Mr David SALVAN COUTANSOUZE, 12 January 2026 [address withheld] Allier (03) [telephone withheld] - [email withheld]

To

The Mayor, Mr Denis JAMES, and the members of the municipal council, Town Hall of COUTANSOUZE, Pl. de l'École, Allier (03)

SUBJECT: situation and strategy of the CAMPING LA RESSOURCE project

Mr Mayor, ladies and gentlemen of the municipal council,

At the start of this year 2026, allow me to send you my best wishes.

Allow me first to renew my warm thanks for your support of this innovative and atypical project, and to set out the situation of the CAMPING LA RESSOURCE project. Five years ago, in 2021, in the aftermath of the COVID crisis, I had a vision: to create the first themed campsite in France devoted to household self-sufficiency. In a geopolitical and geo-economic environment undergoing brutal change, citizen self-sufficiency is no longer an ecological luxury: it is an imperative of sovereignty. External armed conflicts and the current economic wars are no longer distant events: they invite themselves into the budget of French households through the explosion of energy prices, the instability of the prices of cereals, fruit and vegetables, and the threats weighing on our supply chains. Faced with these foreign influences that dictate our daily lives, individual and collective resilience is a strategic response. By moving towards energy, food and water self-sufficiency, every citizen becomes an active link in reducing our national vulnerability. That is the deep ambition of my project: to transform awareness into a capacity for action. The concept? A living showroom of 3 hectares, structured as a campsite, where everyone learns to move towards the independence of their own household: heating, electricity, food, water and waste management. A project that you support, and I thank you for it, validated by Madame the Prefect. A project that responds exactly to the challenges of our time: sobriety, resilience, the cost of living, the transmission of know-how. Today, I find myself facing a wall. Not a technical wall in the classic sense, but an unbelievable bureaucratic and fiscal wall that I could never have imagined, which perfectly illustrates why France has seen no creation of a campsite of this scale for 30 years, as the president of the FNHPA Auvergne confirmed to me. The big chains? I was fortunate enough to have been able to get in touch with the development managers of the 4 largest companies in France managing the majority of the big campsites. They no longer create, they buy. And after having lived through this journey, I understand perfectly why.

Page 2 of 14

The project: LA RESSOURCE, a one-of-a-kind eco-site. In the commune of Coutansouze (Allier), the LA RESSOURCE campsite was not meant to be a simple stopover ground. It was to be a genuine place of practical learning designed as a living laboratory of self-sufficiency, comprising: • 50 "tent" pitches with educational fittings • 11 Light Leisure Dwellings (HLL) of 30m² in participatory self-construction, each demonstrating a different construction method (timber frame, squared logs, round logs, converted containers, A-frame houses), allowing fellow citizens to discover in detail the construction systems they could implement for themselves, for their own housing, on a larger scale. • 8 mini-dwellings on stilts in the forest, exploiting the sometimes significant relief of the site • 1 reception building/shop of 100m² including the exhibition of the various partners' systems • 1 ecological sanitary block with the various water-saving shower systems that exist or can be built and implemented in a private home • Rainwater harvesting and potabilisation systems • A natural phyto-purification treatment plant, didactic and a source of lessons • Permaculture and above-ground growing areas showing the various possible systems of protection against climatic hazards and weather phenomena previously described as exceptional. • A mini educational farm with the animals useful to the human-animal alliance within the framework of a household's self-sufficiency. Each element is designed to be replicable by the general public. We are not selling dreams, we are transmitting concrete know-how so that every household can move towards greater self-sufficiency.

Exemplary administrative support... up to a point. The administrative journey has been both encouraging and discouraging, but terribly time-consuming, long, very long, too long... On the positive side: • 17 December 2021: Favourable opinion of the Chamber of Agriculture • 1 February 2022: Favourable opinion of the Community of Communes of Saint-Pourçain Sioule Limagne • 10 March 2022: Favourable opinion of the Departmental Commission for the Preservation of Natural, Agricultural and Forest Areas (CDPENAF) • 19 April 2022: Prefectoral order granting the use of 3.8 hectares • May-June 2022: Public inquiry with a favourable opinion • September 2022: Agreement of the Prefect for the revision of the communal map • 18 October 2022: Acquisition of the 28,041 m² of land • April 2024: Favourable decision of the DREAL (decision no. 2024-ARA-KKP-5116) exempting the project from environmental assessment. The town hall even triggered a revision of its communal map specifically to accommodate this project. Exceptional local political support that demonstrates the territory's interest in this initiative.

Page 3 of 14

Then comes the shock: the development tax. In France, before you can even lay the first stone, the State presents you with a bill. This development tax, governed by articles L.331-1 and following of the Town Planning Code, is calculated according to flat-rate values set annually. I wish to bring to your attention a crucial point concerning the administrative structuring of the project. If we were to file a Development Permit for the whole site (69 accommodation units and a reception building), the strict application of the Town Planning Code (Art. L. 151-30) and of the standard parking ratios would impose on me the creation of 75 parking spaces. This obligation is of absolute rigidity: the law requires that these spaces be built, whether they are located on the land itself or, failing that, distributed elsewhere on the territory of the commune. I cannot legally escape it. Yet this purely arithmetical requirement mechanically triggers an unsustainable fiscal pressure for a new creation: according to Article L. 331-13 of the Town Planning Code, each space is subject to a tax base of €3,000. For our commune, a global permit would therefore mean an immediate tax of €225,000 for parking alone, before even having financed the ecological infrastructure of the project. It is this impossible equation — the obligation to create a parking facility disproportionate to our philosophy of soft mobility, coupled with a tax payable in advance — that today forces me to fragment the development of the project into stages, so as not to smother this initiative in a financial dead end from its very launch.

Detailed calculation based on 2024/2025 values: 1. Camping pitches (Article R.331-7 of the Town Planning Code) • 50 "tent" pitches: 50 × €3,000 = €150,000 of taxable base 2. Light Leisure Dwellings (specific HLL value) • 11 HLL of 30m²: 11 × €10,000 = €110,000 of taxable base • 8 mini-dwellings on stilts (treated as HLL): 8 × €10,000 = €80,000 of taxable base 3. Buildings (Article R.331-7, 2024 value: €914/m²) • Reception 100m² + Sanitary facilities estimated at 60m² = 160m² × €914 = €146,240 of taxable base 4. Parking spaces (Article L.331-13 of the Town Planning Code) The legislation generally requires 1 space per pitch + 10% for visitors, i.e. roughly 75 spaces. • 75 spaces × €3,000 = €225,000 of taxable base TOTAL TAXABLE BASE (excluding parking): €486,240 and €711,240 with parking. Application of the rates (estimated at 4.24% combined communal + departmental): • Development Tax including parking: €711,240 × 4.24% ≈ €30,157

Page 4 of 14

ESTIMATED TOTAL TAXES TO PAY: €33,002. You read that correctly. More than 33,000 euros to be paid to the Public Treasury simply to obtain the right to start working on land that I have already paid for out of my own pocket, before even having driven in a single tent peg.

