PBE here in Oslo appears to be doing "Norges-rekord" in discrimination against us where everything we do is bad, while others get dispensation when it comes to whatever they do or build!
We had a meeting with PBE here in Oslo, where they made a meeting report and we gave our answer. Here is the minutes and our answer.
Date: 06.05.2019 Their ref .: Our ref .: 201609223-69 Always stated by inquiry Case file: Nils-Henrik Henningstad Archive code: 531
Construction site: KROKSTIEN 2C Property: 143/104/0/0 Initiative: JAN KÅRE CHRISTENSEN Address: KROKSTIEN 2 C, 0672 OSLO Seeking: FERDIGATTEST BYGGESAK AS Address: Postboks 9385 Grønland, 0135 OSLO Action type: Wall / retaining wall Assignment type: Entry type
Meeting record - Krokstien 2 C Date of the meeting: 11.04.2019 kl. 1:30 p.m.
Initiator: Jan Kåre Christensen and Berit Nyland Christensen
Employee lawyer: Knut Magne Howlid
From the Planning and Building Administration: Nils Henrik Henningstad and Lena Amdal.
Agenda for the meeting In 2014 and 2016, an application was made for the construction wall and storage room on the current property, in connection with house C. The measures were not allowed, but both the wall and the booth were already listed.
On 9 March, a request was made for a meeting between the project owner and the Planning and Building Administration by the owner of the measure, regarding the return of the support wall and the masses that have been fulfilled. On the basis of this, the Planning and Building Administration called for a meeting to clarify what can be allowed on the property.
Additional information from the project owner was submitted after the meeting, 12.04.2019 and 15.04.2019.
The planning and building agency's answers and comments
Support wall out towards road A supporting wall has been erected which, according to our maps, is partly located on a regulated road surface. It also has a height that goes beyond the regulation plan § 6.5.
Case number: 201609223-69 Page 2 of 4
Regardless of how much of the wall is located on the road, no part of this wall can be approved with such a location. The wall must be drawn into the housing-regulated part of the property in order to be considered. By placing the wall inside a housing-regulated part of the property, as well as reducing the height to 0.5 meters so that it is in line with the zoning plan, it can be approved. It will depend on exemption from section 29 of the Road Act.
It has recently been approved a change of the outdoor area down the road at the neighboring house Krokstien 2 B, where from the Planning and Building Administration clear guidelines were provided for how large terrain interventions can be permitted and that no exemption will be granted for exceeding the plan's provisions.
Outside standalone storage facility The owner of the measure informed in the meeting that they have space available from the neighboring property, and that the utilization is therefore lower per. today compared to the situation at the time of application for the fine. It is nevertheless still dependent on the exemption from the regulation's provision on the degree of utilization.
In order for the Planning and Building Administration to be able to grant exemption according to pbl. Chapter 19, the considerations behind the provision must not be substantially disregarded and it must together be an overweight of objective advantages compared to the disadvantages of giving the dispensation. Since the property has recently built four new detached houses up to the permitted utilization, in line with the plan, exceedances beyond the plan's provisions will be practically immediately considered to be a significant breach of the reason behind the provision, since then an exploitation beyond that plan and the property is allowed allows. If the property has been transferred area from the neighboring property so that the basis for calculation of utilization has become larger, this will result in a minor exceedance of the utilization on the property. Based on the documentation submitted, it appears that the areas are only registered for registration, and therefore cannot be used as a basis for a calculation of utilization. In this case, this area must be transferred from neighboring property to Krokstien 2, in order to influence the calculation of the utilization.
We will nevertheless recommend on the basis of this to make a new calculation of the utilization on the property, and see if it is possible to re-project the existing booth so that it is in line with the regulations plan. As the booth appears on drawings, such as two stalls, it may be possible to remove half of this and still maintain the function as an exterior storage room on the property. Although we understand that the areas of the basement that are rented out also need storage space, the dwelling is approved as a detached house and therefore has only a claim for a storage room.
Stairs down to the road A stairway next to a retaining wall down to the road is also partly placed in area regulated to the road surface. If the staircase is drawn into housing-regulated property and does not increase the utilization on the property, it will be possible to design and place this so that it can be allowed.
Similar issues in the area It was shown in the meeting to some addresses in the area, where there were support walls of similar size and / or height as on Krokstien 2 C, and asked questions Reply - additional comments to meeting minutes - Krokstien 2 C Date of the meeting: 11.04.2019 kl. 13: 3
Oslo 8 / 5-2019
Our ref .: 201609223-69 approved by Nils Henrik Henningstad
Must be short here as we have already indirectly answered the majority here to you in our reply to their mail from 29.4.19. but only comes with some small comments. Our response was sent 3.5.19
1.) Meeting we had on 11.4. was fruitful and good, it seems we do not come here in this email. The answer is characterized by being of the old variety from the "trench!" Meeting was good, the mail we got to be a meeting record is not in line with our opinion. In fact, the best meeting we have had with PBE since Kaja Aubert Lange was our case officer, since it has really been like the black night and had with PBE to do until the meeting that is referred to.
2.) The reason why we do not want to comply with their order to move a wall is not mentioned at all in this letter. It is really bad that this is not mentioned. We have, as I said, been promised to build the wall that we have built of you through our then case officer, Kaja Aubert Lange. There is nothing to indicate that we should go back to this from something that appears in this writing and everything else that you have used of arguments. On the contrary, that wall, staircase and storage room should stand as it stands today, we just seem to be reinforced more and more.
3.) Seems it is being tried to say that the houses are recently listed when we have lived here since 2012, 6 ½ years, then they are not recently listed.
4.) That the booth should be demolished, parts of it when it is already only 11 sqm2 sounds sought out. It's already so minimal and small. Begin tearing such a small shed, it is against all sense. Either it gets stuck, or it is just fine to tear the whole shed. It is then made as a small sports booth and there is a plank wall in the middle that divides it in half. This is a small sports booth that does not fit to share. There are not two stalls, but a small sports booth that is internally divided with a divider.
5.) When we do not compare any properties with ours in Oslo city, we have also applied. When neighbor and so many others have been allowed to set up most things, they actually exploit the plot so much that with their argumentation it is like saying that if one drives a Tesla then the speed limits do not apply. But running a Skoda, they apply.
When we listen to their argumentation, that really no properties on the Hellerudtoppen are comparable. Then it is impossible to get something through, then you have only decided that you should continue to be angry and impossible to us!
6.) We filed a dream with so-called illegal matters, we do not have to go any further than to our neighbor in Krokstien 2 d who also has an illegal wall. They then get dispensation even though it is much longer and more extensive. Don't think it's possible to make such a difference to people. It is completely, completely incomprehensible, as this is in fact the same property. Why this is not comparable is not for us to grasp. The wall is then much larger and longer than ours, and over 0.5 meters, it is well 135 cm, and well over 20 meters long. Same farm and utility number, what should it be that it is not comparable? You'll find something, and when we pair this, there's always something new. Whatever we do, it's wrong. What others do here in Oslo city, is mostly right even though they get disp 57 times to a greater extent than us and the case was closed recently. It is unimaginable which low point of argumentation that PBE has put on!
7.) It is sought to say that our wall is so bad and cannot under any circumstances be approved. It is only 18 cm "too far out". And that it is built according to PBE instruction and guidance here in Oslo, by Mrs Aubert Lange.
Others have walls down and up and side by side, simply everywhere that is higher than ours. More out in the road than ours and are bigger etc. Our wall does not stand out in any way. Except that before we built the wall it was 80 cm to the road, now it is 1 meter. As well as before, it ran shit and other things out into the road and down by minor, mud and water. Now the filling mass on our property, in other words, everything is much, much better. Tear this off with the argumentation that you use as being shooting yourself and others in your foot. It is stupid and totally unnecessary!
8.) Comparing our neighboring property, in Krokstien 2 b is an impossibility. We have built a wall according to PBE guidance, albeit verbally. Then they are not comparable as they have not built anything at all yet, and we built our wall five years ago. Here it will be like talking about the snow that fell 5 years ago and comparing it to the snow that will probably come next year. It's not comparable. Like comparing apples and bananas, there are two different fruits and cannot be compared. Only apples with apples and bananas with bananas. We are to be compared to those who built before the so-called house plan when we were supervised, this plan was never mentioned. The only one mentioned during the conversation was other walls in the Stormyrveien that ours
9.) Very happy that you mention such a case as in the Tamburveien. There is even a concern message from the Fire and Rescue Service. With us it is the opposite. When the car came here when our daughter needed urgent help, they were unable to find their way and arrive in the Crook Trail. But they drove down the Stormyrveien, used our stairs and the driveway. Without having had stairs and the way to come, they hadn't found out. Yes, it only testifies that PBE here in Oslo does not want us any good, and let what is appropriate is as it is. The fact that the booth, staircase and wall must stand untouched had been the absolute best. The property and so-called illegality in Tamburveien and ours is like comparing apples and bananas, it doesn't work. They really have a big problem, for us is the wall and such a staircase is a blessing. Comparing this as you do here just testifies that you need to come to the inspection and see that all the arguments you bring fall into "fish".
10.) The whole writing is really again again as a write against us, where a head does not want to come to meet us. For us, PBE's goal is to make things most difficult for us. Although our exemptions that we need are minimal to what others get. Here again you want to be difficult, then of course it will not be easy! When the nearest neighbor in Stormyrveien has been granted an exemption 57 times more than us and they are allowed to keep. And that you do what you can for us to tear, what else should we do? The application we sent through Ferdigattest AS was so good and comprehensive that it did not go through when I read hundreds of other issues here in Oslo. Both legal and illegal things, I really do not understand that you have to start adding the goddess, not the wrong side. So it goes perfectly well with what we have built when the dispensation we need is virtually nothing, it is of negligible nature that our lawyer Knut Howli has pointed out!
11.) You write that we should return everything as it was before. Then we will search again, and some of this can be approved with a halved stall, remodeled staircase and build a new wall. The booth can be approved by "incorporating" the 4 sqm in Krokstien 2 a - d. Firstly, this will be so expensive that after we have torn everything and got everything back to what it was before, we can just forget everything other. It becomes too expensive as we have already used up our saved funds at a lawyer, government lawyer, judges and applicant's for the certificate of completion and other things. The rest will then be used to get the property returned in their opinion. If we then start building stairs, walls and booths that have then been approved. After new treatment and everything is reversed, then just forget to build something more, then there is no more funds to collect and we are also so tired of this case. To start building here again we look at as not relevant! We'll then get away the stairs that you want to get the rope back as we had before?
What you come up with from statements that we are supposed to make is nothing but ugly, evil and primitive in our eyes. Needless to remove what is built. Which is as good and not a hindrance to anyone, even bus, boss car or fire truck. On the contrary, for a fire or a motor car, it is much better with a stairway up from the Stormyrveien than that they should drive into the yard in Krokstien 2 as there are mostly cars and other things that make it difficult for such vehicles . In fact, for our safety, what we have built is a must.
12.) Believes that the only thing right is that you come up with a visit with us, not a hidden sighting this time as a time off. So that you can see that all we have built is no different or dominant in any way whatsoever in relation to everyone else.
13.) Since everything we do, search with professional applicants and otherwise have put as much work and money into it. And when others submit an application almost written on the "kitchen table" and they get everything through. Then it becomes difficult for us all that we do, because anyway it is not good enough. Or it is not relevant, etc. How should we get a new application? There will be an impossibility with such a cross through difficult and difficult attitude towards us. Had you added goodwill, treated us equally as everyone else. Then our case had been in "goals" long, long ago. We see it as difficult here. Everything we have built is awesome.
But it is just that PBE looks at what we have done with unwillingness and wants it not to be approved then for incomprehensible reasons everything with us will come in the category of illegality cases.
14.) We send in about 50 dispensation cases to you, and you try to leave those cases are those who did not receive any exemption. Whatever we come up with, you use everything against us, never for us. So how can we win? Although our avh the dispensation is almost insignificant. While others who have up to 57 times more have taken advantage of the plot, receive exemption. Several others have walls that are almost clear to the asphalt, but we have a very good distance of 1 meter. Then it should be seen with the most difficult eyes when it is obviously out in the road. What about the others?
15.) Of everything you have come up with, statements and arguments, it justifies in our eyes more and more that the problem here is really just one thing. PBE unwillingness to us, nothing else!
16.) For example, it is claimed. that Stormyrveien 9c and other properties are not legally comparable. Then the question is which paragraph or regulations it says in?
An illegality is an illegality. Is aware that some properties have different utilization rates etc. But if you exceed this, then you need an exemption to get it approved. Of all the arguments that PBE has presented to us, we can, by and large, only see a difference in meaning between our property and that of others. It is that PBE extends far ahead of others in general here in Oslo. They do not extend at all to us. When others get a dispensation, it is just as "expected". When we receive a rejection, we either misunderstood or corrected us. PBE here in Oslo seems almost hopeless to us as we have experienced it! They are not at all interested in meeting us, even though they are so mischievous and amenable to most others. Here, injustice and differential treatment are greater than greatest. 57 times is nothing to be expected on the whole? The only difference that we read is that they were allowed to utilize the site their 25%, while we 24%. They exploited it at 61.3%, and we at 24.6%, that this is not comparable when they completed it all in 2018 is not easy for "ordinary" people to understand when PBE just throws out that it is not legally comparable when one does not the trouble of explaining it either. Then it is not easy to understand and understand what PBE actually means, when they basically never explain anything, nor how we can understand if possible.
17.) You compared our property with the one in Tamburveien 10. Here, it runs the bus service past our house twice an hour and we have never heard a sound saying that it was a problem. Not a car or anything else. While in Tamburveien 10, it is totally different. They have been pointed out by public authorities. Then we realize that building a "illegal" is a problem. But with us, we really don't understand. Look here for what the Fire and Rescue Services say about the property in the Tamburine Road.
18.) It is also stated about the aforementioned property: "BYM has been on inspection in Tamburveien 10 and notes the following: The support wall is set up 1.0-1.3 meters from the former fence towards the road, which then also causes the wall to go property boundary several meters along the road down towards the corner. The road has become correspondingly narrower and asphalt is cut off and laid inside the wall at the moment. There is no good visibility or space for larger vehicles. ”
With us, everything is the opposite, that they get problems is understandable as there is also poor visibility and they have settled. We have not settled at all, we called down to Kaja Aubert Lange at PBE here in Oslo, and got clear and good guidance. We built as recommended and by guidance, and what we have built is wonderfully good and no one has poor visibility here or anything else since the roadway has become larger and wider since we built our wall. Comparing this as you do in your email is just as incomprehensible to us as anything else you have done and do in this matter!
Berit and Jan Kåre Christensen
Krokstien 2 c