Supervisory Authority's Rejection of Solar Project in Designated Abandoned Quarry Is Unjustified If It Ignores Visual Impact

Can a photovoltaic plant be installed in a disused quarry, even when the area is subject to a landscape constraint? In a suitable area, is a general prohibition written in the constraint sufficient to justify a negative opinion? Does the investor who has invested in the project lose their investment, or do they obtain a new assessment?

The TAR Lombardia (Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy) answers these questions in its ruling No. 4861 of October 29, 2026, which clarifies that a photovoltaic plant in a disused quarry—an area considered suitable by law—cannot be rejected by the Superintendency (Soprintendenza) by merely invoking the abstract prohibition contained in the landscape constraint, without measuring the visual impact of the work on the surrounding context. Therefore, anyone who wishes to transform an abandoned quarry into a solar plant can demand that the Superintendency and the Municipality evaluate the project for what it is, considering its dimensions, location, and mitigation measures. If a refusal is issued without such an examination, the investment is not lost, because a denial that does not measure the work is flawed and must be redone.

For disused quarries, the constraint alone is no longer a sufficient response. Since the law has included them among the eligible areas (Article 20, paragraph 8, letter c, of Legislative Decree No. 199/2021), the compatibility assessment must be based on the specific project rather than on the label to which it is arbitrarily assigned. It is also unnecessary to define a facility as "extensive" to place it outside the scope of what is permissible, especially when no regulation defines what that term means. Furthermore, a concise justification is not tenable if the administration fails to engage with the documentation that the project presents to it.

Solar power in a constrained, disused quarry: the case

It all began when a company owning an abandoned quarry, located in an agricultural and floodplain area and unused for years, applied in December 2024 for the approval of a project to repurpose the site with a photovoltaic installation, simultaneously submitting a request for landscape authorization. The area had been declared of significant public interest in 2009 by a regional decree, whose usage regulations stipulate that the construction of extensive photovoltaic installations is not permitted.

The project placed the panels inside the quarry, at a lower elevation than the surrounding context and hidden by the vegetation along the edges. It included grass, shrubs, and plantings to restore the area, and was accompanied by renderings and a visual impact analysis chart. In April 2025, the municipal landscape commission, after requesting certain conditions to improve environmental mitigation and compensation measures, issued a favorable opinion.

In the interagency meeting convened by the Municipality, the Superintendency issued a negative opinion, citing the prohibition contained in the heritage protection constraint. In August 2025, the Municipality rejected the application, deeming that opinion alone sufficient, and added that the facility, due to its type and scale, would alter the characteristics of the agricultural and floodplain landscape, with effects on panoramic views and the harmony of the context.

The company challenged the opinion through an appeal and the rejection through additional grounds, invoking the same provisions of the constraint, the regulations governing suitable areas, and the prevailing public interest in renewable energy, while alleging deficiencies in the administrative investigation and reasoning. In court, the Municipality argued that the application concerned a quarry restoration plan rather than a simple request for a renewable energy facility. Meanwhile, the inadmissibility of the appeal was raised, as the company had in the interim submitted a simplified authorization procedure for an additional photovoltaic plant on the same quarry, which the municipal defense described as substantially overlapping.

Suitable areas and landscape protection constraints: the regulations to know

To understand the decision, one must start with Article 20, paragraph 8, letter c) of Legislative Decree No. 199/2021, which includes among suitable areas quarries and mines that have ceased operations, have not been restored or have been abandoned, or are in a state of environmental degradation, as well as portions no longer susceptible to exploitation. This provision was repealed by Article 15, paragraph 1 of Legislative Decree No. 190/2024 (Renewable Energy Sources Consolidated Act), as amended by Decree-Law No. 175/2025, converted into Law No. 4/2026, with effect from December 30, 2024. However, paragraph 2 of the same article maintains, for ongoing procedures, the rules listed in Annex D, including Article 20. By law, “ongoing” procedures are those for which, as of that date, the completeness of the documentation had been verified. The TAR (Regional Administrative Court) applies the old rule to a procedure initiated with the application of December 11, 2024, noting that the administrations have not contested its application.

Alongside the regional law on quarry cultivation, on which the application was based, the intervention requires landscape authorization under Article 146 of Legislative Decree No. 42/2004 (Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape) on the protection side, as the area is subject to restrictions under Article 136, paragraph 1, letters c) and d), which concern complexes of immovable property that constitute a characteristic aspect of aesthetic and traditional value, and panoramic beauties. These categories are distinct from those in letters a) and b), which concern immovable property of significant natural beauty, as well as villas, gardens, and parks.

Landscape protection constraints and large-scale solar installations: what the courts have ruled

The starting point for the judges is that, when a procedure involves multiple interests, all the regulations designed to protect those interests apply and must be coordinated in the final decision. Therefore, the regulations governing quarries and those concerning the landscape do not exclude the rules on renewable energy, which primarily regulate the permitability of a photovoltaic plant.

