Two rulings by the Lombardy administrative court declare the City of Milan's silence on conventioned building permit applications unlawful. Sixty days for a reasoned answer, then a court-appointed commissioner. No permit is granted automatically, but open-ended waiting becomes a measurable risk.
Within two weeks the second section of the Lombardy Regional Administrative Court (TAR) upheld two appeals against the City of Milan's silence on applications for a conventioned building permit. The first concerns a residential demolition and rebuild in via Cletto Arrighi, between Lambrate and Città Studi, promoted by Lambretto Immobiliare. The second, served on counsel in early September, a new building in viale Brenta near corso Lodi, proposed by Setha Brenta. In both cases the city had suspended the time limits in December 2025, citing the absence of an already approved planning agreement. Nothing had moved since.
The rulings land in a city where, according to press reports, around 150 projects are stuck waiting for permits after the prosecutors' investigation into planning practices. In June the first trial in that strand, over the via Stresa tower, ended with all defendants acquitted.
Breaking the loop
Article 28-bis of Presidential Decree 380/2001 allows a conventioned permit when infrastructure needs can be met in a simplified way, with an agreement setting out the developer's obligations: land transfers, public works, building form, any affordable housing share. The agreement must be approved by the competent municipal body. The city argued for a two-step sequence, agreement first, permit review afterwards, with no duty to act until then.
In its reasoning, notably in judgment no. 4138 of 19 August, the court dismantled that sequence. The agreement's content depends on the technical review of the project and its urban load. Without a review there is no agreement, and without an agreement the city refused to continue the review.
The agreement is therefore one of the outcomes the procedure must produce, and cannot be treated as a document the applicant failed to attach. That made the suspension under Article 20(5) unlawful, since it is allowed only once, within thirty days, and only for missing documents.
Tacit approval versus the duty to decide
Tacit approval cannot arise on the agreement, because consent cannot be replaced by the passage of time. Precisely for that reason, the city must close the procedure with an express, reasoned decision, positive or negative, within sixty days. If it fails to do so, the court may appoint a commissioner to act in its place.
Neither company has obtained a permit.
From open-ended to measurable risk
An indefinite wait cannot be modelled: land carrying costs, loan extensions and buyer timelines all become guesswork. A reasoned refusal can be challenged and priced. With the ECB raising rates again in September, every idle month on leveraged land costs more.
Two unknowns remain. A city still wary of investigations may issue defensive refusals, moving litigation from silence to merits. And real timelines stretch beyond sixty days once a commissioner has to be requested, appointed and the agreement approved.
Months, at best.
The rulings also leave untouched the core question of the criminal cases: when dense projects in established neighbourhoods require a detailed plan rather than a direct permit.
A procedural rule with market effects
The administration may say no, provided it does so on time and with legible reasons. For Milan's development market, slowed for over a year, the question shifts from whether an answer will come to what it will say. Still uncertain, but finally something that can be estimated, in a segment where land value depends on the time between purchase and permit as much as on zoning ratios.