Proposal #24: Ratification of the Land Development Plan

After several years of building TDF, we have accumulated a stack of architectural studies, three parallel municipal applications, agroforestry layouts from multiple teams, and a long list of small decisions made at the land. The work is real, but it lives in too many places. There is no single document that pulls everything together and that all of us, OASA, the SPV (Enseada Sonhadora S.A.), the DAO, residents, contractors, and future Citizens, can point to as the masterplan.

This proposal closes that gap.

It consolidates the current state of the project into one cohesive land development plan, made up of:

1. The General Land Plan Master Plan Illustrated, updated 17 March 2026
2. The Forestry and Agroforestry Design embedded in that plan (high level)
3. The TDF Coliving architectural plans (licence obtained, final construction permits pending)
4. The EarthPods Agrotourism project (PIP approved with required corrections)
5. The TownHomes development (PIP approved with required corrections)

Most of the 5 hectares already under stewardship has been developed in line with this plan. Once we acquire the rest of Monte do Sobrado (total 230,808.83 m² per topographic survey), the team continues implementation of the remaining zones with support from land development and construction professionals.

Once ratified, this land development plan becomes the binding reference for all parties operating on TDF land. Future modifications follow the amendment process defined under Article II.3 and Article X of the OASA Constitution, and the path described in the Governance Notes.

Proposal Overview

The DAO is asked to ratify the current masterplan as the binding land development plan governing all construction, planting, infrastructure, and land-use decisions at TDF.

This means:

• All architectural projects, agroforestry interventions, infrastructure works, and zone changes must align with the ratified plan
• Operators (Enseada Sonhadora S.A., contractors, project leads) carry out development inside the boundaries the plan defines
• Residents, Citizens, token holders, and partners can rely on the plan as the source of truth for what is built where, and must abide by specific rules set within land zones.
• Material changes to the plan follow the amendment process described in the Governance Notes section below

The plan is illustrated, technical, and legal at once. The illustrated land project shows the spatial logic. The architectural memorias and PIP responses define what is buildable under Portuguese planning law. Together they form a coherent whole.

Land Plan Overview

Site: Monte do Sobrado, Freguesia de Abela, Município de Santiago do Cacém. Registry: Conservatória de Registo Predial nº 161/19871021. Matriz Rústica nº 132 Secção F, and Matriz Urbana nº 400. Total terrain area (surveyed): 230,808.83 m² (≈ 23.08 ha) Solo Urbano: 16,005.87 m² Solo Rústico: 214,802.96 m²

The site is a single contiguous property that bridges the urban perimeter of Abela on its southern edge with the wider montado landscape to the north and east. The illustrated masterplan organises this terrain into the following functional zones.

A. Existing developed core (north-west, ~5 ha already under stewardship)

The historical heart of TDF, where most of the work to date has happened. Includes:

• The existing coliving and restaurant complex (lower NW)
• Caravan Park, Outdoor Kitchen (future), Summer and Winter Camping
• Adventure Park, Party Forest, Tree Houses
• Gathering Hill, Picnic Area, Chestnut Circle, Walnut groves
• Food Forest and (future) Vineyard
• Re-Forestation zone (NW corner)
• Multiple ponds for infiltration and storage of rainwater
• Propagation Nursery, Garden, Logistic Area

B. Central agroforestry and water mosaic

Mid-site terraced plantings following keyline contours, designed for water retention, food production, and ecological gradient between the northern forest and the southern village interface.

C. The Valley Farm and Permaculture School (south-central)

A clustered productive zone with greenhouses, market garden beds, and a Permaculture School building. This is the working agricultural heart of the village, distinct from the recreational-cultural zones to the north.

D. ReWilding Zone (east and south-east, large continuous area)

The dominant land use by surface area. Native montado, riparian corridors along the seasonal stream, and self-willed succession. Treated in detail in the Rewilding section below.

E. Townhomes Urban Neighbourhood (south edge, urban interface)

The linear development along Rua Dr. Pereira Varela, connecting TDF directly into the existing fabric of Abela. This is the TownHomes project documented in ARQ_PROJ_PE_V01 (see Architecture section below).

F. EarthPods Agrotourism (rural portion, around the existing Monte building)

Conversion of the existing 240 m² (340 m² surveyed) farmhouse into a Rural Tourism (Agrotourism) enterprise plus 10 additional accommodation units. Documented under PIP process 06/2025/242.

G. Adventure Park For Kids and southern fringe (placement TBC)

The south-eastern fringe between the Townhomes neighbourhood and the rewilding area, programmed as a children's adventure park and outdoor education space.

Rewilding

The ReWilding Zone is the largest single component of the masterplan and the one where the project's ecological theory is most explicit. The approach follows the framing developed by Jepson and Blyth in Rewilding: this area is not treated as a conservation reserve frozen in time, but as a self-willed system. The goal is to restore the lost interactions between plants, animals, and natural disturbance that make an ecosystem self-organising rather than human-engineered. The objects of management are processes, not species lists.

Two phases

Phase 1, active restoration of the hydrological cycle. The starting condition of this land is a degraded montado where water moves too fast and leaves too soon. The first phase rebuilds the water budget through targeted earthworks: lakes and swales positioned along contour and keyline to slow, spread, and sink rainfall across the terrain. Existing oaks are not touched. Where the ground layer has thinned to the point that natural recovery would be slow, supporting understory species may be selectively introduced to give the system traction. This phase is hands-on, but it is bounded: it ends when the water is back in the land and the undergrowth has a foothold.

Phase 2, withdrawal. Once the hydrological cycle is restored and the ground layer is established, human intervention steps back. From that point the zone is left largely to itself, and the land is allowed to develop along its own trajectory. This is the self-willed phase. Outcomes are not predetermined and may not match conventional ideas of how the landscape should look. That is the point.

Human presence

Citizens and visitors retain access to the rewilding zone, but the relationship is one of presence rather than use. A designated network of trails and observation points lets people walk through the zone, sit with it, and learn from it. Excessive foraging, clearing, fires, dogs, and disturbance of wildlife are not permitted. The zone is observed, not extracted from.

This is a deliberate design choice. The ecological function of the area depends on it being released from human management, and the educational and cultural function of the area depends on people being able to encounter that release directly. Both work only if the trail discipline is held.

Boundaries with adjacent zones

The rewilding zone is bordered by the central agroforestry mosaic to the west, the Valley Farm and Permaculture School to the south-west, and the Townhomes neighbourhood and Adventure Park For Kids at its southern edge. These boundaries are intentional and porous in one direction only: ecological flows (water, seed, pollinators, wildlife) move freely between zones, while human activity is contained on the cultivated side. The trail network is the controlled exception.

Constitutional fit

Per OASA Constitution Principle 5.1, at least 50% of the land must be held for wild or rewilded areas. The masterplan keeps the rewilding zone substantially larger than that minimum, on the basis that ecological processes, not just species, need surface area to recover. The two-phase approach also satisfies Principle 2 (water systems and cycles) through the swale and pond network, Principle 5.3 (no felling of mature oaks) by leaving the existing canopy untouched, and Principle 5.4 (support native flora and fauna, allow natural processes) through the withdrawal in phase two.

Forestry Design

The forestry design is embedded in the same illustrated masterplan and is treated as a layer of the binding plan, not a separate document. Its core elements:

1. Conservation of the existing montado. The site is partially classified under the PDM as Sobro e Azinho com exploração em sistema de Montado. No additional cork oak or holm oak felling is permitted without prior ICNF authorisation. This aligns with OASA Constitution Principle 5.3 (no felling of trees over 200 years or 1 m diameter) and with Decreto-Lei nº 169/2001.

2. Re-Forestation zone (NW). Active replanting of native species in the degraded NW corner.

3. Productive forestry layers. Continental Orchard (contour-planted), Commercial Orchard, Fruit Orchard, Tree Nursery, Walnut groves, Chestnut Circle, Pecan groves, Vineyard, and the Food Forest. These form the productive forestry strata of the project.

4. Riparian buffers. All seasonal water lines are kept in REN protection bands. No construction is proposed within the regulatory protection margins under Decreto-Lei nº 166/2008.

5. Tree protection radius for new construction. A protection area equivalent to twice the canopy projection, with a minimum 4 m radius, is preserved around any quercínea adjacent to construction zones, following the recommendations of PD21 of the Programa Regional de Ordenamento Florestal do Alentejo (ICNF).

6. Water retention infrastructure as forestry support. Multiple ponds (Filtration, Winter, Sunset, Mosquito, central pond) and swales feed the agroforestry blocks. These earthworks are part of the forestry design, not separate.

Architecture: Coliving

Status: licence obtained, final construction permits pending. Documented in ARQ_PROJ_PE_V02 (CRU arquitectura e investigação, June 2022). Process reference: 36/2021/135.

The Coliving project is the conservation, alteration, and limited expansion of the existing U-shaped cluster of buildings at Monte do Sobrado (the former aviário complex), within a 6,001 m² urban article (matrículas 692, 693, 703, 734, 830) inside the larger property. This is the operational backbone of TDF as it functions today.

Programme:

• Casa de Campo (Rural Tourism): conversion of Armazém 2 in full, plus parts of Armazéns 1 and 3, into 14 accommodation units (UA) for 28 guests, with reception, bar/restaurant for 30 seats, common kitchen, service and technical areas.
• Habitação: expansion of the existing T2 dwelling into a T6 by absorbing Armazém 4, with no increase in footprint or volume.
• Armazéns Agrícolas: the remaining warehouse areas are kept as agricultural storage and support, with conservation works (repairs, paint, window replacement) and minor alterations of openings.
• Estufa: a new 72.12 m² lightweight greenhouse adjacent to Armazém 2 (the only true expansion in the project).
• Piscina Natural at the lower contour east of Armazém 1.

Sizes (Quadro Sinóptico):

| Component | Footprint (m²) | A.B.C. (m²) | |---|---|---| | Armazém 1 | 409.03 | (split between agricultural and Casa de Campo common areas) | | Armazém 2 | 399.41 | (Casa de Campo accommodation) | | Armazém 3 | 477.86 | (Casa de Campo public areas + agricultural) | | Habitação (existing + Armazém 4) | 204.68 | 182.68 | | Estufa (new) | 72.12 | — | | Total footprint | 1,541.10 | | | A.B.C. Casa de Campo | | 599.98 | | A.B.C. Habitação | | 182.68 | | A.B.C. Armazém Agrícola | | 758.44 | | A.B.C. Total | | 1,541.10 |

Other parameters:

• Total terrain (Coliving article): 6,001.00 m²
• Volume: 6,002 m³
• Floors: 1
• Max building height: 5.85 m
• Max facade height: 4.87 m
• Impermeabilisation: 1,639.97 m²
• Habitable area total: 519.25 m²
• Useful area total: 618.44 m²
• Parking: 14 spaces (2 accessible)

Construction estimate: €1,118,175.92 + VAT, planned in three 6-month phases (per the architect's June 2022 declaration).

Architectural language and sustainability. The project uses lime, cork, earth, and wood as primary materials, in continuity with traditional Alentejo construction. Walls are insulated for bioclimatic performance with priority for natural and recycled insulation (cork agglomerate, straw, cellulose, hemp, recycled cotton wool). Roofs preserve the existing structure with new insulation and clay tile. The project includes a PV self-consumption system, biological wastewater treatment (phyto-ETAR with separated greywater for irrigation), and a programme of impermeabilisation reduction across the site.

Architecture: EarthPods Agrotourism (PIP approved with required corrections)

Status: PIP approved with required corrections. Process reference: 06/2025/242.

Programme: Conversion of the existing farmhouse into a Rural Tourism (Agrotourism) enterprise plus 10 additional accommodation units (EP-01 through EP-10) and complementary services.

Proposed total construction: 1,035.50 m² (865 m² tourism + 170 m² agricultural dependencies).

Land context: Rural portion of the property (Solo Rústico, 214,803 m²). The PDM permits up to 4,000 m² of TER construction on this rural portion, so the proposal sits at roughly 26% of the legal cap. Impermeabilisation cap is approximately 42,961 m². The proposed buildings do not encroach on REN-conditioned areas.

Municipal verdict: The architectural study complies with the applicable territorial management instruments. Three corrections are required before final licensing:

1. Land registry area correction (formal correction at the Conservatória to align the registered 245,500 m² with the surveyed 230,809 m²).
2. Destaque, formal subdivision of the urban portion from the rural portion of the property, required before either the EarthPods or the TownHomes project can proceed to licensing.
3. Project area corrections aligned with the corrected property areas.

Additional constraints flagged in the PIP response: facade height max 3.5 m and 1 floor on the rural portion, 50 m setback from property limits in forested areas (15 m in non-forested rural areas), 500 m minimum from livestock buildings, no cork or holm oak cutting without ICNF authorisation, full compliance with forest fire defence regulations, and preservation/rehabilitation of preexisting legal constructions per DL 39/2008.

The full pre-approved architecture plans for EarthPods (and TownHomes) are available at: drive.google.com/dr…xyrKCSc?usp=sharing

Architecture: TownHomes (PIP approved with required corrections)

Status: PIP approved with required corrections. Documented in ARQ_PROJ_PE_V01 (Memória Descritiva, August 2025, ARQ. Tânia Teixeira and team).

Programme: Construction of three collective housing buildings along Rua Dr. Pereira Varela, in the urban perimeter of Abela:

| Building | Footprint | Construction (m²) | Fogos | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Edifício A | 504.00 m² | 1,008.00 m² | 7 (A.F1 to A.F7) | Banded T3 housing, 2 floors | | Edifício B | 288.00 m² | 576.00 m² | 4 (B.F1 to B.F4) | Banded T3 housing, 2 floors | | Edifício C | 144.00 m² | 288.00 m² | 2 (C.F1 to C.F2) | Banded T3 housing, 2 floors | | Total | 936.00 m² | 1,872.00 m² | 13 | |

Per fogo: 72 m² implantation, 144 m² gross construction (two floors), independent street access, 18 m² private patio, ground floor common areas and kitchen, bedrooms upstairs.

Site context:

• Intervention area: 10,483.39 m², all in Solo Urbano under the PDM categories Consolidado and A Consolidar, use class Espaços Habitacionais.
• After cedências (1,252.38 m²), final area of the operation is 9,231.00 m².
• Cedências: 361.50 m² for green public space, 391.29 m² for collective equipment (located on Rua António Elias Simões, suitable for child, educational, or environmental interpretation use), 499.60 m² for road and parking infrastructure.
• Volumetria: 12,168.00 m³. Facade height 6 m, ridge height 7 m.
• Impermeabilisation: 1,170.00 m² (0.13 index, well below the 0.20 PDM threshold).
• Utilisation index: 0.20 (well below the PDM maximum of 0.45).
• Density: 13.85 fogos per hectare (below the PDM cap of 15 fogos per hectare).
• Parking: 13 private spaces (1 per fogo) in the rear logradouro, plus 4 public spaces (one accessible) on the south side of Rua Dr. Pereira Varela.

Compliance. The project complies with Article 54.º of the PDMSC (Áreas a Consolidar), the RGEU, the RMEU of Santiago do Cacém, and the parking dimensioning of Portaria nº 216-B/2008. It qualifies as an Operação de Impacto Urbanístico Relevante under Article 54 of the RMEU.

Municipal corrections required:

1. Land registry area correction (same Conservatória correction as EarthPods).
2. Destaque of the urban portion from the rural portion.
3. Functional unity: the three buildings need shared common elements (courtyards or facilities) for horizontal property registration.
4. Parking shortfall: 1 additional private space required (14 needed vs. 13 proposed).
5. Access road: the 3 m wide access road needs widening for vehicle passing and a turning area at the dead end.
6. Road intersection: tighter turning radii and visibility issues at the connection of the secondary road with the main road; sidewalks to be added.
7. ICNF approval for removal of one diseased cork oak (quercínea doente a abater) on the footprint of Building A.

These are technical corrections, not structural objections. The municipality's overall verdict is that the proposal is broadly compliant with territorial planning rules.

Architectural language: Plastered facades with smooth white finish (or colours and textures preserving the morphological and chromatic balance of the surrounding fabric), clay-tile pitched roofs (max 26°), solar PV on rooftops, gas to kitchens, connection to municipal water and sewer networks. The intent is continuity with the existing village fabric of Abela, not rupture from it.

Note: TDF does not necessarily have to be the developer here. One option is to simply resell the lots, enabling to flow funding back to other parts of the projects.

Fit With the OASA Constitution

This proposal is the masterplan envisaged in Article II.3 of the OASA Constitution, which assigns the development and amendment of the masterplan to the DAO, and in Article III, which requires each Project to integrate the Regenerative Principles into its masterplan.

Quantitative fit against the binding limits:

• Principle 5.1 (≥50% wild/rewilded). The illustrated plan designates the entire eastern and south-eastern band of the site as ReWilding Zone, well above 50% of the 23.08 ha total. Constitutional minimum: 11.54 ha. Plan provision: substantially more.
• Principle 6.2 (built structures ≤5% of land). Total built footprint across Coliving (1,541.10 m²), TownHomes (936 m²), and EarthPods (1,035.50 m²) sits at a small fraction of the constitutional 5% ceiling (which on this site is 11,540 m²). The current consolidated built footprint is well below 1.5% of total land.
• Principle 6.3 (local natural materials). The architectural language defaults to lime, cork, earth, wood, plastered walls, and clay tile, in continuity with vernacular Alentejo construction. Straw panel construction (Kinterra) remains under evaluation as a procurement option for the EarthPods prototype.
• Principle 5.3 (no felling of trees >200 years or >1 m diameter). The plan removes one diseased cork oak only, with prior ICNF authorisation, and protects all healthy quercíneas with a canopy-projection buffer.
• Principle 2 (water). The plan operates on rainwater capture, swales, multiple ponds, separated grey/black water (greywater system marked on the legend, phyto-ETAR at the Coliving), and biological treatment.
• Principle 1 (soil), Principle 4 (waste), Principle 5.2 (biodiversity). Embedded in the agroforestry design, composting infrastructure, and species-diverse plantings shown across the central agroforestry zones.

Article IV.5 (Decision Categories) places masterplan ratification in the Legislative category (DAO) and notes that sensitive proposals such as large construction require consultation with Guardians of Nature before voting. This proposal therefore goes to the DAO with Guardian consultation as a precondition for the vote.

Article XI (Future Generations) requires evaluation against impacts on at least seven future generations. The plan's emphasis on rewilding majority, water retention, productive forestry, and minimal built footprint is constructed to meet that test.

Implementation Path

The 5 hectares already under stewardship has been developed in substantial alignment with this plan. Upon acquisition of the full site, the team proceeds in the following order:

1. Resolve the three municipal corrections common to both the TownHomes and EarthPods PIPs (registry correction, destaque, project area alignment).
2. Move the Coliving final construction permits from pending to issued.
3. Begin construction in the order set by financing readiness and municipal sequencing.
4. Continue agroforestry, water, and rewilding implementation in parallel, with support from land development and construction professionals.

Summary

Ratifying this masterplan turns a stack of overlapping documents into a single coherent reference for everyone working on, living at, or investing in TDF. The plan respects the OASA Constitution's binding limits with substantial margin. The two architectural components on the rural and urban interfaces (EarthPods and TownHomes) have already received municipal pre-approval. The Coliving plans have a licence in hand with final construction permits pending. The forestry, water, and rewilding design is already partially implemented and continues from here.

Governance Notes

This proposal defines the masterplan as the binding plan and consolidates its components. It is the starting point for an ongoing conversation, not the end of one.

How Citizens engage with the masterplan

Citizens are not just expected to comply with this plan, they are expected to evolve it. However, please note that any built surface requires architectural approvals - which takes time, finances, and municipality approval. Therefore these are lengthy (multi-year) processes that require a team to take ownership, and funding mechanisms to be developed for this.

Here's how Citizen can change the development plan:

Propose a new zone or sub-zone. If you think a part of the land deserves a new function (a meditation grove, a maker space, a children's garden, a wild swimming pond), draft a short proposal: location, programme, ecological impact, and any constitutional principles touched. Bring it to the DAO. If it stays inside the existing masterplan envelope, it can be approved as a sub-zone designation. If it changes the envelope, it follows the amendment process below.

Propose changes to an existing zone. Boundaries, programmes, and rules within zones are not frozen. If you see a better use, a redrawn boundary, or a rule that should change (for example, opening a previously closed area to gentle public access, or tightening rules in a zone that is being overused), propose it. Same path: short proposal to the DAO, Guardian consultation if the change touches ecological function.

Propose a new building or significant intervention. Anything that moves the built footprint, adds a structure, or significantly reshapes the land (earthworks, ponds, road realignments) is a sensitive proposal under Article IV.5. It needs Guardian consultation before the DAO vote, and should include a brief on materials, water, biodiversity, and constitutional fit - alongside with the architectural plan.

Flag something that is not working. If a zone is being misused, a rule is being ignored, or the plan has drifted from reality, raise it. The masterplan's value depends on it staying honest.

Comment on this proposal! Lot's of elements aren't fully set in stone, and can still be adjusted. Now is the time to bring your voice.

Amendment process (formal)

Once ratified, material changes to the masterplan follow Article X of the OASA Constitution. Any Citizen or Project may propose an amendment. The proposal is published for at least 14 days for public comment. Guardians of Nature review for ecological alignment. Adoption requires a qualified majority at the DAO, with Guardian ratification.

Sensitive proposals

Any future intervention classified under Article IV.5 as a sensitive proposal (large construction, introduction of non-native species, significant water diversion) requires consultation with Guardians and relevant experts before being put to a vote, even if it falls within the masterplan's general envelope.