Lille Métropole introduced a concept of ‘subsidiarity’ to better tackle
the local issues at the most relevant scale which sometimes is not the SUMP level.
To best tackle mobility issues, at the most relevant scale, the Lille Métropole has introduced the concept of subsidiarity in the SUMP, via micro-SUMPs. Lille Métropole decided to work with specific areas, which do not follow the lines of the traditional administrative boundaries.
The SUMP of the Métropole de Lille foresees the implementation of 10 micro-SUMPs to deal with different types of issues.
Different kinds of micro-SUMPs were foreseen:
❯ Geographic micro-SUMPs to better act at local level for issues that are common to the whole urban area (micro-PDU de secteur);
❯ Area micro-SUMPs to better act at the local level for issues that are specific for certain areas (micro-PDU de quartier);
❯ Infrastructure micro-SUMPs to better act at the local level for issues that are specifically related to a piece of infrastructures (road equipment, PT infrastructure, etc.) (micro-PDU d’un équipement);
❯ Economic/Urban development micro-SUMPs: to better accompany - with mobility measures – the development of an economic/urban project (microPDU en accompagnement d’un projet de développement
économique et/ou urbain).
The micro-SUMPs are overviewed by an elected representative of the Métropole de Lille and the mayors of the communes covered by the micro-SUMPs. The mayors of these territorial units sign a contract (charte) with the Métropole and their teams assist/take part in the definition and the implementation of the micro-SUMPs.
The same resources as the ones required for a "normal" SUMP are needed.
Evidence of success
The main objective was to design measures, so they correspond as much as possible to the needs of specific geographic areas. The objective was reached by involving local teams in the definition and
implementation of the SUMP.
The experience showed that the participation of local teams was particularly
important and successful for the ‘analysis’ phase.
This GP led the SUMP team to consider the standardisation of the process so that all areas are covered by at least one micro-SUMP.
The following challenges were identified on the 2000-2010 period:
❯ Technical and political support to micro-SUMPs was diverse;
❯ Disagreement on priorities (SUMP and local level);
❯ Limited implementation (lack of identification, lack of political will, etc.)
Potential for learning or transfer
Regarding the prerequisites to put this GP into practice, it has to be mentioned that the GP applies only to planning authorities for which the principle of subsidiarity can make sense, it therefore excludes little mononuclear towns and cities. It corresponds well to, e.g. multi-nuclear cities,
bigger cities and regions with a network of cities.
The same resources needed for the preparation/implementation of the SUMP are required. It also requires technical skills available at the local level, political support and agreement between the different levels.
Please login to see the expert opinion of this good practice.