torsdag 2. mai 2019

No. 1519: Our response to PBE here in Oslo believes that we should not relate to the facts of the case that we have been granted permission to build a wall as they order to demolish!

No. 1519:
Our response to PBE here in Oslo believes that we should not relate to the facts of the case that we have been granted permission to build a wall as they order to demolish!

My wife, Berit Christensen got a word from the Lord that confirms what I have experienced in this matter. It is that we should be quiet, and the Lord will fight for us.
It is those who do not believe that public authorities cannot lie, make mistakes and other things that are negative.

Just think of Bill Clinton, he lied under oath that he had never had sex with Monica Lewinsky where they had done the opposite.
Even inside his office and in his home they had been doing.
Here it is, we have been promised that we should build a wall on our own property. We did it, then PBE can't come up with anything else in retrospect
Still pray for us and the case, that PBE makes sense so that we keep the nice and practical things we have built and that have been up for now for over 5 years.


Here's our answer:

Request for deadline - Krokstien 2 C Oslo 2 / 5-19


1.) Nils-Henrik Henningstad promised we would have a meeting ahead of the new application, do we get it?

2.) How much is stairs out in the roadway that you claim?

Other things down the Stormyrveien if there are walls, stairs and other things are much more out in the road. Therefore, we want to know how much it is about how much stairs are in the road.

3.) We thought that by appointment we should get a new case officer, who would look at the case and we should get feedback from. This has not been done, there is again a breach of force in their side.

4.) Lena Catrine Amdal and Astrid Myhra are so aggressive and again with abuse of power towards us. We see this as completely different from Lena Catrine Amdal and Astrid Myhra, as we have on several occasions been promised to build the wall of our former case officer Kaja Aubert Lange. As it is built, albeit verbally. And that our booth is so "little" exceeded with regard to the degree of utilization of the plot, that there is more tile pickup from their side than relevant rejection. Therefore we hope for a completely different and better tone in from Lena Catrine Amdal and Astrid Myhra than what has happened until now! The threat that they are doing just seems like more abuse of power from PBE that has been done for us for years now!
NB! Aubert Lange performed very well and neatly, we want her back on the case. The case officers we have received afterwards have not been fair and factual.
We want to have Nils-Henrik Henningstad or Aubert Lange on the case, the only people in PBE that we trust.

5.) We complain about the deadline for refusal, that it should be until the whole case has been processed.

6.) Only thing we agree with you is that the stairs should be adjusted.

Therefore, we need the exact number. Although others down the Stormyrveien road are more in the road than our stairs, we think it is reasonable that we pull it in max ½ meter.

7.) It is you who have made trouble to first allow us to build the wall, without us being told otherwise. That you are now going so hard against us, it is unreasonable and abuse of power.

8.) Hoping for a dialogue with you, no more oversteer. The meeting we had on the 11.4 was very good, that you choose to send such a "scare mail" has no impact on us, as you weep, ravage, override and just engage in ill-manipulation and lies. We have received more than enough of this from PBE and the public agencies otherwise. Hope for a change of you!

9.) Meet the answers, we think the only reasonable thing is that the stairs are adjusted a maximum of ½ meter, and that the wall and storage room stands as it says, there is no booklet with this. You're just looking to make noise and show power, or abuse their power! Threatening and scary propaganda you are doing, it is stillborn to us. You have tried that for several years, and nothing has led to this.

10.) You write that the wall is in the roadway etc. Then many other walls and others have to do the same and who must be demolished. It is walled along the Stormyrveien road which is 20 cm from the roadway etc.

When we talked to Kaja Aubert Lange I asked her if the wall is 1 meter from the road, it is sufficient, which she answered yes to. That you have once again not understood that we do not relate to the statutes and other things that you come up with afterwards, as we have been given oral permission to build the wall. We relate to that, everything else is not relevant.

11.) You are again trying to ignore the facts and the truth, that we have been allowed to build the wall, and it is not a shame to anyone or excels in any way. It will be standing, and we will not relate to what you impose on us until we have had a dialogue and talked together as promised at the meeting of 11.4.19 with Lena Catrine Amdal and Nils-Henrik Henningstad.

12.) Do you think, especially Catrine Amdal and Astrid Myhra are unfit to have with us, because here it is a downside attitude. That's why we want others caseworkers. Preferably Nils-Henrik Henningstad and Kaja Aubert Lange.

13.) When it comes to the wall, we do not relate to anything other than what Kaja Aubert Lange has told us, everything else is not relevant and has something to do with our case.

14.) A response that stands in "style" to the meeting we had it 11.4. where you said that you want to meet us and get a solution to this matter. Not the hateful who stood in the mail from 29.04.2019 signed that the two very twisted and kverulantful people Catrine Amdal and Astrid Myhra. They do not want us to have anything to do in the future.

15.) Will also emphasize that Kaja Aubert Lange has been on our side all the way when she was in contact and case law, as opposed to the other kverulants we got later who only made nausea and misunderstandings.

16.) When neighbor Roar Telje cov- ered regarding rental, Mrs. Lange mated him fine. See here for mail of 20.11.2013:

17.) The wall is certainly 18 cm too far out, there is nothing to exaggerate that the wall should be removed. Others both in Stormyrveien and elsewhere stand much further out in the roadway. The traffic and everything else goes smoothly here, you just try to make that we have done so much "illegality" that is exaggeration to those degrees. We built the wall as agreed with Kaja Aubert Lange, and it is lower than the neighbor's over on the other side and stands much further inside than the neighbor's over on the other side which has a wall that is 20 cm from the road, ours is 1 meter, is perfect. You write the following: "The support wall is partly part of a regulated road surface and has a design that cannot under any circumstances be approved as it stands today."

If this is the case, then it becomes completely unreasonable to discriminate against us as our wall is considerably longer from the road than many others. And 18 cm is really in practice totally insignificant as it is 1 meter to paved road, far more than in many others. Mrs. Aubert told us in 2013 that 1 meter from the road was more than enough. That you change such opinions and other things, you get to take on their "race"!
What you are about to "scare" is like pissing in the North Sea and thinking that it is flooding, it is completely set out of all proportions and understanding of reality their reasoning and beliefs, they are completely, preferably beyond reality.

See picture.

18.) Completion certificate As writes the following in the application that with regard to masonry and everything else has worked fine, and the 18 cm is like a drop in the sea. It certainly has no impact on traffic or anything, and it is just the opposite of what you claim and dictate the scare propaganda. One thing we built the wall is all much, much better and before that the filler mass lay even farther towards the road than what it is now, you simply fabricate lies and once again lie. And trying to scare and that we should relate to real and fabricated falsehoods.

Completion certificate Byggesak AS, Pb 9385 Greenland, 0135 Oslo writes at Paal Løvaas:

"Concerning the wall has been standing for several years and is illegally built: For this reason, reference is made to items earlier in the letter. It is recognized that the wall is illegally listed according to. current requirements, and the wall in accordance with normal practice is therefore sent an application afterwards.

Regarding placed masonry over previous walls: According to the initiative gardens, the wall is located directly above a former low wall and fence. Since it is difficult to precisely specify this, it is difficult to estimate whether this is 100% correct on the millimeter. We note, however, that there has previously been a fence and a lower wall in sc. the relevant areas. This appears on the enclosed photo documentation.

Concerning the height of the wall: The height of the wall varies. It is not correct that the wall at the lowest is 1.75 m. However, it is true that by mistake it was written that the wall at the highest was 1.5 m in the warning. This was corrected on all alerts with the pen at the correct height, and is considered with it clarified. In fact, we do not fully understand what neighbor wants to achieve with this quotation. Height also comes clearly from both the drawing and the map.

