When the planning and building authorities want to remove a wall, staircase and storage space that fits into the terrain, but what obviously does not fit in and is illegal, should be left standing!
What is so bad about PBE and the public, that one must say that they are pill rot. Everyone is pretty much allowed to romp as they please, we will be taken for absolutely everything they can find on us.
Now they have overworked themselves with sending to the County Governor over 40 attachments ++++
In other words, they are putting in unlimited resources to get us now.
It is so rotten and smelly by PBE that it opens up from Vahls gate on Tøyen to us here at Hellerudtoppen.
All this could and should have been avoided in treating us like everyone else, and showing understanding and compassion. Worse than it is!
Isaiah 5. 20 Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil, that turn darkness to light, and light unto darkness, that turn bitter to sweet, and sweet to bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and wise in their own thoughts! 22 Woe unto them that are mighty for drinking wine, and able to mix strong drink; 23 Those who give as gifts to those who are iniquity, and take the right from the righteous!
Think here in our case, then we have built something that fits in perfectly with our house and everything else. It is a straight line, so possibly high has nothing to say.
While there are 3 neighbors who have sent repeated emails to PBE in Oslo and warned against our building stock. With conspiracy theories about one and the other. Blue. that the brewing car could not do its job. There is no place in Oslo city that the brewing car drives so easily past.
Our responsible applicants Ferdigattest AS writes about this here:
Mht. use, it is pointed out that the road in the area in question is almost exactly right. Establishment of storage space many meters from the road in no way affects visibility etc. then the wall is added until approx. 1 m from (at the nearest 95 cm) from the established asphalt edge / road. The wall slopes the slope from the roadway towards the property of the beneficiary. The road has been in use - and worked well - for several seasons since the wall was erected.
Mht. operation and maintenance it appears that the road has been in use for several seasons. The policyholder states that paving and other maintenance of the roadway seems to work well. We have also on this occasion asked the City Environment Agency for a statement on the occasion. We understand that they have not received inquiries related to problems in the sc. wall.
The contractor considered it very appropriate to have an external storage room which ensured good and dry storage, regardless of garage and basement. 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 therefore of the clear opinion that the establishment of the estate would not trigger an obligation to apply. He has also never received any negative feedback at 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.
The establishment of a wall has given the gardener a much more usable outdoor area. When establishing a retaining wall, the holder of the project has achieved significantly better quality of living space with better usability in the outdoor areas, including an approximately flat west-facing area where different types of outdoor living are ensured. On this occasion, it seems necessary to point out that PBE itself has introduced an area requirement of 8x8 m for outdoor areas to be usable at all in the municipality's discretion. When establishing the support wall, the initiative holder has just achieved this. In today's situation, there is a west facing total area of just over 8x8 m. It is 8.1 m from the house wall to the fence on the top wall. This was not possible until the wall was established.
The wall is approx. 1 m from paved road and that the situation works well today.
The intervener contacted PBE and inquired whether it was ok to erect a new wall where the previous wall had stood. According to the promoter, this was seen as unproblematic and exempt from the obligation to apply. The defendant regrets that he has misunderstood, but it is nevertheless pointed out that it was difficult to contact PBE if you did not act in good faith and that you erected the wall as you thought was in accordance with the regulations. This view is reinforced by the fact that there are apparently no support causes in the immediate area, despite the fact that several walls are established there. It has further been taken care of that the work was carried out professionally.
Former wall was in old plot of land. A new wall has been erected where the old wall was. Unfortunately, there was something wrong with the old borders, which meant that the wall was a few cm. out in a regulated way. This was first discovered by surveying. The wall is almost exactly at the previously stated site boundary, which is therefore somewhat incorrect.
It is requested that PBE, in its assessment, take into account that the consequences a possible refusal for the proprietor in no way is proportionate to the consequences the measure has regarding circumstances. Both the consequences for quality of the home and not least the economy no consequences will be significant for the policyholder.
Establishment of storage and masonry is, in our opinion, not a significant or unreasonable disadvantage for neighbors, neither in terms of. the measures themselves or traffic conditions. There is also the consent of the nearest neighbor.
In our overall assessment, the benefits of granting an exemption are greater than the disadvantages. The considerations behind the provision and the purpose of the plan are not significantly neglected. Exemption can be granted.
Regarding the wall has a negative impact on road traffic and maintenance: In this regard, it seems necessary to point out 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 promoter 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 building / building. But when all three neighbors Stormyrveien 4, 5 and 6 themselves have walls that are all within or within a regulated road boundary, then 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 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 negatively affect road engineering considerations. Mht. road traffic is affected to a limited extent as the visibility etc. of the right stretch is changed to a small extent. In this connection, it is shown in the previous report. 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.
(quote at the end.)
None of the three neighbors who have attacked us for so-called illegalities, which we have proven, did not hold the team. They even have a property where none of them can turn on their own property.
They have cones from the municipality set up. Illegal signs with private parking out in a public road.
It works and is nice with us, this should be torn down. That is the order and we have so far received fines and invoices so far of approx. 60,000, - kr.
At the neighbors, they really put their lives and others at risk every day.
PBE also puts others' well-being at risk of not doing something that doesn't work.
What should you say then?
It is deeply, deeply tragic that the whole of PBE and the public are only concerned with tearing down booths, walls and stairs with us as everything is perfect.
But the neighbors do not work. Even the wall of our neighbor just across the road does not work. It is right in the road, it prevents traffic.
Illegal signs and pillars stolen by the municipality of Oslo, where it does not work at all.
Paal Løvaas For Completed Test Byggesak A / S writes this as already seated.
Regarding the wall has a negative impact on road traffic and maintenance: In this regard, it seems necessary to point out 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 promoter 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 building / building. But when all three neighbors Stormyrveien 4, 5 and 6 themselves have walls that are all within or within a regulated road boundary, then 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 relevant area with walls until - and indeed also out in - regulated road boundary. 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.
Final Comment:
We are really bullied, discriminated against and discriminated against by PBE and the public. Of course, this is not the way it should be.
It is really pointless that we should tear up. And it is completely, completely incomprehensible that others have problem properties that PBE completely ignores. It's like they're fucking full of it!
What to say about this?
It is so unfair, plain work and simply it stinks of PBE, the County Governor, the Civil Ombudsman and the courts long, long way!
That they think this is acceptable and we should accept something like that, is on wild roads.
Here we really see the whole of the public Norway trying to protect each other, but for more they do.
More and more their folly and incompetence are emerging!
2 Thess. 3. 9 But they shall not prosper; for their disbelief shall be revealed to all, as also they were.
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar