Governing Metropolitan Regions within a Localist agenda
Report of second seminar; Institut d’Urbanisme de Paris, Universite Paris –Est
Creteuil 22nd February 2013
Institutional and policy issues : Articulating Scales
This seminar focused on Paris and the wider metropolitan region of the Ile de France.
We focused on two major challenges : the coordination between institutions in a
context where new institutions were being created at a range of governmental scales,
including Paris Metropole and the Great Paris law ; unbalanced development within
the Paris region, with tensions between regional and local scales, in the field of urban
renewal, housing policies and land management, but also impacting on spatial
planning and visible in the new metropolitan plan for the Paris metropolitan region
(SDRIF) and in the new transport programme (Grand Paris express). The seminar was
attended by some 25 academics and practitioners from France and England.
Duncan Bowie (University of Westminster.UK and research network organiser)
thanked Florine Baliff and UPEC colleagues for organising the seminar, which
followed on from the London seminar held the previous September. Duncan
summarised the discussions at the London seminar, focusing on the impact of the
2011 Localism Act on planning, housing and governance with the weakening of
national planning guidance and the creation of a new tier of neighbourhood planning.
He raised the issue that recent changes in Government policy and funding were
leading to increased social polarisation with lower income households being forced
out of central London. He suggested that as Paris was appearing to replicate London
with grand projects and attempts to get more affordable homes in central Paris,
London was at risk of becoming more like Paris with lower income households being
concentrated in the suburbs, with central London being reserved for international
business, investors and part-time residents. In his view London as becoming a less
sustainable city and together with other UK based attendees he was interest in
whether planners and urbanists in Paris were succeeding in making the city and the
metropolitan region as a whole more sustainable for all its residents.
The first session on Regional governance and Strategies was chaired by Vincent
Renard from Sciences Po.
The first presentation from Christian Lefevre of UPEC, was entitled Paris, Ile de
France: Unregulated competitive decentralisation. Christian Lefevre explained that
the recent programme of decentralisation had increased the powers of the Ile de
France regional administration, with further powers to come following the third
decentralisation act. The region had produced a new regional plan (SDRIF). However
control of public transport including the railway system remained with the central
government and France remained a highly centralised state. However in contrast with
England , there was no hierarchy between levels of governance below the national
level and collaboration between scales was largely a voluntary process. The Paris
mayor, Bertrand Delanoe ( Mayor since 2001) had appointed a deputy mayor, Pierre
Mansat, with responsibility for relations with the wider metropolitan region. Paris
metropole had been established as a joint authority. In August 2012, Delanoe had put
forward a proposal for a ‘metropolitan pole’ - the core urban area within Ile de
France. While housing was clearly the central issue, it was unclear what the powers
of any new authority would be. Lefevre also referred to the Zones of national interest
and the Grand Paris transport projects.
The range of new institutions reflected conflicting visions:
Sarkozy’s Grand Paris focused on economic competitiveness
Hollande/Delanoe interest in social equality
Was a dialogue between the two approaches possible ? There was however no clear
legitimacy for regional leadership. There was a lack of clear vision. No-one had the
resources to mobilise stakeholders. The process would take a long time and there were
no adequate ..? for a for dialogue, mediation and negotiation.
Vincent Renard commented that the region was weak and there were conflicts
between the Ile de France and Paris, even though both were under Socialist control..
Paris was now entering the electoral process and there was no agreed way forward.
Livingstone in London had been more effective in winning enhanced powers.
Christian concluded that this competitive decentralisation fitted in with market
decentralisation. Vincent commented that local councils could and did oppose housebuilding on the basis that this would keep down the population – a Malthusian
approach.
The second presentation was from Perinne Michon of Lab’Urba and was on
Governance in the Grand Toulouse: Issues and paradoxes. Perrine referred to the
Solidarite et Renewale Urbaine (SRU) Act. Toulouse had a population of 2 million
and was the fourth city in France after Paris, Marseilles and Lyon – Lille was fifth.
Within SE Toulon there was a joint authority – SICOVAL. The focus of the initiative
was to improve the quality of life and to ensure an appropriate balance between town
and country. The INTERSCOT charter under the SRU provisions established an
inter-regional framework for housing and planning which was binding on municipal
plans. The nationally appointed prefect brought the local leadership together but had
no executive authority. The INTERSCOT plan was 10-12 years, while project funding
programmes were much shorter term.
In discussion, Benoit Phillippi referred to the example of the Rennes metropole as
having a more integrated governance system. He also referred to the development of
the Bordeaux metropole. He regarded the Ile de France arrangements as relatively
dysfunctional.
The third presentation was from Caroline Galles of UPEC and was entitled
Territorial Development Contracts and the Greater Paris Project: Regulatory tools or
bargaining processes ? Caroline focused on the Societe de grand Paris established
under the June 2012 Greater Paris Development Act. The act established the principle
of Territorial Development Contracts. The Societe had the power to develop near new
stations – the act however was imprecise in defining the perimeters of the TDC.
The IdF had a target of 70,000 homes a year fixed in the act. This was 10,000 more
than the target in the 2008 Regional Plan. The development focus was on the area
serviced by the Greater Paris express with TDC driving clusters of development, and
players motivated to join in or lose access to finance, development powers and
control. The objectives were to improve the jobs/housing balance and to strengthen
eastern Paris relative to western Paris. However the mechanisms for capturing land
value generated by the new Express system were not defined. There were a number of
points of disagreement – the financing of public facilities; the rate of social housing
provision; the sale price of land owned by the state.
In discussion, Stephane Baudement pointed out that the state and the municipality
often disagreed on the proportion of social housing. Tim Marshall raised questions as
the mechanisms for implementing strategy in the absence of a system for taxing land
values. Value was to be used to support railway investment rather than housing
provision. There was a discussion on the stages of the TDC process: bribery then
negotiation, then what ? Was it better to focus on action led projects defined by
infrastructure investment, rather than strategies?
The fourth presentation was by Jean-Pierre Orfeuil of UPEC and was entitled The
Grand Paris transport projects: beliefs, dead ends and governance problems.
Hollande had argued that the regional land use project should pay more attention to
those areas which had economic development capacity such as La Defence and the
airport areas. Hollande considered the regional project too localist and not adequately
recognising Paris’s world city role. There had been no rational analysis of alternative
project options and no consultation. The Grand Paris project was architect designer
led and relied on futuristic images. The open competition ignored the role of existing
transport providers. The assumption was that the project would be funded from land
value increases but the project costs had been underestimated and the benefits
overstated in order to get political approval. Overall the project was a great fantasy
without independent evaluation, evidence and reality deficits were replaced by
political drive and make do taxation. The vision had been a million jobs located near
40 new stations. However private financing would not succeed and taxes would need
to be raised. Meanwhile the investment of new providers was limited by the fact that
the RATP (Regie Autonome des Transports Parisiens) monopoly had recently been
extended to 2030.
It was important to get the existing transport system to function more effectively first.
There was now a financial crisis with the new project costing 20 billion euros. In
order to avoid losing face, politicians had promised that the existing system would
also be upgraded, taking the total cost to 34 billion euros. On current financial
assumptions, it would take investors 120 years to get a return.
A recent project evaluation required by Hollande– the Auzannet report - had
demonstrated that costs will be 50% higher than assumed and that the timescale was
unachievable. Moreover the current system had an annual operational cost of 6
billion euros. The current fare system supported long distance commuting which was
environmentally unsustainable. 2/3 of the IdF population lived less than 30 minutes
from work For over 30 minutes commuting, the cost was only 1/3 higher. The speed
of the metro supported social polarisation as well as increasing house prices in the
suburbs. The pricing system needed urgent review. Speed and cheap price led policy
does not support functional economic relationships. Transport improvements were
funded by regional taxation.
The fifth presentation was by Paul Lecroart of the Institut d’Amenagement et
D’Urbanisme of the Ile de France, who spoke on Planning at the Metropolitan Scale..
Paul pointed out that IdF was attractive for young professionals and the leading region
for research. Social inequality had grown between 2000 and 2009 in most areas – this
was liked to environmental inequality. While the 1994 regional plan had focused on
urban extensions redevelopment had focused on the de-industrialised urban ring , with
La Defence becoming the centre of finance and Issy for media and SE Paris for
biotechnology. The Plaine St Denis was now a focus for development a sit was close
to the airport. The new towns such as Marne La Valle had centres which were car
dependent rather than supported by public transport. There had also been unplanned
development along arterial routes.
Development plans tended to focus on public spaces and were less commercially
driven than in the UK. Gentrification was an incremental process – and as yet had had
little impact in St Denis. The Pleine St Denis had development potential equivalent to
the Thames Gateway.
The Region’s 2008 plan had been rejected by Sarkozy and the new 2013 regional plan
had to incorporate the grand Paris project despite concerns as to whether the projects
would ever be realised. It was also important to recognise the local dynamics of
development as well as top down projects. Urban change was incremental and soft
changes through behaviour, creative competition and innovative cooperation could
also contribute to growth.
In the discussion it was noted that the region did not control land use. The region used
to provide financial support for development but no longer did so. The region had to
make allies of national government, the department and the municipality if its projects
were to be implemented. Plans founded on transport assumptions were not tested
against deliverability, viability and realism.
The second session on Delivering policies at the metropolitan scale: providing
affordable housing was chaired by Duncan Bowie.
The first presentation on House-price resilience in Paris was given by Christian
Tutin of UPEC.
Since 2010, there had been a 20% increase in house-prices in central Paris. There had
also been significant increases in the de-industrialised ‘red belt’. There had been a
credit led boom at the bottom of the market and an asset led boom at the top of the
market. The lower middle cases had been pushed out of the inner city. There was a
correlation between low stork market values and high house-prices as investment was
moved into property. An analysis of executive/professional: manual worker ratios by
area was shown. There was a parallel between impact of the recession on house-prices
between UK and France. There was also evidence of house price inflation and
gentrification in Berlin since 2010, though Berlin house-prices remained only 50% of
Paris and London equivalents.
In the discussion it was pointed out that significant public investment had helped
make the red belt acceptable to professionals.
The second presentation was given by Stephane Baudement of the housing
department of the Ile de France regional government. It was entitled Delivering new
houses in the Paris area. What is the matter ?
The 1994 target had been 53,000 homes a year. In 2013 the target was raised to
70,000 a year. There had however been underperformance against plan, though an
increase in the last two years. In the 1980’s development had been focused on Paris
and the new towns. In the 1990’s new town development had declined and by the
2000’s Marne Le Vallee was the only significant continuing new town development,
with the focus shifting to gentrification of the red belt.
The key variables for determining the location of new house-building were the size of
the pre-existing stock; distance from central Paris, the proportion of open space, local
land use constraints and planning restrictions. There was no correlation between
houseprices and development output. 20% of new housing was built on existing
housing land (including gardens). Stephane presented maps of housing affordability
by local area since 2000, and slides analysing the delivery and distribution of new
housing with respect to brownfield land, geographical position, class and social
economic characteristics. The original target that 25% of new homes should be social
housing had been increased to 25%. But targets for social housing are defined by the
method of financing it. Municipalities could buy their way out of the obligation,
though the financial penalty had recently been increased by a factor of 5. Housing
was a big issue for the Green Party who argued that 35,000 of 70,000 new homes
should be social housing, and is becoming dominant on the political agenda.
The third presentation was by Alan Cochrane of the Open University and was on
Housing growth and policies on the edges of Southeast England.
Alan referred to the New Labour Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan of
2003 which identified a series of growth areas in south east England. The aim was to
balance employment and housing growth. New Labour’s market utopianism was
however hit by the 2008 recession. There was no strategy for regional realignment.
The area of his case study was Milton Keynes and Northampton – the core of the
South Midlands growth area.
When housing output did not increase, the government blamed the planners;
developers blamed the government and then everybody said it was the fault of the
market. The public sector could not dictate market output and the issue of value and
viability increasingly dominated the planning debate.
The coalition government’s emphasis was now on growth rather than quality growth.
The new city deals programme was based on governance and funding deals with
major cities – now extended to centres such as Milton Keynes. The programme could
eventually cover 70% of England’s population. However the programme was more
fragmented wishful thinking rather than a guarantee of sustainable housing growth. It
was noted that although central government had offered to transfer the former
centrally controlled Milton Keynes Development corporation land to the Milton
Keynes local authority, that authority could not afford the price.
The final session was on Neighbourhood Planning and Policies and was chaired by
Florine Ballif.
The first presentation was by Nick Bailey of the University of Westminster who
spoke on Neighbourhood planning in London; Empowerment or transfer of
responsibilities without power ?
Nick set out the statutory basis of the neighbourhood planning regime in the 2011
Localism Act and then gave some examples of neighbourhood planning in
Westminster. A neighbourhood group could apply to the local authority to establish a
forum, who could then draw up a neighbourhood plan which after a local referendum
became the statutory plan for a neighbourhood. He also referred to the ability to set an
urban parish council which could then levy a rate. This had been operated by one area
in Westminster – Queens Park. He gave an example of a neighbourhood forum
crossing a borough boundary – Highgate which included parts of Camden and
Haringey. The Kings Cross neighbourhood forum crossed the Islington/ Camden
boundary. So far only one Neighbourhood Forum had been designated in London –
the Norland forum in Kensington and Chelsea which was a very small very expensive
area which had been a conservation area since 1981, based on a conservation society
established in 1969. Neighbourhood fora were a new form of direct democracy, but
thee were questions as to how representative they were of an area’s residents. Some
groups focused on service delivery and community infrastructure rather than land use
allocations or new development. There were no rules as to what Neighbourhood Plans
could or could not do, though they were supposed to fit within a adopted local
authority plan. The Government had just announced tat a significant proportion of the
community Infrastructure Levy ( the new development tax) should be spent within the
neighbourhood in which the development took place. In rural areas this money would
go to the parish council. In urban aras this would stay with the local authority who
would decide neighbourhood spending priorities – the arrangements for consulting the
neighbourhood forum were not yet determined. The neighbourhood planning
arrangements raised the issue of competition between participative democracy of the
neighbourhood and the representative democratic basis of the local authority.
The final presentation was by Christine Lelevrier of UPEC and was on
Neighbourhood policies in the Paris region.
Neighbourhood planning was a response to the issue of concentration of social
housing. The urban renewal programme initiated in 2003 identified 5000
neighbourhoods. Urban contracts for social cohesion existed in some 200 areas. These
were mainly large 1960’s housing estates in the banlieus. Some 55-60% of residents
in project areas had been rehoused within their areas, but there had been some
displacement and a loss of some 10% of pre-existing social housing. There had been
9,000 demolitions in St Denis alone. In some cases 50% of social housing had been
replaced off site – in St Denis 80% of replacement had been on-site. The programme
had not significantly reduced social segregation. While the programme had been
based on territorial justice objectives, there was no governance structure for the
programmes at neighbourhood level. The programme had been supported with
government capital grant but with limited revenue support for continuing
management. A reform of the programme in February 2013 had however introduced
subsidies to support local employment. However the programme included a degree of
ethnic discrimination even if it overcame territorial discrimination, though this was a
difficult issue to discuss publicly.
Florinne Baliff and Duncan Bowie thanked all the speakers and other participants for
their contributions. The intention was to publish presentations on the RSA website
and publish a summary of the seminar in a future edition of the REGIONS journal.
Arrangements for the third seminar in Berlin would be circulated once available.