Milan, the Court of Cassation confirms the seizures. In the capital 'urbanistic failures'
The appeal requesting the release of the Lac Residences building site at the Parco delle Cave was inadmissible. Judges against the approach of the TAR
2' min read
2' min read
Yes to the seizure of the construction sites at the centre of the Milan Public Prosecutor's investigations. The decision, which has just been handed down by the Supreme Court, concerns the Lac residences at the Parco delle Cave (a project to the west of the capital, consisting of three towers for residential use) and confirms the need for an implementation plan for an intervention of this kind, to avoid "urbanistic failures". Going against what, on another intervention, the Lombardy Regional Administrative Court has just ruled.
The Municipality's choices
.The Municipality of Milan, in order to carry out many of the works that have been contested in recent months, has chosen the road of the Scia alternative to the building permit, without going through an urban planning tool, the implementation plan, which takes a very long time and which, however, has the merit of analysing the public services connected to the new work.
The Supreme Court's stop
In analysing the appeal against the seizure of the Lac residence site, the Supreme Court explicitly goes against the approach of the administrative justice. And it explains that 'major construction works, even if unitary, may well require, and reasonably so, due to their complexity and the urbanistic impact that they are capable of developing with respect to the situation at hand, the implementation of an appropriate implementation tool, whether of public or private initiative'.
When an implementation plan is needed
Even in the presence of 'completely built-up and urbanised portions of territory', such as those of the Municipality of Milan, in the past the request for the granting of a concession 'in the absence of prior adoption of an implementation plan for a building intervention of such consistency and complexity as to bring about a considerable transformation of the territory, which is inadmissible in the absence of a plan for the realisation of infrastructural interventions suitable to support the modified territorial layout' was legitimately rejected.
The municipality, therefore, 'cannot allow the construction of such a settlement without the prior approval of a detailed plan or subdivision plan, also in order to satisfy a need for a connection with the pre-existing residential aggregate and for the strengthening of urbanisation works'.
