An option that replaces the building permit for some heavy works: at the interested party's choice, a SCIA may be used instead of the permit (art. 23 of D.P.R. 380/2001). Descended from the former DIA, it is onerous like the permit and is allowed only for the works strictly listed.
It applies only to the three cases listed in art. 23(01) of D.P.R. 380/2001: heavy renovation; new construction or urban restructuring implementing detailed plans with precise plano-volumetric provisions; new construction in direct implementation of plano-volumetric general planning instruments. It is an option in place of the permit, it is onerous, and it must be filed at least thirty days before works actually begin. The rules may be supplemented by regional laws.
For some works that would require a building permit, the law offers an alternative: the art. 23 SCIA, also called 'super-SCIA' or SCIA alternative to the permit. It is not a 'minor' title: it is an option the client may choose in place of the permit, for the works strictly listed. It descends from the former DIA (declaration of start of activity).
Art. 23(01) lists three cases, not two. The first is 'heavy' building renovation, the kind that under art. 10(1)(c) would require the permit. The second covers new construction or urban restructuring governed by detailed plans however named — including negotiated agreements having the value of a detailed plan — containing precise plano-volumetric, typological, formal and constructional provisions, whose existence has been declared by the competent municipal body. The third, often forgotten, covers new construction in direct implementation of general planning instruments carrying precise plano-volumetric provisions. Outside these cases, you return to the permit.
The most important practical difference from the ordinary SCIA is the cost: the alternative SCIA entails the construction contribution, exactly like the permit. The lightness is procedural, not economic: you choose the route of the report, but the work remains a heavy one, with corresponding charges and liabilities.
| Aspect | Art. 22 / Art. 23 |
|---|---|
| Works | art. 22: minor and structural — art. 23: heavy, in place of the permit |
| Cost | art. 22: usually free — art. 23: onerous (contribution) |
| Function | art. 22: its own title — art. 23: alternative to the permit |
The alternative SCIA shows that the ladder of titles is not only hierarchical: for the same work, the law sometimes lets you choose the instrument. It is a simplification — you avoid waiting for the express measure, though not every wait: the thirty days that must pass before works begin remain — but it must be chosen knowing that charges and liabilities remain those of a heavy intervention.
It is the art. 23 SCIA, usable in place of the building permit for some heavy works; the client may choose it instead of the permit.
In three cases, listed in art. 23(01): heavy building renovation (that of art. 10(1)(c)); new construction or urban restructuring governed by detailed plans with precise plano-volumetric, typological, formal and constructional provisions; and new construction in direct implementation of general planning instruments carrying precise plano-volumetric provisions. The last case is the one most often missed.
No: it is onerous in the same way, entailing the construction contribution. The advantage is procedural, not in cost.
Art. 22 is the own title for more limited works (and usually free); art. 23 replaces the permit for heavy works and is onerous.
It depends on the case: the SCIA avoids waiting for the express measure but loads the professional with the sworn statement; the permit gives an act of the authority. The choice is strategic, not automatic.