Rights of the ground:
Rights of the ground:
It is always the owner who is responsible for all the installations or the present constructions on his- One year for the emergency rehousing of the persons victims of a disaster or a natural or technological disaster (can the crisis, the bankruptcy of the neo-liberal economic system, be considered as a technological disaster?)
- One year for the constructions or the temporary installations bound(connected) to a cultural event: the secular and vernacular yurt is typically a cultural housing environment. She(it) is moreover often explained in museums. An association, an owner or a manager of a ground, can thus organize every year on her ground a cultural event ......
- The duration of the construction site for the temporary constructions necessary for the driving(behavior) of the works. (To do up a ruin can set several years)
- Indeed, according to the article 522 of the Civil code, the property of the ground takes property of the top and the bottom.
- The decree R 123-8 stipulates that constructions can be authorized in natural, said zone " zone N ", provided that they strike a blow neither at the conservation of the agricultural and forest grounds nor at the protection(saving) of sites, natural circles and landscapes.
The classification by Unesco of the yurt as sacred work of art of the world heritage guarantees this conservation.
- Besides, the article R421-5 of the planning laws grants(tunes) durations of temporary setting-up(presences) for certain works, even in natural or protected zones.
Finally, the article R.123-7 authorizes in agricultural zones, said " zones A ", the constructions and the installations necessary for the farm, what implies(involves) that the farmers can find accommodation in yurt legally on their ground
by everything those who interressent in a more alternative(alternate) lifestyle (truck, yurt, tippi)
C length but take time...
Comments on the article 32 ter A of the LOPPSI 2: the administrative
eviction of the inhabitants of grounds, and the destruction of the
properties(goods)
The article 32 ter A, introduced by an amendment of the government adopted pat the Law commission of the Senate then by the Senate, create a procedure of exception, fast and arbitrary, on the initiative of the Prefect and in the absence of the judge, to expel the inhabitants installed(settled) "in a illicit way.
He(It) aims at the persons living in shanty towns and housing environment of fortune, in chosen housing environment, either the travellers, in the process of settlement or not, or the inhabitants of houses or premises without building permit. This article also plans the destruction of the properties(goods) without contradictory procedure, as well as a 3750-euro fine for the mayors or the owners who would oppose to these arbitrary procedures.
The mayors or the owners who would oppose to these arbitrary procedures.
He could apply at any time, including to those who are already installed(settled) before the application of this bill. Indeed, the writing(editorial staff) of the article is ambiguous and deliberately vague. He does not indicate the deadline(extension) in the course of which the intervention of the Prefect is possible, and he does not specify that this arrangement(measure) does not apply to the installations previous to the law.
A - Who is aimed by this fast procedure?
This arrangement(measure) does not touch that the inhabitants of shanty towns. " All is illicit which is defended(forbidden) by the morality or by the law " .
So any building built without building permit is "illicit". The Prefect also could with this text, consider that any shelter which serves as residence main thing(head teacher) is "illicit", since it is not linked with the whole in the sewer or in the septic tank, or since it is not provided in drinking water, for example
" Establish(constitute) grave risks for the public health ", for example the absence of everything in the sewer or a skeptical pit, what is frequent in shanty towns, districts automobile built in FRENCH OVERSEAS DEPARTMENT FRENCH OVERSEAS TERRITORY before being the object of development plan, the modes(fashions) of chosen housing environment and what chooses rather the plants cleaning and the dry toilet … Procedure of in salubrity are supposed to answer these questions.
" Establish grave risks for the law and order ": two applications are possible, the danger of fire, collapse, which depend on police powers of the Mayor and raise(find) from the legislation on the dangers, and the threat for the neighborhood that the aimed inhabitants could constitute and which is regulated by the penal code. There also, the arbitrary power applies." Establish(constitute) grave risks for the public tranquility ": petitions of neighborhood or mail of the Mayor which stigmatize modes of housing environment, would be enough to justify the use of this measure.
A wide public is thus aimed by this measure, and a free appreciation is left by the legislator with the Prefect offering him(her) an effective means of pressure with the populations placed in these situations of precariousness, or those having chosen him(it). To be torn away(extracted) from its housing environment, or from its accommodation(housing) to be precipitated into the extreme precariousness makes reflect(think) …
he occupants of housing environments of fortune
The fringe the most casualized by the population, those who can find accommodation nowhere and are thus forced to settle down on grounds, in huts and tents (shanty towns, homeless person living in the wood of Vincennes etc.).
