Analysis Workshop 2 STOCKHOLM Attendance Hans Hede Per Lundberg Jan Linzie Romeo Toffano Tiziana Quaglia Alberto Miotto Magda Segkouni Maria Spyropoulou-Lilimpaki Inguss Vircavs Inara Marana Jussi Vuorinen Hannu Kalajoki Markktu Lahti Jose Luis Cañavate Isidoro Ibañez Muñoz Dr Grahame Buchan Jim Parke Alastair Wyllie Alicia Harland Adriano Muratori Ton van Beveren Stockholm County Stockholm County Stockholm County Regione Veneto Regione Veneto Regione Veneto Organisation for the Master Plan and Environmental Protection of Thessaloniki Organisation for the Master Plan and Environmental Protection of Thessaloniki Riga City Development Department Riga City Development Department City of Helsinki City of Helsinki City of Helsinki Ayuntamiento de Granada Ayuntamiento de Ogisares Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee (GCVSPJC) METREX Secretariat METREX Secretariat METREX Interpretariat (ES) METREX Interpretariat (IT) Rotterdam City Council Monday 15 September, a.m. Introduction and Orientation Tour The representatives of Stockholm, Riga, Veneto, Thessaloniki, Glasgow and METREX met at the Ersta Conference Centre for an introduction to the orientation tour by the Stockholm representatives. Maps of the tour route and particular areas were distributed. The orientation tour concentrated on the northern part of the wider city area. The first point of interest was the northern terminal of a light rail route at Alvik. This facility does not serve the city centre, but instead provides an orbital service, linking across arterial routes. It was initiated as part of the Dennis package, and was regarded by some interests as a public transport gesture to complement the larger road transport proposals. Many experts suggested that it would not attract sufficient customers to justify the investment, but it has been very successful. Plans are underway to extend the service in a northerly and easterly direction serving in particular the Ulvsunda Road Area. PROJECT PART-FINANCED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION Nye Bevan House, 20 India Street, GLASGOW, G2 4PF T. +44 (0)1292 317074 F. +44 (0)1292 317074 secretariat@eurometrex.org http://www.eurometrex.org
The Ulvsunda Road Area presents a number of issues which are common to the Stockholm region. It contains a number of potential development areas, such as Bromma airport, the Solvalla trotting arena and the Kista international business district dedicated to mobile telecom services, industrial production and research. It also contains housing areas, such as Rinkeby, which are characterised by social exclusion and many immigrants, and could benefit from better connections to employment and services. The population of the area is expected to grow from 71,000 in 2000 to 96,000 in 2030, and employment is also expected to grow from 55,000 to 74,000 in the same period. The pattern of municipal boundaries in the Ulvsunda Road Area means that cross-border planning is required to bridge physical barriers and improve connections between existing and future development areas. An initiative is underway between Stockholm County, Stockholm City and the municipalities of Sundbyberg, Solna and Sollentuna to produce a comprehensive strategy for the Area through a co-operative planning process. This project is an example of compensatory action to overcome formal limits to planning competence. Bromma airport is still operational, although the lease expires in 2012, and there is commercial pressure to maintain the facility for business services. It is intended to relocate the airport and use the land for new city development. To the north of the airport lies a trotting arena and a former military area with low density use, and it is intended to re-use these areas in a more intensive manner. At the northern end of the Ulvsunda Road Area is the development area of Kista, which has become a focal point for development related to mobile services, wireless systems and broadband systems. It is intended to develop this area further as a science city, and to reinforce other activities in the area, such as retailing, to create a sub-regional core for the region. The shopping centre has just been refurbished. This is an outcome of the adoption of a polycentric approach in the Regional Development Plan. It is planned to use the light rail to link the Kista area to the main rail line in order to provide a convenient linkage to Arlanda Airport. From Kista the orientation tour returned towards the city centre via the E4 Route. Lunch was provided in the royal park, which demonstrated the emphasis on linear open areas throughout the conurbation and the proximity of large open areas to the centre of the conurbation. Returning to the Ersta Conference the participants in the tour noted the congestion on the city centre approach road from this important route because of limited capacity one lane in each direction. The tour route followed the main railway line, and it was noted that surplus railway land was to be used for development purposes at Norra station where a decked structure would give opportunities for substantial intensification. It was pointed out that the capacity of the main station was limited by the 2-track access from the south. The solution was expected to be a new tunnel for suburban trains. Monday 15 September p.m. (Helsinki representatives joined the Workshop) Stockholm Presentation E-Atlas The presentation commenced with a demonstration of the Stockholm E-Atlas contribution. This was handed over to Ton van Beveren for inclusion in the E-Atlas. Public Administration Structures There are three main levels the national level, the county level and the municipal level. In addition the national level has an office at the county level, which acts in a controlling manner to ensure the national interest is respected. The principal level for land-use planning is the municipal 2
