results of URBACT II, to allow space and time for partner networking and to anchor the Festival in the City of Riga. It will include: Capitalisation Knowledge Workshops on New Urban Economies, Job Generation, Sustainable Regeneration, Social Innovation and ‘Meet the city, author, expert’, Masterclasses, Global view TED talks , URBACT café, Idea Factories, Networking events, Social programme, Partner meet up breakfasts and boards, White space and Riga visits. USEAct partners are asked to save the date, and to let the Lead partner know as soon as possible the name of participants! Registration opens in early February. In the RIGA URBACT City Festival, run a ‘walkshop’, encourage participation of your network, spread the word and bring a friend!
Provisional calendar for the URBACT III 1st call for action-planning networks
March 2015: 1st call Action-planning
March-June 2015: applicants preparing bids
June 2015: submission of proposals
July-Aug 2015: eligibility check & assessment
Sept 2015: MC approval funding 6-month preparatory phase
Mid Sept 2015- Mid March 2016: 6month preparatory phase
Mid March 2016: submission Final Proposals
March-April 2016: eligibility check & assessment
April 2016: MC final approval funding for network
April 2016-April 2018: 24-month for network activities
4.4 USEAct next transnational meetings
staircase to face fire regulations. Financial Assistance for upkeep of heritage buildings - grant system or tax rebates? The uses of buildings change with time… in Dublin city centre for example, from private housing to tenements, then offices, and now back to housing.
26 Bi/Trilateral Meetings in Dublin Vittorio A. Torbianelli, USEAct Lead Expert rd
Two meetings were held in Dublin on November 3 th – 6 2014: on innovative financial structures to fund renovation of the inner city core, and on re using existing historical buildings in the city centre. There were many interventions, and site visits to rehabilitation projects aimed at using heritage of Dublin Georgian houses: legal and architectural issues. Regarding financing, more theoretical re financing to promote infrastructure development: met with bodies financing this type of development, for example they met organisations providing financial support for infrastructure, such as Dublin transport and Energy suppliers.
4.4.1 5th bilateral meeting: New Uses for Heritage buildings (Dublin, Nitra, Riga, Buckinghamshire) John O’Hara, Dublin City Council All the partner cities concerned have a rich heritage in the city centre. In Dublin it is particularly difficult to adapt Georgian heritage buildings because of strict building regulations. There was a very interesting comparison between approaches to 4 different cities and jurisdictions. Some have a strict regulatory environment; UK and Ireland are not as prescriptive in law (apart from Fire Regulations in Ireland). They discussed whether fire regulations should be relaxed. Slovakia has a similar register for protected buildings and monuments as Dublin City and owners have to apply for permission to carry out works on historic buildings of significant value. Where Dublin has a single designation status for historic buildings and monuments (protected structures), Slovakia provides for a hierarchy of designation for buildings and monuments, depending on their level of significance. There was general concern from all partner cities about getting public funds to refurbish these buildings for different reasons. For example strict criteria, restricted budget, establishing how significant the building is etc. In Dublin grants go to ‘first come, first served’. A creative initiative from Riga is the revitalisation movement of empty houses tagged “Free Riga”. This ‘anarchic’ initiative consists of the public identifying empty and unused houses and enabling creative industries to occupy them. The public alert municipalities about empty buildings. There was discussion about whether gentrification gives opportunities to add to the life of buildings by private investment and long term maintenance. In Dublin re-use is more important than who lives in them. Value of pilot projects with a variety of design solutions e.g. the Georgian Dublin Townhouse Reuse Project (Grainne Shaffrey) and Henrietta Street, for example using an external
4.4.2 5th bilateral meeting: upfront infrastructural provision and financing: Baia Mare, Buckinghamshire, Trieste and Dublin John O’Hara, Dublin City Council Upfront infrastructural provision and financing is a difficult theme. There are lots of examples, all national bodies providing infrastructure, but how to get it upfront is the challenge. In Ireland major infrastructure is increasingly provided by National bodies such as the National Roads Authority, the National Transport Authority, Irish Water, the Health Service Executive, and the Department of Education. The case presented was that there should be a Strategic Development Agency which would allocate infrastructure loan funding alongside a Coherent Spatial Strategy. Funding mechanisms discussed were low interest loans, with a 30 year payback, for example Jessica. Many examples were presented, with lessons to be learnt, for example the Docklands Strategic development Zone: although designated at National Level, the City Council cannot borrow for infrastructure; most rely on Development Levy (kept low so as not to deter investment) and lobbying National infrastructure providers. The potential for District Heating in cities like Dublin does not happen, due to lack of National Policy incentives.
