The CILA: works covered

Article 6-bis of the code subjects to certified notification works that cannot be brought within the lists of articles 6, 10 and 22. The notification is therefore a residual regime.

The drafting technique is that of a residual regime, and it produces an effect that must be understood in order to apply it correctly. There is no list of works subject to a CILA: there is a three step identification procedure.

The first step checks whether the work falls within the permit free activity of article 6. If so, no formality is due.

The second step checks whether it falls among the works subject to a permesso di costruire under article 10 or subject to a certified notice under article 22. If so, the corresponding regime applies.

The third step is the conclusion: whatever falls within none of the above is subject to certified notification. Whatever falls within none of the earlier regimes remains subject to notification.

This sequence explains why the CILA cannot be the starting point of the reasoning. Starting from the CILA because the work looks modest skips the two steps that determine whether it applies.

Step	Check	If the answer is yes
1	The work appears in the article 6 list	Permit free works, no filing due
2	The work appears in the article 10 list	Permesso di costruire
3	The work affects structural elements or alters the elevations (article 22)	Certified notification
4	None of the above	Certified notification of commencement

Applying the sequence to existing building stock, the core of the works falling within certified notification can be identified with reasonable precision. They are works that do not touch the structure.

It covers extraordinary maintenance that does not affect the structural elements of the building and does not alter the elevations. This is the most frequent situation, and typically comprises renewal of parts of the property and changes to the internal layout, such as opening or moving doors and partitions, without altering the overall volume and without touching the load bearing structure.

It also covers works which, while going beyond mere ordinary maintenance, do not reach the impact threshold of the higher regimes. The threshold is defined by impact on structural elements.

The test governing the whole category is therefore negative and twofold: not affecting structural elements, not altering the elevations. Once either threshold is crossed, the work is no longer subject to notification.

The value of the sequence shows on a concrete project. Take the refurbishment of a bathroom in an apartment, involving moving a partition, replacing the services and renewing the finishes.

The first step checks article 6. The finishes and services would fall within ordinary maintenance, but moving the partition goes beyond that category: the work as a whole is not permit free.

The second step checks articles 10 and 22. There is no alteration of overall volume, so article 10 does not apply. It then has to be established whether the partition being moved is load bearing and whether the work alters the elevations: if the answer is no on both points, article 22 does not apply.

The third step concludes in favour of certified notification. The conclusion is residual rather than direct.

Note where the technical work concentrates: entirely on establishing the function of the element to be removed. If that partition is in fact a load bearing wall, the whole chain of reasoning collapses and the regime becomes the certified notice. The sequence does not reduce technical responsibility, it locates it.

The same project in homogeneous zone A, or on a protected property, requires a further check on the protection regimes, which are added to the building consent without replacing it. The consent regime does not absorb the constraints regime.

The notification is certified, and the certification is not an accessory. It is the element replacing the authority's review, and through it the qualified professional attests the work's compliance with the applicable rules.

The essential content of the attestation covers three aspects. The classification of the work, meaning the reason it falls within notification rather than a higher regime, which is the most delicate point given the residual nature of the category. Compliance with the planning instruments and regulations. The lawfulness of the existing building on which the work is grafted.

The third aspect is the one practice neglects most often, and with the greatest consequences. Work notified on a property whose lawfulness has not been verified does not regularise the existing building at all and adds an element to an already irregular situation.

The procedure is the lightest in the system: filing of the certified notification, start of works, notification of completion. No instrument is issued and the authority's control follows.

Some notifiable works require drawings to be submitted, according to the forms adopted by the municipality, and works affecting the common parts of a building require a preliminary check of standing under the rules on common ownership. The requirement depends on the nature of the work.

The code also contemplates notification filed once work has already started or finished, attracting a financial penalty. That is a distinct situation, covered in the branch on regularisation, and it does not amount to retrospective consent in the proper sense.

This is the most widespread error in this field and its mechanism is worth isolating. It concerns the classification of structural elements.

The work looks modest, the schedule is already fixed, the notification is quick and requires no waiting. The assessment of the nature of the elements involved is made by eye, without investigating the structure, and concludes that there is no structural impact.

The problem emerges where there was. In that case the work was carried out without the required consent, with the corresponding sanctions regime and with the professional exposed for the certification given.

Prevention is technical rather than procedural: on existing masonry buildings the distinction between a load bearing element and a partition requires investigation, and its absence cannot be compensated by any form of words in the report. On masonry buildings, distinguishing a load-bearing element from a partition requires investigation.

Starting from the CILA rather than from the classification sequence is the first, and applies a residual regime without having checked the regimes preceding it. A residual regime is applied to work that does not belong there.

Assuming the non structural nature of the elements without investigation is the second, and turns the certification into an unfounded declaration. The certification becomes an unverified statement.

Omitting the check on lawful status is the third, and leaves the work grafted onto an existing building of unknown regularity. The work is left grafted onto an unverified existing condition.

Treating common parts as available is the fourth, and produces a defect of standing independent of technical correctness. The defect of standing is independent of the building consent.