COMPARATIVE DESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS PRESENTATIONS
I. – GENERAL QUESTIONS
1. - Methodological questions
From a methodological point of view, all groups include a list of actions, and most
groups relate actions and analyzed paragraphs (Governance, Planning System,
Mobility, Infrastructure ...).
Comment: In order to obtain greater uniformity and clarity in the methodologies it
would be desirable that all groups follow this methodology accordingly.
Also most of the groups have described different scenarios, and have determined a
deadline for these scenarios, or have proposed assessment criteria. The work of the
French group includes a complete methodology, including different scenarios and
timeframes and means to carry out such actions. Meanwhile, the Norwegian group
analyzes two scenarios (welfare state or a
liberalist approach). The English group
proposes, meanwhile, a scenario for 2022, and the Irish group relates the different
scenarios with each of their actions (Governance, Planning System, Mobility,
Infrastructure ...). but the reality is that there are only two: Reduce the numbers of
County Councils, and reinforce the Regional Councils / Governments and TBC).
Comment: Also it would be desirable that all groups describe some hiphoterical
scenarios, and an evaluation criteria.
2. - Territorial Cohesion concepts. Different territorial needs different contents.
French group has also included an interesting reflection on the concept of territorial
cohesion that maybe other teams may also be included. The French team raises the
point that special planning has a different content and scope depending on each
country's needs. A flexible concept that can be adapted to the tensions and specific
needs of each territory.
Comment: It is also possible that the different contents of special or regional plannings
in each country are influenced by the history and origin of spatial planning in each
country.
Although both the European Charter of 1983 and the ESPD -1999- have homogenized
the contents of territorial vision, the two great European tendencies influence in the
different countries and perhaps in different presentations: on the one hand, the economic
vision (France) of special planning and on the other hand, the more physical vision
(Germany) whereby Spain, UK, Ireland1 and Sweden, could be considered a mixture
according to the following backgrounds:
Spatial planning in France (from Programes Regional d'Action 1955), can be considered
the geographic projection of economic planning2
In the case of the UK group the
economic outlook is not as relevant in the planning. It is accepted that Regional
planning was born after Second WW,3 in order –primarily- to decongest big cities,
creating new cities and correct the unbalance that the industrial growth produced in the
urban system.
In Spain the system was originally heavily influenced by the French system, and that’s
why it can also be seen as a geographic projection of an economic policy. It originated
in the Development Plans 1964-1975 approved by the State ( I, II, III, and IV Phases) in
order to correct the serious regional imbalances (Inland - Coast, North-South, Citiesrural areas)4.
Only after ESPD, special planning has been homogenized the contents of territorial
vision. In the case UK has been recently associated with sustainable economic
development that has had an even influence in the different parts of the United
Kingdom. D. Shaw and O. Sykes Delivering the European Spatial Development
Perspective, University of Liverpool;
Question: Do you think different works express different contents in special or
regional planning in each country influenced by the history and origin of spatial
planning in each country?
3.- Actions proposed.
All of groups propose Actions in relation with governance and planning systems. Irish
Norwegian and French groups propose actions for all sectors (housing, mobility,
infrastructure, economy, … in the case of French also Cultural actions…etc) according
to the full contents of a Special Planning or Strategy; In all of them, economic actions
are very important and all of them are good examples of economic perspective of
territorial planning: Spanish group proposes actions for industrial sector Strategy
(industrial Strategy) giving more importance to a physical perspective: try to deep in
how making decision for industrial areas location in order to balance the unbalance
urban system.
Questions:
1
(The Planning and Development Act 2000 )
2
After the approval of the Law 15/1995 a new era of decentralization opens while the French group's
work highlights the need to clarify the responsibilities among Municipalities, Departments and Regions.
Also they point out the need to simplify Administration (Conseil Economique et Social, politique
européenne des l'articulation nationales du Territoire et regionale dáménagement. Jounaux Officiels No.
4125, 1989)
3
4
Act 1947 -perhaps the origin was before at Barlow Report -1939, the Scott Uthwatt -1942 )–
The Constitution of 1978 attributed the competences to the regions; however, despite the efforts to
elaborate laws to create planning tools, the number of Regional Strategies has been very limited.
a) Most of all groups propose actions for new infrastructures, roads, railways..... but no
of the them allude to the problems to find economic support because so deep
economic crisis with a very limited public funds.
b) Besides, actions proposed illustrate a large contents of special planning; but most of
groups show big problems to carry out actions because unclear competencies and rigid
administrative units; Do you think that so much ambitious contents can explain partly
the problems of lack of effectiveness of these planning? And if so: do you think a
Regional or Metropolitan Strategy should be developed by sectorial strategies for
specific actions?