The absurdity of the French tax system. This levy represents more than 50% of the minimum budget needed to open (€400,000 in self-construction with the minimum structures). It is a tax on the intention to undertake, a taxation of ambition before realisation itself. The strict interpretation of Article L. 441-1 (relating to development permits) totally ignores the specificity of eco-sites. I quote: "The rigid framework of the development permit is designed for developers selling plots, not for entrepreneurs of the transition who create living ecosystems. By imposing heavy road standards and flat-rate parking taxes (Art. L. 331-13), one de facto forbids the birth of light and reversible projects." I also recall that Article 1635 ter A of the General Tax Code on the development tax provides for no exemption for projects of general interest carried by private structures, even if they aim at the energy sobriety advocated by the State. Which is the height of irony... 1. The RNU: the discretionary power of the administration. In a commune without a PLU, it is Article R. 111-25 of the Town Planning Code that applies. It stipulates that: "The permit [...] may impose the construction of installations designed to ensure the parking, off public roads, of the vehicles corresponding to the characteristics of the project." Unlike the PLU, which sets a mathematical figure (e.g. 1.5 spaces/accommodation unit), the RNU gives the administration (often the DDT, which processes on behalf of the Mayor) the power to judge what is "necessary". The trap: for a campsite of 69 units, the DDT will by default apply the national safety and comfort grids. If they consider that 75 spaces are necessary to prevent customers from parking on the verges of the village roads, they will impose them in the permit.

2. The Mayor's responsibility is multiplied tenfold. In a commune under the RNU, the Mayor decides after the binding opinion of the Prefect (via the DDT).

Page 5 of 14

To grasp the situation fully, and as an aside in view of the geopolitical crisis we are living through, let us compare, out of curiosity, with the international scene: In China: A project presenting innovations in energy and food self-sufficiency would benefit from initial tax exemptions, government subsidies for green innovation, and technical support from local authorities. The time between administrative validation and the start of work? A few weeks. In Spain: • No equivalent development tax on campsites with an educational vocation • European FEDER subsidies accessible for ecotourism projects • Administrative timescales divided by 3 compared to France • Reduced or even zero installation taxation for the first 3 years of operation • Proactive regional support for social and solidarity economy projects. While France imposes on me a fiscal wall of €225,000 for parking before opening, Spain, via its Real Decreto Legislativo 2/2004, allows mayors to reduce this tax by 95%

Page 6 of 14

to support projects of environmental interest. In Spain, rural resilience is subsidised via FEDER from €50,000 of investment; in France, it is taxed before it even exists. In the United States: Such a project with local political support (equivalent of our town hall + prefect) and land validation would be a priority target for "Green Tech" investment funds or "Angel Investors" specialising in sustainable innovation. Initial taxation would be deferred until actual profitability.

The environmental impact study: when precaution becomes absurd. Initially, I was asked for a complete environmental impact study. Estimated cost: several tens of thousands of euros. To determine, almost provocatively, whether my tent canvases would disturb the "few units" of Rosalia longicorn (a coleopteran insect) and "around 20 phorophytes" (clumps of moss) recorded in the neighbouring Colettes forest. That same Natura 2000-classified forest which, at the end of 2025, was literally "smashed" by a storm, bringing hundreds of trees to the ground. A natural disaster that did more damage in one night than my campsite will do in 50 years of operation. Fortunately, after months of administrative battle and an extremely time-consuming case-by-case examination request to the DREAL (decision no. 2024-ARA-KKP-5116 of the regional Prefect), I obtained an exemption from environmental assessment on 4 April 2024. But that lost time? Those dozens of hours filling in forms to demonstrate the obvious? 14 pages of CERFA + 41 annexes. Incompressible. Irrational. Article R.122-3-1 of the Environmental Code allows this case-by-case examination procedure, but the form to be filled in is an obstacle course for an individual project holder. Dozens of technical pages, cartographic annexes, preliminary soil studies... all this to finally conclude what common sense would have established in a 30-minute site visit. And the DREAL took 45 days to rule, an incompressible period... If they had refused, I would have had to pay for that impact study. And without a response, it would have been considered a refusal! And 24 hours before the deadline, I managed, not without difficulty, to obtain the telephone number of the case officer to beg him to take a decision... And learned that he had not yet had time to look at it. Following my call, I would receive his email within the hour. After 45 days of waiting! The "case-by-case" system (Article R. 122-3) has become a "disguised impact study" that lasts for months. "Environmental assessment is used as a selection filter by financial means, and not by ecological relevance. A project that aims at self-sufficiency and the protection of the resource is treated with the same suspicion as an industrial landfill."

Page 7 of 14

The banking refusal: "Too innovative = Too risky". Faced with this fiscal wall, I turned to the banks. Unanimous response: Société Générale & Caisse d'Épargne of Saint-Pourçain-sur-Sioule when I approached them 3 years ago: "National instructions to stop financing new hotel-sector projects following the COVID crisis." Other institutions: "No track record on this type of project = impossible to verify its profitability." The paradox is total: I am reproached for the fact that no campsite has been created for 30 years, but the one who breaks this inertia is refused financing. Classic property programmes in saturated markets are financed without batting an eyelid, but an educational project on self-sufficiency is refused at the very moment when energy sovereignty is declared a national priority. Faced with this preposterous situation, I wrote some fifty letters to our European and national members of parliament, across all political persuasions. Only one received me at his constituency office to inform me that he would do what was necessary in the years to come to "try" to make things change, without guarantees.

Normative stratification: when innovation becomes an offence. Take the example of atmospheric water generators, which I wished to install as an educational demonstrator and to make the project self-sufficient in water. In China: You install the system, you prove that it works, the State helps you scale up. In France: Before you even extract a litre of water from the air, you are considered a water producer subject to the same health standards as Veolia or Danone (ARS controls, criminal liability, compulsory periodic analyses). The cost of compliance makes the decentralised "low-tech" solution economically unviable. Normative absurdity: the example of water. The regulations on drinking water (articles L.1321-1 and following of the Public Health Code) were written by and for industrial players. They totally ignore citizen innovation, thus smothering any alternative at birth. The final straw? The director of an atmospheric water generator company with whom I was to enter into a partnership to deploy a demonstrator at COUTANSOUZE on my land and make the campsite self-sufficient in water, resigned following the abrupt halt of negotiations with the DGA (the Directorate General of Armaments: the industrial brain that equips our armed forces). The reason? A sudden strategic pivot by the Élysée, favouring depollution (Ukraine context) to the detriment of drinking-water generation in theatres of operation (Africa). Yet the Defence Innovation Agency (AID) had paved the way by testing French solutions such as the "AQUATER" project (Aquasolo) or those of Eole Water. But with the changes of diplomatic course and our spectacular strategic retreat in Africa (see the IFRI reports on the end of Operation Barkhane and our forced withdrawal from Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger), the State abandoned its own technological agility.

Page 8 of 14

While France abandons its gems, our allies advance: the US Army has signed major contracts with leaders such as Watergen or SkySource within the framework of the EWPS (Expeditionary Water Packaging System) programme to secure its troops in arid zones. If the French State gives up its own sovereignty solutions for its soldiers, how can it let an entrepreneur implement them on the ground for civilians and show the way that it is itself incapable of taking?

The architect obligation: yet another bar. In October 2022, the planning services required that a DPLG-HMONP architect sign the development permit. Strict application of article R.431-5 of the Town Planning Code for projects including buildings. I contacted some sixty architects in Auvergne and neighbouring regions with a view to finding a partner-sponsor. The architecture schools all declined the idea of taking on the project in an educational framework. Finally, after months of searching during which I was blocked because of this, I found an Alsatian architect who had just set up, who accepted in December 2022... He came to meet you, Mr Mayor, and the head of the planning services, to set out his vision of the project and how he wished to help me implement it, before his company, 6 months later, was liquidated for unpaid client invoices in June 2023, leaving me without a signature and without the promised sketches. Cost of an architect for this type of project: between €15,000 and €30,000 just for filing the development permit!! And between 8% and 12% (i.e. between €160,000 and €240,000) for the project as a whole as I was asked to imagine it over a 20-year horizon in order to be able to cost the estimates, i.e. nearly 2 million euros, with full project management including: • Design (ESQ, APS, APD). • Filing of the permit. • Detailed technical studies (networks, utilities, structures). • Direction of the execution of the works (DET): the architect follows the site, validates the craftsmen's invoices, manages site meetings until delivery. A delirious additional financial barrier for an individual project holder. I finally found an architect in 2024, an activist, willing to help me, but those many lost months are irrecoverable.

