TAR Lombardia, II, 29 December 2008, n. 6188 ruling
December 29, 2008 No
6188
ITALIAN REPUBLIC ON BEHALF OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
The Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy
^
Section 2 gives the following
Judgement on appeals nos. 111 and 918 of 2008 proposed
[appeal No. 111/08]
Drive by Franco and Stefano Nespor
represented and assisted by Ada Lucia and Claudia De Cesaris Galdenzi, electively placed with the first in Milan, via a Fogazzaro
against the City of Milan
in the person of the mayor pro tempore Letizia Brichetto Arnaboldi Moratti, represented and assisted by Rita Maria Surat, Armando Tempesta, Antonio Mandara Anna Maria Moramarco, Alessandra Amendolea Montagnani, with an address at the same in Milan, 8 Via della Guastalla, municipal offices Advocacy
against
New Real Estate Projects Ltd
based in Milan, Mr. Virgilio Braga person AU, represented and defended by the lawyer. John Mangialardi, at whose office is elective domiciled in Milan, via dei Bossi 4
to cancel
a) the qualification formed with the expiry of the Act gives presented on 12.10.2006 (Case No. 8371/2006) for the construction of a building intervention in private Lecce No 6;
b) the opinion of the four (sic, 24) in September 2007 by the one-stop shop for construction of the City, which has effectively made the diagnosis indicated in a);
[appeal No. 918/08]
by Stefano Nespor
represented and assisted by Ada Lucia De Cesaris, Hercules and the Roman Empire, at the first address for service in Milan, via a Fogazzaro
against the City of Milan
represented and defended represented by Maria Rita Surat, Armando and Antonio Tempesta Mandarano, address for service as above
against
New Real Estate Projects Ltd.
not in court for the annulment
a) communication management January 8, 2008 (pg 131266/2008, Case No 8371/2006), received on 2/19/2008, coming from the Single Desk 'Building Services, major construction projects, office treatments group 3);
b) the qualification formed with the expiry of the Act gives submitted on 12.10.2006 (Case No. 8371/2006) for the construction of a building project in No privately Lecce 6;
c) the opinion of the four (sic, 24) in September 2007 by the one-stop shop for construction of the City, which has effectively made the diagnosis indicated in a);
d) Building Regulations of the City of Milan and technical standards for implementing the current PRG. Viewed
appeal No. 111/08, notified 18 December 2007 and 8 January 2008, filed January 15, 2008;
Viewed appeal No. 918/08, 18/21 and filed notice of 24 April 2008;
In view of appearance in court of the City of Milan and the memory of incorporation of the Company on the other party to appeal No. 111/08;
Given the parties' submissions, viewed
records and documents of the case;
heard at the public hearing on December 18, 2008, rapporteur Dr. Carmine Spadavecchia, lawyer. De Cesaris, the lawyer. Anna Maria Moramarco (proxy Att. Mandarano) Att. Mangialardi;
Given the following, in fact and law
1. The applicants are, one (Mr. Franco Guidi) located on a co-owner of Lecce 4, the other (Mr. Stefano Nespor) owner of a housing unit located on the fourth floor of the building in Via Lecce 5. The way
Lecce is a private cul-blind, that is for each center line of common ownership of the riparian along the length of their borders.
In front of the building in Via Lecce 5, and the side of the Via Lecce 4, there is an area of \u200b\u200b204.62 square meters, belonging to the defendant company, on which stood a warehouse / lab artigianale avente altezza di ml. 4,50 circa.
Detta area - sita in zona a destinazione B1, funzione R/I, con indice di fabbricazione (If) di 3mc/mq (ex art. 19, 2.2 n.t.a.) - è oggetto dell’intervento edilizio in contestazione.
Secondo la denuncia di inizio attività (d.i.a.) presentata il 12.1.2006, l’intervento consiste in una ristrutturazione edilizia unitamente ad una nuova costruzione; esso è volto a trasformare la struttura presesistente (ex magazzino/laboratorio, alto ml. 4,50) in sette box, con ampi spazi chiusi sovrastanti i volumi destinati a parcheggio, e a realizzare al di sopra di tale struttura due nuovi piani, ciascuno avente altezza di ml. 4,85, dotato di ampi spazi con soppalchi attrezzati e finestrati, e un sottotetto senza permanenza di persone con altezza media interna di ml. 2,35.
