3 ms·

I'm not sure what you are referring to but they probably just didn't have a building permit, and what they had built was likely not compliant enough to get perm

I'm not sure what you are referring to but they probably just didn't have a building permit, and what they had built was likely not compliant enough to get permitted after the fact. That they had cleaned up the landfill is rather irrelevant, and in fact it means that the terrain might not have been constructible at all. Even if their project was interesting, as far as I can tell was destroyed because they didn't follow the established rules and built it illegally. But I might be wrong, feel free to send references for this thing.

dgan 3y ago
https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/bretagne/finistere/justice-ils-ont-6-mois-pour-detruire-leur-maison-en-terre-et-en-paille-2847728.html https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/bretagne/finistere/j... Well, isn't "following construction rules" basically means "use concrete and established plans"? I hope i am wrong, but sounds like it's just impossible to satisfy regulations while building something from dirt and grass
- cvccvroomvroom 3y ago
  It's likely impossible without serious processing like fire and reinforcement and static and dynamic simulation. Build things that use materials that aren't fire hazards and have been engineered to support themselves and the stresses they should survive are the primary imperatives of residential construction. The only reason the house I escaped a 2018 firestorm survived was that it was built to code. And the reason the house I was in in 1989 didn't collapse from a massive earthquake was it was also built to code. DIY lacking principles and conventions of civil engineering aren't cool, they're stupid for playing Russian roulette presuming they "know better". There are plenty of nontraditional housing projects that still follow sensible engineering principles.
- seszett 3y ago
  It's a Natura2000 zone, they did build illegally without a permit in the first place, and argue that a retroactive permit could be given because of the small footprint. Two tribunals at two different levels (additional authorities separate from the mayor) judged that they were wrong. I would argue that you did not explain the actual situation honestly. > Well, isn't "following construction rules" basically means "use concrete and established plans"? It does mean that you need to submit plans beforehand. Concrete is absolutely not a hard requirement in France. But building in a natural protected zone without a permit is asking for trouble. Maybe a small wooden shed would have been ok.

dgan 3y ago

https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/bretagne/finistere/justice-ils-ont-6-mois-pour-detruire-leur-maison-en-terre-et-en-paille-2847728.html https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/bretagne/finistere/j... Well, isn't "following construction rules" basically means "use concrete and established plans"? I hope i am wrong, but sounds like it's just impossible to satisfy regulations while building something from dirt and grass

cvccvroomvroom 3y ago
It's likely impossible without serious processing like fire and reinforcement and static and dynamic simulation. Build things that use materials that aren't fire hazards and have been engineered to support themselves and the stresses they should survive are the primary imperatives of residential construction. The only reason the house I escaped a 2018 firestorm survived was that it was built to code. And the reason the house I was in in 1989 didn't collapse from a massive earthquake was it was also built to code. DIY lacking principles and conventions of civil engineering aren't cool, they're stupid for playing Russian roulette presuming they "know better". There are plenty of nontraditional housing projects that still follow sensible engineering principles.
seszett 3y ago
It's a Natura2000 zone, they did build illegally without a permit in the first place, and argue that a retroactive permit could be given because of the small footprint. Two tribunals at two different levels (additional authorities separate from the mayor) judged that they were wrong. I would argue that you did not explain the actual situation honestly. > Well, isn't "following construction rules" basically means "use concrete and established plans"? It does mean that you need to submit plans beforehand. Concrete is absolutely not a hard requirement in France. But building in a natural protected zone without a permit is asking for trouble. Maybe a small wooden shed would have been ok.