General Data
Name of instrument Local land development agency (Etablissement public foncier local - EPFL)
Country FR
Spatial level regional
Type Voluntary approaches and agreements / cooperation
Subtype Regional management
Description Working for public authorities, EPFL are voluntary structures which purchase land or real estate for themselves and on behalf of their members or any public person, for the creation of land reserves or in order to carry out development work. Land can be acquired by mutual agreement or expropriation by means of a declaration of public utility. They can also exercise pre-emption rights as defined in the town planning code: urban pre-emption rights, pre-emption rights in development areas, like ZAC, as well as in endangered natural sites: they can proceed with land acquisitions necessary to the protection of agricultural and natural spaces in periurban fringes. EPFL is qualified to realize, for itself and for member communities, land or real estate acquisitions in order to constitute land reserves or actions and operations of installation. It intervenes on the territory of its members (intercommunal co-operation structures or single communities) and can exert, by delegation of its holders, the rights of pre-emption and act by way of expropriation. To formalize their engagement, the members signed a charter bringing a certain number of guarantees to them as for the rules of operation of the structure. Thus, each commune or inter-communal structure defines its own land action plan The general orientations are defined for one five years period the following which they will be re-examined or modified according to the evolution of the needs.
General objectives Facilitation and co-ordination of land or real estate acquisitions, notably through the delegation of pre-emption and expropriation rights granted to the communes
General objectives keywords urban development; socio-econimic development;
Responsible Public service providers
Stakeholder Involved Local authority/Municipal council; Regional authority;
Reference Town orientation law of July 13th, 1991; Urban renewal and solidarity law of December 13th, 2000
General assessment of strength and weakness EPFL intervene, on average, for more than 50 % of their investments, in housing (social housing, urban renewal, social mix), and are in theory tools adapted to the territories on which the stakes are set up primarily on the scale of the local program of the habitat or the SCOT. However, their creation makes it possible to imply the Région and the Département, if they wish, to allow them to co-ordinate land acquisition policies. However, at the moment, only few EPFL have been created, due to the difficulty to federate local authorities wihin these structures, and to limited possibilities of intervention on the real estate market, due to their limited size. This is why the Government encourages the creation of EPFL at Régions level. Conversely, such EPFL are criticised since there is a risk most investments will be focused on urban/dense areas, where real estate prices are vey high, and thus will not support so far small rural communes which are likewise faced with difficulties in land acquisitions.
Metadata
Date of entry 2007/02/16
Implementation
Legal status not-mandatory for responsible body AND not-mandatory for end-user
Extension pilot status
Comment Two EPFL in French Alps: Etablissement public foncier local de la région grenoblois, created in 2002 ; Etablissement public foncier local de Haute-Savoie, created in 2003
Type of monitoring Mixture of quantitative and qualitative reporting
Characteristics
Preconditions for implementation
Best practise example Etablissement public foncier de Haute-Savoie
Example Abstract see http://www.epf74.fr/presentation-epf.htm
Attachment
Best practise example
Example Abstract
Attachment
General comment
Assessment
Relevance
Status strong direct relevance
Ranking 4
Remark aims on the facilitation and co-ordination of land or real estate acquisition
Acceptance
Status at least municipal administrations and superordinate administrations have to accept it
Ranking 2
Remark maybe acceptance is higher
Implementation
Status -
Ranking 2
Remark -
Feasibility
Status Budget, staff, legislation, know-how, political will
Ranking 1
Remark -
Effectiveness
Status -
Ranking 0
Remark Due to pilot status difficult to assess