Already urbanized land: can it be built even in the presence of landscape constraints?

Building permits and pre-existing constraints

The dispute that came to the attention of the judges of Palazzo Spada arises from the decision of the One Stop Shop of a Union of Sardinian Municipalities to deny the green light to some building projects for the construction of a series of buildings for residential use on land once intended for this purpose. The area concerned, in fact, had been included in a detailed plan (finally approved by the relevant Municipality in 1993) and, according to the private individuals who had presented the project, it was still fully valid and distinct from the urban redevelopment plan (PRU) for the same area, which however remained unimplemented.

The no to the construction was motivated by the negative opinion of the Municipality, which acknowledged the non-feasibility of the detailed plan both due to its time limit and above all because the landscape clearance necessary for the urbanization works had been cancelled. The owners had challenged the provision, contesting the rejection of the request linked to the impossibility of carrying out primary urbanization works precisely because in reality the works were already there. In the area in question, in fact, there appeared to be asphalted roads and areas, as well as sewerage and water networks, a presence which should therefore have allowed the construction of the building complex.

Constraints and infeasibility of the plan

However, the TAR rejected the appeal in light of the presence of the restriction and the lack of the green light. In this factual situation, the detailed plan cannot still be considered valid – it was highlighted in the sentence – as it cannot be implemented due to the lack of landscape authorization for the implementation of the urbanization works.

Both the detailed plan and the recovery plan were therefore inapplicable without any possibility of distinguishing between the two, as instead argued in the appeal. Hence the decision to reject it. The TAR ruling is confirmed by the Council of State, which reiterated the full legitimacy of the negative opinion given by the municipal administration to the new buildings.

Urbanization works are not enough

The judges of Palazzo Spada confirmed the decision to ban construction based on:

• prevalence of the landscape restriction;
• irrelevance of the actual state of urbanizations.

As regards the first question, the sentence states that the area subject to the intervention is entirely burdened by multiple landscape constraints. The presence of these constraints imposes the mandatory authorization for the implementation of the interventions. Consequently, the definitive cancellation by the Superintendency of the original landscape authorization makes the plan completely unworkable.

In this context, the fact that the urbanization works have already been carried out does not change anything. The ban on building, in fact, completely ignores the material existence, suitability or sufficiency of primary urbanization works (such as asphalted roads, sewers or water connections). Even if these infrastructures are concretely present in the area, in essence, they cannot allow the implementation of the plan or the issuing of building permits since the insurmountable obstacle is of a legal-environmental nature, as it derives directly from the conflict with the landscape protection legislation.

Table: reference framework and evaluation criteria (State Council no. 07251/2026)

Here is the technical scheme of the requirements and limits of implementation planning in restricted areas according to the findings of the ruling: