The specific case
In the specific case addressed by the Campania judges, we were faced with the “construction, in replacement of the pre-existing one, of a canopy by placing, on the downstream side and above the pre-existing parapet, five plexiglass panels on wooden frames for a total length of approximately 11.00 m x 1.40 m, thus obtaining a volume of approximately 11.00 m in length x 4.50 m in average width and a height of approximately 2.30 m”; according to the judges, “it is evident that, due to its structural and functional characteristics, it does not require a building permit for its construction, given that it does not have an impact on the urban planning system”.
In support, the sentence of 5 December 2022, no. 3289, of the same section of the TAR Campania, Salerno, was recalled, according to which “the construction of a roof open on all sides configures a building renovation intervention that it does not create volume or affect the elevationsand therefore falls within the discipline of the certified notification of commencement of business”.
Similar cases
The jurisprudence has held SCIA is sufficient in the following cases:
- a shed “measuring just 3x3x2.20m in size, placed close to a balconysupported by four wooden poles bolted to the ground and covered with tiles“(2);
- a shed that featured a “wooden structure (3 pillars 30 x 30 x 2.30 cm) with a single-pitched roof in wood and tiles, anchored on one side to the wall of the building at a maximum height of 3.25 m and on the opposite side on the described pillars at a minimum height of 2.30 m” and it turned out to be a “surface area of approximately 9.00 x 2.15 m = 19.35 sq m”(3);
- for a modest shed, composed of “from two iron pillars, a horizontal iron structure with an overlying layer of coppi-type tiles and gutters”, open on three sides and leaning on one side only against the perimeter wall of the main building(4);
- for a shed in compliance with the building and which served as cover for an oven and a barbecuefor a surface area of 9.24 m2 and a maximum height of approximately 2.70 m and a minimum height of approximately 2.50 m(5);
- “wooden roof with a sloping roof, with a surface area of approximately 40 sqmhaving a height of 2.80 m. at the ridge and 2.60 m. at the eaves, made up of wooden pillars, anchored to bolted plates, and wooden beams, surmounted by wooden strips”(6);
- “measuring just m. 3x3x2,20hplaced close to a balcony, supported by four wooden poles bolted to the ground and with a tiled roof”(7);
- “with a sloping roof, measuring 2.50 x 3.40 m, supported by a 5 x 5 cm metal profile structure, leaning against one of the perimeter walls of the main building and open on all other sides”(8);
- “with load-bearing structure and wooden frame, 7.50 m long x 4.10 m wide (corresponding to a surface area of 30.75 m2), height at the ridge of 2.65 m and a 2.00 m high impost, only partially covered with wooden and plastic slabs and anchored to the ground with bolts”(9).
Note
(1) TAR Marche, section II, judgment of 11 March 2024, no. 241; Council of State, section II, judgment of 17 March 2022, no. 1933; TAR Campania, Naples, section II, judgment of 19 August 2019, no. 4359; judgment of 29 April 2019, no. 2284; section IV, judgment of 15 February 2024, no. 1109; TAR Lazio, Rome, section IV ter, judgment of 21 February 2024, no. 3457.
(2) TAR Calabria, Catanzaro section, sentence 3 May 2016, n. 977.
(3) TAR Campania, Salerno, section II, sentence of 24 March 2022, n. 810: “In support of the above conclusion, it is also worth recalling the following ruling, sanctioned by the State Council, section VI, no. 3819/2017: «The construction of a canopy supported by a perimeter wall on one side and parapets on the other two, such as to close a terrace only partially … constitutes a ‘light’ building renovation intervention, that is, one that does not create volume, nor does it affect the elevations. The necessary enabling title is, therefore, constituted by the certified notification of commencement of activity, with the consequent illegitimacy of the application of the sanction consisting of the demolition order» (see, in an adhesive sense, TAR Lazio, Latina, no. 117/2019)”.
(4) TAR Campania, Salerno, section II, sentence 2 February 2024, n. 352.
(5) TAR Campania, Salerno, section II, sentence 3 March 2022, n. 609; in the specific case, the judges recognized the appurtenant nature of the shed, “given by the reduced surface and volumetric dimensions”.
(6) TAR Basilicata, section I, in the sentence of 22 November 2018, n. 771: on that occasion the judges stated that “This is because this artifact does not involve the creation of a building volume and does not alter the shape, i.e. the horizontal and vertical outline of the building, and the elevation, i.e. the external wall facade (on this point see CdS Section VI Sentence no. 1679 of 16.3.2018; CdS Section VI Sentence no. 3819 of 31.7.2017; TAR Lazio Section III bis Sentence no. 32802 of 13.10.2010)”.
(7) TAR Calabria, Catanzaro section, sentence of 3 May 2016, n. 977.
(8) TAR Piedmont, section II, sentence of 26 February 2016, n. 238.
(9) TAR Piedmont, section I, sentence of 22 October 2014, n. 1563.
