Owning land does not, in itself, guarantee the right to use it for housing. This is the basis of the conflict involving a family of nomads in Vigneux-de-Bretagne, north of Nantes, prevented by the city council from maintaining mobile housing solutions on site, as the plot is classified as an agricultural/natural area in the urban planning plan.
According to Le Figaro, a generalist French daily newspaper, they are a couple and their four children, who have lived on the land for around nine years and who, on site, maintained structures associated with housing and an activity linked to the reuse/collection of scrap metal.
Chamber invokes urban plan rules
In July 2024, the municipality approved a ‘arrêté municipal’ (municipal order) prohibiting the parking of caravans and other mobile homes on communal territory. The act is identified in the process as ‘arrêté’ no. 2024P‑018, of July 1, 2024.
The president of the chamber, Gwënola Franco, states that the measure results from compliance with PLUi and that “just because someone is an owner does not mean they can do what they want with the land”, arguing that the rule is the same for everyone.
Environmental arguments reinforce the decision
The municipality also raised environmental concerns associated with prolonged stay and activity at the site, referring to discharges/runoffs of oils and metals into the soil. The mayor acknowledged, however, that the land is now “almost completely clean”.
Family refuses alternative solutions and association goes to court
The council says it proposed alternatives within the intermunicipal community, but the nomad family refused to leave the place. The case led to an appeal by the Gens du Voyage – Citoyens de Loire-Atlantique Departmental Association (ADGVC 44), which considers the measure too broad and potentially generating legal uncertainty.
At the judicial level, the Administrative Court of Nantes, on May 19, 2025, refused to suspend the arrêté as part of an urgent request (référé‑suspension), keeping the municipal order in force while the litigation continues.
Association and deputy speak about discrimination
Deputy Ségolène Amiot (LFI) criticized the “discriminatory” nature of the measure. he also mentioned that an initial version of the municipal text was removed as it was considered excessive, following criticism.
Similar cases have already occurred in the municipality
The municipality does not consider this episode to be isolated: the mayor recalls that, in May 2023, other families were the target of municipal intervention and that the ‘Défenseur des droits’ ended up closing the case without any irregularities, according to her.
The case reignites the debate about the limits of property rights, the legal framework of itinerant communities and the weight of local urban planning rules, showing that, even on own land, housing use may depend more on the municipal plan than on the deed.
And in Portugal?
In Portugal, a similar scenario can also happen: land use depends on the classification provided for in territorial management instruments and the law distinguishes between urban land and rustic land (and today, as an operative category, “developable land” does not exist). As the Diário da República explains, the classification of soil is fixed in municipal/intermunicipal plans and separates the basic destination of the territory into urban and rustic.
If the permanence of caravans/mobile residences constitutes a campsite outside appropriate locations, the rule is objective: Decree-Law no. 310/2002, in article 18, determines that occasional campsites outside suitable locations for camping and caravanning are subject to a license from the city council.
And when there are works, installations or other urban operations without prior control (for example, works and fixed infrastructures associated with remaining on the land), the council has a duty to act: the RJUE (Decree-Law no. 555/99) provides for the restoration of urban legality (article 102) and allows the mayor to order the restoration of the land to its previous conditions (article 106).
In practice, this means that, even on private property, the local authority can stop use if it contradicts the PDM/applicable regimes and, when there is urban planning illegality, it can order the restoration of the original state, with the possibility of challenging it in court.
Also read:
