In an opinion piece recently published in Figarovox, Vianney-Marie Audemard d’Alançon, chairman of SAS Rocher Mistral and unsuccessful creator of an amusement park at the classified Château de La Barben, calls for a drastic change in the ‘philosophy of the heritage code’. Criticising ‘Ubuesque norms’, a ‘liberticidal system’ that organises ‘the conscious violation of the private property of historic monuments’ and the supposedly extreme left-wing ideology of certain bodies and civil servants in the French Ministry of Culture, he is calling for a rebalancing of the rights and duties of the Regional Directorates for Cultural Affairs (DRAC).
To stir the emotions, Vianney d’Alançon gives examples, asserting that ‘the owner of a historic monument is forbidden to install a parasol (or any other type of decoration, furniture or window box) inside or outside without authorisation from the State services’, with the zeal of civil servants extending to the choice of ‘the colour of the curtains’. We know the legend of the owner who couldn’t ‘drive a nail’ into his monument Here, in the same populist vein, is that of the parasol that cannot be installed without the approval of the Historic Monuments Office.
And what of it? The French Heritage Law requires authorisation for ‘the permanent installation of a movable object in a listed building’, which presupposes specific sealing or foundations (article 525 of the French Civil Code) and therefore does not apply to movable items such as parasols, planters or curtains. For larger temporary installations, no authorisation is required if their footprint is less than 20 m2 or greater, but for a period of less than one month. Structures that are useful for the promotion of a monument, particularly during the summer months, are therefore not subject to any authorisation, and may be if they are larger.
But the ‘Rocher Mistral’ project is not that of an owner normally concerned about the animation of his monument. It’s not a question of planting a parasol, but of imposing a complete theme park at the expense of the precious setting of the Château de La Barben, which is too small, passed on with its furnishings, subject to flooding, unbuildable, located in a fire zone and classified Natura 2000 for its biodiversity. Here, the historic monument is relegated to the status of an accessory to a project that exceeds and crushes it. This is what is causing friction with the authorities, heritage associations (Sites & Monuments), environmental associations (FNE 13, XR) and local residents (Bien vivre à La Barben).
For example, Rocher Mistral regularly comes into conflict with government departments. Since the park opened, the company has been the subject of a number of serious reports from the DRAC and DDTM. If it was condemned at first instance on 13 February 2024, it was not for a parasol issue but for multiple and serious infringements, some of which could have an irreversible impact. The unauthorised alterations to the exterior included numerous excavations carried out ‘without archaeological monitoring’, the construction of underground passageways that were home to a large colony of protected bats, the construction of a lift, staircases, ramps, etc., and the installation of railings made of ‘material’. railings made of ‘materials likely to compromise the conservation of the works and alter the presentation of the monument’, aediculae filling in the west courtyard of the château, footbridges and platforms in the formal gardens or their ponds, the transformation of a vegetable garden into a ‘market square’ with aediculae, the drilling of century-old trees to screw in lighting equipment inside, the creation of raised floors, metal doors, airlocks and various technical installations, ‘since the historic decorations of the château are no longer accessible and it is impossible to monitor and protect them’ (reports dated 27 June 2023 and 24 May 2024), etc.
The owner’s recriminations are not confined to the findings of the Historic Monuments Administration. In 2021, for example, he strongly criticised the work of the members of the safety commission, who refused to open the park, in particular because of non-compliance with fire safety standards.
So the ‘Rocher Mistral’ is doubly harmful. Firstly, for the Château de La Barben, with its out-of-scale structures and events that are detracting from its character, but also for our heritage as a whole, with its influential owner not hesitating to call for French law to be brought into line with his project. The method we can discern at La Barben is no less deleterious: doing something in spite of the heritage law, then complaining about resistance from the authorities and associations, and finally demanding that the situation be regularised or, failing that, that the heritage law be amended, despite the fact that the building has already been weakened.
Basically, the ‘Rocher Mistral’, which aims to exalt the greatness of Provence, has the effect of destroying its beauty. Any heritage lover who has visited the château before and after the current improvements, both inside and out, will agree. Historic monuments have been protected by standards since 1830, a necessity that even a libertarian - who incidentally received €800,000 in aid from the DRAC PACA (!) - should understand.
But that’s not all. The plan now is to build a giant version of the project, with more car parks, grandstands for spectators, a stretch of water for naval battles, a reconstruction of the Pont d’Avignon, Daudet’s mill, a ‘Provençal village’ as a pretext for setting up shops, etc., all the while cutting down a large number of trees on land adjacent to the château. It’s a far cry from the installation of the famous parasol! The extension of the ‘Rocher Mistral’, fortunately postponed to date by the State and the municipality of La Barben, would further denature the site.
This headlong rush is surprising, given that the leisure park is already losing millions every year since its opening in 2021. Shouldn’t the creation of a business start with a serious analysis of the standards applicable to the sector concerned? Why not build the park around an unprotected building? Heritage is definitely a convenient scapegoat.
Julien Lacaze, President of Sites & Monuments,
Xavier Daumalin, Sites & Monuments correspondent for the Salon region.