As for the effects of revocation of the bond pre-ordered the expropriation, the art. 9, paragraph 3, of TU Expropriations provides that "If it is not notified in time the public utility work, the binding preordained expropriation decade and is applicable to the rules laid down in Article 9 of the Act on construction approved by decree of President of the Republic 6 June 2001, No 380 ". In other words, the area who insisted on placing a pre-ordained expropriation, because it lapsed in his five-year validity has not intervened the declaration of public utility work, is regarded as an area called white or no urban destination, with the consequent application of the provision in Article . 9 of the Consolidated Building, which is reported below. "1. Except in the most restrictive limits set by regional laws and in accordance with rules established by Legislative Decree No 29 October 1999 490, municipalities are allowed without a planning instruments: a) the operations covered by the letters a), b) and c) the first paragraph of Article 3 which relate to individual units or parts of them, b) outside the boundaries of settlements, interventions to limit new construction in the land of the maximum density of 0.03 cubic meters per square meter in case of manufacturing operations at its destination, the area may not exceed one tenth of the property. 2. In areas which have not been approved by the means provided for implementing urban planning instruments such as general condition for the building, in addition to the actions listed in paragraph 1, letter a) are acceptable measures referred to in subparagraph d) of the first paragraph of 'Article 3 of this single text that relate to individual units or parts thereof. These recent actions are also allowed where they relate to generally one or more buildings and modify up to 25 percent of existing destinations, provided that the holder of the permit to be committed by an act transcribed and edited for the City's expense and, in practice, limited to the percentage retained for residential use, sales prices and rents agreed with the municipality and to contribute in the costs of urbanization in Section II of Chapter II of this Title. "
In this last regard, we note that the Council of State, Sec. IV, with the recent verdict September 23, 2004 No 6216, stated that "the maturity of a bond of inedificabilità on a ground for the useless of the five year course in art. 2 of Law No 19 November 1968 1167 allocation - in the approval of prg - vincolistica the urban destination of nature, does not render the affected area without any urban destination, where there is a specific provision of technical standards for implementing the same prg, that areas subjected to expropriation or preordained constraints constraints involving the inedificabilità, at the end of these constraints, assume a particular intended use.
As the grounds of the review, in this case the implementation of technical standards (which were not contested) expressly provides that: "When the weather Master Plan, in so far as affecting specific assets under and subject the property to pre-ordained constraints or constraints involving the expropriation inedificabilità, had to lose effectiveness in the force of law, the areas affected by the forecasts assume the intended ' use required for the rural areas ".
He noted in this connection, Sec. IV that consequently the area in question, even after the expiry of the bond by impressole planning instrument, precisely because of the forecast remembered, had a definite urban destination. The burden imposed on the part of the City Council, is to take action in the event of automatic remembered urban destination, provided for areas for which the bonds have expired impressed with the plan. This charge, in the opinion of Sec. IV, there is the need to establish a new urban destination within the same area, but it is only intended to check that the new automatic target does not change the remaining budget for equipment and areas for public use, providing a result with a special variant to 'integration of the budget for these areas (and taking on that occasion the discipline in the areas covered also forecasts no longer effective).
According to Section IV, therefore, the rule in question, far from giving temporary nature of the automatic target agricultural exemption provided for areas for which the bonds of inedificabilità expired, you had to qualify as a rule of rescue and at the same time closing the system of municipal planning, marked clearly to current and the effectiveness of urban destinations, so to avoid, first, that there may be areas with no urban destination and, secondly, to urge unofficial automatically exercise the powers in this area.
Following the expiry of the five years from the imposition of a planning instrument pre-ordered the expropriation of constraint, the area returns to the full availability of the owner is albeit with limitations arising from the new town planning scheme following its transformation into a "white zone". In this regard we note the decision of the TAR Sardegna, Section II, 2 November 2005, no 2076: "The limitation period of five years from the imposition of a planning instrument pre-ordered the expropriation of the bond, shall include, pursuant to art. 2 of Law No 19 November 1968 1187, the forfeiture of the bond itself and the area returns to the full availability of the owner but with all the limitations arising from the new town planning scheme following its transformation into a "white zone". The absence of volume attributable to that area does not prevent the realization construction of a building, where the holder of it has the availability of additional area assigned edificatoria enabling him to have a sufficient volume in the construction project. "
Still referring to the so-called white areas, it should be noted that the decline of the constraints leads logically to a loss of discipline in urban areas subject to temporary constraints and the consequent application of the rules of so-called white areas (TAR Puglia Bari Sec. II Sent. , 31/08/2009, No. 2027).
The State Council has clarified that the maturity of the bond of PRG, the valence of five years and attained by the use of certain areas of settlement of collective interest, means that the area concerned must be construed subject to the application, instead of the original target area of \u200b\u200bits own regime of the white areas (Council of State Sec. IV Sent., 29/05/2008, No. 2570).
