Comment: Industrial eyesores are a blot on French  rural landscape

My house has a view across fields towards the Pyrenees that hadn't changed for a couple of hundred years – until a villager decided to construct a gigantic, incongruous, agricultural steel shed in the way. 

It went up quickly and I imagine it will last as long as a Gothic cathedral because of the indestructible materials used. 

We prefer no phone masts in our unspoilt French valley – and no signal

When I realised what was happening, I asked the mayor how such a thing received planning permission. The short answer was that those who decide such things do not care about what they look like. 

The rules do not stipulate respect for the human eye. The aesthetic environment is treated of secondary importance to the needs of businesses and people being allowed to do what they want with their money.

With just a little sensitivity, there are so many ways it could have been built otherwise, in a traditional local style, and blending into the landscape.

Read more: La Grande-Motte: How France's 'New Florida' is proving critics wrong

Planners authorise official vandalism

It never ceases to amaze me that such acts of official vandalism can still happen in a country that prides itself on its good taste; on its natural beauty and the beauty of its human heritage.

There are countless pretty towns and villages and beguiling landscapes but they are not an infinite resource. Why swallow up a harmless field to locate an industrial structure that no one could ever consider beautiful? 

It is as if certain decision makers feel they have to compensate for France’s largesse of loveliness by erecting the most offensive structures they can imagine.

It was with great sympathy, therefore, that I discovered the Prix de la France Moche (Ugly France Prize), which is awarded every few years by the Paysages de France organisation (motto “Le paysage, ça vous regarde”: a play on words that means the landscape is the concern of all of us and that it is watching what we do to it).

The rules are somewhat loose and there is nothing to be won. It is an exercise in sharing information. 

The objective is not to stigmatise and castigate communes and their mayors. It is simply to raise awareness that there is a choice to be made and that it is possible to have functionality and a good built environment and that the disagreeable can be improved. 

The media love prizes, says the association’s website, and this gives it an opportunity to remind readers, listeners and viewers across France that they do not have to put up with ugliness by default.

Read more: How the French government plans to transform ‘ugly’ commercial zones

Paysages de France seeks to identify buildings that could be demolished and replaced with no loss to civilisation. It may be a bridge or shopping centre or, commonly, a badly placed advertising hoarding. 

I know that not all of us will agree entirely on what is beautiful and ugly but at least there is a conversation taking place. You can read more about it at paysagesdefrance.org. 

More awareness of visual pollution 

Visual pollution is a habit society falls into when driven too much by money and too little by consideration for others. People of old knew how to build houses, villages and towns that were not only adapted to the needs of life but were also delightful on the eye. 

We can still do this: there are many examples of modern developments that work in both senses. 

If France has its eyesores it is because of laziness or lack of the courage to object. Sometimes, as in the case of the steel shed slapped across my view, it is too late to stop a project going ahead but at least we can articulate the fact that there is always a choice to be made and beauty is not a consideration that can be disregarded.

Have any eyesores popped up near where you live? Do you agree or disagree with Nick Inman? Let us know at feedback@connexionfrance.com