level. The regional planning level has no powers of its own, and hence there is a great emphasis on processes to build a higher level of consensus and support for the plan. Faster train services are changing the geography of the area and expanding the functional region well beyond the boundaries of the formal county council boundaries. There is no formal organisation to deal with this issue, but an effort has been made to work on a co-operative basis. It is considered that there is a need for a better means of planning this wider area. Stockholm Benchmark Assessment and Discussion The representatives from Stockholm gave an explanation of their assessment. The completed Benchmark Checklist and Statement are attached as Appendix 1. The following points emerged from the discussion on particular Benchmarks and are set out under the headings of Competence, Capability and Process. COMPETENCE Benchmark 1 The main input to metropolitan planning from the Swedish national Government comes in the form of investment programmes. It was indicated that the regional plan was permitted to include proposals for national investment, which were not in national investment programmes. The national Government also issues guidance on areas of national interest, which must be respected in the regional plan. These can fall into the following categories natural, cultural and transportation. Benchmark 5 The discussion indicated a need to clarify what a mechanism to deal with social responsibilities might be. It was clear that there were some difficulties in the Stockholm region in involving the social service agencies. Benchmark 6 The Benchmark assessments under the headings of journey-to-work, public transport area and housing market area reflect the fact that the functional urban region has extended beyond the formal boundaries of Stockholm County. The Stockholm representatives sought advice from the Benchmark process as to what the most appropriate response would be to the planning of this extended region. The discussion highlighted the point that many regions are experiencing the same impact of faster regional train services. It was concluded that, until formal boundaries and governmental structures reflect these new realities, the only action was more emphasis on compensatory action through consultation processes. The Stockholm representatives indicated that consultation structures had already been established. Benchmark 7 It was indicated that the full legal power to implement the strategy was not available to the County Council, but that action could be taken through the Government Office at the regional level. It was indicated that negotiation was the preferred mechanism. CAPABILITY Benchmark 9 It was indicated that the number of professional staff in the Stockholm County Planning Office had been reduced, but that a larger budget had been allocated for the use of consultants. It was considered that this arrangement had proved to be more flexible. The City Planning Office also maintained 16 people dedicated to wider planning issues. 3
Benchmark 10 It was indicated that much of the data was collected for a Government Agency and collected to standards set by the Agency. Benchmark 12 It was pointed out in response to a question that the assessment of urban development capacity included assumptions on intensification of use to reflect the strategy of intensification. Benchmark 21 The assessment methodology under this heading is not at the highest level, and it is appreciated that the requirements of the Environmental Directive will have to be met. A pilot project has been initiated with the Government. PROCESS AND PARTICIPATION Benchmark 22 It was pointed out by the Stockholm representatives that it had proved difficult to involve the public in long-term strategic issues. The other partners indicated that this was a common experience. Benchmark 26 The Stockholm representatives indicated that there was a need to improve the way implementation was handled in the regional planning process in order to achieve a higher level of commitment of investment. Benchmark 27 It was acknowledged that the monitoring report for the Stockholm regional plan was based on qualitative rather than quantitative targets. Benchmark 28A It was established in discussion that the validity of the plan for the Stockholm region expires after six years, and that there is therefore a need for regular review. CONCLUSIONS The Stockholm representatives indicated that the priority action emerging from the Benchmarking process was an intention to upgrade the capability on environmental assessment, and to strengthen the strategy implementation processes. Dr. Buchan indicated that, in view of the limited powers of the County Council, there was a need to recognise the need for greater compensatory action to build a commitment to the plan. Tuesday 16 September, a.m. (Granada representatives joined the Workshop) Regione Veneto Presentation The presentation on behalf of Regione Veneto was given by Romeo Toffano assisted by Tiziana Quaglia and Alberto Miotto. Romeo Toffano gave a general description of the Veneto region. He indicated that the region contained seven Provinces and many municipalities, and had a population of 5 million inhabitants. The density of population is 250 persons per sq. km., but one third of the regional area is mountainous. The region has experienced a large shift from agricultural 4
employment. A major metropolitan area within the region is the Venice-Padua Corridor. The two main cities are 40 kms. apart, and are linked by the historical city of the Brenta Riviera. The planning of this metropolitan area has to accommodate and reflect the historical, cultural and environmental resources of the area, and take advantage of the economic specialisms within the area. The workshop was provided with supplementary material (maps and diagrams) on the Venice-Padua Corridor, known as Il Bilanciere. Sig. Toffano highlighted some aspects of the planning issues in this metropolitan area as context for the understanding of the Benchmark Assessment. He stressed the visionary approach to the planning of the area and the benefits of selling the strategies to the key stakeholders. A particular example of the high visionary content of this metropolitan plan is the Fashion City proposal, and Sig. Toffano stressed the considerable element of consultation required to implement such a strategic concept. He also highlighted the importance of implementing the strategy, and demonstrated how this was structured for the Venice-Padua Corridor by a diagram that set out the linkages between policies, strategic projects and actions. Regione Veneto Benchmark Assessment and Discussion The representatives of Regione Veneto gave an explanation of the assessment. The completed Benchmark Checklist and Statement are attached as Appendix 2. The following points emerged when questions were raised in the discussion, and are set out under the headings of Competence, Capability and Process. COMPETENCE Benchmark 1 The presentation indicated that there was no National Spatial Plan, but that the establishment of the region in 1972 had provided the opportunity for the preparation of the Regional Development Plan and the territorial interpretation in the form of the Regional Territorial Co-ordination Plan (PTRC). It was indicated that this plan, which was finally passed in 1991, provides the upper level context for the preparation of metropolitan level strategies such as Il Bilanciere. Benchmark 2 It became clear that the relevant level for an integrated regional strategy in the context of Italian legislation is the Regional level and not the metropolitan level. Benchmark 3 For the same reason there is no formal legal structure for the preparation of the metropolitan strategic plan. It became clear that although there has been a recent legislative initiative to recognise the reality of metropolitan cities this has not been implemented. It would appear that part of the reason for the delay in implementation is the reluctance of some of the partners in the process to engage in a sharing of responsibilities. The preparation of Il Bilanciere is regarded as a positive initiative in the promotion of the metropolitan concept and a culture of co-operation or cohesion amongst the different stakeholders. CAPABILITY Benchmark 10 The representatives of Regione Veneto were questioned on the apparent discrepancy between the provision of a dedicated professional team and the low level of capability in terms of the collection of survey data and the preparation of forecasts. It emerged that the emphasis of the team was placed on the generation of the strategic vision and the promotion of the vision amongst the 5
principal stakeholders. Sig. Toffano described this approach to metropolitan planning as soft, and suggested that the harder approach based on data and forecasts can discourage stakeholder interest. An example was given of discussions with a business in Treviso that was experiencing difficulties in recruiting staff. The businessman was encouraged to appreciate the linkage between the high congestion/poor environment which was influencing staff recruitment and the need for forward planning for the wider environment. Benchmark 12 It became clear from the discussion on this Benchmark that there had been a misinterpretation of the Benchmark. It was agreed that further clarification of the Benchmark should be considered to avoid any misunderstanding in future assessments. Benchmark 20 The low level of capability in terms of transportation analysis was questioned during the discussion. It was pointed out that the problems of the area appeared to justify a more rigorous analytical approach. PROCESS AND PARTICIPATION Benchmarks 22, 23 & 24 It was clear from the discussion that great emphasis was placed on the generation of a cooperative approach that attempts to go beyond the legal rights of the public and stimulate a higher level of involvement and commitment. CONCLUSIONS It was agreed that there was a need for clarification of certain terms in the Benchmark. The representatives of Regione Veneto indicated that the priority action would be the strengthening of the ability to generate a shared vision, i.e. a common feeling of interest and involvement. This will involve actions to stimulate higher levels of participation and a more open and proactive approach to all sectors of the public. It was acknowledged that there is a need for a better means of allowing the public to make suggestions and interact with the plan-building throughout the process. Helsinki Presentation The Helsinki presentation was introduced by Jussi Vuorinen, but contributions were also made by Hannu Kalajoki and Markktu Lahti. An explanation was given of the particular institutional arrangements confronting the preparation of the metropolitan plan for the Helsinki area. It was pointed out that the metropolitan dimension is increasingly recognised through mechanisms such as the YTV organisation that deals with transportation issues for the core of the metropolitan area. Consideration is currently being given to modifications to institutional structures to give a greater recognition of this reality. These institutional changes are expected to face resistance because of cultural affinities to the existing arrangements. The functional urban region is divided by the boundary of Uusimaa and East Uusimaa Counties, and this coincides with a distinct cultural identity division. It is anticipated that the politicians in East Uusimaa will be reluctant to accept a new body covering the wider metropolitan area. 6
Benchmark Assessment The Helsinki representatives gave an explanation of the Benchmark Assessment and Statement. The completed documents are attached as Appendix 3. The outcomes of the discussion when questions were raised are set out below under the headings of Competence, Capability and Process. COMPETENCE Benchmark 3 As noted in the general comments above, there is no single authority with exclusive responsibility for the metropolitan area. The Uusimaa County Council area extends to the far south-west of Finland, whereas the area of the Helsinki Metropolitan Council (YTV) only covers the core of the metropolitan area. It was established that two models for a new metropolitan authority are under consideration, but at the moment it takes the form of a joint planning mechanism. Benchmark 6 It was noted that the level of coherence was influenced by the extension of the housing market beyond the boundary to the north. In the discussion on hydrology it was stated that the condition of the Baltic Sea is the greatest issue of concern. CAPABILITY Benchmark 13 It was explained that the Helsinki metropolitan area did not provide opportunities for the development of a polycentric structure, but that the strategy was to encourage compact, mixed use development, which is well orientated to the public transport network. PROCESS AND PARTICIPATION Benchmark 22 The discussion highlighted the fact that, although in legal terms the new Act of 2000 does not provide Third Party Rights as they would be understood in Ireland, it ensures the right of public participation in the preparation of the strategic plan. Benchmark 27 The low level of effectiveness in terms of monitoring was seen as inconsistent with the high level of capability in terms of data collection. It was acknowledged as a deficiency. CONCLUSIONS It was agreed that the absence of a legal authority for the metropolitan area was a major obstacle to effective plan making and implementation. The Helsinki representatives also recognised that there was a need to improve the quality of plan monitoring Tuesday 16 September, p.m. Granada Presentation The Granada presentation was given by Jose Luis Cañavate who was accompanied by Isidoro Ibañez Muñoz, a representative of one of the constituent authorities of the Granada metropolitan 7
area. A description was given of the general institutional framework for the Granada Metropolitan Plan. Andalucía produces a territorial plan which provides a context for metropolitan planning. It also produces sectoral plans identifying priority action programmes. There are eight provinces within Andalucía, but the Provincial Diputación has no planning powers. The provincial areas do not correspond to the functional urban regions. There are five metropolitan groupings within Andalucía, but none of them are covered by a territorial plan for the area. These metropolitan functional urban regions are considered to provide the most appropriate basis to resolve sustainability issues and to coordinate the spatial aspects of social and economic issues. Planning for the metropolitan area of Granada is still at a formative stage. Transport is a key issue in the area, and the area must also accommodate the demands of a large student population and the requirements of an important tourist industry. The hills, monuments and the locally valued agricultural area, known as the Vega, encourage growth on a north/south axis. Benchmark Assessment Jose Luis Cañavate gave an explanation of the Granada Benchmark Assessment and copies of the completed Benchmark Checklist and Statement are attached as Appendix 4. The outcomes of the discussion when questions were raised are set out below under the headings of Competence, Capability and Process. COMPETENCE Benchmark 1 Although there is no national spatial plan available, the territorial plan for the region of Andalucía provides a higher tier context for the planning of the Granada metropolitan area. Benchmark 6 The concept of coherence in terms of the hydrological catchment area did not seem to be a relevant issue in the Granada area. Reference was made to River Basin Management, which is a requirement of the Water Framework Directive. It might be useful to include a reference to this requirement in the Benchmark Clarification Notes. Benchmark 7 It became clear in the discussion that the legal powers to safeguard the metropolitan strategy were the responsibility of the Regional Council of Andalucía. CAPABILITY Benchmark 9 It was indicated that the team is established for the preparation of the plan from the resources of Andalucía and the other authorities within the metropolitan area. It was uncertain if the team would remain after the approval process to safeguard and monitor the plan. Benchmark 20 It was suggested that this Benchmark should be renamed as Accessibility instead of Transportation to reflect the basic issue under consideration. 8
PROCESS AND PARTICIPATION Benchmark 22 It was accepted that there was scope for improvement in the involvement of the public in the preparation of the plan Project Administration It was decided to deal with project administration matters in the limited time available in order to give the Thessaloniki presentation the opportunity of continuity on the Wednesday morning. As a result, Alastair Wyllie dealt with the following matters. Claim Forms The claim forms were distributed to each Partner, and an explanation was given of the components of the claim form. The opportunity was taken to describe what operational costs included, and how that element would be dealt with to allow the Partners to submit their claim on time. The timetable for making the claim was also explained. Project Protocol Alastair Wyllie described the modifications to the protocol required to comply with various national governments regulations for the administration of European projects. He indicated that all issues had now been addressed, and a final document would soon be available from the Lead Partner for Partners signatures. E-Atlas The attention of the Partners was drawn to the presence of Ton van Beveren from Rotterdam City, who is dealing with the preparation of E-Atlas submissions. The Partners were asked to consult Ton on the requirements for E-Atlas submission, which is a measurable part of the Project, and to complete their submissions as soon as possible. Wednesday 17 September, a.m. Thessaloniki Presentation The Thessaloniki presentation was given by Magda Segkouni and Maria Lilimpaki. A general explanation of the current planning framework in Greece was given by Magda Segkouni. She indicated that the law on spatial planning provides for three levels of planning national, regional and local. In the case of Thessaloniki, the plan for the city region falls into the local category, although the Organisation for the Master Plan Implementation and Environmental Protection of Thessaloniki (ORTH) has been established by the National Government, and the area for which it is responsible covers a number of municipalities. Local planning is normally a municipal function. The national spatial plan is awaiting approval by the Greek Parliament. There is a Ministry in charge of spatial planning, but many other government departments have an influence on this matter. In addition to the sectoral departments, there is a separate Ministry for Northern Greece, which has responsibilities for the Thessaloniki area. The regional level of planning is replacing the functions of the 53 Prefectures, which are directly elected authorities. The new Regional Authorities are appointed by Government, and almost all of the regional plans are ready for approval, but these plans must await the approval of the National Spatial Plan by Parliament. ORTH has already expressed views on the regional spatial planning study for the Region of Central Macedonia, which is now ready for final approval. 9
Benchmark Assessment Maria Lilimpaki provided an explanation of the Benchmark assessment and copies of the completed Benchmark Checklist and Statement are attached as Appendix 5. The outcomes of the discussion on particular issues is set out below under the headings of Competence, Capability and Process COMPETENCE Benchmarks 1, 2 & 3 The planning framework for the metropolitan area of Thessaloniki may soon have a unique combination of national, regional and metropolitan level guidance. The Regional Spatial Plan would not appear to fall into the category of Integrated Strategy covered by Benchmark 2, but would seem to offer the spatial planning context referred to in Benchmark 1 as a higher tier plan. Benchmark 7 Although ORTH has the legal right to safeguard the plan, this has proved difficult to achieve. To compensate for these enforcement problems higher staffing levels have been approved by Government. CAPABILITY Benchmark 12 It was noted that the Benchmark purpose, which had been misinterpreted in other assessments, was reflected in planning practice in the Thessaloniki area. ORTH had carried out an assessment of the ability of the urban area to absorb further development. PROCESS AND PARTICIPATION Benchmarks 22 &23 It would appear that, although considerable efforts are made by ORTH to involve the public, the formal emphasis is on the major stakeholders. General Conclusions In the light of the five Benchmark presentations a general discussion raised the following points: 1. Markktu Lahti sought clarification on the output of the project. It was explained that the project submission included two main outputs an improved Benchmark and improvements to the planning practice of project Partners as a result of the benchmarking process. It was noted that the pilot project had also identified a few major issues arising from the project discussions, and that this could be repeated. 2. Jose Luis Cañavate suggested that there was a need for a Project Glossary, but when the Benchmark Clarification Notes were drawn to his attention he was of the opinion that the document was in practice a form of glossary. It was noted that the Notes would be refined in the light of the discussions at this Workshop. 3. Dr. Grahame Buchan on behalf of the Lead Partner stressed the importance of self-questioning in the Benchmarking process. He pointed out that it should lead to a search for examples of 10
better practice through the METREX Network. He also noted the strong commonality of issues despite the differences in the systems, and highlighted the Veneto selling the strategy approach as yet another example of compensatory action to overcome institutional barriers. In terms of a strengths and weaknesses analysis, he identified the Monitoring and Review processes as commonly acknowledged weaknesses. 4. Jim Parke raised the question of the format for the Benchmark assessment, and suggested that the Helsinki approach was an improvement on the separate Checklist and Statement. It was indicated that consideration would be given to introducing this approach for the next Workshop in Bologna. The Workshop ended with a vote of thanks to Stockholm County for their excellent hospitality and arrangements, and for hosting a most productive meeting. 11