Case studies
Consequently, a building permit is needed for a shed:
- of variable height from 170 to 190 cm and 390 cm long and 100 cm deep(2);
- made of wood, with a sloping wooden pitch, with a rectangular shape with dimensions of 13.00 m 5.00 m with a maximum height of approximately 4.00 m and a minimum height of 3.50 m(3);
- of surface area equal to 67 m2, with a height of mt. 2.00-2.70(4);
- of surface area equal to 52 m2, with a height of mt. 2.75-2.80(5);
- measuring 27 by 8(6) metres;
- in laminated wood, with adjoining external flooring, built in the space in front of the entrance to a commercial business and having the following dimensions: “height at the eaves approximately 2.70 metres; heaped height approximately 3.00 metres; depth approximately 3.30 meters – sidewalk depth approximately 3.60 meters length approximately 8.30 meters”(7);
- of 31 m2(8);
- of 22.50 m2, for a height varying from 2.30 m to 3.07 m), stably anchored to the ground(9);
- made of wood of approx. 130.00(10);
- in laminated wood with roofing in insulated faux tile panels covered in wood, measuring approximately 60(11) m2;
- with a trapezoidal plan, with a wooden load-bearing structure (pillars and attic) and an insulated sheet metal roof, to completely protect the entire uncovered courtyard surface, closed on three sides, for a total surface area of 16.20 m2 (12);
- with “wooden structure of approximately 16.5 m2 of surface area and volume of approximately 41.37 m3 built on the terrace of the property”(13);
- pitched, made up of load-bearing iron elements and metal sheet roofing, with a total surface area of approximately 235 m2, closed on three sides, beneath which an artisan room for the processing and assembly of iron was built, in stone and with a sheet metal roofing with a surface area of approximately 150 m2, including a bathroom, as well as a storage room and other minor works (14);
- of 105 m2 of surface area, with a height of over 3 meters at the top, with wooden pillars and beams, anchored to the walking surface via plates embedded in the floor and bolted to the pillars (15);
- “with vertical and horizontal load-bearing elements, in concrete and iron”, approximately 12.45×7.50(16) m.
Otherwise, the building permit was not considered necessary:
- for a modest shed, composed “by two iron pillars, a horizontal iron structure with an overlying covering of pantiles and gutter channels”, open on three sides and leaning on one side only against the perimeter wall of the main building (17);
- for a “shed made with a metal structure and insulated sheet metal roof measuring 5.30 m x 8 m and variable height from approximately 2.50 m to 3.00 m”(18);
- for a shed attached to the building and which served as a cover for an oven and a barbecue, for a surface area of 9.24 m2 and a maximum height of approximately m. 2.70 and a minimum height of approximately 2.50 m(19).
Canopy that increases the space of a commercial space
The recent ruling. 16 February 2026, n. 113, of the TAR Calabria, Reggio Calabria, focused on the hypothesis of a canopy built to serve a commercial premises, qualifying this intervention in terms of new construction requiring building permit.
In this specific case we were faced with a wooden shed measuring 30 m2. approximately, which was closed on the three “uncovered” sides, with materials of various kinds (curtains, insulated panels, glass), attached to the main building (whose shape was evidently altered) by creating a “technical joint” and fixed to the ground with plates bolted to the underlying flooring; this roof was placed for the exclusive service of a restaurant/bar business, carried out on the ground floor of the building to which it was attached, being intended to host its customers, also for the purposes of consumption.
According to the Reggio judges, the functional purpose of such a roof was not that of “furniture and shelter” of the courtyard area of the largest building where it had been illegally built – so as to fall within the so-called free building referred to in letter and quinquies of art. 6 of Presidential Decree no. 380/2001 – but rather to increase, in a lasting way, the surface area (as well as the volume) of sales of the bar-restaurant activity carried out on the ground floor of the building in question.
The construction and dimensional characteristics of this structure, in conjunction with its stable functional destination, as it was placed at the exclusive service of the commercial activity to which it accessed, were, therefore, such as to qualify it as a new construction, suitable for creating new surface/cubic volume, with a consequent increase in the urban planning load. This work, as correctly considered by the municipal technical office, therefore required the prior issuing of a building permit, the lack of which required (due and binding act) the imposition of the demolition sanction, as the only suitable remedy to ensure the restoration of the violated urban-building structure.
