lørdag 24. august 2019

No. 1447: Additional information to the County Governor in Oslo and Viken regarding the Planning and Building Agency's attempts to manipulate and not accept that we have been orally instructed to build a wall that they are currently contesting!

No. 1447:
Additional information to the County Governor in Oslo and Viken regarding the Planning and Building Agency's attempts to manipulate and not accept that we have been orally instructed to build a wall that they are currently contesting!

Sent this email as with additional information to the County Governor in Oslo and Viken regarding the Planning and Building Agency attempts to manipulate and not take in that we have been orally instructed to build a wall that they today contest!
Sad when a government agency is on a line with a disclaimer where all things indicate only one thing that we are talking about. While they do not adhere to the facts of the case, we illustrate this in this email.

Case number 201510929 Oslo 24 / 8-2019
To the County Governor of Oslo and Viken.

The indices themselves indicate that I speak true, but that PBE does not il relate to it. As well as our experience and understanding of the matter, it should be trampled and neglected at all.

In the case between us, me and my wife Berit Nyland Christensen and the Planning and Building Agency here in Oslo, it is striking in all mailers and all correspondence between us. Then they will not respond to anything when we mention things that are in our favor, they merely dispense with what they themselves have decided and believe.

What happened in this case? When you look at what is built, you see clearly that none of what is built. It is not built by chance, it harmonizes with both the terrain and our house.
In other words, when I say and write that we built our wall on top of an old wall in consultation with our then case manager Kaja Aubert Lange in PBE, it is true with "map and compass." So with what it looks like here we live.

The indices themselves indicate that I speak true, but that PBE does not!

If you take a pen, it is so small that you have to ask why? That was when we built it, it was only allowed to set up a storage space of less than 15 square meters without applying for it. Today it is 50 sqm2. We set up a storage space of 10 sqm2, which became 11 sqm2. We had built two places where we have lived before, without searching. That this is going to be almost a disaster and that we are being treated so unreasonably hard even though our overruns are minimal, testify to someone who is only concerned with applying the rules against us. Here, of course, it should have given dispensation, the excess and the gain of what we have built, it says.

When it comes to the wall, we conferred with PBE. Then it turns out that our wall also fits perfectly, as, among other things, the neighbor's wall is over a ½ meter higher than ours. It indicates that the acceptance we got was to build on the old wall without applying for it. It sticks, and the indices indicate the same.
We have also built a higher wall before in one of the places we have storage, so to build a wall without searching. It has been the template for us, nothing else.

What really happened between me and Kaja Aubert Lange?
Here is our Lawyer Knut Howlids write to Borgarting Lagmannsrett on this case.

The support wall - advance guidance

Christensen sought advance guidance in the municipality of Oslo on two occasions before the support wall was erected. Christensen claims that in both inquiries he described the wall and that he was accepted for the construction of the wall without having to seek prior permission.
In the two phone conversations in 2013 that Christensen had with caseworker Kaja Lange Aubert, who knew the area years back through the development period to Krokstien 2, he asked if it was okay to erect a new and higher wall on the former old wall along Stormyrveien to get a larger and much better outdoor area southwest of their accommodation on Krokstien 2 c.
On both occasions, Christensen believes that he was given a clear answer by the municipal caseworker that the wall was not compulsory as he described it. He himself perceived it as a binding acceptance and agreement. It seems clearly unreasonable if it is Christensen who, in a case like this, should be at risk of any misunderstanding.
It is stated that there are service errors with regard to guidance / counseling. If there had been any basis for any kind of doubt with the caseworker regarding the request, she should have asked to have a sketch and / or written presentation of the building measure to make sure that her guidance / advice was correct.

Thus, the municipality's duty to provide sound guidance and / or counseling has failed and in any case has not been properly clarified vs. a contractor who addresses the municipality's planning and building authorities with a very specific question of prior permission in a specific building case.