Concerning the wall, negative consequences for road traffic and maintenance are: This point also seems to be necessary to point out that it is somewhat striking that neighbor in Stormyrveien 4, 5 and 6 has signed these statements. It is important to emphasize in this context that the promoter of this project does not in any way want to indicate his neighbors as he sees that some have done in this case, because he has misunderstood the regulations and the listed wall. But when all three neighbors Stormyrveien 4, 5 and 6 themselves have walls that are all close to or within regulated road boundaries, it becomes difficult not to mention this. In addition, when there are several other walls in the area with similar location, it must be said to be an established practice in the area in question with walls up to - and indeed also in - regulated road boundaries. In fm. Both Stormyrveien 4 and 6 also lie the walls all the way out to the paved road. In Stormyrveien 5 is a garage and wall with approximately the same ploading in ft. the roadway as the measure now being sought. We can hardly see that the wall in Krokstien 2c significantly affects the road surface more than these measures. The fact that 2 neighbor (s) have a continuous exit of more than 20 m, and that none of the 3 neighbors have a random access on their own grounds, is considered to contribute significantly more negatively with respect to. traffic conditions than the right wall along the road for which this is sought. But as mentioned - it is not the responsibility of the shipper to hang up in the neighborhood. You only want to get your order in order. Mht. This point is also obvious that the wall that lies right out in the road surface to some extent affects road technical considerations. However, after an overall assessment, the wall is not considered to have a significant impact on road technical considerations. Mht. Road traffic is affected to a limited extent since visibility etc. on the right stretch is not changed to any great extent. In this connection, it appears to the previous statement. Mht. maintenance, it is pointed out that the asphalt edge remains with sufficient distance to the wall, and that there is a road fault in the area in question, so that one can store some snow here. Otherwise, there is a considerable area where the wall goes to terrain where snow has been stored in recent years. Initiatives have never experienced this as difficult. As far as we understand, the City Environment Agency has not registered a single complaint or incident in recent years, neither with respect to the case. that the areas in question are hazardous to traffic or maintenance problems. We note that the wall has been standing for a long time without the road authority in the municipality - who manages and maintains the road - has not registered any problems, neither with regard to. use or operation. "

19.) When others in our neighborhood (and otherwise all over Oslo city) who are building at the same time with us get dispensation for far, far larger and more complicated conditions. Up to 57 times more than us regarding utilization rate (including Stormyrveien 9 c). Then it testifies that you want to make everything most difficult for us. Then again, there will be discrimination again, and once again the supervisory duty of theirs is over. It is leather argumentation you are doing to us, not root in reality and sensible and good solutions!

20.) Reading of so many so-called illegality cases we have gone through here in Oslo is the tone that you use so easily and easily. Do not understand why you are opposed to us, as we see it, so do you with differential treatment and then it will also be these difficulties that we now see. After all, we have received permission and guidance from you on how the wall should be built and the excess over the booth is so minimal. That we should then be treated so badly and unfairly testifies to discrimination and a desire to be difficult. Why are you treating us so badly? There is not a single reason for that, we have not been difficult or behaved badly in any way. You are looking to destroy us and let this cost us the "shirt". Too expensive the whole thing has become, and with their new order everything becomes even more expensive. This does not take you into account nor in this area that the case for us has become unnecessarily expensive and cumbersome!

21.) We have been constantly trying to meet you and live what you have wanted and demanded.

Then we also applied for cages and walls through Ferdigattest AS. Although we had been promised to build the wall. Even this didn't help.

22.) We have tried to get things in order, including stairs. You didn't even mention it before we picked it up at the meeting on 11.4. what do you do then? Running on with hardest shoots it should be demolished even though it has been up for now for over 6 years and never been obstructed or created any difficulties for anyone. Not even the bus that passes by here at least twice an hour throughout the day. It was we who mentioned the stairs that you are now exaggerating the "problem" with the witness only about which darkness is in it.

23.) We consider ourselves the honest and "professional" in this matter, to comply with the demands of people who promise something one day, and pull it the next day. We do not want that without a dialogue. You have "power," but that power abuses you. And this time and again! At the meeting on April 11, you said it was a search that we had experienced as difficult as we had a good meeting with you that we have not had since Kaja Aubert Lange was our case officer. Then comes the next mail as before, full of truing and abuse of power. No improvement, just as bad as it has been before, if not worse!

24.) That you are now starting to threaten with daily fines and will follow up as illegitimate cases etc. Witnesses and just tells you that you are trying to psyche us out and scare us to obey orders that are totally wanted. We have been allowed to build the wall and you have guided us. And the excesses on the utilization of the booth are so insignificant. That here is only one thing that is right, that one makes sense and uses the section on exemption. That is why it is given to be used in lesser excess conditions. Our booth is also very pretty and is only visible in on our property. As well as that our house is further down the road, therefore there will be no obstacle either to the distance to the road which was the "big" problem the first time we applied for the booth to remain, and not to be torn down as you have now agreed and wishes.

