Gazebo, when it’s not free building

19/05/2023 – The gazebo is a mobile structure which can be set up both in private areas and in public places.

Usually the use of the gazebo is temporary and its dimensions are small. In some cases, however, the gazebos can have significant dimensions and be used permanently.

From these differences, explained by the Council of State with the sentence 4667/2023, it depends whether or not the gazebo falls within the free building regime.

Gazebo, the case

The judges analyzed the case of a company which built two 4-metre-high gazebos which, joined together, have an area of ​​200 square metres. The two gazebos have a pvc cover and perimeter closures with insulated panels, also used for internal division.

The Municipality has ordered the removal of the works, but the company has opposed it, explaining that the gazebos are easily removable and intended for temporary and itinerant use.

The Tar rejected the appeal explaining that the interventions have generated an alteration of the appearance of the places in a landscape-bound area.

According to the Tar judges, even if the works were considered appurtenant and precarious, therefore not subject to building permits, they would still have to be demolished because they lack landscape authorisation.

Gazebo, what the building regulations say

We recall that, according to the glossary of free building worksthe gazebo does not require any authorisation, but certain conditions must be met:
– it must have limited dimensions;
– it must not be permanently fixed to the ground;
– it must be a temporary work, that is intended to satisfy contingent needs, after which it must be immediately removed.

Gazebo, when it does not fall within free building

Although the word gazebo appears in the free building glossary, this does not mean that a gazebo can always be built under free building.

In the case in question, in fact, the Council of State confirmed the opinion of the Tar and rejected the appeal of the company that installed the gazebo without permits.

The CdS underlined that, even if the gazebos are not anchored to the ground and have not involved the construction of building works, due to their size they alter the external appearance of an area subject to landscape restrictions.

According to consolidated jurisprudence, explained the CdS, all the works built in an area subject to landscape restrictions have a landscape significance. The appurtenances and technical volumes are no exception.

This means, concluded the judges, that illegal works built in restricted areas, even if appurtenant or precarious, must always be demolished.

From the point of view of building regulationsadded the CdS, a building of considerable size, without an objective connection with the main building, constitutes a new volume and cannot be considered as a pertinence.

Finally, the judges found that the gazebos, even if easily removable, are intended for permanent and not temporary use.

Based on these elements, the CdS confirmed the demolition order.