The recent ruling no. 1459/2024 issued by the Regional Administrative Court of Campania, Salerno section, shed light on a significant case in the field of construction and urban planning. The dispute, relating to the rejection of a building amnesty application and the imposition of a financial penalty by the Municipality of Amalfi, was decided in favor of the appellant.
The Court in fact annulled the municipal provisions, underlining fundamental principles to distinguish between free construction and new construction.
But what are the central elements of the decision? We analyze the case and its implications, providing an interpretation for citizens and professionals in the sector.
Advertisement – Advertising
The context of the case
The appellant, owner of a house located in Amalfi, had carried out modifications on one pre-existing roof. Specifically, the original structure was replaced with a new canopy made up of five plexiglass panels mounted on wooden frames. The canopy, positioned above the pre-existing parapet, extended for a length of approximately 11 metres, an average width of 4.5 meters and a height of approximately 2.3 metres.
The Municipality considered that this intervention constituted a “new construction”, arguing that it generated a new volume and, consequently, an urban planning impact. For this reason, it has the request for amnesty was rejected presented by the owner, qualifying the structure as an intervention not permitted in the area. Subsequently, a fine of 20,000 euros was imposed for the alleged violation of building regulations.
The appellant instead claimed that the intervention consisted exclusively in the replacement of the pre-existing roofing with a new removable, waterproofed and non-impacting structure, therefore falling within the scope of free building works according to the art. 6, paragraph 1, letter. b-bis, of Presidential Decree 380/2001.
Advertisement – Advertising
The position of the TAR
The Regional Administrative Court of Campania accepted the owner’s appeal, deeming the Municipality’s measures illegitimate. The ruling clarified that the shed cannot be considered a “new construction” under current legislation.
In fact, “new construction” means an intervention that involves:
- An urban planning and construction transformation of the territory.
- The creation of a volume or surface that significantly affects the urban structure.
- A structure with characteristics of physical stability and temporal permanence, irreversibly anchored to the ground.
In the case in question, the TAR underlined that the plexiglass canopy:
- It did not generate significant new volume.
- It did not involve any significant transformation of the urban structure.
- It was a removable structure, therefore lacking the permanence required to be classified as a new construction.
The Court also highlighted that consolidated jurisprudence (for example, TAR Salerno, n. 3289/2022) considers works such as canopies open on all sides as building renovation interventions. These interventions, not generating volumes or affecting the elevations, fall within the discipline of the certified notification of commencement of activity (SCIA) and do not require a building permit.
Advertisement – Advertising
Implications of the sentence
The Campania Regional Administrative Court’s decision has important implications for both property owners and local administrations. The ruling establishes a clear principle: not all building interventions that modify a pre-existing structure can be classified as “new construction”.
The distinction between interventions subject to a building permit and those that fall within free construction, such as removable or non-impacting works, must always be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific characteristics of the work.
For owners, this ruling represents protection against overly restrictive interpretations of building regulations, which could limit the right to intervene on their property with non-invasive works. On the other hand, local administrations are invited to carefully consider the technical and functional characteristics of the works before issuing sanctioning measures, thus avoiding the risk of measures being annulled in court.
DOWNLOAD THE JUDGMENT
Finally, the case reinforces a consolidated jurisprudential orientation which considers open canopies on all sides as free building interventions, as long as they do not generate significant urban planning loads.