The institutional "supporters": many words, few deeds. Mr Pommier, FRHPA Auvergne: "I have not seen a campsite created in my sector for 30 years and therefore have no scheme in place to help a creator. Highly unlikely that you will manage it these days." CCI of Vichy: Same talk. "No creation for 20 years to our knowledge." BGE: "The project is too big and too advanced for us."

Page 9 of 14

Europe: FEADER programme stopped in April 2022. The remaining agricultural programme requires an investment of more than €600,000. The Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes Region: The elected representatives did not wish to renew the FEADER. No other regional aid is accessible for this type of hybrid project.

The desperate solution: the 1901-law association. Faced with this systemic blockage, I was approached by a Parisian incubator which, after several meetings with their lawyers and specialists, proposed a creative solution: creating a 1901-law association of general interest that could raise tax-deductible funds from foundations and patrons. The arrangement imagined by an acquaintance passionate about my project, a former banker, was ingenious: • I lease my land to the association (with a building lease of at least 18 years) • The association builds the infrastructure thanks to donations from the large companies approached, attracted by the tax deductions • The campsite is accessible only to members (€100/year) • Overnight stays are limited (10 maximum per year at €5) so as not to exceed 50% of revenue in economic activity • No company, therefore no conflict with the non-profit character • I lock down the statutes to prevent large companies from seeing in our association a potential threat, even on a small scale, to their revenues or their image, and ejecting me from the presidency by massively enrolling employees or outside persons to obtain the majority of votes. Brilliant on paper. But that was without counting on the tax administration.

The obstacle course to create the association. To legally validate the statutes of this association and above all to keep the crucial general-interest character, I was sent from structure to structure for weeks: 1. CCI of Vichy → Not competent on associations 2. Sub-prefecture of Vichy → Service transferred to Montluçon 3. Sub-prefecture of Montluçon → Refers to the registry of associations 4. Registry of associations → Refers to the Ligue de l'Enseignement 5. Ligue de l'Enseignement (after 2 weeks) → "Too specialised", refers to the DLA France Active 6. DLA France Active Moulins → "Too technical", refers to the CRESS Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes 7. CRESS → "Too legally complex", refers to the Lyon Bar 8. BGE Allier → Refuses without paid global support 9. CREFAD Auvergne Clermont → No territorial competence over the Allier 10. PAVA Ebreuil → "Too complex", refers to the CRIB 11. CRIB VIVA Sioule → Finally an answer... but a critical one

Page 10 of 14

Mrs Rigaud of the CRIB spent a day analysing the statutes with her colleague. Their verdict: too much concentration of powers, not enough democracy, risk of taxation because of the camping activity even as an ancillary one, obliged to revise numerous articles in order to be able to claim recognition of general interest, the indispensable key to the project. Indeed, for my incubator, the large groups with whom they are in contact and who could finance us would only do so on one condition: to have a tax reduction in return.

The rental value opinion: another obstacle course. To prove that the rent the association would pay me was neither undervalued (personal enrichment) nor overvalued (conflict of interest), I needed an enforceable rental value opinion for building land for economic purposes. My steps: • CCI of Vichy: "We don't know how to do that", refers to the notaries • Notaries (Maître Midrouillet, Maître Hachard): "We don't know how to do that", refer to the estate agents • A dozen estate agents: "We don't know how to do it for building land for economic purposes", refer to the land experts • Chamber of Experts of the Allier: "No solutions to offer" • Land expert in a neighbouring department: Quote of €2,400! No less... But how many hours lost? How many telephone calls for a simple administrative document?

