The French National Assembly ignores the law on Remarkable Heritage Sites

If there is one dissolution we would gladly see enacted, it would certainly be that of the French National Assembly’s plan to build a new entrance pavilion. As we already reported (see this article), the institution plans to demolish the current one — made of stone — on the right side of the colonnade facing the Seine, and replace it with a new construction whose architectural mediocrity is rivalled only by the rupture it would inflict on the heritage of this stretch of the riverbanks (ill. 1).

As the location falls within the perimeter of several protected monuments, the UNESCO World Heritage site, and above all within the Site patrimonial remarquable of the 7th arrondissement, one would reasonably expect the Architecte des bâtiments de France to deliver a firm and final rejection of the project. Were a private citizen to propose even a tenth of such a scheme, it would be dismissed immediately. But this is the French National Assembly, which clearly believes it is above the law. And it seems the ABF was involved in the design competition and found nothing to object to — which says a great deal, either about the incompetence of Parisian ABFs or the nature of the pressures they face. As for the Ministry of Culture — which did not reply to the specific points raised in this article — it, too, appears thoroughly inert. One sometimes gets the impression that heritage policy is no longer managed by the ministry, but by the prefects to whom the DRACs report. Where not decentralised, heritage protection is now devolved — and the outcomes remain disastrous.

We asked the National Assembly to provide access to the detailed plans for the proposed works, as submitted with the building permit application. In response to this perfectly reasonable request (do citizens not have a right to know what this institution is planning to build?), we received a reply worthy of a masterclass in doublespeak, extolling how truly remarkable the project is.

Yet there is a regulation in the Plan de Sauvegarde et de Mise en Valeur (PSMV) of the Site patrimonial remarquable. And according to our information — which comes indirectly from the Paris City Hall (we do, after all, have sources even within that august institution [1]), the architectural project violates the PSMV on several counts. It also fails to comply with the PPRI (Plan de Prévention du Risque Inondation), which is particularly unfortunate given the site’s immediate proximity to the Seine. This non-compliance can easily be confirmed by consulting the PSMV and its regulations and comparing it to certain illustrations we have obtained.

So what are the problematic points — those that make the project quite simply illegal, and which heritage protection associations (since citizens must now take up the mantle themselves) will be able to raise in court?

First of all, while the current pavilion is not protected by the PSMV (which is unquestionably a serious flaw in its drafting), Article US.10.2 of the regulation “establishes that the envelope volume, within the area marked 8-D, comprises a vertical element of 8 metres in height and a cap limited by a horizontal line at the top of the vertical.” This vague wording — drawn from the aforementioned letter — can be summarised, as our more in-depth investigation has shown, as follows: the pavilion must not exceed a height of 8 metres. Yet the proposed building is around 9 metres tall.

The PSMV also protects (Article 13.3.1.2) “mineral-dominated open spaces” (DM1), on which: “the construction of above-ground or underground structures is prohibited.”
Unluckily for the project, it plans — under the courtyard to the left of the entrance pavilion — not only a significant expansion of level -1 (ill. 2), but also the creation of a level -2 that does not currently exist. This courtyard is classified as DM1, and the PSMV therefore strictly prohibits any underground construction there (ill. 3 and 4). And this is not a minor aspect of the project: it is a fundamental part. Either the National Assembly is unaware of the law — which would be troubling — or, much more likely, it knows it perfectly well and chooses to ignore it — which is even more disturbing.

But that is not all. The PSMV also defines (Article US.13.3.2) DV1 zones, that is: “gardens and open spaces with a predominantly vegetated character of major heritage and/or historical interest, which present a coherent historical landscape, and whose integrity must be preserved, restored or potentially reinstated due to their contribution to the heritage of the safeguarded area, and whose ecological quality must be maintained or improved.” On these “vegetation-dominated open spaces (DV1)”: “No new construction, extension of existing structures, or technical installations are permitted, above or below ground, within these areas” and “areas of open soil must remain so.”
Once again, the National Assembly’s project runs afoul of this regulation. As with the DM1 zone on the left, it plans to excavate the DV1 zone on the right to install technical equipment. Worse still, the project involves felling several trees.
And it cannot be claimed here that the National Assembly is unaware of this prohibition. Because to circumvent it, the project includes a compensatory measure (planting of new trees and/or removal of impermeable surfaces — the details of which we were unable to obtain). Yet again: this is entirely outside the scope of what the PSMV permits or authorises.

To summarise: the National Assembly’s project is not only disgraceful in terms of aesthetics in such a location. It also blatantly violates the binding regulations — neither the height of the building (too tall) nor the underground sections on both left and right (explicitly forbidden) are compliant. Even if one were to imagine reducing the height, the core of the scheme relies on underground development — which clearly renders it unviable.

And to top it all off, the project also fails to comply with the Flood Risk Prevention Plan, the details of which we do not have, but which we know is another major sticking point.

The French National Assembly makes the laws. One might also hope it would obey them.