The permesso di costruire: when it is required

The difference from the other consents is one of nature rather than degree. The SCIA and the CILA are acts of the private party supported by a professional's certification; the permesso di costruire is an administrative instrument the municipality adopts following a review.

Three practical consequences follow. Work cannot begin before issue. The compliance assessment is made by the authority and consolidated in the instrument. The consent is onerous, and entails payment of the development contribution.

Article 10 of Presidential Decree 380 of 2001 identifies the works transforming the planning and building fabric of the territory that are subject to a permesso di costruire. The list defines the scope of the permesso di costruire.

Paragraph	Category
a)	New construction
b)	Urban restructuring
c)	So called heavy building restructuring

The first two raise no classification difficulty: new construction and urban restructuring are categories defined by article 3 and their scope is clear. It is paragraph c) that concentrates the interpretative difficulty, because it captures only part of building restructuring, leaving the remainder to the SCIA regime.

Paragraph c) subjects to a permesso di costruire building restructuring works producing a building organism wholly or partly different from the previous one, where certain conditions are present. The four conditions must be checked one by one.

The conditions cover four distinct situations. Alteration of the building's overall volume. Change of use, limited to properties within homogeneous zone A. Alteration of the envelope, the overall volume or the elevations, where the property is protected under the code of cultural heritage and landscape. Demolition and reconstruction of buildings in protected areas in the cases the provision identifies.

The operational test that follows is twofold. On ordinary building stock the main dividing line is overall volume: work altering it leaves the scope of the SCIA. On protected stock the line drops considerably, because altering the elevations or the envelope alone is enough to require the permit.

Administrative case law has consistently held that alteration of the envelope, the height, the elevations or the volume of the original construction does not allow the work to be treated as ordinary building restructuring. It is a settled line and should be borne in mind wherever the classification looks uncertain.

Standing belongs to the owner of the property or to a person holding an appropriate title to apply. The notion of appropriate title covers positions other than ownership, such as rights in rem or arrangements conferring possession of the asset with authority to carry out the work.

Verification of standing is something the review always performs and the filing must document. In situations of co ownership, common parts or leasehold the question calls for a preliminary check, because deficient standing cannot be cured during the procedure without starting again.

The content of the application depends on the works and on the forms adopted by the municipality, but some categories of document recur in every case and their absence is the leading cause of requests for further information. Certain categories of document nonetheless recur every time.

Category	Content
Standing	Documentation of ownership or of the appropriate title
Lawful status of the existing building	Earlier consents and the approved drawings, for work on existing properties
Drawings	Existing, proposed and comparison, with the planning parameters verified
Technical report	Classification of the works and demonstration of compliance
Parametric checks	Areas, volumes, heights, distances, site coverage under the local definitions
Assent of other authorities	Landscape authorisation, heritage opinion, seismic requirements, as applicable
Services and energy documentation	Energy performance report and services designs, where required

One caution on the parametric checks. The definitions of net floor area, gross floor area, volume and height may be refined by the municipal building regulation in ways that differ from common practice, and the check must be carried out against the local definitions. It is a control the review always performs and one the designer cannot assume by analogy with another municipality.

One of the four conditions in paragraph c) applies exclusively to homogeneous zone A, meaning historic centres and the parts of the territory of historic, artistic or environmental interest under the classification of the planning instruments. The regime is stricter in historic centres.

In these zones a change of use associated with building restructuring producing an organism wholly or partly different from the previous one is sufficient to require a permesso di costruire, irrespective of any change in volume. The treatment is more restrictive than elsewhere.

The practical significance is considerable for conversion projects in historic centres, where the combination of restructuring and change of use is common. Checking the zoning therefore precedes classifying the works rather than following it.

Issue of the permit entails payment of the development contribution, commensurate with the incidence of infrastructure charges and with the construction cost. The two components follow different timings.

This feature has to be built into the budget of the operation from the start rather than at the end, because the amounts depend on the resolution of the competent municipality and can vary appreciably from one area to another. The subject is covered in the branch devoted to the contribution.

One little used mechanism is worth knowing. The rules preserve the option for the applicant to seek a permesso di costruire for works that would be subject to a certified notice, with exemption from payment of the development contribution under article 16, save for the situations identified by the rules on the SCIA in lieu of a permit.

The reason this choice can be worthwhile is not economic but a matter of certainty. The express instrument consolidates an assessment by the authority, whereas the notice leaves open, for the statutory period, the possibility of an order prohibiting continuation. On complex projects or on properties with a convoluted building history, the longer procedure may be an acceptable price for a stable consent.

The framework of article 10 is national, but the regions may identify by statute further works which, given their impact on the territory and on infrastructure demand, require a permesso di costruire. The national list is therefore not exhaustive.

It follows that the national list is not exhaustive for any given territory, and that checking the regional statute is part of the classification exercise rather than an incidental control. Checking the regional statute is an obligatory step.

Classification based on the financial size of the works is the first. The consent depends on the effect of the work on the building, not on its value, and an expensive finishing project may require a CILA while a small extension requires the permit.

Failing to check overall volume is the second. It is the parameter separating heavy from light restructuring on ordinary stock, and its assessment should be documented in the drawings rather than asserted in the report.

Underestimating the regime of constraints is the third. On protected properties the threshold drops and alteration of the elevations alone is sufficient, which reverses the assessment one would make on the same project without protection.

Unverified standing is the fourth, and produces an application to be redone rather than supplemented. The application must be redone rather than supplemented.