PLUi-HD continues to be debated. Several associations of residents of municipalities in the Dijon metropolitan area have written to the president of the community to say they are “disappointed” with the responses to their proposals.
Press release from local residents’ associations dated September 28, 2021:
Mr. Mayor, President of Dijon Métropole,
Dijon on Sep 25, 2021
We thank you for your letter of June 7, 2021, following our letter of May 11, 2021 – reminder of that of June 17, 2020, which remained unanswered. Indeed, we will have to meet because we are disappointed by your message which is more of a general communication on your political vision and avoids our precise proposals argued and dictated by urgency. Faced with these, you persevere and accentuate the choices of densification that will have a damaging and irremediable impact on Dijon and the cities of the metropolis from an environmental, social and health perspective. We can already measure the effects of these choices and they do not argue in their favor.
We find misplaced and inaccurate your criticism of a vision of “self”; whereas it is the quality of life and the “living together” of all current and future inhabitants on the scale of the Dijon metropolitan area and its neighborhoods which drives us and which will depend on our current decisions.
We are not convinced by your examples of “compensatory” actions such as the children’s forest too far from the city, the few trees planted in the city which will never compensate for all those destroyed for the constructions of the last decade, the green spaces planned. in your project sites which are too small in view of the number of new inhabitants of these sites, the excessively high CBS premium granted to shallow green roofs or other artificial structures. The urbanization project of the Cras plateau, planned in the 1960s, having been abandoned in 1971, it has now become opportune to conduct an agro-ecological action there. Due to its remoteness, its stony soils and its crops, this area will have difficulty in correcting the climate of Dijon. These different examples of actions, which are not very effective in terms of urban ecology, should not be used as a guarantee for building densification. Great efforts are needed: replanting of trees and shrubs in the urban fabric with well-chosen and diversified species, greater obligation of the PLUi-HD to maintain full wooded land, rejuvenation of old wooded stands and drastic limitation of the destruction of trees. existing trees for real estate projects (the tree heritage of Dijon is below the average for cities in France – KERMAP data).
Your bet of a densified and “sustainable” city requires full explanations and independent impact studies on the urban climate, the risks of flooding, drought, biodiversity, as well as the quality of social life of the neighborhoods. Our questions are numerous: is building in Dijon necessary at the current pace? Do the real net number of housing demands and the increase in population justify it? Why not renovate rather than build large complexes? Why assert that full urban land with trees or market gardening would be less important than full agricultural land? Why not de-waterproof and display the existing business and commercial areas? Why not further preserve the green and blue Ouche – Canal network, which is nevertheless unique and essential? What is your policy regarding the management of green spaces, the development and renewal of wooded stands? A tree or a fogger here and there will not have the quantitative and lasting climatic effect of large parks and a “green” network of the territory to which private land largely contributes. Your choice of new major activity areas (Beauregard, Écoparc) will it be accompanied by the reuse of old activity sites for housing and a transport policy designed to limit and manage flows commuters that suffocate our neighborhoods? How to amplify and improve as quickly as possible a global and secure soft pedestrian-bicycle transport plan?
Finally, the PLUi-HD does not translate as you write it “a social and ecological balance”. It was subject to criticism and counter-proposals through numerous observations in the public inquiry and important remarks from the Regional Environmental Authority Mission (opinion of March 12, 2019). It looks like you decided to ignore it. However, we have ardently asked you to study it again (cf. the proposals cited in our letter of June 17, 2020). Defending the public interest and the health of the inhabitants of Dijon Métropole, which you seem not to want to take into account in your urban policy, we can only insistently continue in this process of protecting our fellow citizens. We obviously remain open to any meeting that would make it possible to give meaning to a policy where people are really taken into account and respected and where associations are considered as real partners. More citizen consultation and global prospective analyzes are necessary for the urban planning choices made for the Dijon metropolitan area.
Signatories: the associations of the Collective: the association Bien Vivre Dans le quartier Larrey – the association Cayen Environnement – the association of the Sainte-Anne Mountain Neighborhood Committee – the association of the Inhabitants of Mirande / Montmuzard / University (H2MU ) – Ensemble pour Chenove association – Les Amis des Hauts de Dijon association – Les Ami-es des Jardins de l’Engrenage association – Quetigny Environnement association – Les Riverains du Quartier de Larrey association – Heritage Environment Bourgogne Franche Comté
–