The case officer was waived by the undersigned as a witness for the district court. However, it later emerged during the main hearing that the State Prosecutor had no knowledge that the case officer to whom Christensen approached had also been a case manager in connection with the planning and development of Krokstien 2 a b c and d.

The person was thus locally known in the area, known for the terrain heights and formations, as she had followed the development No. 1447:
Additional information to the County Governor in Oslo and Viken regarding the Planning and Building Agency's attempts to manipulate and not accept that we have been orally instructed to build a wall that they are currently contesting!
It has been very welcoming and understanding.

Now we got a new one to try again. He was actually more difficult than any of the others. We have applied before, and here was someone who claimed an application that was probably five times more demanding and comprehensive than the previous allowance we had.
Every application was then accepted, that we should submit an application that is more comprehensive than building and seeking to build a brand new house.
It bears witness to arrogance and almost cunning malice to make things most difficult for us.

We have now got a new caseworker that is more twisted and requires more of us than any of the other caseworker we have had after Kaja Aubert Lange. We have experienced those who max hard, but we certainly got one that was even harder and more twisted than those we thought and have experienced as impossible to deal with. The whole PBE in Oslo is for us as the blackest night where nothing we do is good enough, even though the dispensation we ask for and need is minimal.
While others receive exemptions and are granted the largest exemptions imaginable.

So we read the last mail in from PBE, and pretty much all other correspondence. Then what we experience is abuse of power and authority when one is so wrong, yes impossible to deal with. When we do not receive an exemption then in our case, an oral commitment is also the basis. If you look at what we have built then it indicates that the guidance we have been given. It has been followed, and that what is then set up does not stand out in any negative way. The fact is that it is for the benefit of all parties that we have built.
Now PBE wants us to return to what it was before. And that the nearest neighbor has built, with PBE acceptance. It is perfectly fine for us, but one by one, the neighbor's slope is down as our slope did before. Then it is actually about 70 - 80 cm from the road. While our wall is 1 meter. In fact, here our "new" wall is more legal than what PBE wants us to return to.
Don't understand what PBE is doing. Complying with such attachments and instructions is completely incomprehensible to us that it is possible to make such backward orders. Call it what we have built and done for illegalities, while one can even get himself to do most of both the breach of promise and rigid orders etc.

Really hope that there are some righteous people who surround these decisions and orders from PBE here in Oslo that are perceived as meaningless and dark. Follow such orders, it is as if someone should ask you to do a wrong! Maybe that's what it is?

Hope for a positive response and that everything will be turned to our advantage and favor.

We have sent an application before, now we will send another. But then with so much extra that it is really almost impossible to submit without it will be so much extra work and costs that to order to submit such an application. That's how we see it simply to make things as difficult and costly as possible!

In the previous application, our responsible applicants also pointed out this, that everything fits in and nothing has hindered anyone, only favor.

From Completed Test Byggesak AS, Pb 9385 Greenland, 0135 Oslo.

The contractor considered it very appropriate to have an external storage room which ensured good and dry storage, regardless of garage and basement. The alternative would be that bicycles and other things were left outdoors, which was both considered a poorer solution in terms of. decay on the individual objects that had to be left out, a less secure solution with the risk of the objects being stolen and not least a less tidy solution - ie a poor aesthetic solution for the surroundings. The booth was established on an area of ​​little use (north facing slope / fence). The settlement solution was accepted by the nearest neighbor, the measure is well below 15 square meters, and the measure holder was of the clear opinion that this would not trigger the application obligation. As far as we understand, the holder of the initiative has not received any negative feedback on the booth, which is both designed with a subdued expression, with good aesthetic design and further expertly executed. The booth is located at a height below the neighboring fence, and is noticeably visible to the surroundings.

Establishing a shed is not a significant or unreasonable disadvantage for neighbors, neither in terms of. the measures themselves or traffic conditions. There is consent from the nearest neighbor.