In sede di istruttoria tecnica lo Sportello unico per l’edilizia ha rilasciato il 24 settembre 2007 un parere favorevole che: qualifica l’intervento come di ristrutturazione e ampliamento; precisa che il progetto, inerente un edificio artigianale, prevede la traslazione e il cambio di destinazione d’uso (da artigianale a residenziale) della Slp esistente al piano terreno (mq 195,20) con un modesto ampliamento di Slp (mq 1,73), per una Slp complessiva di mq 196,93; ritiene “non pertinente” la verifica della necessità di una pianificazione attuativa; classifica l’accessibilità dell’area come "Sufficient", concludes that "the intervention is part of the volume with an allowable use of the area equal to 2.887 m / m calculated on a land area of \u200b\u200b204.62 square meters.
2. In the first epigraph of appeals (No. 111/08), the plaintiffs challenged the qualifying title formed on giving technical advice and September 24, 2007 one-stop construction.
By application dated 09.27.2007 Mr. Nespor has warned the City to verify compliance with the requirements of the draft law and regulations. By note of 20.11.2007 has recommended building unlawful intervention, urging the City to prohibit the commencement or continuation of the work. By memorandum of January 8, 2008 the manager of the Service informed him that the examination of the practice building had been favorably concluded on the basis of the sworn represented on drawings by the designer.
its second epigraph of appeals (appeal No. 918/08) Mr. Nespor appealed, together with the documents hit by the first application, the executive memorandum about January 8, 2008, the Building Regulations of the PRG and nta.
3. The City and the defendant company, made in court, have controdedotto.
The interlocutory application filed by the first application, giving reasons accepted by the Chamber (ord.za 11.30.2008 No 167), was rejected by the court of appeal (cons. State IV, 15.04.2008 No 2065), which assessed opposed interest, he considered that the prevailing appellant company. "
4. The applicants a preliminary matter that the calculation of the volume was made under Article. 11 of the Building Regulations, which refers to the virtual volume being the product of the surface to a height of virtual dell'interpiano 3.00 ml, regardless of its actual height.
They note that, taking into account the heights real and not virtual, the effective exploitation of the area (of 204.62 square meters) is 2,307 cubic meters, equivalent to 11.27 cubic meters per square meter, well above the index ( 3 mc / m) under article. Nta 19 for zones B1.
also noted that the height in the building project is over 18 ml, while in front of the building is about 11 meters high, and the building next to it (property Drive) is just about 8.5 meters. On this basis
formulate the following grounds of appeal, common to the two actions:
- breach of the Building Regulations (Article 11) and the NTA of prg (art. 19, para. 2.2, and art. 17, par. 1.2) : the criterion laid down in Article virtual. RE 11, aimed at assessing the capacity building intervention settlement can not be used to calculate the index indicated by the machinability of technical standards for implementing the plan (in this case, 3 m / m), which identifies the actual volume constructible cd on the area of \u200b\u200brelevance, based on an assessment of the weight is not settlement, but the sustainable planning and land use for town planning and morphological, that index (3 mc / m) corresponds to that of the rest provided by a primary rule still force (Article 41-d, the sixth paragraph of Law No. 1150 of 1942), which - assuming the applicants - refers to the real volumes are available on areas of relevance, and can be overcome only with a specific detailed plan of subdivision or special agreement extended to ' entire area; art. 17, par. 1.2 NTA, however, excludes the special changes of the zone B1 was actually [former (Recv. 111/08) and the fourth reason (Recv. 918/08)];
- Breach of the Ministerial Decree No 1444/1968 (Article 8) and the NTA of prg (art. 17, para. 1.2, and art. 19, par. 2.2): the height of the building (over 18 m) contrasts with the art. 8 dm 1444/1968 (made mandatory art. 41-d, eighth and ninth paragraphs of Law No. 1150/1942), which states that in areas B the maximum height of new buildings may not exceed the height of existing buildings and surroundings, as well as by art. 17 NTA, which seeks to maintain the zones B1 current state of affairs, excluding changes in substance [the second reason (Recv. 111/08) and sixth reason (Recv. 918/08)];
- misuse and lack of investigation: defendant, the Company has not been shown to have also acquired the undivided share of ownership of the centerline of the driveway, which shall, in regard to accessibility of the building and boxes, problems that the City should, nell'istruttoria of building practice , deepen [the third reason (Recv. 111/08) and the second reason (Recv. 918/08)];
- alternatively, breach of Article. 41-d, sixth paragraph, of Law No. 1150/1942: by calculating the manufacturability of art. 19 nta on the desktop, the City has violated the primary rule (Rule 41-d cit.) Index that allows the excess of 3 m / m only with the approval of implementation plan (Or, as the Court in the case of already urbanized area): in fact, in the absence of detailed plan, and since the volume in the project close to 12 mc / m, the City would have to check the specific existing urbanization and its ability to withstand the new intervention is wrong, moreover, the assessment of accessibility of the area, given that the existing private road, dead-end and only passable by a vehicle at a time is enough in view of the traffic generated by the new settlement; the same art. 19 NTA, admitted when the calculation of the virtual volume, it would be illegal because, allowing you to build with building permit easy, no detailed plan and without pre-existing urbanization, would amount to circumvent the real limits imposed by primary rule, also exceeding the maximum density of land (7 m / m) located in the Ministerial Decree No 1444 of 1968 [fourth reason (Recv. 111/08), seventh and eighth pleas (Recv. 918/08)].
