No one can complain if urban sprawl has caused them to lose the clear view they had over a natural area, declared the Court of Cassation.
The judge can in fact consider that this area was destined to become urbanized and, in this case, there is no acquired right to the conservation of an environment, as in an urban environment. No one is sure, in an urban environment or in the process of urbanization, of preserving their environment, which an urban plan can always call into question, she says.
No one is sure, in an urban environment or in the process of urbanization, of preserving their environment, which an urban plan can always call into question.
A rural area can be doomed to urban sprawl, according to the judges. The rules of the urban environment are therefore applicable.
They proved wrong a resident who complained of having lost the clear view after the extension of the urban area in a new local urban plan. Anyone who remains in this environment of urban expansion, and does not demonstrate the exceptional benefit of the sight they have lost, is not the victim of an abnormal disorder, according to them.
(Cass. Civ 3, 9.11.2023, X 22-15.403).
Reproduction forbidden.