Regarding placed wall above previous wall: According to the initiative holder, the wall is placed directly above a former low wall and fence. As it is difficult to accurately specify this, it is difficult to estimate whether this is 100% correct on the millimeter. However, we note that there used to be a fence and a lower wall in the sc. the areas in question. This can be found on the attached photo documentation.

Pertaining to 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 correct that it was incorrectly written that the wall at the highest was 1.5 m in the notice. This was corrected on all notifications with a pen to the correct height and considered with them t clarified. In fact, we do not quite understand what a neighbor wants to achieve with this quote. Height, by the way, is clearly indicated by both drawing and maps.

Regarding the wall has a negative impact on road traffic and maintenance: Reg. This point also seems to indicate that it is somewhat striking that a neighbor in Stormyrveien 4, 5 and 6 has signed these quotations. It is important to emphasize on this occasion that the project owner in this project does not in any way want to indicate his neighbors as he feels that some have done in this case, because he has misunderstood the regulations and erected the wall / building. But when all three neighbors Stormyrveien 4, 5 and 6 themselves have walls that are all adjacent 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 a similar location, it must be said to be an established practice in the relevant area with walls up to - and indeed also in - regulated road boundaries. I fm. Both Stormyrveien 4 and 6 are also the walls all the way to the paved road. In Stormyrveien 5 is a garage and brick wall with approximately the same location in ft. the roadway as the measure now being applied for. We can hardly see that the wall in Krokstien 2c significantly affects the roadway significantly 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 has snooze on their own land, is otherwise considered to contribute significantly more negatively in terms of. traffic conditions than the right wall along the road that is being sought here. But as mentioned - it is not the task of the proprietor to hang up in neighboring circumstances. You just want to get your own situation settled. Mht. In addition, it is obvious that this wall, which is completely out of the roadway, has some influence on road engineering considerations. However, after an overall assessment, the wall is not considered to affect road engineering considerations to a significant extent. Mht. road traffic is affected to a limited extent as the visibility etc. of the right stretch is changed to a small extent. It is shown in this connection for past disclosure. Mht. maintenance then it is pointed out that the asphalt edge is still at a sufficient distance to the wall, and that there is a road shoulder in the area in question, so that you can store some snow here. By the way, there is a considerable area where the wall goes into 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 regard to. that the areas in question are dangerous to traffic or maintenance problems. We note that the wall has been standing for a long time without the road authority in the municipality - which manages and maintains the road - has not registered any problems, neither in terms of. use or operation.

In our opinion, the benefits of giving exemption outweigh the disadvantages in our opinion. The considerations behind the provision and the purpose of the plan are not significantly neglected. Exemption can be granted.
(quote at the end.)

Well, if one comes up here then none of what we've built with what's built here before. It fits in perfectly, and it is in everyone's favor!

That we do not get an exemption, while others get what has taken advantage of the plot actually 57 times more than us. It is only and only PBE malice and to set a standard that they have the power that they are obviously abusing here!
So hope that you make this decision so that what we have built, masonry, stairs and storage will stand and be approved!

We have been seduced by PBE (the planning and building agency here in Oslo), they have really laid a trap for us!

This is what PBE here in Oslo has ordered us to tear down. This is nothing but "mad Mathias" and evil that makes people hold on to this.

Here is our beautiful wall, no bigger or taller than what the neighbor's on the other side.

Also note that next to our wall is the neighbor's sloped plot 20 - 30 c, further opposite the road. As we used to, PBE wants us to. In other words, more "illegal" than we have it today. We do not understand this!

Our booth is exquisite, tearing it down is only malice in people who may seem like it.

Stairs that are necessary and safe to have, demolishing such are only delusional people who want this to be done.

When I see what we've gone through, that's absolutely horrifying.
We are suffering for being law-abiding and calling the municipality of Oslo and following their guidance.

Berit and Jan Kåre Christensen
Crockstone 2 c
0672 Oslo

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar