Reconstruction of ruins: when it is renovation and when it becomes new construction

When four walls aren’t enough

The case addressed arises from the application presented in August 2023 by an agricultural company for the building renovation, with typological reconstruction, of a building now reduced to ruins, of which only the perimeter walls and foundations remained. Too little for the Municipality, according to which it was impossible to demonstrate the real original dimensions of the building and therefore start the works. Since it was an agricultural area, in fact, only renovation would have been possible and not new construction.

The company appealed by referring to art. 107 of the Provincial Law of Trento 15/2015 which opens up the philological or typological reconstruction of destroyed artefacts as long as they are registered in the land registry or can be documented, provided that perimeter elements useful for identifying their shape remain. A criterion, that of “form” which as such would be more elastic than the state criterion of “consistency”. Thesis rejected by the judges of first and second degree.

In fact, for both the TAR and the Council of State, the two rules are not exclusive, they integrate. To trigger the renovation, basic proof is needed: it is necessary to demonstrate not only where the building stood, but also how tall it was and how many cubic meters it occupied, otherwise it is not possible to talk about reconstruction. Just four walls are not enough in any case.

Volumetric determining factor

As underlined in the sentence, in fact, art. 3, paragraph 1, letter. d) of Presidential Decree 380/2001 qualifies as building renovation the restoration of collapsed or demolished buildings, provided that it is possible to ascertain their pre-existing consistency. According to the judges, therefore, it is not possible to ignore elements that allow us to reconstruct not only the plan and location of the building, but also its height and volume. Furthermore, the same provincial law requires not only the presence of perimeter elements that allow the identification of the shape, but also historical documents or period photographs.

These are therefore always necessary, while simple historical correspondence and cadastral plans are not sufficient, as they alone do not allow us to reconstruct the three-dimensional identikit of the collapsed building. That is, the documentation that jurisprudence considers essential to draw the boundary between a simple renovation and a real new construction is missing, documentation not delivered in the specific case, as only notarial deeds of sale and the original cadastral plan dated 1859 were attached to the request.

When recovering a ruin becomes a “new construction”

This is a principle already established by two previous decisions of the judges of Palazzo Spada and reiterated in this judgment. With sentence 5174/2014, the legitimacy of the refusal of a building permit was affirmed when it is impossible to demonstrate the exact consistency of the pre-existing property. With sentence 8035/2020, it was then specifically clarified that the reconstruction of a building which had been in disrepair for a long time, of which only small portions of walls remain which are unsuitable for defining its exact volume, constitutes a new construction and not a renovation, restoration or conservative rehabilitation.

And as regards the provincial legislation, the references to “philological and typological reconstruction” regulate “how” to build, as they refer to the construction methods and materials, but this wording does not fill the gaps on the dimensions of the building. Reports on the characteristics common to contemporary buildings in the area are not comparable to direct evidence on the specific building to be reconstructed.

The practical impact for professionals

For architects, engineers and surveyors who deal with building recovery in protected areas, this sentence is an operational handbook. To prevent a renovation project from being blocked and classified as “new construction”, old land registry papers or notarial deeds from the 19th century are not enough. Three-dimensional evidence is needed: historical photographs, period reliefs or certain graphic designs. Otherwise, the intervention will be subject to current urban planning rules which, in restricted agricultural areas, leave very little room for maneuver.

Valid and insufficient evidence

Here is a summary of the documentary evidence attached to the application for the building renovation of the building subject to the sentence, with an indication of what they can prove and what they cannot prove: