House above the gym: how to protect yourself from the noise of air conditioners
Question: I live on the first floor of a small condominium and under me there is a gym which has, for about ten days, installed a large extractor fan, right under my bedroom, probably to exchange the air inside of the premises, which emits very annoying noises and, above all, vibrations in the evening. Apart from the obvious architectural damage, is there the possibility of having the machinery removed by leveraging the following points? 1) The machine is positioned very close to my terrace right under my eaves and does not respect the distance of 1.5 metres. 2) The administrator did not warn me about this installation and I assume he was not notified either. 3) I don't think permission has been requested from the municipality, so I can ask the municipality if there is a trail and possibly report the abuse? 4) The competent ARTA could make some findings but I fear that it will not find that the noise threshold has been exceeded even if at 10pm the background noises are low and above all the vibrations are annoying. I will definitely call her anyway in the hope of at least being able to reduce the noise. 5) Almost four years ago in other areas of the building the gym installed other air conditioners, but smaller ones at a distance of less than 1.5 metres. Can I request their removal now?
With reference to the installation of an air conditioning device of the type reported by the reader it should be said that:
1) the legislation on legal distances between the properties of individual owners is not applicable as it is applied to distance from each other buildings that are stable, consistent and which emerge significantly above ground level (as established by the Court of Cassation with various sentences including no. 2,228 of 2001, no. 45 of 2000, no. 1,509 of 1998 etc.), while the air conditioner has none of the aforementioned characteristics as it is small in size and because it is removable;
2) and 5) failure to give notice to the administrator of the intention to carry out interventions on the exclusive property (notice which is required by article 1122 of the Civil Code) does not produce any effect unless the work carried out by the condominium owner on his property has caused damage to the stability, safety or architectural decoration of the building: in the specific case, excluding the possibility that the air conditioner could cause damage to the safety or stability of the building, in the writer's opinion there is not even any damage to the architectural decoration of the building if we consider that other air conditioners have already existed on the facades of the building itself for years (for the Court of Cassation, in fact, there is no damage to the decorum if the architectural lines of the building have already been compromised in the past by other interventions and/ or if the property in any case has a mediocre architectural level: in this regard, see sentences no. 21,835 of 2007, no. 4,679 of 2009 and no. 3,549 of 1989);
3) with regards to relations with the Public Administration (i.e. with the Municipality), note that the installation and/or bringing up to date of air conditioning and air conditioning equipment, pursuant to item no. 22 of the ministerial decree of 2 March 2018 (implementing article 1, paragraph 2, of legislative decree no. 222 of 2016), falls among the so-called free building activities, i.e. it falls among the works that can be carried out without requesting any prior authorization to the Municipality (however, they must comply with the provisions of the municipal planning instruments and with any regulations, if applicable to the specific case, anti-seismic, safety, fire-fighting, hygienic-sanitary, energy efficiency, protection from hydrogeological risk and contained in the code of cultural heritage and landscape): this means that the installation of an air conditioning system can take place without the need for any municipal authorization and any communication to the Municipality (the communication to the Municipality of the start of works is only optional for the installation of systems of this type); in any case, building permits are public documents and anyone can ask to consult them (ruling of the TAR of Lazio n. 10.215 of 2018), therefore the reader can still ask the Municipality if there is a permit for the installation of the extractor in question or if the optional communication for the start of the works was presented, but if the Municipality replied that there is neither permission nor communication for the start of the works, this would be perfectly legitimate because for the installation of air conditioning systems the the law does not require any type of authorization, nor a prior and obligatory notification of the start of work;
4) certainly the most solid reason on which the reader can leverage to request and obtain the silencing or removal of the aspirator (and also possible compensation for damage) is its noise level which, according to the Prime Ministerial Decree of 14/11/1997 and article 844 of the Civil Code must not be disturbing and exceed normal tolerability, having regard to the conditions and state of the places: obviously exceeding the levels of normal tolerability is the responsibility of the disturbed party in any case that would be necessary to initiate if the problem was not resolved amicably (it should however be considered that to prove the existence and level of intensity of the noises it is also possible to make use of reliable testimonies from people who actually and directly perceived the noises and which the Court of Cassation has also clarified, sentence no. 2.166 of 2006 that, although it is often useful and necessary to demonstrate that the tolerability level has been exceeded, the technical assessment carried out by the expert appointed by the judge is not always indispensable, especially when the noises are discontinuous and difficult to reproduce and verify on an instrumental level).