27
5.USEACT WORKSHOP ON "LIFE BEYOND USEACT" The Meeting to discuss possible joint projects took th place on January 28 2015, in the offices of Buckinghamshire Business First. Present were Gaetano Mollura, Luna Nobile, USEAct lead Partner, Vittorio Torbanielli, USEAct Lead Expert, Germana di Falco, USEAct guest expert, Pauline Geoghegan, USEAct Thematic Expert, Enric Serra del Castillo and Sonia Dominguez, Viladecans, Alvaro Cerezo Ibarrondo, Barakaldo, Linda Duffy and Einar Stefanussen, Østfold, Jim Sims, Buckinghamshire, John O’Hara, Dublin. The meeting took place on the day after the sixth USEAct meeting in Buckinghamshire, with the aim of exploring potential new project ideas arising from work within the USEAct project. In particular partners wished to further develop ideas arising from the USEAct Bilateral and Trilateral meetings that had taken place during the project duration. The discussion was introduced by Germana di Falco, USEAct guest expert, giving practical advice on proceeding with project development, recalling two project areas emerging from the USEAct project, and outlining potential funding streams, within URBACT III and beyond, including upcoming deadlines. A specific proposal from one of the USEAct partners was also presented for discussion.
5.1 Introducing the topic Germana di Falco, USEAct ad hoc Expert Think concrete (don’t think ‘programme’) Merge financial needs with funding: use ‘trendy’ keywords: evaluate which ‘hot topics’ in Europe are useful for us. Remember that applying does not imply that you will be successful… never limit yourself to only one funding option. The sooner we move, the better, so focus on useable programmes with manageable deadlines. The plan is to consider 4 options: 2 for each of two topics, for example consider programmes managed at EU transnational level or thematic programmes. The first topic concerns ‘intermediate’ housing: not about how to build new flats or regeneration, but to launch a business model to cover different models of housing, i.e. private, public/private and/or not-forprofit housing. This is related to the new emerging trend in the EU of social/economic problems of the middle income community (not the poor communities) to re enable the growth process in the urban context. The second topic concerns the use of
data, and ICT enabled governance, along two paths: firstly cloud solutions for smarter mobility for citizens; the second concerns the use of smart data, for the private/public sector, to attract investors. Do not invent from zero: see what other projects have been carried out on the topics, and avoid old subjects, which will not be interesting for the European Commission. Be pertinent and relevant! A second risk is that you cannot manage… see what work packages have been used in previous packages.
5.2 First thematic proposal on “Social Housing: innovative models and Financial Sustainability”
This entails designing business models, with an accent on intermediate housing, and identfying grants versus equity and loans etc available. The European Investment Bank and the European Investment Bank Institute, based in Luxembourg, fund pilot actions for business models for housing etc. There is a negotiating process, so identify different bids: propose applied research for one year and discuss with the EIB Institute. For this we will need a university centre as partner. There are no deadlines, and no calls, just direct negotiation.
5.2.1 Funded example For European Commission funding opportunities, for example see the French Caisse des Dépôts project SNI below.
