Installing a pergotenda without permits: this is when the Campania Tar can cancel a demolition order for a pergoting, recognizing it as a free construction, free of permit and landscape authorization. Clarified the limits and rights of citizens.

In recent years, the installation of curtains, pergolas and pergotendas has aroused numerous interpretative doubts on the urban-building level. When is landscape authorization needed? And when can we talk about free construction?

A recent sentence of the Campania Tar clarifies on a concrete case, offering important ideas for citizens, technicians and administrations.

But what did the court decided? What are the limits and conditions so that a pergotenda can fall into free construction?

Let’s find out together.

Advertisement – Advertising

The case: a pergoting in the bound area and the demolition order

It all begins with the installation, by a town, of one Retractile and removable pergotent on a property terrace. The work, according to what was declared by the owner, had temporary characterdid not exceed 120 days and did not involve significant structural changes. For this, on 6 August 2020, one had been regularly presented Cila (Communication Starting assessed works) to the Municipality, as expected for free construction interventions.

Despite this, the Municipality of Serrara Fontana has issued demolition order n. 59 of 9 October 2020, believing that the intervention was abusive. To motivate the decision, also the fact that the property was the subject of one previous application for building amnesty pursuant to law 47/1985, not yet defined. The Municipality also argued that Pergotenda had been installed in one landscape tied areawhich would have requested the authorization of the body in charge of the protection of the landscape.

However, the applicant stressed that:

• there preliminary warning At the removal of the curtain it had never been notified to her personally, but sent via PEC to a third party (the technician);
• The work carried out had characteristics of temporaryity and removabilitysuch as to fall within the definition of Free construction intervention;
• The Municipal Building Urban Planning Regulations (Ruec) provides that, even on the properties subject to amnesty not yet defined, interventions of ordinary and extraordinary maintenanceif necessary to guarantee the continuous use of the good.

These were the premises of the appeal to the Campania Tar, which then carefully examined the nature of the intervention and the correctness of the municipal work.

Advertisement – Advertising

When the pergotenda is free building: what jurisprudence says

The ruling of the Tar Campania is part of a now consolidated vein of the administrative jurisprudence, which clearly distinguishes between permanent structures And Light and removable structures Like the pergotends. The key point is not so much the presence of a coverage as the nature of the main work: if it is a simple sun protection, retractable and devoid of stable elements, the intervention is part of thefree construction.

The TAR explicitly cites its own previous sentence (Tar Campania Naples, Section III, n. 2289/2023) and one of the Lazio TAR (n. 12772/2023), both agree in believing that:

“The curtain, integrated to the supporting structure, cannot be considered a” new construction “, given that it is in plastic and retractable material, in order to have no characteristics such as to constitute a relevant building organism, involving transformation of the territory”.

The discriminating element, therefore, is the accessory function of the structure, which must not create a new housing space or alter the shape or prospect of the building. And it is precisely on this principle that the regulatory modification introduced with art. 6, paragraph 1, lett. B-ter of the Consolidated Construction Text (DPR 380/2001), which explicitly included “Pergola curtains with retractable cloth” among the works achievable without building permiteven if equipped with a fixed structure for support.

In the concrete case, the TAR believed that the contested work was retractable, removable and accessorywithout creating new volumes or permanent structural changes. In the absence of contrary evidence by the Municipality (which, however it did not court), the Court therefore concluded that Pergotenda fully included in the field of free construction.

Advertisement – Advertising

Works in the bound area: do you really need landscape authorization?

Another crucial knot faced in the sentence concerns the need or not of the landscape authorization to install a pergoting in the area subjected to bond. In general, any intervention in the bound area requires an evaluation by the competent administration regarding the protection of the landscape.

However, the DPR 31/2017 (Regulation on interventions excluded from landscape authorization) has introduced important exceptions.

In particular, Annex to – Point A.17 of the decree lists among the exempt interventions:

“The external installations accompanying economic activities … consisting of easily removable elements such as curtains, platforms, frangively bulkheads, ornamental products, shading elements or other light coverage structures, and without masonry parts or structures permanently anchored to the ground”.

The Tar Campania believed that the pergote from the subject of the judgment responded to these characteristics: it was easily removabledid not involve masonry works nor permanently altered the building or landscape context. Therefore, No landscape authorization was neededeven if the property was in a protected area.

This principle is particularly important for all those cases in which you want to install light coverage (such as curtains or retractable pergolas) in areas with landscape constraints: If the work is actually light, temporary and reversible, no preventive opinion is needed.

Advertisement – Advertising

Cancellation of the ordinance and protection of the citizen

Sentence no. 122/2025 of the Tar Campania welcomed in full the appeal of the owner, canceling not only thedemolition orderbut also the next report of non -compliancewith which the Municipality had started the procedure for the acquisition of the property to its assets pursuant to art. 31 of Presidential Decree 380/2001.

The Court clarified that the intervention – being free construction – it did not require permit to buildand therefore It could not be qualified as a relevant building abusesuch as to justify so serious sanctioning measures. Consequently, the acquisition procedure was also considered voted for originas founded on an illegitimate act.

No less relevant is the appearance procedural: the TAR believed that the administration has violated the right to participate of the applicant, not having correctly notified the start of the procedure. The warning mentioned in the order had in fact been transmitted only to the technician, and not directly to the ownerby contravening the communication obligations provided for by law 241/1990.

In summary, the decision strengthens two fundamental principles:

• The citizens’ rights to install light and temporary structures under the free construction regime, even in the presence of constraints, provided that in compliance with the technical standards;
• The duty of administrations to act with procedural correctness and adequate motivation, avoiding excesses of power and automatic measures.