House above the gym: how to protect yourself from the noise of air conditioners
Question: I live on the first floor of a small condominium and under me there is a gym which has, for about ten days, installed a large extractor fan, right under my bedroom, probably to exchange the air inside of the premises, which emits very annoying noises and, above all, vibrations in the evening. Apart from the obvious architectural damage, is there the possibility of having the machinery removed by leveraging the following points? 1) The machine is positioned very close to my terrace right under my eaves and does not respect the distance of 1.5 metres. 2) The administrator did not warn me about this installation and I assume he was not notified either. 3) I don't think permission has been requested from the municipality, so I can ask the municipality if there is a trail and possibly report the abuse? 4) The competent ARTA could make some findings but I fear that it will not find that the noise threshold has been exceeded even if at 10pm the background noises are low and above all the vibrations are annoying. I will definitely call her anyway in the hope of at least being able to reduce the noise. 5) Almost four years ago in other areas of the building the gym installed other air conditioners, but smaller ones at a distance of less than 1.5 metres. Can I request their removal now?
With reference to the installation of an air conditioning device of the type reported by the reader it should be said that:
1) the legislation on legal distances between the properties of individual owners is not applicable as it is applied to distance from each other buildings that are stable, consistent and which emerge significantly above ground level (as established by the Court of Cassation with various sentences including no. 2,228 of 2001, no. 45 of 2000, no. 1,509 of 1998 etc.), while the air conditioner has none of the aforementioned characteristics as it is small in size and because it is removable;
2) and 5) failure to give notice to the administrator of the intention to carry out interventions on the exclusive property (notice which is required by article 1122 of the Civil Code) does not produce any effect unless the work carried out by the condominium owner on his property has caused damage to the stability, safety or architectural decoration of the building: in the specific case, excluding the possibility that the air conditioner could cause damage to the safety or stability of the building, in the writer's opinion there is not even any damage to the architectural decoration of the building if we consider that other air conditioners have already existed on the facades of the building itself for years (for the Court of Cassation, in fact, there is no damage to the decorum if the architectural lines of the building have already been compromised in the past by other interventions and/ or if the property in any case has a mediocre architectural level: in this regard, see sentences no. 21,835 of 2007, no. 4,679 of 2009 and no. 3,549 of 1989);
3) with regards to relations with the Public Administration (i.e. with the Municipality), note that the installation and/or bringing up to date of air conditioning and air conditioning equipment, pursuant to item no. 22 of the ministerial decree of 2 March 2018 (implementing article 1, paragraph 2, of legislative decree no. 222 of 2016), falls among the so-called free building activities, i.e. it falls among the works that can be carried out without requesting any prior authorization to the Municipality (however, they must comply with the provisions of the municipal planning instruments and with any regulations, if applicable to the specific case, anti-seismic, safety, fire-fighting, hygienic-sanitary, energy efficiency, protection from hydrogeological risk and contained in the code of cultural heritage and landscape): this means that the installation of an air conditioning system can take place without the need for any municipal authorization and any communication to the Municipality (the communication to the Municipality of the start of works is only optional for the installation of systems of this type); in any case, building permits are public documents and anyone can ask to consult them (ruling of the TAR of Lazio n. 10.215 of 2018), therefore the reader can still ask the Municipality if there is a permit for the installation of the extractor in question or if the optional communication for the start of the works was presented, but if the Municipality replied that there is neither permission nor communication for the start of the works, this would be perfectly legitimate because for the installation of air conditioning systems the the law does not require any type of authorization, nor a prior and obligatory notification of the start of work;
4) certainly the most solid reason on which the reader can leverage to request and obtain the silencing or removal of the aspirator (and also possible compensation for damage) is its noise level which, according to the Prime Ministerial Decree of 14/11/1997 and article 844 of the Civil Code must not be disturbing and exceed normal tolerability, having regard to the conditions and state of the places: obviously exceeding the levels of normal tolerability is the responsibility of the disturbed party in any case that would be necessary to initiate if the problem was not resolved amicably (it should however be considered that to prove the existence and level of intensity of the noises it is also possible to make use of reliable testimonies from people who actually and directly perceived the noises and which the Court of Cassation has also clarified, sentence no. 2.166 of 2006 that, although it is often useful and necessary to demonstrate that the tolerability level has been exceeded, the technical assessment carried out by the expert appointed by the judge is not always indispensable, especially when the noises are discontinuous and difficult to reproduce and verify on an instrumental level).