In Saint-Laurent-de-la-Prée, this inland campsite is suffering the wrath of the Coastal Law

Located several kilometers from the ocean, the Lagon de la Prée campsite cannot claim an expansion. This is due to the requirements of the Coastal Law, designed to protect the coast from uncontrolled urbanization. A textbook case.

In the alleys of the Le Lagon de la Prée campsite, there's no point in asking for a pitch that plunges onto the beach while dreaming of nights lulled by the hissing of the surf. Philippe and Graziella Prosé, the two owner-operators, can do a lot for you, but nothing is impossible. Their four-star establishment has flourished beyond the La Rochelle-Rochefort dual carriageway, in Saint-Laurent-de-la-Prée, a coastal town in Charente-Maritime. Its access to the ocean is hindered by Fouras. But the town is considered coastal, in the sense that it borders the Charente estuary.

On the same subject

Tribune. The law put to the test by coastal erosion

Laurent Bordereaux is a professor at La Rochelle University and a specialist in coastal law. In an article, he highlights the problem of coastline retreat. A phenomenon that raises numerous legal questions.

The requirements of the eponymous law, passed in 1986, apply there in all their rigor. The owners of the Lagon de la Prée are experiencing this firsthand. In a ruling dated November 7, 2024, the Bordeaux Administrative Court of Appeal rejected their request . They were asking the town hall to change the use of a plot of meadow belonging to them, in order to expand their campsite. "We could have built between 100 and 150 pitches. Quality accommodation, with wooden chalets, ideal for the clientele of the nearby golf course ," the couple outlines.

Finalized in 2020, following a study that cost 70,000 euros, the PLU (Local Urban Planning Plan) granted the Lagon de la Prée the precious sesame. Not really a surprise, a first extension, carried out in 2014 on the same principle, having not raised the slightest problem. Crash! "I had barely been elected when I was summoned to the sub-prefect's office in Rochefort," recalls Olivier Coche-Dequeant, the mayor of Saint-Laurent. There, he was informed that the campsite expansion project violated the provisions of the Coastal Law. And that the new PLU could not be validated as it stood.

With a heavy heart, the municipality bowed. "Otherwise, all urban planning operations would have been blocked. We are guarantors of the general interest, we could not dig in our heels on this position," explained the chief magistrate and his deputy for urban planning, Stéphane Marchand, heartbroken. The plot was not declassified; it remained agricultural . Hence the Prosé couple's legal action, which came to nothing.

There's no bitterness between the town hall and the campsite, quite the opposite. The two elected officials recount the story in the alleys of Lagon de la Prée, where they kiss the owners on the cheek. What's the problem? The campsite backs onto the village, but it's considered undeveloped: these are outdoor hotel developments that can be removed. Its expansion would create new buildings, which would create an urban discontinuity in relation to the village.

"The Coastal Law prohibits it. In this situation, the principle of non-buildability applies. This was not the case for the campsite in its initial configuration, which was clearly in continuity with the urbanization of the houses of Saint-Laurent-de-la-Prée," explains Stéphane Donnot, the sub-prefect of Rochefort. However, the Lagon de la Prée had already gained surface area in 2014, without the State objecting. Hence the incomprehension of the owners, who bought the agricultural meadow for this second extension without suspecting that the same causes would not produce the same effects.

Stéphane Donnot agrees that the situation has changed in the meantime. "In the past, the State has been very, very accommodating," he acknowledges without hesitation. But following the deadly storm Xynthia in February 2010 , a new doctrine on seaside urban planning matured. It was finalized in 2014, when the planning certificate was granted to the Lagon de la Prée for its first extension. "As an exception, it was decided to allow this operation to proceed. Since then, we have applied the doctrine to the letter," he adds.

Laurent Bordereaux, a law professor at the University of La Rochelle and a specialist in the coastline and coastal development , observes this textbook case with interest. "We expect a clear and uniform application of the law across the national territory. But we must understand that in urban planning and development law, the application of the law also depends on the circumstances. The political context evolves, as does the citizen's perception of the norm, and so does the perception of geography," the lawyer lists.

This doesn't solve the Prosé's problem. They're not vindictive, just disgusted. "We're not in the calanques of Marseille, are we? We're told the law would have to change to realize our project. This new extension was its culmination. We fought for years. We're entrepreneurs. Now, either we look for a manager or we sell," they say, eyeing an adventure abroad.

The couple and the municipality of Saint-Laurent-de-la-Prée add a few disturbing questions to their bitterness. At a time when the government is concerned about the retreat of the coastline and is advocating for the relocation of goods and services inland , how can we accept that a campsite far from any threat is locked down by force while we continue to build on the seafront? In short, isn't increasing the supply of accommodation along the coastline precisely what should be done?

Laurent Bordereaux notes that public policies can lead to such contradictions. But the Saint-Laurent-de-la-Prée campsite, in the current state of the law, probably doesn't tick the boxes that would justify an exemption. There remains a doubt that buzzes in the mind like a mosquito that can't be swatted away. A breach in logic. If the extension of the Lagon de la Prée carried the seeds of urban discontinuity, it's because the campsite in its current state isn't considered urbanized. It doesn't count on the maps, so to speak. So, why would this famous extension make anyone shudder? Why would it count, on the contrary? A headache awaits.