Canopies with building permit
As mentioned by the Neapolitan judges, the jurisprudence (1) stated that the release of the Building permit For the realization of a canopy it is necessary when, due to its construction characteristics, it is suitable for alter the shape of the building.
The installation of the roof is, however, subtracted from the building permit regime where its conformation and the reduced size make the purpose of mere furniture and shelter and protection of the property they access. The realization of a roof in adherence to the vertical wall of a pre -existing artifact It is, in fact, suitable to constitute a qualified connection with the relative property – even if not attached to the vertical wall of the building it accesses, but on the ground – of which it changes the shape and constitutes an expansion, with consequent creation of a new volume. And in fact, a canopy connected to the wall of a pre -existing building, makes a body with the main thing to which it adheres, which it changes the shape and involves its expansion, creating new volume and, therefore, needs an adequate authorization title.
In the specific casetherefore, was deemed necessary to build for the realization, in adherence to an artifact, of a “Wooden roof of 11 x 2.20 xh mt which varies from 2.90 to 2.50, consisting of square section wooden pillars of 16 x 16 cm 16 and wooden plane coverage with a bituminous sheath above“And, leaning against the M -European, of a further”Wooden roof size 3.50 x 2.50 xh which varies from 2.00 m to approximately 2.60 meters (…) “.
Canopies with only trail: features
In the jurisprudential cases, we remind you that, on the contrary, The wake was considered sufficient For a canopy:
- “of the size of just m. 3x3x2,20h, placed close to a balcony, supported by four wooden poles bolted on the ground and with tiles covering“(2);
- which presented a “Wooden structure (n. 3 pillars 30 x 30 xhm 2.30 cm) with coverage of a wooden pitch and tiles, anchored on the one hand to the wall of the property at a maximum height of 3.25 m and on the opposite side on the described pillars to a minimum height of 2.30 m“And it was to commit a”surface of about 9.00 x 2.15 = 19.35 square meters“(3);
- composed “From two iron pillars, a horizontal iron structure with overlying cup of tiles of the tiles of the Coppi and Gonta channels”, Open on three sides and leaning on one side on the perimeter wall of the main building (4);
- In adherence to the building and which served as a roof to an oven and a barbecue, for an area of 9.24 square meters and a maximum height of about m. 2.70 and a minimum height of about 2.50 m. (5);
- “Lignea with inclined aquifer, of the surface of about 40 square meters., having a height of 2.80 m. at the top and 2.60 m. to the eaves, consisting of wooden pillars, anchored with bolted plates, and wooden beams, surmounted by wooden strips“(6);
- “of the size of just m. 3x3x2,20h, placed close to a balcony, supported by four wooden poles bolted on the ground and with tiles covering“(7);
- “To an inclined aquifer, the size of mt. 2.50 x 3.40, supported by structure in metal profiles of cm. 5 x 5, leaning against one of the perimeter walls of the main building and open on all the other sides“(8);
- “with bearing structure and wooden smell, having 7.50 m t. of length x 4.10 mt. width (corresponding to an area of 30.75 square meters), height at the top of mt. 2.65 and the MT tax. 2.00, only partially covered with wooden slabs and plastic material and anchored on the ground with pieces“(9).
Notes
(1) Council of State, section VI, sent. January 27, 2021, n. 813; sent. January 18, 2021, n. 561; sent. 7 October 2019, n. 6760.
(2) Tar Campania, Salerno, section II, sent. March 24, 2022, n. 810: “In suffrage of the superior landing, it also applies to the following arrest, sanctioned by Cons. State, section VI, n. 3819/2017: “The realization of a canopy resting on a perimeter wall for one side and parapets for two others, such as to close a terrace only partially … configures a ‘light’ building renovation intervention, that is, which does not create volume, nor does it affect the prospects. The necessary qualification is therefore made up of the certified report of the start of activity, with consequent illegitimacy of the application of the sanction consisting of the demolition order “(see, in the adhesive sense, Tar Lazio, Latina, n. 117/2019)“.
(3) Tar Campania, Salerno, section II, sent. February 2, 2024, n. 352.
(4) Tar Campania, Salerno, section II, sent. March 3, 2022, n. 609; In the specific case, the judges recognized the pertinent nature of the roof, “given by the reduced surface and volumetric dimension“.
(5) Tar Basilicata, section I, in the sent. November 22, 2018, n. 771: On the occasion, the judges said that “This is as this artifact does not involve the creation of a building volume and does not alter the shape, i.e. the horizontal and vertical contour of the construction, and the prospectus, that is the external mural facade (on the point see CDS Section VI. VI. N. 1679 of 16.3.2018; Cds Section VI. VI. N. 3819 of 31.7.2017; Sent.“.
(6) Tar Calabria, section Catanzaro, sent. May 3, 2016, n. 977.
(7) Tar Piedmont, section II, sent. February 26, 2016, n. 238.
(8) Tar Piedmont, section I, sent. October 22, 2014, n. 1563.
In collaboration with Studiolegalepetrulli.it