28
First closing for the Intermediate Housing Fund , August 28th, 2014 The SNI (Société Nationale Immobilière), a subsidiary of Caisse des Dépôts, raised €515 million in the first closing of the Intermediate Housing Fund (FLI) in France. The creation of this fund is a major step to revive the construction sector in France and to facilitate the come-back of institutional investors in the residential sector. To meet middle class housing demand in tense residential areas, the French Government have introduced incentive schemes to foster the construction of intermediate housing in major French cities. A partnership between institutional investors SNI has partnered with large institutional investors to create the FLI (Fonds de logement intermédiaire). On the 24 th of July, the FLI raised €515 millionin first closing from SNI, CNP Assurances, Cardif, Aviva France, Malakoff Médéric, EDF Invest, ERAFP advised by AEW and SMABTP. Affordable housing is housing deemed affordable to those with a median household [1] income as rated by country, State (province), region or municipality by a recognized Housing Affordability Index. In Australia, the National Affordable Housing Summit Group developed their definition of affordable housing as housing that is, "...reasonably adequate in standard and location for lower or middle income households and does not cost so much that a household is unlikely to be able to meet other basic needs on [2] a sustainable basis." In the United Kingdom affordable housing includes "social rented and intermediate housing, provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. "Most of the literature on affordable housing refers to a number of forms that exist along a continuum - from emergency shelters, to transitional housing, to non-market rental (also known as social or subsidized housing), to formal and informal rental, indigenous housing and ending with affordable home ownership Housing affordability is more than just a personal trouble experienced by individual households who cannot easily find a place to live. Lack of affordable housing is considered by many urban planners to have negative effects on a community's overall health
Lack of affordable housing can make low-cost labour more scarce, and increase demands on transportation systems (as workers travel longer distances between jobs and affordable housing). Housing cost increases in U.S. cities have been linked to declines in enrollment at local schools. "Faced with few affordable options, many people attempt to find less expensive housing by buying or renting farther out, but long commutes often result in higher transportation costs that erase any savings on shelter." Pollard (2010) called this the "drive 'til you qualify" approach, which causes far-flung development and forces people to drive longer distances to get to work, to get groceries, to take children to school, or to [ engage in other activities. A well located dwelling might save significant household travel costs and therefore improve overall family economics, even if the rent is higher than a dwelling in a poorer location. A household's inhabitants must decide whether to pay more for housing to keep commuting time and expense low, or to accept a long or expensive commute to obtain "better" housing. The absolute availability of housing is not generally considered in the calculation of affordable housing. In a depressed or sparsely settled rural area, for example, the predicted price of the canonical median two-bedroom apartment may be quite easily affordable even to a minimum-wage worker – if only any apartments had ever been built. Some affordable housing prototypes include Nano House and Affordable Green Tiny House Project.
5.2.2 Partner discussion on the first issue Jim Sims: (in the UK) there is mostly less money for social housing. Most social inclusion money goes to the employed or low paid… hence the ‘squeezed middle class’. This concerns not ‘affordable’ housing but for the private rental sector. The UK Housing Finance Corporation work with social landlords and the European Investment Bank. Government give loan guarantee for rental housing schemes (private sector’). In the case of Buckinghamshire, where there are several smaller local authorities involved, they need to come together, as scale is needed. As the return on Intermediate housing is 10-15% below the private rented sector, for example pension funds etc are not interested in investing. The problem is greater where land costs are high. In less competitive areas this is less of a problem. In Norway there is not much of a rental market, yet housing is needed for young people in particular. The innovation can be intermediate housing and affordability index, new parameters for urban affordability innovation quality, especially in England
where towns are losing professionals wanting to live in the middle of the town.
5.2.3 Identifying the funding streams
29
For an overview of (social) housing in Europe, see the Jessica document: ‘Housing in Jessica Operations’, European Commission, 2013, the ‘Eurocities Position Paper on affordable housing, cities’ approaches and recommendations’, and ‘Social Housing in Europe’, LSE London, 2007: an annual update on social housing in the EU, to find the state of the Art. The new topic is ‘affordable housing’ for the middle class. On the DG Regio website there are a lot of projects funded by the European Commission, e.g. the HELPS project on housing for the elderly. The HELPS project was funded through Interreg Central Europe. Through research and transnational cooperation it led to a report of research findings and a pilot action, defining recommendations and a toolkit. We need a Business Model for affordable or intermediate housing, and to benchmark the efficiency and effectiveness of different business models. Identify who has funded something similar in the past. Start with the state of the art, use housing affordability index and best practices, then local testing (pilots) then generate guidelines for training for professionals, then use GIS to identify available areas. Always give back to the EU a toolkit and recommendations, i.e. explain how, test out and make recommendations. Interreg is a possibility: only one strand is ready: ‘Interreg Europe’. Our project would be good under measure 1.2 ‘research on, social innovation in public policy’. 100% EU funds (50% for Norway) and with partners in at least 4 Member States. Decide who should be partners: preferably a Managing Authority (region) or national authority as lead partner. Best to involve one who is not a represented by any of the city partners, e.g. France, or Croatia? Horizon 2020 is another possibility: under the call on ‘Overcoming the Crisis’. Under the pillar ‘Societal Challenges’ three topics: Smart Cities, New forms of Innovation and Overcoming the Crisis. Horizon funds different types of projects: RIA Research and Innovation Action (main actions are research, could use cities as testers), Innovation Action (no research) to adapt /adopt something developed elsewhere, CSA, Coordinating and Support Action, only for public bodies, and ERA-NET , funded 50% by Horizon and 50% by national funds (usually ministries), includes a call on ‘urban futures’. Horizon 2020 is a wider programme than FP7. It is important to stress that we want to keep the partnership (from USEAct) together; we need to check out how much each fund pays. Use the ‘search’ function on the ‘Horizon 2020 Participant Portal’, in particular the calls under ‘Societal
Challenges’. The site also show upcoming calls open up to the end of 2015, and from the summer will show calls due up to the end of 2017. Deadline for the call ‘Overcoming the Crisis’ is 20.05.15. Under ‘Smart urban Futures’ see also the ‘scope’ section: check that this includes what we want to do. Under ERA-NET, there is a requirement for 50 % co-finance so the partners agree that this would be difficult (impossible in Spain). Look at inspirational projects: for example the ERHIN project concerning housing maintenance, especially for non profit organiosations managing housing blocks, funded by CIP (DG Enterprise), which has now become COSME, espcially for SMEs. Also SHE: Sustainable Housing in Europe, on energy and environmental efficiency, funded under the LIFE programme. Housing First Eurpoe, at the end of FP7, dealt with afordable housing, focusing on the homeless, i.e. for a dedicated target group. OPEN HOUSE, was also funded by FP7: managing 69 appartments. Intelligent Energy Europe propgramme has been replaced by the Climate Change programme uner LIFE. In the LIFE programme transnational partnerships are not so encouraged. The Erasmus Plus 2014 – 2020 programme is about emerging skills, youth policy, sport, non-formal training… and smart city coaching: for example seek 500 000 over two years to test and train people to act as facilitators for urban development. Deadline is st March 31 for Smart City Development.
5.2.4 Proposal from Barakaldo for a European Housing Association, a nonprofit organization (NPO) for urban regeneration Alvaro Cerezo Ibarrondo, Barakaldo Lessons learned in USEAct: the enhancement of the exchange of experience and learning among cities is the way to achieve the best knowledge on Sustainable Urban Development either at local or regional scales. European new policies demands, new legal instruments, governance strategies and financial tools to achieve the required results on any urban intervention. The future of the European cities sustainability stands in no new development or no soil consumption strategies. Therefore, Urban Sustainable Development must be address under Urban Integrated Regeneration Interventions. What is an Urban Integrated Regeneration Intervention? “PESEC”, i.e. Physical (Building and urban space, restoring, accessibility and energy efficiency), Environmental (Energy, materials and wastes reduction), Social (Social inclusion and recovery), Economic (Economic development on
30
local basis) and Cultural (Culture as a binding concept for the urban intervention). Public administration budget stability framework implies the definition of new mechanisms: public administrations will not be able to finance any intervention due to debt control; on any urban intervention is not the lack of funds (“cash” or subsidies), but the lack of financing the key problem; new legal tools and instruments must be deployed; the urban interventions might be one of the possible key instruments for social inclusion and economic recovery on local basis. Urban interventions must be defined under new governance models: there is a need of a new urban culture concerning the new role of the administrations and the rights of the citizens for the city (right of the citizens as a hole over the right of the people as individuals); the new governance models are not only about deciding about the public affairs or money spending but to enhance the coresponsibility of the citizens in the maintenance and the improvement of their city (bottom-up processes); there is a need for new ways to enhance the urban intervention, non-public, “non-private”, we need what is called the third sector, “real” Public Private Partnerships.
The idea is to create a financial and urban intervention instrument for integrated sustainable developments in the existing city, a European or National scale, Non-Profit Organization (NPO) to develop and apply all the public-private partnership tools, in order to define a new strategy for urban interventions. ¿UK Housing Association model? ¿Other European examples? The role of the NPO would be to: develop city, neighbourhood or urban areas integrated regeneration processes (non urban renewal), to develop and enhance social and economic programs inside the urban regeneration processes, to apply the best environmental practices and policies in all urban interventions (energy, materials, wastes, cradle to cradle, etc.), and to assist owners, communities and citizens in restoration activities (including building and urban spaces maintenance).