The tax refusal: the impossible association. And then came the coup de grâce. 6 months of waiting to obtain a response from the tax administration for the tax and patronage ruling request!!! 6 months, can you imagine?! And why, in the end? The tax administration refused recognition of general interest to the AOTONOMIA association. Their grounds: First ground (absurd): The redistribution mentioned in the statutes concerning the fruit and vegetables produced on site, to the inhabitants of Coutansouze, would constitute a redistribution of resources. Whereas we were talking about the educational sharing of harvests, not the distribution of money! Second ground (prohibitive): The building lease poses a problem. As owner of the land AND president of the association, I would benefit indirectly from the constructions carried out by the association, thereby increasing the value of my assets. The administration sees in this a self-interested character incompatible with the general interest, even though I would receive only a rent at market price. Extract from their response: "A body that carries out distributions of its resources, direct or indirect, has a lucrative character" and "The owner of this land, who is also one of the founding members and the president of the association, therefore has a direct and certain interest in the

Page 11 of 14

management of the body (...) Consequently, the AOTONOMIA association presents a self-interested management and, therefore, a lucrative character."

The absolute Kafkaesque: all the doors close. To avoid the conflict of interest, it would have been necessary: • Either that I give my 30,000 m² to the association for free (after having paid for them!) and lose control of the CAMPING LA RESSOURCE project in the event of losing the Presidency of the association • Or that I not be a member of the association (impossible, it is my project and needed for the fundraising!) • Or that the association build nothing on my land (the accommodation structures would float in the air...) But without a building lease, how can the investment of the foundations that would finance the construction be secured in the event of losing the Presidency of the association, and how can one be sure that the new President after me would be willing to continue building and constructing this project? And if I give away my land, how can I live? The vicious circle is perfect: • The banks refuse to lend (no track record, hotel sector risky post-COVID) • The State taxes more than €33,000 before the start of the works • Public subsidies are inaccessible (FEADER stopped, region without a suitable programme) • The region could finance up to 30% of the works only subject to the campsite obtaining stars, the criteria for which, set by ATOUT France, are incompatible with my project • Recognition of general interest for the association is refused by the tax authorities (self-interested character) • The vast majority of foundations do not finance a project like the one I am carrying without recognition of general interest

Back to square one: the commercial campsite. After months of associative structuring, of exchanges with lawyers, jurists, experts, after having paid the architect for the preliminary plans, after the statutes drafted, modified, re-modified... Tax refusal. So I find myself back at square one: creating a classic commercial campsite. But with: • €33,000 of taxes to pay as soon as the development permit is granted • No bank financing accessible • No public subsidy available • A minimum budget updated to €500,000 in self-construction (multiplied by 2.5 if carried out by companies) • Material costs that have at least doubled since 2020. The administrative mirage: authorised to exist, prevented from living.

Page 12 of 14

I obtained every favourable opinion possible: • DDT (Departmental Directorate of Territories) • CDPENAF • Prefect of the Allier • Public inquiry • Commune • DREAL (exemption from impact study). The system gave me "the authorisation to exist" but withdrew "the means to live": • No Europe/Region subsidies despite total coherence with the stated policies • Complexity of the development permit requiring an architect beyond budget • Immediate taxation of more than €33,000 before the first euro of turnover • Regulations designed for giants, unsuited to citizen innovations • Refusal of the associative solution for presumed conflict of interest. I am asked to be an industrial player for the file, but I am treated as a suspect private individual for the aid.

Bureaucratic ecology: when the symbol takes precedence over action. Beyond the big figures, it is the entrepreneur's daily life that is Kafkaesque. • Want to inform? That's taxed. I wished to install a sign on my own land to announce the arrival of the campsite. The answer? A prior declaration is required and I would be subject to the Local Tax on Outdoor Advertising (TLPE - Art. L. 2333-6 of the CGCT). In France, even announcing the birth of an ecological project is a source of profit for the tax authorities. So I gave it up.