Calculated(Coded) estimation: according to the report(relationship) 2010 of the FAP, it is 41 000 persons who live in housing environment of fortune, huts and temporary buildings. Besides, 509 140 persons are at present deprived of personal place of residence (living in the hotel, in housing environment of fortune, in the year in campsite(camping), accommodated to thirds(third parties), in structure of accommodation(hosting)) and are thus threatened to have, some day, appeal(recourse) to the housing environment of fortune.
Examples: the HOMELESS PEOPLE of the wood of Vincennes, those who settle down in public gardens, in wood etc.
The travelers: the groupings could be aimed by this drastic arrangement(measure), and worsen the rule(ruler) according to which " the administrative eviction ",
The travelers in the process of settlement This arrangement(measure) will aim at them, because the difficulties which they meet to stabilize will collide with this fast procedure.
The households(houseworks) occupying houses and premises built without licence: these situations are numerous in France, particularly in FRENCH OVERSEAS DEPARTMENT FRENCH OVERSEAS TERRITORY, or the majority of houses were built without building permit and are thus "illicit". They will fall under the blow of this law.
The occupants of alternative(alternate) housing environment
- Fashions of alternative(alternate) housing environment are implemented(operated) more and more frequently, urged by ecological convictions or difficulties to find accommodation: it is often about mobile or short-lived, environment-friendly leaving housing environment anybody draws calculated(coded) Estimation: several tens of thousands. To note that of numerous French install(settle) yurts or tepees in their property, for their family. There also the article 32 ter A threatens them with the arbitrary power.
- Examples: yurts Tepees, huts, etc.
The inhabitants of mobile home:
Numerous mobile homes were installed(settled) in properties or mostly there are houses. The inhabitants of mobile homes whose installation will not have been approved will be subjected to the same diet(regime).
B - The existing laws:
1 ° - An insufficient implementation of the law DALO
The appeal(recourse) to the housing environment of fortune is bound(connected) to an increase of the situations of exclusion by the accommodation(housing), the implementation of the law DALO being at the moment insufficient towards the scale of the housing shortage, as well as the dashboards of the committee of follow-up DALO show him(it)
Source(Spring): dashboards of the committee of follow-up DALO in the end of June, 2010
Accommodation(Hosting)
16534 appeals(recourses) put down(deposited) in France, among which 5681 received a favorable opinion(notice), to whom(which) of add 2767 appeals(recourses) housing qualifiers by the committee(commission) in accommodation(hosting), that is in quite 8448 favorable opinions(notices) for an accommodation(hosting). There were 2128 households(houseworks) accommodated further to an offer, that is 25 % of the appeals(recourses), qualifiers or not, which received a favorable opinion(notice), and 12.8 % of the demands(requests).In Ile-de-France, region in which the housing shortage is particularly acute(sharp), it is 12 519 demands(requests) which were put down(deposited), among whom(which) 3787 received an opinion(notice) favorable, to whom(which) are added 1167 demands(requests) accommodation(housing) qualifiers, that is 4954 favorable opinions(notices). 1051 households(houseworks) were effectively accommodated further to an offer, is 21.2 % of the favorable opinions(notices), and 8.1 % of the demands(requests).
Accommodation(Housing)
165548 appeals(recourses) put down(deposited) in France, among which 47873 received an opinion(notice) favorable, among whom(which) 17033 households(houseworks) were accommodated further to an offer, that is 35,6 % of the favorable opinions(notices), and 10.3 % of the put down(deposited) appeals(recourses).
In Ile-de-France, 105 525 appeals(recourses) were put down(deposited), among which 28 526 received a favorable opinion(notice). 7625 households(houseworks) were accommodated further to an offer, is 26.7 % of the favorable opinions(notices), and 7.2 % of the put down(deposited) appeals(recourses).
The very insufficient application of the law DALO forces a part(party) of the households(houseworks) to which no accommodation(housing) or accommodation(hosting) is suggested resorting(turning) to solutions of housing environment of fortune.
2 ° - A progressive diversion of the spirit of the law Louis Besson of July 5th, 2000
The second law Louis Besson of July 5th, 2000 relative to the welcome(reception) and to the housing environment of the travelers is also insufficiently applied. The 1st balance sheet(assessment) published in 2008 indicated that only 42 % of 42 000 necessary places had been effectively created. Besides, there was no case in which the prefect would have substituted himself for failing municipalities.
The law Louis Besson, already insufficiently applied, was, for several years, few little emptied of his(her) substance, amended by capacities(measures) which contradict his(her,its) initial spirit.
The initial logic of this law was to oblige the municipalities to build areas and to welcome effectively the travelers. It was a question of strengthening the obligations(bonds) of the municipalities of more than 5000 inhabitants concerning the welcome(reception) of the travelers, by the creation of a departmental plan of welcome(reception) of the travelers, and by the mechanism of financial incentive(incitement) (subsidy of the necessary works by the State, the region, the department, CAF(SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE), and rise of the global subsidy(endowment) of functioning). In case of deficiency, the law planned that the prefect could substitute himself for the municipalities to make realize reception areas planned by the departmental plans.
In return of this obligation of reception, the law of July 5th, 2000 allowed the municipalities having created reception areas planned by the departmental plan, or to those not appearing in the plan but having all the same a reception area or by financing one to forbid the car park of the mobile residences
Little by little, the number of the municipalities which can use(wear out) the right(law) to forbid the car park and to engage(start) procedures of eviction was spread(widened):
In the municipalities belonging to a grouping of municipalities registers on the departmental plan ( LSI)
In the unregistered municipalities in the departmental plan, even if they have no reception area: eviction of the mobile residences installed(settled) on private grounds, in case of infringement(achievement) on the healthiness, the safety and security or the tranquillity. (Creation art 9-1 by the LSI)
In the municipalities benefiting from deadline(extension) and in that benefiting from an approved place (Prevention crime 2007)
And the number of persons aimed by this procedure at the TGI was also widened to all the occupants of the ground aimed by the prescription ( LSI).
Finally, the law prevention of the crime 2007 created an exceptional and administrative procedure, which replaces the initial judicial procedure for all the municipalities in which the successive amendments in the law Besson had allowed to be for the initiative of these procedures of eviction.
In case of infringement(achievement) on the safety(security), the healthiness or the public tranquility, the mayor can ask to the prefect to instruct the occupants. The formal demand of the Prefect intervenes then, with a deadline(extension) of execution which cannot be lower at 12 pm. If the occupants do not leave places, the Prefect can make proceed to their forced evacuation. If the mayor or the owner oppose to the evacuation, the prefect takes an order obliging them to make stop the infringement(achievement) on the healthiness, the safety(security) or the public tranquility. The mayor and the owner expose(explain) themselves to a 3750€ fine if they do not make stop infringements(achievements) in question.
So, the spirit of the initial law, which was to plan the eviction by the municipalities as the counterpart of the welcome(reception) of the travelers, got lost and the article 32 ter A comes to perfect what became a repressive arsenal: the procedure of exceptional and administrative eviction is completely disconnected from the existence of reception areas. It is not thus a question any more of organizing the welcome(reception) of the travelers, but the repression of their lifestyle, even its eradication: so, the destruction of houses is authorized, what was not the case up to there (only the seizures were possible, and the law excluded from the seizure the vehicles of house).
C - The rape of the protection granted(tuned) to the place of residence leading to a disparity of treatment
The place of residence is protected in French law. By case law of the Highest Court of Appeal, he(it) is the " place where a person, wherever she lives or not there, has the right(law) to say himself at her, whatever is the legal title of its activity(occupation) and the affectation(appointment) given to premises " (Crim, in January 22nd, 1997, bull crim N 31). This way, for all those who live in housing environment of fortune, the tent, the hut, the yurt, and for all those who live in mobile housing environment, the caravan or the car, establish(constitute) their only place of residence their main home, and is protected as such.
Houses, mobile homes, fitted out yurts, also establishing(constituting) a main home are protected of course
That is why, when the place of residence is established(constituted), there should be intervention of the judge, that is commitment of a procedure of eviction.
It is a question very here of by-passing the current right(law), which protects partially the rights of the most vulnerable, and to by-pass the passage in front of the judge and the procedure of eviction
It creates a major disparity of treatment between those from whom the place of residence will be effectively protected, and those whose place of residence will not be it, a new discrimination which aims at the most vulnerable populations, which can be hunted(chased away) by their housing environment already ultra precarious, including in full winter, as well as those accommodated in a good quality housing environment but which do not hold(detain) building permit.
Besides the violation of the right(law) for a fair and contradictory procedure, there is a major risk of violation of the property right.
D - Emergency procedures already exist, as the imminent danger, or the order of immediate in salubrity.
In case of infringement(achievement) on the healthiness or the law and order, there are already the procedures of in salubrity and danger, applied by virtue of the police powers of the mayor (exercised in Paris by the Prefect), police powers which consist " to assure(insure) the good order, the safety, the safety(security) and public health. " (Art L 2212-2 of the CGCT). These procedures are regulated by various legal requirements, in particular the CCH, and can lead, in case of imminent danger or of immediate in salubrity:
In evacuations, very fast: the evacuation in case of danger can intervene in 48 hours (court referral of YOUR in emergency proceeding, the expert has 24 hours to return his report(relationship), the inhabitants can be evacuated at once). She(it) is of a few hours when that the danger is " imminent
In the " destruction of walls, buildings(ships) or some buildings, (or their intensification)
When they [] do not offer the guarantees of solidity necessary for the preservation of the law and order " (CCH L 511-1).
- In a measure of in salubrity emergency, for example when the health of the inhabitants is in imminent danger.
The procedures of in salubrity can also apply to grounds not bâtis1, as it was the case during of numerous years. It is indeed by means of the procedures of in salubrity (see for example the Law Vivien of July 10th, 1970), that is by a social treatment planning the rehousing, and not by a repressive treatment hunting(chasing away) the homeless persons, that shanty towns were reduced in the 1970s.
The CCH, in its article 521-1, defines those whom they consider as occupants (" the occupant is the holder of a right(straight) reality conferring the custom(usage), the tenant, the subtenant or the honest occupant of premises on custom(usage) of house and premises
Conclusion
Numerous are the ones who risk to be victims of this authoritarian arrangement(measure): HOMELESS PERSON(PEOPLE) living under tent or in huts, travelers in the process of settlement sometimes living on grounds belonging to them or which(who) are granted to them but in premises without license, of mobile home, travelers crossing municipalities which refuse to build reception areas, occupying of alternative(alternate) housing environment as yurts, house built without building permit as many in FRENCH OVERSEAS DEPARTMENT FRENCH OVERSEAS TERRITORY, etc. …
This article indeed organizes the repression of the fringe the most excluded and most casualized by the population, as the HOMELESS PEOPLE, and of the one the lifestyle of which is considered as eccentric by institutions, and which, in reason of this lifestyle, are the object of discriminations (travelers, occupants of alternative(alternate) housing environment), at the very moment when capacities(measures) planned to allow to decrease the discriminations these populations of which are victims inIn access to the accommodation(housing) and in housing environment (law DALO, law Louis Besson, procedures of danger or in salubrity) are insufficiently applied.
He(It) creates a new discrimination concerning the protection of the place of residence, and treats as culprits those who in reality are victims of the carelessness of the State in accommodation(housing) and in welcome(reception).
Due to the new and fast powers which he(it) gives to the Prefect, this article opens a field of considerable application, which is well beyond the stigmatizing stereotype " camp of Roma ", which questions the protection of the place of residence of the citizen and its properties(goods).
Being able to be implemented(operated) in a accelerated way, and except the control of the civil judge, on decision of the Prefect, he(it) establishes(constitutes) a measure of exception which no serious threat comes to justify.
So the threat for the public health is treated(handled) by the procedures of in salubrity. The threat for the law and order is treated(handled) by the penal code and by the procedure of danger. The threat for the public tranquility is treated(handled) by police power of the mayor and the numerous capacities(measures), began with that on the nuisances and the disorder(confusion) of neighborhood. Except urgency, the appreciation of these "threats", is devolved by the judge, by the contradictory procedure, which leaves with the parts(parties) the care and the right(law) to defend(forbid) itself.
This arrangement(measure) comes to create a new police of the management of the land tax, and places the State in a role which by-passes the protection of the place of residence, and when the owner of the ground opposes to the Prefecture measure, supplants the property right and the capacities(measures) which frame(supervise) him(it).
