From office at home or vice versa with the municipality’s ok
The question of changes of intended use It was one of the most debated in these nine months from the entry into force of the decree, presented, from this point of view, as an act aimed at allowing the owners of properties to change the intended use at their discretion, without taking into account urban planning rules.
In reality, however, It is not like that at all.
Art. 23-bis of your introduced by the decree establishes that it is always allowed:
- the “horizontal” change in the intended use of the individual real estate unit within the same functional residential, tourist-receptive, productive and directional, commercial 1-bis category);
- the “vertical” change of the intended use of the individual real estate unit between different categories (paragraph 1-ter);
- In both cases, in compliance with sector regulations and “without prejudice to the possibility for municipal urban planning tools to set specific conditions”.
Regional rules for the ground floor and basement premises
And it doesn’t end here. Paragraph 1-quater of the same art. 23-bis, in fact, establishes that for the real estate units placed at first floor above ground or basement The change of intended use is however governed by regional legislation which provides for cases where municipal urban planning tools can identify specific areas in which it is possible, in fact, to carry out the transition from a cadastral destination to another.
Basically, explains MIT in the guidelines, The opportunity to regulate the entity is always up to the entitythrough the affixing of specific conditions, the change of intended vertical use of the real estate units placed on the first floor above ground or basement, taking into account the type of homogeneous territorial area. Even if in this case – the MIT – restrictions or restrictions to change supports tendentially justify within areas A), where needs can be manifested by the need to preserve urban decoration, while they should weaken in other areas, where generally There are no safeguard needs of equal intensity. However, it is an indication since, as specified the last word also in this case it always belongs to the regions.
When the state law is not immediately operational
In essence, we read in the guidelines, with reference to “Simplified” changes Regions can:
- limit, in relation to specific and motivated needs, the operation of the state law;
- allow the full operation of the state law, if the municipal urban planning tools are enabled to identify specific areas where to apply the simplifications also to the real estate units placed on the first floor above ground or bases;
- Modular the operations of the state law, in order to allow the change of intended vertical use of a single real estate unit only in accordance with the form of use prevalent in the property.
The simplifications pass from the trail
There state lawon the other hand, is directly operational regarding the definition of the title necessary for changes of intended use of the individual real estate units. In this case, in fact, the principle according to which a procedure for multiple purposeswithin which, for reasons of procedural economy, the legitimacy of both the intervention to be performed and of the change of use required, and to the outcome of which, if necessary, a single qualification title is issued, is simultaneously examined.
Enough essentially present a single trailthis is also necessary in the event that it is possible to change the intended use without works, or when interventions fall within the scope of free construction, unless the regions provide for further simplifications.
The obligation to build permit remains Only when interventions submitted to this discipline must be carried out.
No to primary urbanization charges even if the PRG provides for it
Finally it must be considered fully operational and cannot be questioned in any way theexemption from the payment of urbanization chargesas clarified by the guidelines. In fact, it is expected that:
- for i changes of intended horizontal use Primary or secondary urbanization charges are not due (aimed at covering expenses for services, nursery schools, green areas, etc.) as the equivalence of the urban use of use is indicated a priori by state legislation;
- for i Vertical changes of intended use Only primary urbanization charges are not due as the change takes place in an already urbanized context, while secondary urbanization charges are due as the change occurs only tendentially to urban invariance.
The exemptions, specifies the MIT note, are operational and applicable even in the presence of specific provisions of the urban planning dictated, for example, as part of the technical standards for implementing the PRG current ones. Compared to these rules, in essence, the provision of state level prevails that the individual municipalities can say.
