Silos are not technical volumes
In the sent. February 11, 2025, n. 454, the Lombardy Tar, Brescia, said that Two silos volumes used by a woodworking factory cannot be consideredone of which “placed in adjacent to the wall of the building and border with the map. 96 (dimensions about 2.00 x 2.00 m)“, With a volume of 30.8 cubic meters, while the other”placed on the border with the map. 584 and the map. 402 (diameter about 4.00 m)”, With a volume of 144.44 cubic meters.
According to the judges, the two silos they were not artifacts uniquely intended to contain technological devices and had significant dimensions both in absolute value, and in proportion to the main building, to which they were structurally connected through pipes and which they overcome in height. Therefore, on the physical level they determined a clear increase in volume and a significant modification of the property in which they are placed.
They were also, moreover, equipped with its own functional autonomy As part of the production context and precisely market valuebeing responsible for the collection of dust offered by the woodworking process, for which they could not be considered completely without their own possibility of exploitation with respect to the main buildingrequirement constantly requested by the administrative jurisprudence to delimit the theoretical and application boundaries of the concept of technical volume.
On the basis of the characteristics of these artifacts, the jurisprudence of the past has therefore stated that “A silos cannot be counted among the technical volumes“(3). In fact, “Even if the silos have an undeniable functional link with the activity of a farm – they involve a volumetric dimensions, moreover absolutely relevant with their own physical individuality and its own structural conformation that is not even an integral or constitutive part of anything else built, so that they are provided with an autonomous market value and their cubature denotes without the possibility of denially denied its autonomous and different destination from that at the service of the property it accesses“(4). The accessory nature of the structure to the production activity is therefore not sufficient elementin the absence of the other requirements indicated by the jurisprudence, to make the same urbanistically irrelevant or to automatically allow its qualification as a technical volume(5).
Silos are not mere appurtenances
The two silos in question, according to the judges, they could not be qualified even as pertinent technical systems as they are inextricably at the service of the main production building and with lower size to 20% of the volume of the building they access (in the specific case, in fact, the numerical data confirmed the dimensions contained with respect to the main building, having the latter a volume of about 5,600 cubic meters, while the two silos developed a volume of 30.8 cubic meters and 144.44 cubic meters ., that is, a size of about 3%, clearly lower than the 20%limit).
As is known, art. 3, paragraph 1, lett. E.6) of Presidential Decree no. 380/2001 considers new construction “The pertinent interventions that the technical standards of urban planning tools, in relation to the zoning and the environmental and landscape value of the areas, qualify as new construction interventions, or which involve the construction of a volume greater than 20% of the volume of the main building“. The rule does not qualify as pertinent every work that has a volume of less than 20% of that of the main building, since such an interpretation would risk subtracting the authorization regime works thatwhile falling within the aforementioned regulatory parameters, However, they are significant as regards Since they are compared to buildings of large extension and which have their own functional or use autonomy, such as to compete for the increase in the urban load. The rule, on the contrary, establishes that even works of a declaredly pertinent nature – that that is, they are on a physical and functional level – are in any case considered, for construction purposes, such as new buildings where they present significant size. Therefore, to exclude that an artifact is qualifiable as a new construction work it is necessary that this has first and ex se pertinent nature, on the basis of the identification criteria for this purpose elaborated by the jurisprudence, and then which also present a dimension of less than 20% of the volume of the building to which it accesses.
This reconstruction is consistent with the notion of relevance in urban planning matterswho has his own peculiarity with respect to that developed in the civil spherein that the artifact deemed “pertinent” must be not only preordained to an objective need of the main building and functionally inserted at its service, but also of modest size so as not to involve an increase in urban load and without independent function or value market, in the sense that his volume must not allow his destination different from that at the service of the property he accesses (6).
On this point, the consolidated jurisprudential principles can refer, according to which the relevant relevant character for urban purposes derives from the fact that the works do not involve a new volume and, therefore, involve a new and modest technical volume as defined for urban planning purposes (7), So the building intervention that significantly modifies the state of the places, with autonomously usable artifacts, does not constitute “urban relevance”, but “new construction” which requires the prior issue of the building permit (8).
The nature of relevance can be recognized, for construction purposes, in the presence of a objective functional and instrumental link between accessory and the main onean connection such as to allow only the destination of the thing for durable appropriate use, which emerges if the appurtenant work has one reduced and modest dimension compared to the thing it inherentsuch as to make the work without an autonomous market value and not involving an urban load or a significant alteration of the area’s structure; so that an abuse cannot be considered merely pertinently who, despite having significantly reduced proportion compared to the main work, has unmarked characteristics of significant size, of autonomous market value, of significant urban load and occupies a different and further area compared to that already occupied by the pre -existing main building (9).
In light of the hermeneutic indications referred to above, it is not decisive, for the purposes of attributing the pertinent qualification, the observation that the volume of the two silos would be of modest entity if compared to the entire production complex, since these artifacts present in any case, in absolute valuesignificant dimensions have a clear modifying impact of the places, causing a significant transformation of the property to which they are structurally and functionally connected. They therefore integrate a new construction both on the level of the construction and objective characteristics that are their own, and from a functional point of view, being instrumental to the performance of the business activity (10).
Notes
(1) Council of State, section IV, sent. 13 September 2024, n. 7558; Section V, sent. April 16, 2024, n. 3468; Section IV, sent. 7 July 2020, n. 4358.
(2) Council of State, section IV, sent. 7 July 2020, n. 4358.
(3) TAR Lombardy, Brescia, section I, sent. February 19, 2014, n. 213; Tar Turin, section II, sent. 5 July 2018, n. 821; Tar Veneto, section II, sent. 25 June 2024, n. 1593; Tar Campania, Naples, section V, sent. 3 July 2024, n. 4099.
(4) Council of State, section V, sent. April 16, 2014, n. 1889.
(5) Tar Campania, Naples, section V, sent. 3 July 2024, n. 4099.
(6) See,, Former MultisCouncil of State, section VI, sent. May 25, 2022, n. 4181; Section VII, sent. April 3, 2023, n. 3422.
(7) Council of State, section II, sent. January 28, 2021, n. 847.
(8) Council of State, section VII, sent. November 3, 2023, n. 9481.
(9) Council of State, section VI, sent. August 4, 2023, n. 7548) “(See State Cons. Section VI, 28.05.2024, n.4725)
(10) Council of State, section VI, sent. December 29, 2020, n. 8504.
In collaboration with Studiolegalepetrulli.it