The above is confirmed by that consolidated jurisprudential orientation according to which:
- “there a roof that has functional and above all dimensional characteristics that affect the urban and building fabric requires the prior obtaining of a building permit”(20);
- “a canopy of significant dimensions which modifies the layout of the territory and occupies different areas and volumes compared to the “res principalis”, regardless of any service or ornamental constraints regarding it, cannot be considered, from an urban planning point of view, its relevance and requires building permission”(21);
- “for building purposes, the appurtenant nature cannot be recognized when, on a different and additional area compared to that already occupied by the previous building, a new volume is created, or a work such as a canopy is created…”(22);
- “the construction of a roof must be configured from an urban planning point of view as a new construction intervention whenever it integrates a building that is not completely underground, having the characteristics of solidity, stability and immobilization to the ground, also through support, incorporation or fixed connection to a pre-existing building or one built at the same time”(23);
- “the concept of construction implies the urban-building transformation of the territory, with lasting modification of the state of the places, as the alteration of the status quo ante of the urban structure does not need to take place through masonry works”(24);
- “even the construction of a roof supported by iron pillars without a building permit permanently and significantly alters the state of the places, resulting in the application of the sanctions provided for by the articles. 31 et seq. YOU construction”(25).
Notes
(1) TAR Campania, Salerno, sec. II, sentence. 15 May 2025, n. 885; TAR Lazio, Rome, section. II bis, sentence. 2 January 2025, n. 66.
(2) TAR Marche, section. II, sentence. 11 March 2024, n. 241
(3) TAR Campania, Salerno, sec. II, sentence. 4 January 2024, n. 88.
(4) TAR Campania, Salerno, sec. I, in the sentence. November 23, 2023, n. 2707.
(5) TAR Campania, Salerno, sec. I, heard. 14 November 2023, n. 2593.
(6) TAR Piedmont, section. II, sentence. 12 May 2023, n. 448.
(7) TAR Calabria, Catanzaro, sec. II, sentence. 24 April 2023, n. 640.
(8) TAR Campania, Naples, sec. VI, sentence. 18 April 2023, n. 2377.
(9) TAR Marche, section. I, heard. 13 April 2023, n. 237.
(10) Council of State, sec. VI, sentence. 4 February 2023, n. 1205.
(11) TAR Calabria, Reggio Calabria, sentence. 23 January 2023, n. 96.
(12) TAR Lombardy, Milan, sec. II, sentence. 3 January 2023, n. 55.
(13) TAR Lazio, Rome, sec. II excerpt, sentence. 6 September 2022, n. 11474.
(14) TAR Campania, Naples, sec. II, sentence. 24 June 2022, n. 4309.
(15) Council of State, sec. VI, sentence. 11 May 2022, n. 3708.
(16) TAR Puglia, Bari, sec. I, heard. 15 April 2022, n. 499.
(17) TAR Campania, Salerno, sec. II, sentence. 2 February 2024, n. 352.
(18) TAR Calabria, Catanzaro, sec. II, sentence. March 15, 2023, n. 416: according to the judges, this roof “it must be considered a light structure, open on three sides, placed at the service of the building on whose external wall it rests, without an independent destination and of insignificant dimensions, whose purpose can only be that of mere furnishing and protection of the property: it follows that the prior issuing of the building permit is not necessary”.
(19) TAR Campania, Salerno, sec. II, sentence. 3 March 2022, n. 609; in this specific case, the judges recognized the appurtenant nature of the roof, “given by the reduced surface and volumetric size”.
(20) TAR Lazio, Latina, sec. II, sentence. 24 January 2026, n. 45.
(21) Council of State, sec. VII, sentence. 25 June 2024, n. 5605.
(22) Council of State, sec. II, sentence. 4 April 2024, n. 3084.
(23) Council of State, sec. VI, sentence. 3 April 2024, n. 3031.
(24) Council of State, sec. VI, sentence. 19 January 2026, n. 402.
(25) Council of State, sec. II, sentence. n. 25 May 2020, n. 3329.
