Pavimentation works contained and serving the main building: it is free building activity

The reference rules

From the aforementioned text it shines through that the works indicated there may actually be considered in the perimeter of application of the regulatory provision, where:

1. are contained within i permeability limits;
2. For their concrete characteristics they are completely unsuitable to influence significantly on the state of the placesand therefore do not determine a significant urban and building transformation of the territory (i.e. they have one limited scope both in absolute terms and in relation to the context in which they are placed) (1).

Add to this that in point 40 of the MIT decree of 2 March 2018, containing the CD free construction glossaryreference is made significantly to “flooring of pertinent areas“.

The concrete case

The Tar Lazio, Latina, section II, in the sent. 4 June 2025, n. 408he faced the case of some flooring works, made by an owner out of two of his funds, consisting of a beaten concrete and in the hidden of the soil, for the purpose of connection between the road and the building; In particular, these interventions, according to the Municipality, could not be carried out, because the fund was in area having an agricultural destination And, consequently, the removal and restoration of the places had been ordered.

The judges showed that:

• The bottom on which the flooring works were carried out could be qualified as relevance of the fund on which the home insisted of the subject who had carried out the intervention, for its characteristics and dimensions; To this end, according to the judges, the cadastral results, important only for tax purposes, did not detect in the opposite direction, but the connotations of substantial instrumentality deduced from the physiognomy of serving and dominant funds as well as by the works on the same made;
• had been respected the current permeability index (48.99%, compared to a 50%limit) (2);
• He had not produced any significant urban and building transformation of the territory.

Precisely in the matter of appliances, the judges recalled the constant jurisprudential teaching (3) according to which the building appliances must have the following characteristics:

• have a objective link which allows nothing more than the destination of the thing to a servant and functional use to the main building;
• I am churns up of an autonomous market value;
• they do not involve a “own urban load”as they exhaust their purposes in the functional relationship with the main building.

The beaten of concrete and the hip had, in the substance of the facts and for the activity carried out, as the only destination that of serve the main residence building of the interested party.

In the specific case, moreover, it was in front of not excessive dimensions of the flooring and, despite the agricultural destination of the area, the area mainly included numerous residential buildings and the presence even of two commercial structures of large food distribution, which were about 300 meters from the lot concerned.

Case history

Between the case studies, we remember that hypotheses of free building activity have been considered:

• the laying of tiles for an overall surface of only 75 sqm affecting on a fund of over 30,000 square meters (4);
• a pavement, with relative screed, of about 15 sqm on an area about 10 times larger (5).

Notes

(1) See,, Former Multis: Council of State, section VI, sent. February 20, 2024, n. 1659; TAR Lombardy, Milan, Section II, sent. 6 September 2018, n. 2049; Tar Puglia. Lecce, section I, sent. February 27, 2020, n. 257.
(2) Tar Campania, Naples, section II, sent. September 20, 2023, n. 5145: “Art. 6 paragraph 1, Presidential Decree 6 June 2001 n. 380 provides that the works of flooring and finishing of external spaces that are contained within the permeability index, (Lett. E-ter) are falling within the “free building” activity. In the same way, pursuant to the Ministerial Decree of 2 March 2018, the renovation and/or replacement of the “pertinent external pavement” also falls within the “free construction. It must therefore be deduced that the free building activity can only be recognized if and as it affects a pertinent area, a circumstance that is excluded in the case of a considerable extension of the area and the change of urban destination (Cf. Tar Salerno, Campania) Section II, 15/04/2021, n.“
(3) See,, Former MultisCouncil of State, section VI, sent. 23 October 2023, n. 9148.
(4) Tar Campania, Salerno, section II, sent. 7 October 2022, n. 2613.
(5) Tar Molise, section I, sent. May 17, 2022, n. 170