If not then we shall be threatened, forced and given daily fines to be intimidated and forced to tear down walls, booths and stairs. For us, there is a great darkness over PBE in Oslo, which means that here is the evil that prevails!
Sad that it is so, but it is the spirit of being able to grasp another mind and sensing and getting in touch with dialogue!

25.) Will emphasize that all we have built is not something that is a hindrance, shyness or obstruction to anyone. It is not something that "stands out" that is higher, bigger or anything other than what is otherwise here in Stormyrveien. That this should be a "monster" of a wall that you have claimed etc. Is so far from the reality it is possible to come, even the neighbor over the other side has a higher wall than us and it also lies much more in the road than ours. Everything that is built should and should be approved without any significant change if you want to add the "goodwill" and come to meet us!

26.) The wall is probably 18 cm too far out, but 1 meter from the road. Walls built after us just here in Stormyrveien are similar. That this should be the "big" problem of being too far out and having to be demolished. Is argumentation with level that it is a disaster to piss in the North Sea, it can become flood. The argumentation that you are doing is only to hit us, not at all solution-oriented!

27.) Complaints in from neighboring are also constructed. We have built everything on our own property, they even have one and the other that is "alike" with what we have built. Here is the argumentation that does not hold "water" at all. This is just "rail argument!"

28.) You believe that we should have knowledge of small houses etc. When we were supervised and Mrs Lange gave us recommendation how the wall should be built. Then the dwellings were not mentioned at all. That this is now being dragged in again and again is irrelevant as this is something that has never been mentioned before Mrs Lange was taken off the case. It is Mrs Lange's guidance that will be the basis for everything to be done in this matter, we have argued from day one even if you did not want to relate to the facts and the truth!

29.) Want a dialogue and a meeting, starting with a visit here on our property! So that one can by sight, can see that everything that is built is really in the most beautiful order.

30.) That we have received such different advice that one day is all right. As Mrs Lange wrote about this in mail that with us was only minor matters. That it is now "prohibitive" is not correct. And that the double communication is that has made the problems that you have come up with.

This is what Ferdigattest AS writes in our application regarding the guidance or misleading we have received:
«The municipality's duty to provide guidance:
 Reference is made to section 11 of the Public Administration Act. If it has not been communicated sufficiently clearly and clearly from the supervisory authority that the measures trigger an application duty and exemption from the current plan basis, then this should also be emphasized in an overall assessment of already implemented measures. The initiative owner must be able to trust that one can follow the advice that one applies with the relevant authority. This follows naturally from the Public Administration Act. For this reason, it is pointed out that the responsible applicant has only been described the oral communication between the municipality and the initiative owner on the part of the owner. We note that the municipality has failed to comment on this in its decision. ”

31.) Kaja Aubert Lange was very straightforward and understanding, and guided us in line with common practice here at Hellerudtoppen. Here it was "freely forward" for everything. The fact that we are about to demolish is just because PBE is running a "double game." Something legal one day, nothing legal the next day. This also pointed out to our responsible applicants Ferdigattest AS:
"By the way, not all the walls in the area were established before the house plan became applicable. Several of the walls in the area appear to have been established after 2006. From the point of view of the case, we cannot see that any cases have been registered in the Stormyrveien which concern explicit walls over the past 100 years. ”

Looks through what has happened here at Hellerudtoppen and especially at Stormyrveien. Then it looks like "everything" was allowed here before 2016. Afterwards then, everyone should be taken. Except for us, which is an "old" case that "compares" to the "standard" that is the basis of our affairs even though we were given guidance when "everything was allowed" here at Hellerudtoppen. Hopeless to relate to such people who change their minds all the way.

32.) Knowing it has become a lot negative, but our understanding of reality is so totally different from what comes out in PBE's decisions and orders at times. These are the ones in PBE that seem "normal" and straightforward. But in the next, you are the opposite. We had an uplifting and cone Structural meeting for the first time since Mrs Aubert Lange was the case officer. Then we get a mail as well as new decisions with threats. Okay, you have the power, but that power abuses you when we have been promised to build the wall of Mrs Lange on several occasions, and the booth's excess is minimal. The power you have, it abuses you towards us, it all reminds me of the "big" boy who knows he is strongest, and uses power to push down.

It is a form of bullying when it's all about such a great deal of difference you put in front of us in this case!

Berit and Jan Kåre Christensen
Crocodile 2 c
0672 Oslo

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar