The Alur Act on Access to Housing had important implications for the Town Planning Code, with a clear intention, to increase the effort in housing construction, but also to curb the artificialization of land and to combat increasing urban sprawl. Many measures have thus had an impact on the SOC (Land Use Coefficient), the SOP (Land Use Plan) and the PLU (Local Planning Plan) of each municipality. Return on these essential changes.
Article plan The
Also to discover : What laws to tax tax?
- end of the SOP — Land use plan
- What of the SOC (Land Use Coefficient)?
- What to remember from the removal of the COS?
- Do not curb the densification of areas
- Urbanism: the rules of subdivision
Plan de l'article
The end of the POS — Occupancy Plan soils
With the Alur law was signed the end of POS, in order to encourage communities to gradually redirect to PLU (Local Planning Plans). This came from the finding that many POS had not evolved in several years. The direct result of this stagnation constituted a hindrance to the implementation of national urban planning policies , particularly in the environment and housing sector.
Thus, as of 24 March 2017, the majority of POS that could not be transformed or revised into PLU were declared obsolete, unless derogated. The National Urban Planning Regulation (RNR) then took over to regulate limitations on property rights.
Related topic : Opening window without authorization: the risks
What about the SOC (Land Use Coefficient)?
Previously and before the amendments made by the Alur law, the PLU fixed, thanks to the COS, the floor area which was potentially buildable on a plot. The SOC was strongly criticized because it was accused of curbing the densification of surfaces and thus encouragedurban sprawl . A counter-productive system? The SOC was finally abandoned in the PLU, but not forgetting to set other rules.
Therefore, additional measures have come in place concerning, inter alia:
- Ground right-of-way;
- The maximum height of buildings;
- The implantation of constructions.
The COS has therefore completely disappeared from the PLU and can no longer appear, neither in its original version nor in its improved version (“Sur-cos”, cf. Overdensities and constructions with criteria of energy performance). Thus, the mechanism for transferring the right to build has also completely disappeared from the urban planning rules. However, other rules complementary to the PLU have emerged to compensate for the drastic changes undertaken and the abolition of the SOC.
What to remember from the removal of the COS?
In terms of urban planning, the abolition of the SOC has therefore enabled the increase of the living area , in particular by allowing the rise of buildings. The Ground Right-of-way Coefficient (ESC) remained in effect. So in order to gain living space, the construction of floors remains the simplest solution.
Do not curb densification of surfaces
The logic of the changes made by the Alur law is clearly in the direction of soil preservation. The removal of SOC and SOP aim to prevent urban mitage (diffuse habitat), to encourage densification but also social diversity .
At the time of passage of the law, in the majority of cases, minimum building land has been removed, except for COS and POS awaiting replacement by a PLU.
Urbanism: the rules of subdivision
The urban planning rules established before the entry into force of the Alur law were supposed to lapse, after 10 years, from the date of issuance of the subdivision permit (if the subdivision was covered by a PLU). If no PLU covered the subdivision, these urban planning rules have been maintained, with no time limit.
However, the need for standardization of urban planning rules has been strongly felt. The Alur law therefore intervened in the direction of the lapse of the urban planning documents of the subdivision after 10 years. The desired goal is to reform the right to urban planning by simplifying it , the future will tell whether in the long run the Alur law will have brought logic through the COS, POS and RAINED.
It is noted that adding a measure is always a complexification and can be counterproductive in terms of involvement.