NPO activities would be to: promote, construct, demolish, restore and maintain all sorts of buildings, urbanize, reurbanize, regulate and maintain all public and private spaces, assist the owners, communities and the citizens on restoration activities, explore alternative ways of housing and living typologies, foster and manage the bottom-up urban processes, provide social and public services (waste, water supply and water collection, public lighting, etc.), to foster the economic development and the implementation of the strategic plan of the area (local economy reactivation plan), and to take part in R&D&I projects at local, municipal, regional and European scale. NPO Tools would be all the necessary ones to guarantee its economic viability. Therefore it will be possible to buy, sell, rent, and receive assignments (public or private), donations, grants, and concessions or to apply any legal instrument with any real state property (land or building). So, all this real state could be managed on market and social-price basis (Whatever is requested for the economic viability of the NPO, the finance is just an instrument for the urban, social and economic purpose). NPO Finance: As an NPO there are no dividends, but there must be benefits that would be reinvested in a “circular” cycle, and should cover all the mortgage and loans, along the staff cost of the NPO. The NPO should be capable of attracting all type of economic resources and loans (public loans, EIB finance instruments, bank loans, pensions, funds, private investors, etc). At the same time, the loans debt should be considered as preferential, outstanding privileged or senior debt (kind of AAA or Aaa debt rate), over any other creditor (included the Public Finance Administration or Social Security). Therefore the profitability will be low, but much secured or with the maximum warranty (The legal considerations must be address at this point). NPO Legal Status: in each European country there is a different legislation, but a minimum common base must be addressed as a part of the possible project goals.
5.2.5 Discussion and moving forward In discussion following the presentation it is pointed out that similar (not the same?) organisations already exist, such as Housing Europe, which has members in Member States. In the UK the National Housing Federation, with the housing associations, manage the housing stock, plus the National Housing Finance Corporation in cooperation with the managing authority of the ERDF. The government housing guarantee scheme provides funding to build housing, but investment is needed to deliver the housing, plus land availability. The
31
private sector loan guarantee scheme is for the private sector: big house builders can build large developments on one big site; when you have several small sites this becomes more difficult: institutional investors seek a return of over 10-15%, which is not possible on small sites. Dublin is also seeking new models… most local authorities want a return on their land. Naples, Buckinghamshire, Barakaldo and Viladecans indicate their interest in following up the project, e.g. the “Escalator of social housing reform”. Funding should cover: staff costs, facilitation, investment prospectuses, communications, reporting, websites… €200-300 000 over 2 years (per partner) would be good! However it must be born in mind that a person from high finance would command a high salary. The Erasmus Plus deadline of March 31 could cover new skills for urban regeneration, influence, business model … e.g. “Urban Skills for Enabling Regeneration Users”. This could be a bridge between USEAct and a new bigger project. Then two further main applications could be made in parallel: one ‘organic’ proposal to the European Investment Bank Institute, and one proposal to Interreg Europe (deadline end May). If there is an URBACT call in March, the deadline for applications is likely to be in September. To test the path we can use ‘Erasmus Plus / Urban Regeneration’, for finance for urban regeneration. Germana confirms that in Interreg the keyword is training, e.g. schemes for learning by doing. The goal must be to have financial expertise, meetings, networking and data to develop a business model. Partners in Erasmus can include the private sector, such as builders for example. ESPON will also open a call in March, for three months. This programme covers targeted analysis to improve spatial planning. Germana offers to prepare a draft proposal, for the partner cities to check and cast a realistic eye: is it useful and manageable?
5.3 Second thematic proposal “Smart data and territorial planning in a participatory perspective: how to invest in urban big data as a driver for urban renaissance” Regarding the second topic of smart data, two strands are proposed: one concerns Smart mobility based on cloud and open data for the individual, and the second concerns management and maintenance of green spaces, or, for example how to derive income from tourism trails etc, or 3D guides to nature, or the identification of brownfield sites for potential investors. The project concerns an
open market place: putting data on a cloud, and adding sensors, bidding for ‘in field trials’ and applications once you have the technology. This could be a ‘Fast track to innovation’ pilot scheme. Check what has already been funded, e.g. BOOKS (Business Online Open Knowledge System) to support business use of open data. More focus is needed to this idea. For Dublin data could be used to support developers’ interest by identifying sites to activate, following a complete survey of all available sites. May 2015 is the deadline for ‘New Forms of innovation’ and/or ‘ICT based governance’ under Horizon 2020. Need to define what kind of use of data, plus what kind of data: public or private? This could be used to fix ideas and outputs, organise data and simulations of ‘what if’ scenarios. The landscape monitoring project could be good for the LIFE programme.
