Florence has approved revised regulations governing the occupation of public space for outdoor seating areas used by bars, cafés and restaurants. Compared with the previous bylaw, a ten per cent reduction in the maximum surface area is being introduced, making it impossible to exceed the total square metres granted as of November 15 last year.
General criteria include a maximum outdoor surface area equal to 50 per cent of a venue’s indoor dining space (which may not be smaller than 20 square metres), mandatory acoustic impact assessments for outdoor areas open after 10pm, anti-mafia certification and proof of social security compliance (DURC) for businesses applying for permits.
Among the main innovations are a ban on the use of plastic and advertising, along with an obligation for businesses to display floor plans and the maximum number of seats allowed in their outdoor areas. The rules specify that public space may be occupied only directly in front of one’s own premises, with minimum distances from driveways, street furniture, trees and monuments. A clear pedestrian passage of at least 1.5 metres must always be guaranteed on sidewalks as well as a minimum 3.5 metre-wide lane for emergency vehicles, even in pedestrian areas.
Following an agreement between the Municipality and the Superintendency, the regulation also lists 60 streets where outdoor dining is completely prohibited, 20 streets where existing surfaces cannot be expanded and identifies five types of outdoor seating areas that may be authorized. In addition, 73 streets are subject to restrictions allowing only specific types of installations.
Business owners have until April 30 to submit applications for public space concessions. This requirement also applies to establishments that already have outdoor seating: existing concessions will remain valid only until a new authorization is granted or denied.
Four business owners on the Giubbe Rosse side of piazza della Repubblica have decided to form a committee and take legal action against the council. They claim that the new bylaws show a “disparity of treatment” compared to venues on the other side of the square.
