Question 7081 — cultural heritage

Summary

Mr. Antoine Savignat draws the attention of the Minister of Culture to the remarkable heritage sites created by Law No. 2016-925 of July 7, 2016. In these areas, all work planned by building owners is subject to the approval of the Architect of Buildings of 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 jeopardizing the sustainability of the buildings. For example, a change of windows can ensure better insulation of buildings and thus allow heating savings, without harming the structure of the building itself. Too often, for reasons of simple aesthetics, the Architects of French buildings require that these changes of Joinery is done using wood, the cost of which is such that many owners or co-owners are discouraged and give up on the work. Would it not be possible and more reasonable to submit for simple notice all work affecting neither the structure nor the volumes of the existing building and to submit a contrario, for formal notice, all modifications to the volumes of the building? The objective of preservation of the existing and the appearance of the buildings would thus not be achieved, while allowing the carrying out of simple comfort works, without causing any crippling damage to the 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 SPR, wouldn't it be desirable, even essential, to reintroduce the land use coefficients removed by “the Duflot law”, this system being completely antithetical to the objective pursued, rightly, by law no. 2016-295 of July 7, 2016? The division of plots to allow construction to take place is likely to disrupt landscapes or remarkable viewpoints protected under the SPR. In heritage sites remarkable and even more so in Cities of Art and History, the removal of these COS constitutes a real urban, historical and aesthetic catastrophe which should be urgently remedied by reinstating 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 area covered by the SPR in order to avoid, by limiting the carrying out of construction disfiguring the site or construction of social housing, 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 procedures and carrying out work by owners without affecting existing buildings and landscapes, by relaxing authorizations for non-irreversible works. But also to more effectively protect these sites which are currently greatly endangered by the applicable town planning provisions. 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

1. 3 March 2018

   Question

   Source: DateQuestion

Votes

No vote records are attached yet.

Versions

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

Documents

No documents linked.

Sponsors

• Antoine Savignat · auteur

Related records

No cross-record relationships stored yet.