The rehousing is not planned, nor even the accommodation(hosting), contrary to the means set up usually for the reduction of shanty towns in France. But he(it) unmistakably a link(merger) to be made between this bill and the practices of disfranchisement in the work in Mali, in Kenya, in Mozambique or in Zimbabwe, either with the evictions from mass in India, in China, or in Indonesia …
Nevertheless it is not even a question of freeing(releasing) the ground for the benefit of promoters(developers) for an operation of property speculation, but to impose a cruel conception of the order and the town planning for the casualized populations and degrades for the experimenters of another mode(fashion) of housing environment at the time of the environmental défît
Contents:
Comments on the article 32 ter A of the LOPPSI 2: the administrative eviction of the inhabitants of grounds, and the destruction of the properties(goods) 1
A - Who is aimed by this fast procedure? 1
B - The existing laws: 2
1 ° - An insufficient implementation of the law DALO 2
2 ° - A progressive diversion of the spirit of the law Louis Besson of July 5th, 2000 3
C - The rape of the protection granted(tuned) to the place of residence leading to a disparity of treatment 4
D - Emergency procedures already exist, as the imminent danger, or the order of immediate in salubrity. 5
Conclusion 5
Article 32 ter A (Version 1st Senate reading, in September 10th):
I. - when an illicit installation in a meeting on a ground belonging for one person public or private to establish houses there contains grave risks for the healthiness, the safety(security) or the tranquility public, the representative of the State in the department, or, in Paris, the prefect of police, can instruct the occupants to leave places.
The formal demand is accompanied by a deadline(extension) of execution which cannot be lower at forty eight o'clock. She(it) is notified to the occupants and published in the form of display(posting) in city hall and on the scene. If necessary, she(it) is notified to the owner or the holder of the right of user of the ground.
When the formal demand to leave places was not followed by effect for the fixed deadline(extension) and was not the object of an appeal(recourse) in the conditions planned in II, the prefect can proceed to the evacuation forced by places, except opposition of the owner or the holder of the right of user of the ground for the deadline(extension) fixed for the execution of the formal demand. If necessary, the prefect seizes the president of the county court of a demand(request) of authorization to proceed to the destruction of the illicit constructions built to allow the installation in a meeting on the ground being the object of the measure of evacuation. The president of the court or his delegate rules, in the shape of emergency proceedings, within 48 hours.
When the owner or the holder of the right of user of the ground puts obstacle to the execution of the formal demand, the prefect can ask him(her) to take all the necessary measures to make stop the infringement(achievement) on the healthiness, on the safety(security) and on the tranquility public, for a deadline(extension) which he fixes.
The fact of not conforming to the order taken in application of the previous paragraph is punished for 3 750 euros of fine.
II. - the persons addressees of the decision of formal demand planned in I, as well as the owner or the holder of the right of user of the ground can, for the deadline(extension) fixed by this one, ask the cancellation the administrative court. The appeal(recourse) suspends the execution of the decision of the prefect towards them. The president of the court or his delegate rules within seventy-two hours as from his court referral.
SOURCE(SPRING): signatories call(appeal) against the penalization of the inhabitants of grounds and squatts: ACDL, AITEC, AFVS, AMIDT, ANGVC, CDC CGT, Collective Life and Housing environment Chosen, CNL, DAL, FAPIL, Federation Propped Up / Kalé, FNASAT, HALEM, black Thursday, The voice(vote) of the Roma, LDH, Gipsies, MRAP, RomEurope, RESOCI, Samudaripen, Sinté women, United Labor-union Union, Life and Chosen Housing environment... Secretarial department(secretariat): DAL
A roof, no law!
Criminalizing any shelter except standards, who created a procedure of exception, fast and arbitrary, to repress the persons say " about the journey " by the destruction of their mobile houses (the law excluded up to here the seizure of the vehicles of house), as well as all those who knew how to find a solution, precarious or assumed, in the social fracture and in the evictions from accommodation and from ground, and finally, all those who question the notions of dignity, healthiness and propriety, by innovating in autonomous, modest and light housing environments, in the bearable ecological footprint. The assembly does not miss more than the vote of members of parliament at the end of November to create a legal forcible entry and trample the property right of the poor men, because with this law, their housing environments will be shaved. The government takes advantage of the xenophobia towards the nomads and of Roma to amplify its hunting in the differences, including any expression of the counterculture. This private bill which violates the right(law) of every citizen for a fair and contradictory procedure, where each can explain his situation and its choices in front of a judge, aims and stigmatizes clearly the avant-garde of a transformation of society, engaged in sober and ethical lifestyles, transformation nevertheless called vociferously by all the experts of the conservation of the climate, resources and biodiversity.
