▪ Simplification of procedures for amending urban planning documents
Certain amendments to a local urban planning plan (PLU) – in particular the correction of material errors or the reduction of the surface area of an urban or urbanisable zone – will no longer be subject to environmental assessment.
The number of procedures for amending urban planning documents has been reduced: the ‘simplified amendment’ procedure has become the norm, while the more cumbersome “revision” procedure is reserved for ‘structural’ changes that have an impact on development policy.
▪ Possible merger of SCoT / inter-municipal PLU
When the boundaries of a territorial coherence plan (SCoT) and an inter-municipal PLU coincide, these two documents may be merged into a single urban planning document.
▪ Facilitation of public participation
For certain projects – particularly housing construction – the law allows, under certain conditions, for public participation via electronic means to replace public inquiries.
▪ New tool: the ‘urban transformation operation’ (OTU)
The law introduces the opportunity to use an OTU, particularly in residential or commercial areas, which can facilitate the conversion or densification of existing areas.
▪Expansion of possibilities for exemptions from the PLU
Article 9 of the law significantly expands the possibilities for exemptions from the PLU throughout the country (and no longer only in ‘tight’ areas). These exemptions may concern parking, the number of dwellings, the use of buildings, etc.
▪ Changes to urban planning litigation
One of the most sensitive issues for project owners, associations and local residents is litigation:
- The period for informal or hierarchical appeals against a planning permission (or refusal/withdrawal) is reduced from two months to one month.
- This informal or hierarchical appeal no longer automatically suspends the period for contentious appeals.
- At the same time, penalties for illegal construction have been strengthened/increased.
⚠️ This constitutes a ‘tightening’ of litigation: heritage protection associations, local residents, heritage services (e.g. DRAC) or anyone wishing to oppose a project now have a shorter window of opportunity to intervene, which may make challenges more difficult.