5. No Recourse 918/08 also involves the management note 8 January 2008 (which responds to the formal notice of the person), resulting in the lack of investigation and the Municipality of reasons: a) to be assessed on the basis of feedback to give merely the securities, without inspection, without verification of statements relating to the condition of the premises, without a specific finding on the state of urbanization in the area (first reason); b) to have failed to consider comments made by the person with his own warning (third reason). The complaint also
action is unlawful. 11 of the Building Regulations in respect of Article. 41-d, sixth paragraph, Law 1150/1942, and request the disapplication (fourth why). However, disputes the applicability of virtual computing in this case, where each floor is composed of two distinct volumes (volume of the volume above the floor and raised platforms, each with its own window), so could undermine the premise (the unity of internal volume for individual plans) of such a method of calculation (fifth reason).
6. The Municipality, formed in both lawsuits, has controdedotto.
The other party - formed only on the first appeal - he also controdedotto the merits, and objected at the outset the appeal inadmissible on the ground that by resolving the complaint Logon (dia) in a private act, nor that it would not be as administrative decision or act as authorized, the only remedy available by the party who consider themselves wronged by giving against whom the administration has not exercised any power of repression would be to put a formal request to the Administration itself, and in challenging the 'Any implied rejection formed on that instance.
7. Accordingly, the Board notes the following.
Appeals, having the same object can be gathered and decided by a single sentence.
As regards the exception referred by the respondent, the Board does not consider to dwell on the authorities cited on ways and means to protect the third person is affected by the complaint Logon (dia) - including addresses appear in the process of consolidating the pro- direct actionable nature of the dia (05/04/2007 cons. State VI No 1550 07.29.2008 No IV 3742) - since in this case the actions also affect two acts of the One-stop building: technical advice September 4, 2007 (with whom the City has verified the legittimità della d.i.a.) e la nota 8 gennaio 2008 (con cui ha ribadito la legittimità della d.i.a. in risposta alla diffida formulata da uno dei ricorrenti).
Ciò rende ammissibili i ricorsi, dal momento che, quali che siano lo stato del dibattito sulla questione relativa all’impugnabilità della d.i.a. e gli orientamenti giurisprudenziali sul tema, l’impugnazione di atti amministrativi emessi nell’esercizio del potere di controllo dell’attività edilizia consente comunque un sindacato ad ampio spettro sulla legittimità dell’intervento edilizio avviato con la denuncia di inizio attività, che il Comune non ha ritenuto di interdire, né di reprimere.
8. Nel merito, il ricorso è founded.
The building massing is data that has to do not only with the weight (ie, the load induced by a new urban settlement), but also with the morphology of the territory, and the physical footprint found compatible with the character el 'stance in a given area.
While the calculation of the volumes may be driven by regulatory criteria as to what areas are not computable (non-habitable spaces accessories, technical books, service rooms, etc..), The virtual volume can not be dropped from the physical so far as to significantly alter the actual data.
where individual governments were free to set the calculation of the volume criteria completely divorced from a real base, the primary rule (Rule 41-d, the sixth paragraph of Law No. 1150 of 1942), and the Ministerial Decree (Paragraph 7 dm 2 April 1968 No 1444), which place building density limits valid throughout the national territory without establishing uniform criteria for the calculation of volume, would be applied differently and substantially undermined.
Now the art. 41-d of Law No. 17 August 1942 1150 (added by. 17 6 \u200b\u200bAugust 1967 Law No. 765) provides that in municipalities with land-use plan or program production, in areas where buildings are permitted to volumes in excess of three cubic meters per square meter of area building, or heights exceeding 25 meters, can not be achieved by building volumes and heights exceeding those limits, without the prior approval of a specific detailed plan of subdivision or special agreement extended to the entire area containing the provision planivolumetrica the planned buildings in that area.
Article. 19 nta, where it provides in the areas B1, a building permit the building rights mere seconds with a maximum of 3 mc / sq. Is in line with the primary norm.
Except that, the art. 11 of the Building Regulations 1999, further reducing the height of "virtual" fixed m. Article 3.30. 6.10 NTA, provides that "the volume of Construction is conventionally inferred by multiplying the total gross floor area (SLP) of individual plans for the virtual height dell'interpiano M 3.00 regardless of its actual height. "
9. Now, whatever the ratio of the standard (even count to three meters lower altitudes, use a uniform calculation regardless of differences in height of each floor inside the same building, etc..), It can not be construed to authorize the design and construction of buildings as if the heights pluripiano interp, whatever their extent, were equal to three meters.
The indiscriminate application of virtual test would to alter the rule laid down by the primary rule to the point of admitting volumes entirely divorced from reality as is the case, in which the actual height interp (4.85 m), far higher than that (virtual m. 3.00), is to exploit through the use of lofts interiors artificially enlarged in height. Intesa
otherwise, to circumvent the rule would limit the volume (according to standard primary) said in the planning, authorizing the execution of simple volumes with concession that would require (according to the same standard primary) draw up an implementation plan and - presumably - the development of urbanization, which Verification is instead ruled out when the building, keeping to the limit of 3 cubic meters per square meter, is allowed by a simple concession (now allowed to build).
So interpreted, and apart from that it can "interpolate" the art. 19. nta I agreed to make interventions like the one in dispute, regulatory rule - also open to non-application in case of conflict with higher sources of law: cf. Cons. State V 02/04/2004 No 367, 10/01/2003 No 35 - is removed from complaints of illegality.
The same is true art. 19 NTA, which, rightly understood, is not exposed to either inapplicable (also permitted by law nature: cf. TAR Brescia 11.04.2003 No 1344), né ad annullamento (chiesto in ricorso, ancorché in via subordinata).
10. I motivi che denunciano la violazione dell’art. 8 d.m. 2 aprile 1968 n. 1444 e dell’art. 17 delle n.t.a. non sono invece fondati.
L’art. 8 del decreto ministeriale (che stabilisce limiti inderogabili di altezza in forza dell’art. 41-quinquies della legge urbanistica) dispone che l'altezza massima dei nuovi edifici non può superare l'altezza degli edifici preesistenti e circostanti, con l’eccezione di edifici che formino oggetto di piani particolareggiati o lottizzazioni convenzionate con previsioni planovolumetriche, sempre che rispettino i limiti di densità fondiaria di cui all'art. 7.
In base al rilievo prodotto by the other (attached to doc. 9), and undisputed, the building project has a height of 18.06 meters. Although all the buildings that overlook the street below Lecce are high (between 8.33 meters and 16.32) are close, so in the context of buildings "surrounding" buildings taller than (24.18 and 22.42 meters).
can not lead to a different conclusion, the fact that the B1 zones are defined (Article 17, paragraph 1.2 NTA) as "parts of the territory for which the Plan does not expect any changes in the current state of affairs", since the generic definition , which affects the overall shape of the area, and can not be understood as seeking to foreclose any unchangeable existence, if not at the cost of building rights to frustrate the same forecasts put art. 19.
11. Finally, the applicants doubt the accessibility of the building project and its box, charging the City for lack of inquiry did not consider whether the defendant company has acquired, subject to the property along the processing building, including the undivided share of property the middle of the driveway.
The reason is unfounded. No further deepening the City was required to do when one considers that: the act of sale of the Via Lecce 6 (see private deed on 13.1.2006, registered on 25.05.2006) states that the property is purchased with each accession and relevance, charges and encumbrances active and passive, and that the ownership of privately Lecce is regulated by two deeds of 1923 and of 1930, the act of 1930 relates to the ground (bare area at the time) including a portion, painted in yellow, for a private road and bordering the other half of the private road, the act of sale 25.06 .1926 produced by the applicants states that the private road Lecce "is the common property of the individual facing each the length of their borders and considered way in common between the riparian."
12 For the above considerations, which take up any cause for complaint, the actions must be accepted within the limits specified above, and void formed on the qualification dia 10/12/2006 (Case No 8371/2006) and acts issued by the stop-shop building. Can be recognized, however, reason enough to have the full compensation between the parties of the costs.
PQM
The Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy, meeting the actions in the epigraph, welcomes them, and the effect cancels qualifying title giving formed on the September 4, 2007 opinion and the memorandum of January 8, 2008 ATM single building.
offset expenses. Sort
the above to be performed by the administration.
Decided in Milan, in chambers on December 18, 2008, with the intervention of the judiciary:
Mario Arosio President Carmine
Spadavecchia adviser, drafter
Fabrizio D'Alessandri referendum
The author President