The zones are treated as white only areas for which was dictated at the level of the General Plan, a discipline vincolistica then lapsed for failure to implement in five years.
In such a situation is clearly a lack of land use planning and could only expand again unlimited jus aedificandi inherent in property rights. However, the public interest in a building assault staff development is served by mail pursuant to safeguard art. 4 of Law 10/1977, to operate where it is not implied the willingness of public bodies responsible for urban planning (TAR Lazio, Sec. IIa, No 5292/2001 and TAR Campania Naples Sec. II Sent., 11/04 / 2008, n. 2080).
the light of the arguments set out, the ending of the effectiveness of an implementation plan, in whole or in part is not executed, does not render the affected area with no city planning, but is subject to the requirements of Article. 4, last paragraph, of Law No. 28.01.1977 10, now merged under Art. 9 of the consolidated text of the laws and regulations on construction (dPRn380/2001).
This rule, which specifically allows outside the boundaries of settlements, interventions to limit new construction in the land of the maximum density of 0.03 cubic meters per square meter and in case of manufacturing operations at its destination, the coverage area of \u200b\u200bup to one-tenth of the property , except more restrictive limits set by regional laws. In the second paragraph adds that the restructuring has also allowed construction and in particular those aimed at transforming organizations by building a systematic set of works that can lead to building an organization in whole or in part different from the previous year. These interventions include the restoration or replacement of some components of the building, disposal, editing and adding new elements and systems. In this context of restructuring also included the demolition and reconstruction with the same volume and shape of the existing title, subject only to innovations needed to adapt to anti-seismic regulations.
Therefore, during the so-called white areas is a legitimate major restructuring and transformation of the building organisms.
The course involves five years of unsuccessful, a further case, the immediate cessation of the effectiveness of planning restrictions, not simply of their enforceability, but their very existence as a planning forecast, with the consequence of the necessary re-expansion of Faculty of dominical use of the property by the owner.
is therefore unlawful refusal of planning permission may be opposed by the city to the citizens on the grounds that the affected area has become, by maturity of the bond, "white zone", that no city planning, especially if the 'area should be included in an area not unpunished in absolute discipline of urban planning. In the latter case, it can not operate even the art. Paragraph 4 last letters. b) LN 10 of 1977 which allows for the white areas only rehabilitation and maintenance (TAR Naples, Sec. II, 22 November 2007 / December 7, 2007, No. 15830). The character
white areas is essentially provisional.
It is incontrovertible that the limits of building rights attributable to the white areas are, by their nature temporary. It 'clear obligation of the administration to fill any gaps that occurred as soon as possible in the planning for dictating such a new discipline in urban areas (TAR Campania Naples Sec. II Sent., 31/07/2009, No. 4606 and TAR Puglia Bari Sec. I Sent., 06/05/2008, No. 1079).
Well, the lack of a detailed plan or other implementation tool can not legitimately be invoked at the sole basis for any refusal of planning permission, being able to justify the rejection only if the administration can demonstrate that implementation of these instruments there is genuine need because of the state of inadequate primary and secondary urbanization of the area. Therefore, the lack of implementation of planning instruments can not be the reason which, alone, to correct the refusal to issue the building permit (TAR Puglia Lecce Sec. I Sent., 19/11/2009, No. 2796).
And indeed, the indiscriminate application in the areas already covered by implementation plans, the rules cripple any new construction not only is not satisfying, in principle, the ratio which complies with the rules of the white areas - discipline provided situations because of lack of urban planning-ranking primary - but would reintroduce a constraint inedificabilità reasons and without time limit, in contrast to the established principles and with clear profiles of unconstitutionality (TAR Lazio, IIa, No 7479/2001 and TAR Campania Naples Sec. II Sent., 11/04/2008, No. 2080).
Since the procedures for the adoption of administrative acts of general planning and programming are - art. 2, L. August 7, 1990, No 241 - subject to the duty of the conclusion of the proceedings and since the limits of building rights attributable to the white areas are provisional, the City Council has the clear obligation to provide in time quickly and with care, as soon as possible by filling any gaps that occurred in the context of urban planning. It would also be illegal, thus the silence kept by the Administration which had not concluded within a reasonable time and without giving any justification as to the possible reasons for the delay, the procedure aimed at the general adoption of the new planning instrument (TAR Puglia Bari Sec. I, 06/05/2008, No. 1079).
Ultimately, when it failed planning and implementation where the council has not done quickly to fill the gap occurred, the citizen and the technical departments, to identify the limits of the existing framework of land use, should refer to the general planning instruments, as if she had ever made any constraint (TAR Campania Salerno Sec. II, 02.14.2002, 114).
0 comments:
Post a Comment