While is pulled a catastrophic balance sheetof the law at the opposable accommodation(housing) (DALO), while the government increases taxes on COUNCIL HOUSES to charge still the poorest, while it diverts the housing 1 % towards the easiest and laughs at the law SRU obliging cities the fifth of social housing, but lets on the contrary COUNCIL HOUSES be sold, to finish it with a renting system which leads division and social cooperation, while this power traps voluntarily the difficult districts in ghettos of violence against which to instrument The social fear, and that he removes any financial means to the associations of ground, the authoritarian eradication of any shape of spontaneous solutions, any alternative in the mode to live subjected to the speculative dictat of the real estate market, establishes(constitutes) an extremely grave radical measure which, by eliminating any shape of popular inventiveness, as well as any visibility of the most exposed social categories, violates and scoffs at the rights and at the republican and European constitutions. Any draft and any outcome in the environmental and social conflicts are so blocked.. Members of parliament who have to examine this law to the assembly have to seize the dramatic stake with it. That is why we call up to mobilizations everywhere in France with our symbol of the last extremity, a red umbrella, to show our refusal to participate in the grave repressive escalation annulling any democratic efforts towards a just, united and brotherly society
Coordination of the habitants-users In Yurt on Natural Spaces: yourtescheyen@orange.fr
By TF1 New (with agency AFP ) on December 27th, 2010 in 10:53
To Dieffenbach-au-Val, in the Bas-Rhin, the mayor and two young people who planted this Mongolian tent there oppose, for lack of the real regulations on this type(chap) of housing environment.Is a yurt a "installation", as a camping tent, or a "construction" subjected to rules of town planning? To Dieffenbach-au-Val, in the Bas-Rhin, the mayor and two young people who planted a Mongolian tent there oppose, for lack of the real regulations. Everything began three months ago. Myriam Aouinet and Gilles Dillenseger, 33 and 29 years, made install(settle) a 25 square meter yurt in the field of a relative(parent). Medal recipient of memories(souvenirs) returned by India and by Pakistan, the housing environment is Spartan around the wood stove. He(it) has neither toilet nor washbasin, what exempts him(it) from a building permit, and the house of the mother of Gilles is near.
Bernard Schmitt, mayor of this village of 600 souls, tells to understand(include) " the envy(urge) of
To live so ", but the " badly chosen "(" badly chosen) place finds We are unless 500 meters of a classified church and any construction has to receive the approval of the French national architect ", he explains to AFP in his office(desk), to first floor of the school
We are besides in a zone of the massif of Vosges where the campsite(camping) is forbidden outside the specially planned places.
The elected representative, without label, for whom the yurt would be " difficult to access in fire brigades or in help in case of distress ", suggested in both young people joining a provided zone or to provide " to have access roads and a connecting to the purification ". Considering the "unhealthy" yurt, he threatens to raise(to draw up) a statement(penalty) in the beginning of January, 2011 and to ask to the prefect to order the dismantling of the point of contention. The mayor specifies that his decision has nothing to do with the bill of Orientation and Programming for the Performance of the internal Safety(Security) (Loppsi 2), adopted on Tuesday by the National Assembly in the second reading.
Will the Ministry of Ecology have to cut?
On his blog, Gilles Dillenseger and Myriam is nevertheless afraid that his application puts " outlawed to live in any auto-constructed premises, of which the yurt, ecological and registered on the heritage(holdings) of UNESCO ", in the pretext of risks of in-salubrity. " We are socialized and we work but we find just healthier to live as it rather that in the apartment which we rented(praised) previously ", explains Myriam. " It is not a wooden chalet and if the owner of the ground agrees, we can live there permanently ". " We have nothing of built, everything is including put the ground in ash tree which is knockdown ", she argues, in a document which reminds that yurts remain " nomadic houses ", thus mobile.
In the departmental Direction(Management) of the Territory, Véronique Kaeshammer who met both parts(parties), admits that the Planning laws " are not adapted " to these new modes of house yet and calls it to the Ministry of Ecology, of the Sustainable development and the Accommodation(Housing). The yurt is considered as a light House of Leisure activities when it has a toilet block and a cooking(kitchen). Gilles and Myriam, but also associations as Cheyen or Halem, consider that devoid of such conveniences, a yurt only has to conform to the article R111-41 of the planning laws concerning the campsite(camping).
Both young turtledoves of Dieffenbach-au-Val hope, in spite of the threat of the mayor, to see arriving the spring without too many troubles, because the french national architect and the committee(commission) of sites are sought only when there is a demand(request) of building permit.
By TF1 New (with agency AFP ) on December 27th, 2010 in 10:53
