Building abuse on a sunny pavement: when the trail is not enough and is needed to build permit? A ruling by the Lazio Tar confirms the demolition obligation for a building abuse on a solar pavement, reaffirming the need for the building permit for interventions with significant volumetric increase.

Building abusiveness is a recurring problem in the Italian urban planning scene and often gives rise to complex judicial disputes. A recent sentence of the Lazio Tar reiterated the fundamental principles on the subject, confirming thedemolition obligation for works carried out without the necessary building permit.

The case in question concerns a citizen who had performed interventions on a sunny pavement, contested by the Municipality as irregular. The TAR decision clarifies the differences between relevant interventions and new buildings, underlining the need for a Building permit For works that affect the volume overall of the building.

But what are the boundaries between a simple renovation and a building abuse? What are the consequences for those who create works without the due qualification?

Let’s find out in detail.

Advertisement – Advertising

The judicial affair: the intervention on the solar pavement

The dispute was born from a series of building interventions made on a solar pavement located on the top floor of a condominium building. The owner of the apartment below had presented three trails to carry out improvement and installation of technological systems, including photovoltaic panels and a solar thermal panel.

The declared projects also included the construction of a small technical room and the laying of a light canopy to protect the surface.

However, during a series of inspections, the municipal administration detected some discrepancy compared to the projects presented. In particular, the inspectors found that:

• The pergola declared in the project had been replaced with a fixed metal structure, anchored to the pillars of the building, configuring a real volumetric expansion.
• The technical room was not limited to hosting technological systems but was closed on multiple sides, taking on the conformation of a new habitable compartment.
• The canopy had turned into a sheet metal and concrete cover, with a structural iron frame and considerable beams.

These elements led the administration to consider the intervention as a “new construction” and not a simple pertinent modification. Consequently, the Municipality has issued ademolition orderbelieving that the work was not legitimately achievable with a trail, but subject to a building permit, never requested by the owner.

The interested party challenged the provision in front of the Lazio Tar, claiming that the works included within the limits allowed by the wake already presented and that, in any case, the Municipality had not adequately motivated the demolition order.

During the judgment, the condominium also took part in the case, opposing the applicant’s requests and asking for confirmation of the demolition.

Advertisement – Advertising

The reasons for the sentence: the wake is not enough

The Lazio TAR, with the sentence no. 5027/2025rejected the owner’s appeal and confirmed the demolition order issued by the Municipality. According to the judges, the works carried out could not be considered simple pertinent interventions, but constituted one new construction with a significant volumetric impact.

One of the central aspects of the sentence concerns the distinction between building relevance And new construction. The TAR reiterated that a work can be considered a relevance only if:

• It has a limited volume compared to the main building.
• It does not alter the shape and conformation of the existing property.
• It does not affect the urban load of the area.

In the case in question, the construction on the solar pavement had led to an increase in the overall volume of the building, exceeding the 20% limit provided for by art. 3, paragraph 1, lett. E6 of Presidential Decree 380/2001 (Consolidated Realization Text). In addition, the structure was equipped with fixtures, tamponing and a fixed roofmaking it assimilable to a new room rather than a simple technical compartment.

The judges also stressed that the discrepancy with respect to the projects declared in the wake they were evident and documented by the municipal inspectionswho had ascertained the construction of a completely different building artifact from that provided for in the original reports.

The TAR then established that the Municipality acted correctly In ordering demolition, since an intervention of this magnitude would have requested a building permitnever requested by the owner.

Finally, the sentence clarified that, in cases of building abusethe demolition order does not require particular additional reasons, as it is a tied act to current legislation. The Principle of entrusting the private individual cannot prevail over the public interest in the compliance with urban planning regulations and to the protection of the territory.

Advertisement – Advertising

The implications of the decision

The sentence of Lazio tar n. 5027/2025 It represents an important clarification in the field of building and urban planning, with relevant implications for anyone who intends to carry out work on terraces and solar slabs.

One of the key points of the decision concerns the need to request a building permit For interventions that involve a significant volumetric increase. Presidential Decree 380/2001 establishes that, beyond a certain expansion limit (20% of the pre -existing volume), a work can no longer be considered a simple renovation or relevance, but falls within the category of New buildingssubject to a more rigorous authorization process.

This decision also highlights the crucial role of urban controls by the municipal administrations. The inspections made in the case in question revealed that works declared in the wake could hide far more relevant interventions than the authorized ones. This demonstrates the importance of acareful supervision by local authoritiesboth to ensure compliance with regulations and to prevent situations of building abuse.

Another important aspect is the role of condominiums in building disputes. In the specific case, the condominium took part in the judgment to assert its rights, opposing the expansion carried out on the sunlight.

This confirms that neighbors and condominiums have the right to contest works that can affect the common areas or alter the structure of the building.

Finally, the sentence underlines that There is no legitimate assignment in situations of building abuse. Even if the owner claimed to have operated in compliance with the wakes presented, the TAR clarified that the discrepancies were such as to configure an abuse and that the administration was obliged to issue an order of demolition, without the need for further discretionary assessments.