The three categories under article 23
Article 23 of the code identifies the works that may be carried out in lieu of a permesso di costruire by certified notice. The list is exhaustive and covers three categories.
The first category comprises restructuring works under article 10 paragraph 1 letter c), meaning those producing a building organism wholly or partly different from the previous one, where they alter the overall volume, or, limited to properties in homogeneous zone A, change the use, together with works altering the envelope of properties protected under the code of cultural heritage and landscape. These are the so-called heavy restructurings.
The second category comprises new construction or urban restructuring governed by implementing plans however named, including negotiated agreements having the value of an implementing plan, which contain precise volumetric, typological, formal and constructional provisions, whose presence has been expressly declared by the competent municipal body when approving those plans or reviewing existing ones. The premise is an implementing planning instrument.
The third category comprises new construction directly implementing general planning instruments containing precise volumetric provisions. The instrument must carry precise volumetric provisions.
The substantive premise uniting the three
Beneath the diversity of the situations a single principle can be read, and grasping it helps in assessing doubtful cases. Grasping it helps in assessing doubtful cases.
The instrument is available where the works are already fully predetermined, either by the rules or by the planning. In the first category predetermination comes from article 10, which types the situations. In the other two it comes from the planning instruments, which must contain precise volumetric provisions whose presence is declared by the municipal body.
Where the planning leaves room for assessment, the premise fails and an express decision remains necessary. This explains why the SCIA alternativa is not an instrument available at the private party's choice for any heavy project: it is admitted only in the cases expressly listed and provided the conditions are present.
A consent with deferred effect
This is where the most significant procedural difference from the ordinary SCIA lies. It concerns the moment work may start.
The notice must be filed with the one stop building office at least thirty days before work starts. Work may begin only after that period has run, during which the municipality checks the completeness and regularity of the documentation, may request further information with suspension of the periods, and may adopt a reasoned prohibition preventing work from starting.
The notice therefore takes effect thirty days after filing, provided it is complete in every technical and formal respect. Completeness of the documentation is a condition of effectiveness.
| Aspect | Ordinary SCIA | SCIA in lieu of a permit |
|---|---|---|
| Basis | Article 22 | Article 23 |
| Works | Structural extraordinary maintenance, structural restoration, light restructuring | Heavy restructuring and new construction in the typed cases |
| Start of works | From filing | Thirty days after filing |
| Municipal power within the period | Prohibition of continuation and removal of effects | Reasoned prohibition preventing the start |
| Development contribution | Generally not due | Due under article 16 |
The row on the start of works is the one that dispels the notion of a faster instrument. Compared with the ninety days of the ordinary procedure there is a gain, but it is not the immediacy of the ordinary notice.
The contribution regime
The SCIA alternativa is onerous in the same way as a permesso di costruire: the development contribution is due under article 16, and its calculation accompanies the filing. The name of the consent does not affect the liability to pay.
This feature should be flagged to the client together with the choice of consent, because the name of the instrument tends to suggest a financial regime different from the actual one. The name suggests a simplification that does not exist financially.
The weight of the professional certification
The absence of an express decision shifts responsibility for compliance entirely onto the designer. No act of the authority establishes it.
A generic certification, or one framed in standard formulas, does not perform the function. The designer must specifically identify the planning instruments checked, the parameters observed and the sector rules applied. An untrue attestation carries consequences which, beyond the civil and disciplinary level, extend to the criminal level under the general rules on certified declarations.
Operationally this means the material supporting the certification must be retained: in the event of subsequent control or dispute it is the evidence that the work was lawful. In the event of a check it is the only defensive material available.
How to weigh the choice
Where both routes are available, the choice between a permesso di costruire and a notice in lieu comes down to three variables. It comes down to a trade-off between time and liability.
Time is the first, and favours the notice: thirty days against the ninety of the ordinary procedure, subject to extensions. It is the most visible advantage and it is real.
Stability of the consent is the second, and favours the express decision. The permit consolidates an assessment by the authority, whereas the notice leaves compliance entirely to the certification, with the power of subsequent control remaining exercisable.
Professional exposure is the third, and also favours the express decision. In the ordinary procedure the review shares the compliance check with the designer; under the notice that check is the designer's alone.
A practical test follows. On projects with a clear classification, detailed planning and documented existing status, the notice in lieu is the efficient choice. On projects with any margin of uncertainty, the extra sixty days of the ordinary procedure buy cover that no certification provides.
When using this instrument is inappropriate
The greater procedural freedom does not lessen the rigour required on compliance, which must be full and beyond argument. Compliance must be complete and not arguable.
The highest risk case is uncertainty over the classification of the works, particularly at the boundary between building restructuring and new construction. In that situation use of the SCIA alternativa may prove inappropriate, with the sanctions consequences of carrying out work without the required consent.
The second risk case is implementing plans whose adequacy has not been expressly declared by the municipal body. The declaration is a condition of the second category and its absence cannot be substituted by the designer's own assessment.
Where the classification is doubtful, the permesso di costruire remains the prudent choice, and the longer procedure is the price of a stable consent. The longer procedure is the price of certainty.
The most frequent errors
Treating article 23 as a general option for heavy works is the first, and ignores the exhaustive nature of the three categories. The exhaustive nature of the list is thereby ignored.
Starting work before the thirty days have run is the second, and leaves the project without an effective consent. The project is left without an effective consent.
Assuming the consent is not onerous is the third, and produces a budget understating the contribution component. The budget comes out understated on the contribution.
Giving a generic certification is the fourth, and turns the pillar of the procedure into a document with no evidential value. The pillar of the procedure becomes a document without value.
Note: the legislative references in this page relate to Italy and are current as at the date of publication. The particular cases the rules provide for and regional adaptations continue to apply: the text in force, the regional legislation and the municipal building regulation should be checked before any operational use.