Question 35300 — town planning

Summary

Mr. Luc Geismar draws the attention of the Minister of Ecological Transition to the legal weaknesses that weigh on the classification of hamlets as agricultural zones in local town planning plans. Indeed, national town planning policies have strengthened provisions for the preservation of agricultural and natural spaces. The actions of public authorities must therefore promote “urban renewal, controlled urban development, the restructuring of urbanized spaces, the revitalization of urban and rural centers” while ensuring “economical use of natural spaces and the preservation of spaces allocated to agricultural and forestry activities” (article L. 101-2 of the town planning code). From this perspective, the construction possibilities in hamlets and other areas of diffuse urbanization, including in hollow teeth, have been strongly restricted since the Grenelle and ALUR laws. The law specifies in particular that the PLU regulations can only exceptionally delimit in natural, agricultural or forest areas sectors of limited size and reception capacity in which constructions can be authorized. In order to respond to these national issues, certain structures have the practice of asking that the urban area, outside urban areas, or strictly reserved for large villages, structured and served by collective networks. In other cases, hamlets intended to be built can be considered as STECAL (classification in Ah or Nh generally) after advice from the departmental commission for the preservation of natural, agricultural and forest areas. The hamlets, destined to become unbuildable, are classified in an agricultural or natural zone with no possibility of construction, except for annexes and extensions. This position is today undermined by several case laws, which support that PLU authors committed a manifest error of assessment by classifying certain hamlets as agricultural zones devoid of agronomic potential. In fact, the reasons for classifying a sector in zone A or U are set by the town planning code. Thus, “sectors of the municipality, equipped or not, to be protected due to the agronomic, biological or economic potential of agricultural land can be classified as agricultural zones” (article R. 151-22 of the town planning code). Furthermore, “can be classified as an urban zone, already urbanized sectors and sectors where existing public facilities or those currently being built have sufficient capacity to serve the constructions to be installed” (article R. 151-18 of the town planning code). This drafting of the town planning code raises difficulties since the use of the agricultural zone is quite limited and other regulatory tools are not set to respect the main principles set by the legislator. Indeed, current tools do not make it possible to restrict, with complete legal certainty, constructability in hamlets. Thus, the reclassification of hamlets into urban areas on the basis of the currently urbanized parts, a method usually used for municipalities not provided with town planning documents, subject to national town planning regulations and in particular to the rule of limited constructability, would risk amplifying the phenomenon of urban sprawl in rural areas. Indeed, the possibility of hollow tooth constructions can constitute a significant contribution of housing according to the territories to the detriment of the development of towns. This zoning also questions the role of the CDPENAF: since the hamlets are classified as an urban zone, they are not subject to the opinion of this commission. Furthermore, the multiplication of STECAL is not a satisfactory solution given that their use must remain exceptional. By default, agricultural zoning is therefore used. or natural, today contested by judicial authorities and certain investigating commissioners. However, this situation weakens PLU procedures and puts communities in delicate positions. This is why he questions her about the answers she intends to provide to local authorities, who today find themselves in inextricable situations and without suitable tools to carry out their town planning policies.

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.