Against this backdrop, the TAR (Regional Administrative Court) states that a restriction dating back to 2009 could not, in itself, serve as the basis for a denial, as the law has since included decommissioned quarries among eligible areas. The judges recall that the preference for renewable energy sources limits the absolute prohibition on installation in restricted zones to non-eligible areas only. In all other cases, compatibility with the restriction must be assessed by considering these technologies as now ordinary elements of the landscape, as already established by the TAR Lombardy (Judgment No. 296/2021) and the TAR Campania (Judgment No. 1314/2025). The nature of the restriction also carries weight, as it was imposed under letters c) and d) of Article 136, since only for assets covered by letters a) and b) is the compatibility assessment intended to be consistently particularly stringent, according to the TAR Lazio (Judgment No. 9155/2025).

As for the "extensive" facilities excluded by the restriction, the judges observe that they do not constitute a special category, as there is no regulation describing them or establishing an exceptional regime in place of the standard one. What must be assessed, as argued by the Lazio Regional Administrative Court (Ruling No. 10040/2025), is the potential visual impact of the infrastructure, namely its dimensions, including height, and its actual location, and it is this assessment that was lacking.

The administrations failed to assess what the company had documented, from the renderings showing the absence of visual impact to the optical cone chart excluding any alteration of the skyline, up to the environmental improvement of an abandoned area. This resulted in a defect in the investigation and reasoning, a flaw not covered even by the precedent invoked by the Municipality, as the Lazio Regional Administrative Court (Ruling No. 9155/2025) admits concise reasoning in contexts of particular protection only if the comparison with photographic documentation yields a univocal reading of the contrast, whereas here the administrations did not rule on the reliability of the renderings. Finally, the favorable opinion already expressed by the municipal landscape commission confirms the contradictory nature of the administrative action.

The objection of inadmissibility also fails, because the new procedure is not concluded, the challenged acts remain harmful, and the compensatory interest expressed by the company nonetheless requires an examination of the merits (Article 34, paragraph 3, of the Code of Administrative Procedure).

Visual impact of photovoltaics: what the project must demonstrate

From a technical standpoint, in a quarry, the site’s own morphology acts as a mitigation measure, because panels installed below the level of the surrounding terrain and shielded by edge vegetation can remain out of sight. It is the project’s responsibility to make this verifiable, through elevation sections and visual cones traced from publicly accessible vantage points, which are the views protected under Article 136 for panoramic beauty. However, the ruling criticizes the failure to assess these elements and does not certify the landscape compatibility of the facility, which remains a matter for the administration’s judgment.

From a systemic perspective, even if the ruling does not address it, the suitability of the area does not guarantee the outcome. The Council of State (Judgment No. 7055/2026) deemed the landscape-based denial of a facility located in an area meeting the statutory suitability requirements to be legitimate, as it was based not on a mere reference to the landscape plan, but on a specific assessment of the context, visual impacts, and the agricultural vocation of the soils. The outcome depends on the quality of the administrative review, and the issue remains relevant beyond the transitional regime, as Article 11-bis of Legislative Decree No. 190/2024, introduced by Decree-Law No. 175/2025, almost verbatim reiterates the classification of decommissioned quarries as suitable areas.

Solar power in a suitable area: can the Superintendency still say no?

In conclusion, the Administrative Court of Appeal (TAR) upheld the appeal and the additional grounds, and annulled, within the terms set out in the reasoning, the negative acts of the Superintendency and the municipal refusal. The Superintendency will have to reassess the application in light of the classification of disused quarries as suitable areas and the characteristics of the facility in relation to the surrounding context.

A refusal remains possible, but it can no longer rely on a formula. For decision-makers, the general prohibition written in a constraint is the starting point of an assessment, not its conclusion; for designers, the most effective defense remains technical documentation that leaves no room for automatic responses.

The ruling follows in the wake of the Council of State, which has already halted automatic refusals by Superintendencies regarding photovoltaics and refusals based on a generic landscape incompatibility in suitable areas, and, with judgment no. 7714/2026, held that a non-binding landscape opinion issued in an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedure on a suitable area outside protected assets can be overcome without enhanced reasoning. The landscape does not lose protection, but the protection must look at the facility and not only at its name.

Solar power in a decommissioned quarry subject to preservation constraints: the most frequently asked questions

Is a disused quarry a suitable area for photovoltaic installations?

Yes, provided it falls within the legal definition, which deems suitable “quarries and mines that have ceased operations, have not been restored or have been abandoned, or are in a state of environmental degradation, or portions of quarries and mines that are no longer susceptible to further exploitation.” Today, this rule is set out in Article 11-bis, paragraph 1, letter c), of Legislative Decree No. 190/2024, while for ongoing procedures identified by the transitional provisions, Article 20, paragraph 8, letter c), of Legislative Decree No. 199/2021 continues to apply. Suitability does not exempt from the requirement for landscape authorization when the area is subject to protective constraints.

What must the Superintendency assess regarding a photovoltaic installation in a suitable area?

According to the TAR Lombardia (Judgment No. 4861/2026), the authority must assess the visual impact of the facility, including its dimensions and height, as well as its actual location, by cross-referencing the project documentation. A negative opinion that merely cites a general prohibition contained in the landscape protection constraint is flawed due to a lack of investigation and reasoning.

Does the suitability of the area guarantee landscape authorization?

No. The Council of State (Judgment No. 7055/2026) deemed the refusal of landscape authorization for a photovoltaic plant in an area legally suitable to be legitimate, as it was based on a specific assessment of the context and the project, rather than on a mere reference to the landscape plan. Suitability does not exempt the project from landscape assessment.