A law was voted a few years ago, that states that progressively, any new land take (called land artificialization) will be forbidden or compensated by land given back to nature.
The problem is : pretty much all airfields (from middle of nowhere to CDG) are counted as artificial land (I don’t have time to dig the details but basically, any land that is fenced or transformed is considered artificial). Golf courses, football fields, even public gardens are too.
The consequence towards GA is twofold :
1) Building a new airfield will be totally impossible. A small airfield takes at least 10 hectares which will be enormous. So moving an airfield somewhere else will be impossible (see the LFOO case). Cities are beginning to wonder what to build between commercial or housing for the few hectares they are allowed.
2) public-owned airfields will be considered cheap land reserve for local councils that won’t be able to build houses or factories anywhere else. So the dozens of hectares of most airfields, already classified as artificial, only occupied by a few hobbyists, will be the easiest solution to allow any new construction. Apparently, Maubeuge LFQJ is about to close for the field to be used for a potential battery cell factory. I think we are going to see airfields close more and more often.
From what I can see, UL fields are below the radar for now but licensed airfields are not.
LFQJ is 83 hectares and is owned by the agglomeration of Maubeuge. It has been in existence since 1935.
It is due to close Jan 2026 IIUC.
It only announced its intention to close the airfield at again IIUC the beginning of this month.
Maubeuge does have the idea of building at least one gigafactory for electric vehicle batteries to employ 2000 to 3000 people.
They do not have any prospective tenants at the moment.
The fight has just begun and I believe there is a petition formed by the clubs and other users of the site.
I doubt very much if this has anything to do with any National law as there are other National laws introduced in the last few years aimed at saving local airfields.
I no longer get Info Pilote so I am not aware of the FFA’s position but I would expect its lawyers to be on it.
Surely, as posted here by certain well politically connected French people, France never brings out a law unless it first puts into place a means of sinking it if it turns out to be unpopular.
This incredibly stupid measure looks like a prime candidate for that “process” 
Instinctively, I thought airfields would be considered non-artificial land and therefore protected by this law instead of jeopardized.
I was wrong.
I dug up a little bit :
According to Décret n° 2023-1096 du 27 novembre 2023, airfields fit in the category “Surfaces artificialisées”, in the sub-category
“Surfaces à usage résidentiel, de production secondaire ou tertiaire, ou d’infrastructures notamment de transport ou de logistique, dont les sols sont couverts par une végétation herbacée (**).”
‘** : Une surface végétalisée est qualifiée d’herbacée dès lors que moins de vingt-cinq pour cent du couvert végétal est arboré.
“Areas for residential, secondary or tertiary production, or infrastructure, including transport or logistics, whose soils are covered by herbaceous vegetation (**).”
’**: A vegetated surface is classified as herbaceous when less than twenty-five percent of the vegetation cover is planted.
I am no legal expert, but I think airfields and airports fit in this herbaceous (less than 25% planted) transport infrastructure.
If we plant trees on 26% of the ground, we are good
About the Maubeuge case, this article refers to neighbors and green activits defending the airfield against a battery cell factory promising jobs and EVs.
The world turned upside down isn’t it ?
Remember most small aerodrome are not transport, they are recreational facilities.
Even CdG has more than 25% vegetation including some protected species.
Every now and then a new mayor comes to power and decides he is going to do something. Fréjus, Colmar etc are good examples. But since Fréjus the ga community has got very good at fighting back, even to the extent of buying the airfield itself or digging up some old law or lobbying for a new one.
But first the local users of the aerodrome need to decide what they want. We are currently at that stage with Maubeuge.
The French in general, like the status quo.
They don’t really like losing something in order to get something else unless it really is better. We prefer to keep and gain.
