Summary
With ruling No. 3105/2025, the Lombardy Regional Administrative Court – Milan (Section II) confirmed the lawfulness of the review conducted by the Municipality of Milan concerning the well-known demolition and reconstruction development project involving changes to the building’s footprint and shape, consisting in the construction of a twenty-four-storey building submitted through a Certified Notice of Commencement of Works as an alternative to a Building Permit (SCIA ex Article 23 of Presidential Decree No. 380/2001).
In dismissing the claim filed by the owner of an adjacent property, the Court upheld the correctness of the Municipality’s approach, clarifying that:
- to determine the volumetric consistency of a building, it is possible to rely on a sworn statement when the original building or planning records are
unavailable; - the exchange between the applicant and the Landscape Commission are a natural part of the procedure and may result in overcoming an initial
negative opinion through appropriate design amendments; - the morphological rules under the PGT may be waived where a positive
opinion is issued by the Landscape Commission and the applicant undertakes to comply with the related conditions; - the opinion of the Landscape Commission constitutes an exercise of
technical discretion, which may only be challenged before the courts in cases of manifest illogicality or factual misrepresentation.
Comment
The judgment did not directly concern the abstract lawfulness of the SCIA as an alternative to a Building Permit, but rather the challenge, brought by a third party, against the communication through which the Municipality of Milan responded to a verification request pursuant to Article 19(6-ter) of Law No. 241/1990, relating to an alternative SCIA for demolition and reconstruction works.
Accordingly, the dispute did not involve the classification of the works from an urban-planning standpoint, but the legitimacy of the Municipality’s response. The decision therefore could not—and did not intend to—establish a general principle concerning the type of authorizing instrument applicable, however, does not imply that the Court excluded the legitimacy of the SCIA procedure.
Specifically, as set out on page 4 of the ruling, the claimant alleged that the Municipality’s approach was inconsistent, stating that “if this is a case of “new construction”, the assigned building index is clearly not respected; conversely, if it is considered a “reconstruction outside the original shape”, the existing volume is clearly not maintained, since a three-storey building is being replaced by a tower of at least twenty-one storeys.”
In response (pp. 4 and 7), the Municipality clarified that “the development qualifies as building renovation pursuant to Articles 3(1)(d) and 10(1)(c) of Presidential Decree No. 380/2001, involving demolition and reconstruction with changes to the building’s shape and footprint,” and that “the project’s building volume corresponds to the reconstruction of the existing built form, albeit with a new modulation of architectural volumes”.
The reasoning provided by the Municipality was neither challenged nor refuted by the Regional Administrative Court, which treated it as a legitimate element of the administrative record and a sufficient basis for the contested measure. Specifically:
- the Court did not declare unlawful, nor did it in any way question, the
Municipality’s classification of the development as a building refurbishment; - starting from this classification, the volume realized corresponds to that of the existing building, calculated in accordance with the applicable regulations;
- the judgment therefore implicitly acknowledges the validity of the
administrative process examined, including the qualification of the works.
For further details, the full text of the judgment is available here.
SI – Studio Inzaghi remains available for any further information or clarification.