The question
In this specific case, the rainwater treatment plant:
- was composed of prefabricated tanks,
- it turned out completely underground,
- it was composed of the following elements: a spillway, a storage tank with a useful capacity of approximately 1.50 m3, an oil separator with coalescence filter, a tax inspection pit,
- was accompanied by pipe connection works entering and leaving the purification plant.
The answer is important because, based on the correct qualification of the work, the related necessary building title must be identified: for example, as claimed by the interested party in the defense writings (through a declaration from his trusted technician), if we were faced with a hypothesis of extraordinary maintenance, a CILA.
The correct building qualification of the intervention
According to the municipal technical office, it could not be a mere extraordinary maintenance work (1) subordinate to a CILA. And in fact, a rainwater treatment plant has to do with it disposal and the correct conveyance of water – to be achieved outside the outline of the existing building or buildings (without making any distinction between those used for civil or industrial uses) – and refers more properly to those that the legislator, in the art. 3, paragraph 1, letter. e), point e.2(2), of the Consolidated Building Act (3) identifies as “primary urbanization interventions” serving a building and/or a plant/activity.
Indeed, for the consistency And quality of the works, the latter cannot be traced back to the extraordinary maintenance of an already existing system, which – while allowing the insertion of new elements – presupposes the continuation (even by expanding it) of the same utility that the original system already allowed the building which the system serves; while the infrastructure of a building or production plant functionally presupposes the expansion of existing or to be built building or production utilities, with the creation of the relevant service networks which previously either did not exist or were sized to lower standards.
In other words, to distinguish whether the installation of a system (such as a rainwater disposal system) serving a construction project (building or production structure) must be classified and classified as an extraordinary maintenance intervention or as an infrastructure intervention ( which requires the building permit as an intervention from scratch of transformation of the area), consideration must be given to function that it performs with respect to the building or area it serves:
- if he comes maintained (or made more efficient) an already existing function (service, as in the present case, rainwater disposal), we are in the presence of extraordinary maintenance;
- while, where the plant element edit –expanding it – or makes the function for which it is preordained possible for the first time (for example, because it allows the regulation of white water, which was previously dispersed, to be conveyed into its delivery, as seems to be considered in today’s case), we will be in the presence of a infrastructure plant subject to building permit.
The ineffectiveness of CILA
The nature of the work and the title that it requires (building permit) means that CILA cannot produce any effectincluding that relating to the start of the deadlines set for taking action: the orientation is firm in believing that in the absence (or of documentary completeness or) of suitability of the title with respect to the reference urban planning regulation, the effectiveness of the SCIA (or of CILA) is not consolidated, although it is possible to exercise i self-protection powers even after the twelve-month deadline has expired from its presentation(4).
On this aspect, we remind you that recently the TAR Emilia-Romagna, Bologna, section. II, in the sentence. 3 January 2025, n. 7, it was reiterated that “Although the CILA referred to in the new law n. 73/2010 is an intermediate institution between the free building activity (art. 6 TU building) and the SCIA (Council of State opinion no. 1784 of 4 August 2016) and which, unlike the latter, the system does not contemplate (see art. 19 L.241/90) inhibitory, conforming and restorative powers, this does not change the fact that when the intervention covered by CILA is in conflict with the urban planning regulations in force and/or subject to other qualifications (building permit or SCIA) lThe Administration holds repressive and restorative power referred to in Presidential Decree no. 380/2001 (ex multis Consiglio di Stato section II, 22 April 2024, n. 3645). In fact, the use of a liberalization instrument such as the CILA for interventions that require a different title, in particular the building permit, makes it “tamquam non esset”, consequently the activity carried out on its basis constitutes a building abuse (again Council of State section II, 22 April 2024, n. 3645)”.
Notes
(1) Art. 3, paragraph 1, letter. b), according to which they are “extraordinary maintenance interventions”, “the works and modifications necessary to renew and replace even structural parts of the buildings, as well as to create and integrate sanitation and technological services, provided that they do not alter the overall volume of the buildings and do not lead to urbanistically significant changes in the intended uses involved increase in urban planning load. Extraordinary maintenance interventions also include those consisting in the splitting or merging of real estate units with the execution of works even if they involve the variation of the surfaces of the individual real estate units as well as of the urban planning load provided that the overall volume of the buildings is not modified and maintains its original intended use. The scope of extraordinary maintenance interventions also includes changes to the elevations of legitimately constructed buildings necessary to maintain or acquire the usability of the building or for access to it, which do not jeopardize the architectural decoration of the building, provided that the The intervention complies with current urban planning and building regulations and does not concern properties subject to protection pursuant to the Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code referred to in Legislative Decree 22 January 2004, n. 42”.
(2) “e.2) primary and secondary urbanization interventions carried out by entities other than the Municipality;”.
(3) Presidential Decree no. 380/2001.
(4) Council of State, sec. VI, sentence. 7 April 2021, n. 2799; TAR Lazio, Rome, section. II bis, sentence. November 26, 2022, n. 15822; sent. 13 March 2023, nr. 4419; sent. 4 July 2024, n. 13559.
In collaboration with studiolegalepetrulli.it
