A canopy occupying an area of 70 square meters, at a height varying from mt. 2.50 m. 3.00, structured in wood, PVC window frames and glass, divided into lounge – living room and dining room with kitchenette, it is illegal without building permission as it cannot be configured as building relevance.
This was stated by the Campania Regional Administrative Court in sentence 1614/2024 of last March 11, which allows us to make the ‘jurisprudential’ point on canopies, which has always been a construction work that concerns a large part of urban planning disputes.
The canopy of dispute
The TAR deals with the case of an ‘old’ wooden shed, presumably closed on all sides and of old construction – interventions carried out in 2007, as noted in the criminal proceedings – for a surface area of 70 square metres, built on the roof terrace.
The municipality had ordered, given that the intervention had been carried out without a building permit, its demolition, under penalty of the imposition of a fine of 20 thousand euros and the free acquisition of the surrounding area and of the necessary for the realization of similar works.
According to the appellants, the wooden shed, “as stated in the party’s technical report”, “it simply represents a furnishing element for the best enjoyment of the spaces above the home, of which it represents an appurtenance and therefore complies with current urban planning and environmental instruments”; “nor can the existence of the landscape constraint be pointed out to the contrary, given that the intervention did not result in an appreciable alteration of the state of the places either in terms of surface or in volumetric terms”.
70 square meter closed shed or pergola? The description of the work
According to the TAR, there is little room for appeal: the contested demolition measure in fact states that “from the results of the technical investigation it is clear that these are new construction works referred to in the art. 3 co 1 lit. and, independently usable, for which the art. applies. 31 of the Consolidated Law on legislative and regulatory provisions on construction (Presidential Decree 06 June 2001, no. 380, subsequent amendments and additions)”.
The appellant’s thesis is weak, as it is stated that this shed would represent “a piece of furniture for the best enjoyment of the spaces above the home, of which it represents an appurtenance and therefore complies with current urban planning and environmental instruments” or “a so-called. “pergotenda”, i.e. a pergola, made up of wooden pillars covered by a retractable awning, which, according to the Council of State, “must (…) be classified as external furniture, shelter and protection, functional to the best temporary use of the space outside the apartment to which it is accessed, as such attributable to non-compliant maintenance interventions subordinated to any qualification, pursuant to art. 6, paragraph 1, d. PR no. 380 of 2001”,
This thesis clashes head-on with the description of the work itselffrom which it is clearly derived the volumetric increase resulting from the intervention, and its structuring as a closed environment “in wood, PVC window frames and glass, divided into living room and dining room with kitchenette”.
Nature of the sheds: if large, they cannot be appurtenances
The TAR sifts through some rulings relating to canopies, highlighting first of all how the Council of State has established that canopies of considerable size, which modify the layout of the territory and occupy different areas and volumes compared to the main building, cannot be considered urban planning appurtenances.
This means that, even if subjected to service or ornamental restrictions, they cannot be considered appurtenances from an urban planning point of view.
Shed, you again? The clear boundary between building permit, SCIA, CILA and free construction
A canopy requires a building permit when, due to its construction characteristics, it alters the shape of the building, while it is exempt if its shape and small size make its purpose of mere furnishing and shelter and protection of the property evident and recognisable. which it accesses.
Find out everything about Ingenio!
Sheds: building permit required. If it isn’t there, demolition starts
The Campania TAR has instead clarified that canopies or other similar structures, added to pre-existing parts of buildings as protective or shelter accessories, require a building permit if their size causes a visible alteration to the building or the surrounding area.
In the absence of authorization, demolition is planned.
The dimensional test
Among other things, in this case, in the same technical report it is stated that the surface of the shed is 76 m2 on a terrace of 260 m2.
This dismantles the argument that the volume of the structure is less than 20% of the main building.
The closed structure
Since it is a closed structure that involves a volumetric increase, cannot fall within the municipal provision which allows a maximum coverage of 30% of the uncovered surface of the main building. Therefore, a building permit is required and, in the absence of this, demolition is the only sanction.
Interventions on existing roofs
The Emilia-Romagna TAR has established that the expansion and covering of a pre-existing shed requires an independent building permit, even if the original shed had been authorized with a DIA.
Restricted areas: the illegal shed without a qualifying title and landscape authorization is demolished by default
For building abuses carried out in the absence of a building permit and landscape authorization in restricted areas, the exercise of the repressive power is legitimate regardless of the building permit deemed most suitable and correct to carry out the building project in the restricted area.
Find out everything about Ingenio!
Illegal works in restricted areas
Finally, the Council of State clarified that illegal works, even if considered relevant or precarious and potentially remediable with a DIA/SCIA, if built in areas subject to landscape restrictions, they must be considered totally different from the concession.
Therefore, it is the duty of the administration to enforce the sanction of demolition.
All the sentences cited invalidate, in any case, the request for assessment of landscape compatibility in amnesty for sheds that involve increases in surface or cubic capacity, according to the provisions of the art. 167 Legislative Decree 42/2004.
THE FULL JUDGMENT CAN BE DOWNLOADED IN THE ATTACHMENT AFTER REGISTRATION ON THE PORTAL