II. - GOVERNANCE AND PLANNING SYSTEM.
1. - Local-Regional Balance vision.
All teams agree that the municipal perspective is too limited to get a complete urban
vision. The most important problems of the territory should be raised from a vision
supra-local and even supra-regional vision.
But the different actions express the different the administrative organization of each
State. Meanwhile in Spain the regional level is very important, in the case of Sweden,
Ireland and the UK Municipal and State levels have territorial competences; and most of
them propose having a stronger regional level. Particularly Irish group posed a
strengthening of the regional level because right now, in Ireland, the region is lacking
organizational level competences and this administrative level lack of representative
legitimacy: Irish group propose to establish a more representative system of electing
representatives.
In the case of UK the rigid division between counties or local planning authorities and
the central government caused great difficulty for effective planning; 5In the case of the
French group, the problem is posed by the lack of clarity between the regional and local
powers would require an effort to clarify
The English group proposes an intermediate power to resolve tensions between the local
and regional power: a new "impartial Planning Specialists (Regional Planning
Inspectorate) where there is a tension decisions being made locally Between sined off
and Local
2. - Functional areas vr administrative units
Also all groups agree overcome dysfunction and inadequate territorial administrative
boundaries, reinforcing flexible and multifunctional organizational forms that allow
manage functional areas. But they also recognize that all measures are difficult because
5
And even it would possible to add that this internal organization can poses problems from the
perspective of the European Union and the Europe of the regions. In other cases, as in France, the
decentralization occurred in recent years needs yet that the competences between regions and
municipalities are clarified.
of the difficulties in establishing cooperative tools and agencies for coordinating the
various administrative levels.
3. - Reduction administrative borders
One the problems preventing adequate territorial vision also derived from the excessive
fragmentation of the local administrative structure.
The Norwegian group reduces the administrative borders proposed by joining
Municipalities. . Irish group also raises the need to redefine the limits of municipalities
and in the case of Aragon reduce the number of municipalities that in many rural areas
have an average population of 100 inhabitants.
4. - Cross-regional inter-governmental collaboration and bordering
All groups agree in the importance to strengthen the tools of multilevel governance to
overcome the rigidity of administrative organizations. The difficulty of managing
complex territories by
rigid administrative structures constitute
a common
denominator in all SWOT and in this phase all of them propose to reinforce cooperation
by creating platforms or units comprising representatives of the different territories and
stakeholders in society
Particularly the Irish group intensifies or emphasizes the need to strengthen horizontal
cooperation both locally and regionally. The Norwegian group proposes “Make Flexible
cooperating platforms stronger in the larger regions, not forced by existing
administrative borders”
In the case of the English group, coordination problems arise with the municipalities
located on the edge of London / Region that’s why the group raises to balance between
competition and cooperation, Using the National Spatial Plan for England, the Edge of
London Commission encourages dialogue between boroughs on the edge of the CityRegion to create an integrated approach to economic centres, waste and energy
strategies… etc. An integrated approach strikes a balance between competition and cooperation.”
Specifically, they allude the Duty to co-operate: by this way, Authorities are
collaborating and demonstrate how they are doing so through submitting a Statement of
Co-operation as part of the evidence base with new planning policy documents.”
Comment: this group could add a concrete example to better understand the difference
between this duty and other voluntary ways of cooperation among Municipalities.
4. – Trans- border governance.
In three cases groups propose actions to coordinate Administrations and planning from
different countries: Oslo within Scandinavia region, the metropolitan area of Lille and
the Dublin-Belfast corridor; in all these groups, actions are proposed to improve
development of natural or functional corridors under a common vision of territory.
In the case of the French group proposes Lille to be barycentre of the North Western
Metropolitan Area as an example of cross-border, urban, metropolitan area. No new
structures proposes but taking advantage of the existing three four levels: a) Lille
Metropolis Urban Community (LMUC) (Public establishment/85 cities / 1 million
inhabitants) Lille Metropolitan Area (LMA) - an association of territories composed by
14 Institutions, Including Lille Metropolis, surroundings Communities And Also the
French West Flanders and Hainault Belgian (Wallonia) district- c) Coalfield cities,
shaping an arc in the south of the metropolis, with medium sized cities such as Bethune,
Lens, Douai, Arras, Cambrai, Valenciennes, Maubeuge. d) European Grouping of
Territorial Cohesion Metropolis Lille, Tournai (Wallonia), Kortrijk (Flanders), a
laboratory of multi-level governance to discuss the cooperation in any level of
competence relevant from the territory of the three cities.
Irih group proposes to take advantage for alignment of governance systems on
Governments on both sides both countries for better interactions and Planning decisions
for greater efficiencies. Dublin and Belfast corridor is needed to achieve greater
territorial cohesion on issues such as infrastructure, agriculture and the environment
In the interesting answer to UK group question, they do not pose a common legal
system binding relationships or planning but informal tools giving examples such as the
cases of neighboring municipalities: Newry and Mourne District Council and Louth
County Council.
Norwegian group alludes COINCO (EU funded organization) and The Nordic Council
is the official inter-parliamentary body in the Nordic region and is a forum for political
discussion Concerning the region.
5. – Special Planning/Strategies/Local planning
From the point of view of planning different actions are proposed depending on the
international, National, regional and local level to improve municipal planning. The
Norwegian group poses as actions at National and international levels for Scandinavian
region to Make a comprehensive national strategy on innovation politics and include it
in national and transnational plans for the Scandinavian region.
The Irish group poses a zoning maps at regional level drawn from the region to enable
local planning channel. The Spanish group, raises the need to adapt the regional spatial
strategy to ESPD and the need to make decision on industrial areas under a territorial
approach. The Norwegian group thinks that regional Make plans must be part of the
Local democracy and public debate.
Norwegian and English group have formulated actions at the level of local planning:
the English group propose UK Planning Certificate to prove a basic understanding of
planning for Planning committee members. For its part, Norwegian group proposes
actions to coordinate different kind of plans : a) Connect the planning groups of
dwellings with the planning groups of infrastructure. b) plans for dwelling Synchronise
Neighbouring Municipalities
II.- ACTIONS.- MODEL OF CITIES/HOUSINGS
1.- Compact city
Three groups have proposed actions to improve growth models of cities: the Norwegian
Irish and French groups. Common idea is limiting sprawl cities phenomenon, making
cities more compact and denser, and mixed uses, focusing the future in recovering
empty urban spaces, old industrial areas or obsolete but representative central districts.
Norwegian group propose open up for construction of taller buildings Make mixed
housing and different size in new buildings, encouraging a diverse composition of
inhabitants
Irish group proposes several actions to make more compact cities: redevelopment of
former Brownfield industrial areas in downtown to combat sprawl, restrict development
of new housing outside of the Metropolitan Region and stronger emphasis on green
belt designation/protection.
2,- Housing/residential areas representative of identity:
Rehabilitation of
particular areas.
French Group focus this questions on rebuild ancient company towns: the courées
(former textile industry) and the corons (former coalfield) in order to reinforce the
identity of the city and integrate these areas in the city
Comments: Groups don’t mention possible economic problems to rehabilitate buildings
in areas where people without financial resources.
Do the owners pay for
rehabilitation? Public sector funds? Do special programs exist?. Nowadays the
rehabilitation of these kind of neighbourhoods could be connected with grants o aids for
energy saving. Is it the way?
In fact, new models of cities should become not only self-sufficient but producer of
energy. Almost all Agendas 21 raise this model of city's future. This vision is under
your proposed models?
3.- Housing/Architecture and environment efficiency
French and Norwegian groups raise actions to improve the environmental efficiency of
houses. The French group argues that la new housing should be in line with the policies
of sustainable development, resource management and environmental quality. And for
its parte, norwegian group proposes to Arrange architectural competitions to stimulate
development of sustainable building techniques and Strengthen the field of architecture
to innovate combinations of density and liveability
4.- Housing market: Diversity of offer
The Norwegian group poses different actions to facilitate workers, students and
disadvantaged groups the access to housing:
 Separate tenancy benefits for temporary migrant workers
 Create a price ceiling for letting to hinder exploitation of the disadvantaged
 Escalate building of student dwellings to take pressure off the rental market.
 Make it attractive to contractors to build housing for disadvantaged groups.
III.- ACCESSIBILITY AND MOBILITY
Most of groups include actions in relation with mobility and accessibility and proposals
can be divided into three levels: international connections, intercity (regional, national)
and urban mobility. The new connections proposals underline the importance for
countries improve connections to central Europe; in the intercity level actions aimed at
creating a more integrated territory, less radial, more mutipolar; urban level, all groups
agree on the need to promote public transport.
No group raises the issue of the financing of these infrastructures, despite being an
important issue because in the context of European economic crisis it seems unlikely
that the States and the European Union continue to fund new infrastructure with public
funds. Only the Spanish group referred to as alternative way "Build Operate Transfer" a
model of Public-Private Investment.
1.- International level mobility and accessibly
In relation with external connections, Norwegian and Spanish Groups include two
important new international connections: Build double rail tracks at the entire distance
between Oslo and Copenhagen; High-speed trains to Stockholm and the Central
Crossing through the Pyrenees as a freight high capacity axe for railway transport.