5.4 Next steps It is agreed to move forward on Erasmus +, Interreg Europe, and Horizon 2020. Germana offers support: needs to know title, what we are discussing, the amount needed and for what? She also offers to send links to relevant calls and projects. Information on the meeting will be sent to the other USEAct partners who had been unable to attend the meeting on project proposals to seek their interest in joining the potential projects.
32
APPENDIX 1 PROGRAM OF THE MEETING AND LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
33
USEAct Thematic Network Capitalization and MA’s Workshop | Sixth Seminar “Life beyond USEACT” Workshop| Free USEACT Partner Participation Implementation Phase Buckinghamshire (UK) 26th 27th January 2015 28 January 2015
USEAct partners Buckinghamshire Business First (UK) hosting partner City of Naples (Italy) / Lead Partner Baia Mare Metropolitan Area (Romania) City of Barakaldo (Spain) City of Dublin (Ireland) City of Nitra (Slovak Republic) Østfold County (Norway) Riga Planning Region (Latvia) City of Trieste (Italy) City of Viladecans (Spain) Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality BIMTAS/IMP (Turkey) observer partner
34
The 6th USEACT Seminar in Buckinghamshire “Capitalization and MA’s Workshop” - Phase II of the USEACT network – Urbact Sustainable Envinronmental Actions- aims to foster the exchange among the project partners in view of supporting the elaboration processes of the Local Action Plan as one of the main final output of the network. During the LAPs Review Cafè, the partners’ “Local Action Plan Template” will be discussed in the plenary as well as in smaller groups/ clouds and all partners will receive feedback on their proposals. The discussion will be based on a common analysis of different LAPs supported by a synoptic table addressing different focus and solutions implemented in the USEACT network. The comparison will stand as a common introduction to the separate group working that will be supported by Lead and Thematic experts. Moreover, in a forum for discussion with the USEACT associated Managing Authorities we would like to debate the access to financial resources (EU Structural Funds and others) and their involvement in the USEACT / URBACT II Local Action Plans highlighting criticism and suggestion for the future URBACT III. A session of the second day will be dedicated to the USEACT Network Capitalisation to have a shared overview with the partners on the final outputs dissemination. In order to give insight into the local challenges and approaches, the hosting partner Buckinghamshire Business First has organized a visit on the site of case study/ies and presentations. Last but not least, the 6th USEACT Seminar will of course also provide a platform to discuss organizational and administrative issues, communication strategies and finances An added optional participation in a half day session (Wednesday 28 th January 2015) is included in the programme of the 6 th USEACT seminar. The participation is free to the USEACT partners interested in exploring ( as requested ) a “ Life beyond USEACT”. This session will focus on opportunities of European calls related to themes highlighted by some bilateral /trilateral meetings activities such as the First B/T Meeting “ Real estate Investement Trust for Housing” and the Fouth B/T Meeting “ Smart Use of Data /Visualisation Tools”. The session will go in depth into best practices already funded by the Commission and of the topics for the suitable calls that can be used in 2015 to submit joint proposals. Opportunities related to Erasmus+, LIFE, Horizon 2020, EASI and Interreg Europe will be explored and shaped in an integrated path for funding the two main themes highlighted by the partnership.
25th January 2015
35
Arrival of participants at the Premier Inn, Arch Way, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire HP13 5HL 20.00 Meet in the Reception of the Hotel for short walk to informal dinner with the Mayor/Leader of Wycombe District Council 26th January 2015 8:30 Meet in the Reception of the Hotel for short walk to the meeting venue Meeting Venue : G5.05, Buckinghamshire New University , Queen Alexandra Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire HP11 2JZ. 9:00 Welcome of the hosting partner Ruth Farwell, Pro-Vice Chancellor of Buckinghamshhire New University, Board Member of Buckinghamshire Business First and Buckinghmshire Thames Valley Local Enterprise Patnership 9:15 Introduction USEAct Thematic Network: presentation of the programme and outline of network and programme activities Gaetano Mollura, City of Naples, USEAct Lead Partner 9:30 The Capitalization of the USEAct results Vittorio Torbianelli, USEACT Lead Expert 09:45 – 10:15 Focus on host partner The emerging Local Development Plan for Wycombe District Penelope Tollitt, Head of Planning and Sustainability, Wycombe Diztrict Council4 10:15 – 10:45 Focus on host partner The High Wycombe Business Improvement District Oliver O’dell - Chief Executive of HWBID5Co Discussion with ULSG members /Buckinghamshire LAP and the network lead by the Lead Expert 11:00 – 11:15 Coffee break 11:15 -13:00 VISIT ON THE SITE Bus Tour of High Wycombe. Hosted by Charles Brocklehurst, Major Projects and Property Executive Wycombe District Council. 13:00 -14:00 Lunch break 14:00 – 17:30 PLENARY WORKSHOP - USEACT Local Action Plans 4
Penelope Tollit is responsible for the three key areas of development management, spatial planning and building control. The service overall covers all aspects of planning applications (including pre-application advice, appeals and compliance); building regulations; planning policy including the Local Development Framework; infrastructure and environmental planning; urban design; conservation and tree projects.
