No. 1466: Reply to the County Governor in Oslo and Viken!

No. 1466:
Reply to the County Governor in Oslo and Viken!

Oslo 12 / 10-19

Case number 201510929 - Construction case PBE here in Oslo
Their Ref. 2019/40980

Here is the letter we received from the County Governor in Oslo and Viken.


 

Hello again!

Thanks for the reply if it was very hollow, as expected (standard response) and bland!

You write the following: "The county governor, after reviewing the letter from you, can not see that there is a basis for amending our decision of September 19, 2019, which we ratify the Oslo municipality decision of May 13, 2019."

This is nothing but the goat that fits the oatmeal, when we lie for miles inside where exemption is justified. And if you do not give it, then there is little one can stand against obvious lies and distortions of truth.

This is as wrong and shallow an answer as possible, to mention a few points briefly. Fighting against you fits the saying "against stupidity even the gods fight in vain!"

Since we are not coming any way with you, and you will not listen to our arguments at all.

Then it is very important that one emphasizes the law, but when one rule means more than another. Why does one emphasize what matters least in the Building Act?
What matters most and is in our favor is totally overlooked?
Now we are not as rich as Kjell Inge Røkke on earthly goods and gold, that must be the only factual and only reason we find that we do not succeed with the County Governor and Marius Vamnes?

It is stated in the Planning and Building Act (Planning and Building Act)

There must be "clear excess weight for consideration" (cf. § 19-2). The considerations behind the provision that is dispensed from or the considerations behind the purpose of the Act must not be neglected significantly and the benefits of granting a dispensation must be clearly greater than the disadvantages after an overall assessment.

• should be especially emphasized by exemption from legislation / regulations: consequences for health, environment, safety and accessibility

• should be particularly emphasized when exempting from plans: state and regional frameworks and targets

• The municipality should not exempt from plans, the provisions of the Act on plans and the prohibition in § 1-8 (prohibition zones along the sea and watercourses) when a directly affected state or regional authority has made a negative statement on the application for exemption (cf. § 19-2, fourth paragraph).

The right to set exemption terms

Exemption may be granted on terms, cf. Section 19-2, first paragraph, of the Planning and Building Act. Exemption conditions must be designed to prevent, repair, mitigate or compensate for any negative consequences of deviating from the regulations or plan.
(quote at the end.)

In our case, it is actually very special. There are only positive things about giving us an exemption.

No one has come up with a single negative thing about our buildings that hold water. No agencies, no government agencies or anyone else. Why? It does not exist. No one has mentioned a specific thing, but we can name many.

1.) Our wall lies further in than our pre-sloped south-facing slope.

2.) Fire and ambulance come easier to our property with our wall and stairs.

3.) Our booth is almost not seen from the road, it is not noticed until one comes up to our property.

4.) Our wall does not stand out negatively and is not higher than others in our living area.

5.) We have got a nicer, flatter and larger outdoor area by our wall.

6.) None of what we have built creators disharmony or noticed to be anything different that breaks with other buildings.

7.) The stairs that we have built are a thousand times safer and better to get down and up from Stormyrveien in conditions that we had before when we lowered ourselves with ropes and hoisted us up immediately.

8.) That we should return the property to how the property was before and that should not cause any negative inconvenience. Of course, that's not true.

9.) It's the way we feel now, which is the very best. It is simply more like it says when dispensing is to be granted and granted. Implications for health, the environment, safety and accessibility should be emphasized, to our advantage, not disadvantage. Why? There is not a single negative thing about what we have built, only positive.

10.) That we do not receive an exemption must be Norway's largest and worst interpretation of the Planning and Building Act.

It is not just an overweight, as the law required with the benefits of giving exemption. That must be clearly greater than the drawbacks after an overall assessment.

With us, this is not only fulfilled, but overfilled.

It is like you have asked to get 100,000, - NOK for a car and get 1 Million.

This gives you, the Civil Ombudsman and the PBE here in Oslo no exemption and order for demolition.
Yes, so when the state institutions are full of evil and do not realize it themselves ?!

Have a nice day, because when you are rotten and imagine that you are doing something serious (what you are doing is just sad), you just have to keep going!
We do not believe a single word of what you write, nor what the Civil Ombudsman or PBE here in Oslo makes of his decisions.
For our cause, mileage is in from being an illegal case, but we're over probably live this too!
Even in kindergarten, the children are not as simple and bully the weak as you do.
You act in conjunction with the Civil Ombudsman and the PBE as the big nasty boy who bullies those he is stronger for himself he is really unhappy and the only way to assert himself is to abuse his strength, that is all he has.
Because there is regular abuse of power and authority you are doing.
We then have no opportunity to change the decisions and orders, even though they had fit perfectly into a totalitarian state not to give us the right and the dispensation we need and which we deserve to get!




Regards
Berit and Jan Kåre Christensen
Krokstien 2 c
0672 Oslo