Question 10356 — land use planning

Summary

Mr. Antoine Savignat draws the attention of the Minister of Territorial Cohesion to his refusal of any change in the SRU law during the examination of the ELAN bill. However, municipalities in good faith are faced with distress situations due to the multiplication and interaction of rules. Indeed, according to Law No. 2016-925 of July 7, 2016 governing the creation of remarkable heritage sites, all of the Work planned by building owners is subject to the approval of the architect of buildings in France. However, too often, the requirements set by STAPs are too restrictive and lead owners to no longer maintain the buildings, or to maintain them at a minimum, thus ultimately endangering the sustainability of the buildings. For example, a change of windows may be likely to ensure better insulation of buildings and thus allow heating savings, without harming the structure of the building itself. Too often, for simple aesthetic reasons, the architects of French buildings require that these changes to the joinery be made using wood, the cost of which is such that many owners or co-owners are discouraged and give up on the work. Born Would it not be possible and more reasonable to submit to a simple notice all work affecting neither the structure nor the volumes of the existing building and to submit a contrario, to a formal notice, any modification to the volumes of the building? The objective of preserving the existing and the appearance of the buildings would thus not be achieved, while allowing the carrying out of simple comfort work, without causing any crippling harm. to buildings. The preservation of sites must also take into account economic reality and the ability of owners to cope with work, the main thing being that the buildings can be sustainable. In the same SPRs, would it not be desirable, even essential, to reintroduce the land use coefficients removed by the “Duflot law”, this system being totally antithetical to the objective pursued, rightly so, by law no. 2016-295 of July 7, 2016? The division of plots to allow construction to take place is likely to disrupt remarkable landscapes or viewpoints protected under the SPR. In remarkable heritage sites and even more so in cities of art and history, the removal of these COS constitutes a real urban planning, historical and aesthetic catastrophe which should be addressed. urgently remedy by reintroducing this system. In the same way and always in order to protect these sites more and more, but also not to handicap the municipalities with such sectors, would it not be desirable to provide for a reduction in the provisions of the SRU law in proportion to the municipal surface covered by the SPR in order to avoid, by limiting the carrying out of construction disfiguring the site or construction of housing social, taking into account the constraints linked to the site and therefore having an implementation cost totally incompatible with the objective pursued? These three questions aim to preserve what exists by facilitating the procedures and carrying out work by owners without affecting existing buildings and landscapes, by relaxing authorizations for non-irreversible works but also to protect more effectively these sites which are to date greatly endangered by the applicable town planning provisions and without penalizing the municipalities subject to this heritage classification which too often find themselves penalized by the provisions of the SRU law. He wants to know his position on these subjects.

Machine translation from French. The official text remains authoritative.

Timeline

No timeline events have been ingested for this record yet.

Votes

No vote records are attached yet.

Versions

No version snapshots stored. Document URLs remain at the source.

Documents

No documents linked.

Sponsors

No sponsors or actors listed by the source.

Related records

No cross-record relationships stored yet.