Housing and Coastline: Lionnel Luca Responds Point by Point to the Prefect of the Alpes-Maritimes

Called out by the prefect of the Alpes-Maritimes following his statements at the municipal council on June 30, Lionnel Luca sent the State a letter accompanied by a detailed technical note. The mayor of Villeneuve-Loubet contests the figures put forward by prefectural services on social housing and denounces a maritime public domain delimitation procedure conducted without consultation.

A few days after the remarks made by prefect Laurent Hottiaux, who had condemned attacks on State services and recalled the obligations of the SRU law, Lionnel Luca chose to respond in writing. In a letter dated July 10, he expresses his regrets at not having been more involved in discussions on housing and the coastline, while transmitting to the State representative the analyses of his services. The mayor states he wants to “better understand the reality of the territory in relation to theoretical bureaucratic claims.”

The municipal response is based on a technical note of several pages. It first contests the figures put forward by the prefecture concerningsocial housing production between 2023 and 2025. Where State services mention 679 planning permits, including 653 for collective housing, the municipality states that there were only nine collective building permits, totaling 410 housing units, of which 124 social rental housing. It specifies that several programs were abandoned, resulting in the loss of 53 housing units, including 14 social units, and that the approvals actually recorded during the period do not exceed 34 units.

The municipality also emphasizes the structural constraints affecting its territory. It recalls that 70% of the municipal area is non-buildable, and that the remaining sectors are heavily constrained by risk prevention plans, coastal hazards, topography, and landscape protections. According to it, these elements make it difficult to balance the economics of development operations and limit the capacity to densify certain neighborhoods. It further notes that landlords no longer approach the municipality for subsidies, due to lack of projects, while over one million euros have been paid out over ten years.

In response to the prefect’s criticism, who believed that regulations do not constitute a barrier to construction and called on municipalities to “demonstrate willingness,” the municipal response highlights the complexity of procedures, lengthy and costly environmental studies, as well as delays caused by adaptations to the local urban plan. It finally recalls having voted to limit tourist rentals to 90 days and having undertaken a revision of its urban planning document to identify main housing sectors.

A coastal delimitation procedure deemed abrupt and conducted without consultation

The second part of the response concerns the coastline, where tensions have intensified since the update of maritime public domain (DPM) boundaries in the Maurettes and Vaugrenier sectors. The prefect had recalled that this revision resulted from the natural retreat of the shoreline, estimated at 30 meters over forty years, and that the municipality had refused certain support measures provided for by the Climate and Resilience law.

The municipality disputes this presentation. It recalls that the DPM delimitation had not been updated since 1974 and that it was only undertaken after the municipal decision to renounce the concession of natural beaches due to erosion. It emphasizes that the public consultation organized by the State received only ten opinions, all unfavorable, and that its requests for information meetings for property owners were not followed up. It regrets that prefectural services continued the procedure “without making any modifications,” despite the unanimous unfavorable opinion of the municipal council.

The municipality also denounces the immediate consequences of this revision, which led to the issuance of demolition notices for structures now considered to be occupying maritime public domain without title. It believes that property owners were placed in an infraction situation “within a few months,” without sufficient support. It finally recalls having repeatedly requested the DDTM for checks on irregular commercial practices, without obtaining a response, which led it to contact a parliamentarian and obtain ministerial confirmation of the legitimacy of its requests.

The municipality finally contests the “irreversible” nature of erosion phenomena claimed by the State. It recalls having conducted experiments, notably the “Rebamb” device, whose scientific monitoring had shown stabilizing effects and ecological benefits. It regrets that these approaches were not pursued and that vegetalization proposals for the upper beach put forward by CASA were received with reservation.