For its part, Irish group propose to improve infrastructures Belfast-Dublin.: Nort/South
interconnector project, N2/A5 road, cooperation educational institutes in border areas.
All theses propsals highlight the importance of natural corridors and having good
connections with central Europe. The problem as I comment above is finding economic
support –EU funds- and agree to different countries
2.- Interurban transport network
Dublin, Lille, and Zaragoza are well connected cities but not the rest of secondary urban
system; that’s why these groups propose action to reinforce
in all theses áreas
multipolar network
Irish group point out that the radial hub and spoke” transport model in Dublin and
across Ireland need to be addressed
And in opinion of Spanish group two secondary corridors should be prioried in order
to enhance others road and railway axes: Huesca-Lerida and Teruel-Alcañiz, as
secondary corridor, creating synergies between transport and industry, solving
territorial dispersion problem.
Industrial areas en Aragon has been located in order to keep population in rural areas:
but not all industrial areas has not been development because its isolated location and
bad connections. In opinion of the group not all network the future government must
priories theses two corridors.
French group priories the south part of Lille traffic congestion, reducing roads traffic
by means railway and waterway alternative . Also the group propose improving border
network particularly with Maubeuge that is not well integrated in the LMA territory.
Besides French group proposes LMA to involve on strategic transport scheme and
coordination, Invests on multipolar railway network and to reinforce waterways and
railway evolution based road freight
3.- Urban Mobility
1.- Public transport/intermodal versus private car/new roads
Regarding to internal connections of cities, all groups agree to find alternatives for
private car using by means improving public transportation, metro lines and buses lines
–even river transport - and intermodal.
Interesting is the Norwegian group specific proposal to build without sufficient carparking options, but with plenty of sustainable options.
2.- Coordination transport and dwelling plans
Irish group highlights the coordination between housing plans and transport newtwork
and the importance to promote higher densities and mixed uses near town city centres
and at public transport hubs
IV.- ECONOMY
Most groups include economic actions from different perspectives: most of them
propose a particular activity or sector to lead economic development, and many of them
think that economic development should be used to achieve a more balanced territory.
Economic development should be used to connect Dublin, Zaragoza or Lille with the
rest of the territory. It should also highlight the Norwegian group measures to attract
companies and the problems of different Administration competences (LMA and
regions) to define a clear policy.
Finally is interesting the perspective of the Norwegian group which aims not only to
create the adequate conditions for businesses but for people with a high educational
level. Possibly the examples R. Florida cities explain this interesting perspective.
1.- Reinforcement particular economic sectors
Some groups propose to reinforce a particular sector of the economy: So, Norwegian
group propose to enhance the knowledge economy, knowledge intensive businesses and
Innovation. This group include also actions to attract new creative class; Irish group
focus in the promotion of tourism based in rural traditions, well as renewable energy;
French group to boost Cultural aspects for enhancing leadership and visibility of Lille
in Northern Europe; and in the case of Aragon to develop their potential as freight
transport and distribution of goods.
In some groups, as the Irish group -Diversity of employment to widen the focus past as big multinational companies- and Norwegian group the idea of diversification of
economic activities is proposed along with the prioritization of particular economic
sectors
2.- Companies and taxes in order to attract new activities
Norwegian group propose some specific tax measures to attract new companies
introducing new subsidies for businesses, tax reductions for research and development
activity in firms and creating more incentives for regional development
3.- Economy and territorial cohesion
Territorial cohesion and economy perspective can be found in French, Irish and
Spanish actions because economic actions are foreseen to achieve an territory (regional,
metropolitan o national) more integrated: in these actions the connection between
physical perspective and economy is clearer.
Lille has a thriving and diversified economy for what the group propose actions to
redistribute activities – especially regarding services –in the territory. The question is
not so much development but better located allowing a more cohesive territory.
The Spanish group, proposes a better location of industrial areas in order to take
advantages of the potential of Aragon as a distributor of goods in order to improve
activities in small cities and rural territory
The Irish group identifies three areas to be developed: the Belfast-Dublin corridor, rural
areas, and Outside the Metropolitan Area of Dublin OMAD. (Renewable energy ..). are
the three corridors that will allow them to address its unbalanced territory: to find new
Gateways and Hubs: Settlements in Ireland should receive investment that is at the
correct level for them to grow.
4.- Economy and governance: Economic competences, Region and LMA
French group remind that the unclear competence distribution between Region and
LMA constitute a big problem in order to develop an coherent economic plan in this
area
I. Pemán. Exco/ECTP