5
A Business Improvement District, or BID, is a partnership in which businesses make a collective contribution to improve their commercial area. They most commonly operate as an independent, not-for-profit, company limited by guarantee. Oliver O’dell background is in planning and regeneration, with eighteen years of grass-roots experience in town centre partnerships. He has extensive experience of BIDs, taking three from initial concept to full ballot. He has worked previously with a broad range of business and community groups to develop business strategies and to realise project ambitions.
14:.00 – 14:30 Key ouputs of USEACT Network: Local Action Plans Implementation - Summary / definitive template – state of the art and criticism Vittorio Torbianelli, USEAct Lead Expert
36 14 :30 – 15:00 URBACT Local Action Plans: common glossary and review guidelines Germana Di Falco,USEAct Guest Expert 15.00 – 16 00 PARALLEL WORKSHOPS : “LAPs Review Cafè!”groups: discussion 3 tables ( clouds) lead by Vittorio Torbianelli Lead Expert, Pauline Geoghegan Thematic Expert, Gaetano MolluraLead Partner ; cross tables review: Germana Di Falco Guest Expert 16: 00 16 15 Coffee break 16 15 – 16 45 PARALLEL WORKSHOPS “LAPs Review cafè!”groups : outputs discussion 3 tables ( clouds) lead by Vittorio Torbianelli Lead Expert, Pauline Geoghegan Thematic Expert, Gaetano MolluraLead Partner ; cross tables review: Germana Di Falco Guest Expert 16:45 -17:30 PLENARY WORKING SESSION: Reporting feedbacks of each “LAPs Review Cafè” group Rapporteurs and outputs of the workshop (15 minutes each) 17:30
End of the first day
20:00 Meeting in lobby for the dinner 20:30 Dinner 27th January 2014: Meeting Venue : Buckinghamshire New University, Queen Alexandra Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire HP11 2JZ. 9:15 - Introduction second day USEACt seminar - LP Gaetano Mollura 09:15 – 10:45 PLENARY WORKING SESSION: “Managing Authorities Workshop” Moderators : TE Pauline Geoghegan,TE Germana Di Falco Discussion with the Network 10:45 – 11:00 Feebacks /Outputs / recomendation from USEACT MA workshop to the Programme level Vittorio Torbianelli, USEAct Lead Expert 11:00 - 11:15 Coffee break 11:15 – 12:30 PLENARY WORKING SESSION : Bi/Trilateral Meeting Outcomes of the Dublin meetings by Partner rapporteurs Vittorio A. Torbianelli (Lead Expert) – John O’Hara (Dublin City Council) and other partner meeting participants 12:15 – 12:30 discussion with the network 12:30 – 13:00 PLENARY WORKING SESSION : USEACT Network Management : Administrative and financial issues and feedbacks Anna Arena , LP City Council of Naples Discussion with the network 13:00 -14:00 Lunch break 14:00 – 16:00 - PLENARY WORKSHOP - Planning the final seminar
37
14 00 – 14:45 USEACT Network Final ouputs sharing URBACT Meeting feedbacks (November 2014) Gaetano Mollura LP , Vittorio Torbianelli LE 14 45 -Capitalisation and dissemination USEACT results transnational and local activities / URBACT New Website Maria Luna Nobile, LP Communication officer 15 15 Discussion with the network lead by the TE Pauline Geoghegan 16 00 16 15 Coffee break 16 15 – 17 30 - PLENARY WORKSHOP - Next steps towards URBACT III Call and Riga City Festival / Conclusion Gaetano Mollura LP , Vittorio Torbianelli LE 17: 30 Closure of the USEACT Fifth seminar 28th January 2014: ADDITIONAL DAY : USEACT WOKSHOP "Life beyond USEACT" Free Participation Bilateral/trilateral meeting feedbacks strategic issues for USEACT network partners as opportunities of new projects implementation 9:00 Presentation of the programme and outline of the workshop Gaetano Mollura, City of Naples, USEAct Lead Partner 9:15 Thematics Introduction, opportunities and state of the art Vittorio Torbianelli, Lead Expert 9 30 – 11 30 “LIFE BEYOND USEACT”WORKSHOP : Project proposals/ EU calls opportunities/ new partnerships Workshop 1 – First thematic proposal “Social Housing: innovative models and financial sustainability” Introduction of Germana Di Falco Thematic Expert
Funding programmes and regulatory trends in Europe Opportunities related to EIB and EIB Institute resources How to fix a proposal on this topic within HORIZON 2020 The opportunities of EASI and LIFE Programme Interreg Europe and ESPON as additional funding opportunities Comments on best pratices and inspirational projects that are supported by EU funds
Discussion with all participants Wokshop2 – Second Thematic proposal “Smart data and territorial planning in a participatory perspective: how to invest in urban big data as a driver for urban reinassance” Introduction of Germana Di Falco Thematic Expert
Funding programmes and regulatory trends in Europe Opportunities related to EIB and EIB Institute resources How to fix a proposal on this topic within HORIZON 2020 The opportunities of the Erasmus+ Programme Interreg Europe and ESPON as an additional funding opportunities Comments on best pratices and inspirational projects that are supported by EU funds
Discussion with all participants 11: 30 Coffee break 11:45 – Contributions USEACT Partners /guest experts/ politicians (tbc) 12:30 – Programming/ next steps Lead Partner Gaetano Mollura and Lead Expert Vittorio Torbianelli 13.00 Closure of the Workshop “ Life beyond USEACT” (Trains leave Saunderton at 22 minutes past the hour to London Marylebone, arriving on the hour. For example, the 13.22 arrives at 14.00)
List of participants 38
Buckinghamshire Business First Hosting Partner (UK) Jim Sims, USEAct Project Coordinator, Buckinghamshire Business First Cllr Richard Scott, Wycombe DC (UK) Penelope Tollett, Wycombe DC (UK) Oliver O'Dell, HWBidco (UK) Charles Brocklehurst, Wycombe DC (UK) Thematic Experts Vittorio A.Torbianelli - USEAct Lead Expert Pauline Geoghegan – USEAct Thematic Expert Germana Di Falco – USEAct Guest Expert City of Naples (Italy) - Lead Partner Gaetano Mollura USEAct Lead Partner – Coordinator of URBACT Projects and Network on Integrated Urban Development Policies Unit, City Council of Naples Maria Luna Nobile, Project officer, URBACT Projects and Network on Integrated Urban Development Policies Unit, City Council of Naples Baia Mare Metropolitan Area (Romania) Paul Pece – USEAct Project Coordinator, Baia Mare Metropolitan Area Association City of Barakaldo (Spain) Álvaro Cerezo Ibarrondo – USEAct ULSG Coordinator Municipality of Barakaldo City of Dublin (Ireland) John O’Hara, Planning Department, Dublin City Council City of Nitra (Slovak Republic) Štefan Lančarič, USEAct Project Coordinator, City architect Department, Conception of City Greenery, Municipality of Nitra Miroslava Hanakova, USEAct Local Coordinator, City architect Department, Conception of City Greenery, Municipality of Nitra Kamila Gejdosova, National URBACT Authority, Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development of the Slovak Republic DG Housing Policy and Urban Development Østfold County (Norway) Hosting Partner Linda Iren K. Duffy, Local Coordinator Østfold County Council Einar Stefanussen, ULSG Member Østfold County Council Riga Planning Region (Latvia) Agnese Bidermane, USEAct Project Coordinator, Riga Planning Region Rūdolf Cimdinš, USEAct ULSG member, Riga Planning Region City of Trieste (Italy) Carlotta Cesco, Project Coordinator, Municipality of Trieste Mario Vivian, ULSG Member, Municipality of Trieste City of Viladecans (Spain) Enric Serra del Castillo, USEAct Project Coordinator, Municipality of Viladecans Sonia Dominguez, Local coordinator, Municipality of Viladecans
39
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