Page 13 of 14

Conclusion: France has the ideas but kills innovation. That is the tragic irony of our country. While the State preaches "ecological planning" in speech after speech, a citizen who concretely puts this planning into practice on 3 hectares, with the support of his village, his prefect, and all the technical services consulted, finds himself carrying alone the weight of an administration that no longer knows how to handle the exception. The French system only manages the norm, never innovation. It protects established positions, never creators. It taxes intention before action, discourages audacity, and turns every entrepreneur into a suspect. If I had launched this project in Spain: • No equivalent development tax (saving of €33,000) • Access to European FEDER funds for sustainable tourism innovation • Support from local authorities with initial tax exemptions • Administrative timescales of 6 months maximum against 3 years in France • Possibility of setting up a recognised cooperative or association without presumed conflict of interest. If I had launched this project in China: • Tax exemptions for a green innovation project • Government subsidies as soon as the concept is validated • Technical support from local authorities • Time between validation and start of works: a few weeks • Valuing of citizen innovation rather than suspicion. In France in 2025: • More than €33,002 of taxes before the first stroke of the pickaxe • No accessible subsidy despite the speeches on the ecological transition • 3 years of administrative procedures (and it's not over) • Systematic banking refusal • Architect obligation beyond budget (€15,000 to €30,000 minimum) • Paralysing regulations on every innovation • Refusal of the associative solution by the tax administration • A crazy amount of time lost being sent from body to body to obtain advice. I am not saying that the State should finance just anything. I am not asking for special treatment. But when a project: • Has the unanimous support of all local and territorial authorities • Responds exactly to the stated national priorities (self-sufficiency, resilience, ecological education) • Has cleared all the regulatory administrative obstacles • Is carried by a citizen who invests his own money and his time ... and it runs into immediate taxation of more than €33,000, systematic banking refusal, and the impossibility of creating an associative structure to finance it, then the system is broken. This is what I called on social media "watching the train go by": France has the ideas, the territory, the committed citizens, but its own rules prevent the rails from being laid.

Page 14 of 14. Mr Mayor, ladies and gentlemen of the municipal council, my project is not dead. It will move forward, carried by conviction and stubbornness. I am currently building my A-frame house 300 metres from the future campsite, which you granted me, and I thank you for it. This construction can be seen on my YouTube channel "LA RESSOURCE 03", which now has more than 7,000 subscribers. There were about ten of them when I launched the project and we met for the first time. My solution: "Development in stages", a necessity imposed by taxation. Faced with a delirious development tax that makes no distinction between a citizen project and a brand like LEROY MERLIN from the signing of a global permit — a sum that no bank finances for an innovative project — I am forced to adopt a "cellular" development strategy. I must first finish my house so as to be on site full-time. Then, in the absence of any tax-spreading mechanism provided by law, which leaves no time to build and then operate (knowing that the activity will then be taxed on its profits, on top of the sums owed at the outset), I will have to advance structure by structure. I will begin with the 6 pitches already authorised, then I will apply for successive authorisations, that is... 60 to 80 development permit updates to be expected! This development will take place as the project self-finances over the long term. It is a solution of regrettable administrative heaviness, both for me and for the planning services, which will have to process files in dribs and drabs rather than with an overall vision. I apologise in advance to the staff who will be buried under paperwork that is already extraordinarily heavy in ordinary times. But it is the only realistic path for an entrepreneur who refuses to go unreasonably into debt before even laying the first stone. It is the perfect illustration of a system which, by wanting to lock everything down in one block, forces project holders into fragmentation. The concrete launch of the first minimalist phase of the project, namely the 6-pitch campsite which does not require a development permit, will take place as soon as the minimal interior fitting-out of my house is completed (insulation, electricity, water, greywater treatment), making it liveable. Thus, CAMPING LA RESSOURCE will happen despite the obstacles, and even if the timescales lengthen for pecuniary reasons, its realisation will be a passion as much as a life project within your beautiful commune, and the passing time is not lost, for it strengthens the project's web community. Please accept, Mr Mayor, ladies and gentlemen of the municipal council, the expression of my highest consideration.