No. 1595:
The whole case against us is an assault from the planning and building agency here in Oslo, that we then do not want to "align" ourselves only shows that we do not accept the lies and narrative of the public!
PBE are both criminals and some beasts in their decisions, behavior and demeanor.
What we have built is both within the law and in Estonian style. Now it must be demolished, if not they will break us with fines that now the District Attorney will be the executor himself for this misdeed!
Norway appears as a very small, special and rich country.
Where they like to criticize everything and everyone outside Norway's borders.
What goes on within Norway's borders is not so closely followed.
Just think about BV and other matters. Norway has Europe's worst BV according to all the judgments in the human rights court in Strasbourg in France.
Now it is the World Cup in football 2022 in Qatar that is to be criticised, and Norway has got if the biggest critics of them all in Lise Klaveness who gets awards for everything between heaven and earth. Criticize more than anything here in Norway, it seems exactly the opposite!
What a hypocrisy and a show this really is, I'm sick and this sucks!
Shouldn't it be appropriate to look at the conditions in Norway instead?
I think we have more than enough to clean up within Norway's borders.
And this very double standard is downright sickening and ugly. Where PBE and the public sector would like to have high-rise buildings of 125 meters and build something nice and aesthetic on the outskirts of Oslo.
And they want to take you, they use all the lies and adventures they can against you in decisions and fines which are now almost NOK 300,000.
Totally pointless and rigid everything that the public is doing.
https://blog.janchristensen.net/2022/09/nr-3072-faktum-i-saken-var-er-at-vi-har.html
Receives the strangest accusations that I can't bear to repeat
But imagine a young person who is beaten and harassed at home, and is not heard.
What would the kid do sooner or later? First tell those at home, then others.
If that had not helped, sooner or later one will surely escape?
No one would have reacted to this?
It runs away to protect itself.
We warn against the public here, primarily PBE.
Everyone who goes with it in their criminal and corrupt journey, which is easily visible through what I have written, among other things. here on the Heavenly blog.
This is also the case with us, we called down and were guided how to build.
https://blog.janchristensen.net/2022/11/nr-3103-det-er-et-maktovergrep-av-det.html
Then PBE suddenly thought we had to apply, and we complied.
We are then law-abiding citizens and never punished for anything.
Our experience with PBE in their arguments and decisions is so stultifying, rigid and meaningless that you think you are dealing with people who need help and treatment.
https://blog.janchristensen.net/2022/08/nr-3056-saken-mellom-oss-og-pbe-er-na.html
Then they "found out" that our plot was straight, which we pointed out was not true.
When we applied for this, this was clearly and specifically mentioned by those who applied for us.
It was Ferdigattest Byggesak AS by Paal Erik Løvaas.
https://blog.janchristensen.net/2021/10/nr-2940-vi-har-papekt-at-plan-og.html
https://blog.janchristensen.net/2022/11/nr-3115-det-er-et-narrativ-som-det.html
This is what Løvaas writes to PBE in our application:
Application for dispensation from requirements for limitations to terrain work in S-4220 § 6.5 (in fm. establishment of wall):
An application is hereby made for dispensation from requirements for BYA in S-4220 § 6.5.
In the current situation, the restrictions allow for terrain work with a height of 0.5-1.0 m.
(This is almost correct, 0.5 meters above what PBE says. But the correct thing is 1.5 meters. Here it says 1 meter, wrong. The correct thing is 1.5 meters, almost the height of our wall.)
https://blog.janchristensen.net/2022/11/nr-3115-det-er-et-narrativ-som-det.html
An exemption from the above-mentioned requirements is hereby sought as the height of the wall is at most 1.85 m. The terrain up to this is approximately the same height (at the highest point), but is essentially significantly lower than this.
When applying for a dispensation, the application must be justified, the considerations in
the purpose provisions are not significantly disregarded, and the advantages of granting a dispensation are greater than the disadvantages after an overall assessment, cf. pbl § 19-2.
The plot is regulated for residential purposes. The wall - and the elevation - has been established to ensure better/flatter outdoor areas with a more defined demarcation towards the road. The purpose is not considered to be significantly disregarded, either in fm. the measure or in fm. granting of dispensation regarding CITY.
The roadway is regulated for road engineering considerations. Parts of the wall are laid in the roadway. In this connection, reference is made to assessments in fm. application for dispensation regarding location closer to 15 m from the middle of the road, cf. point below.
The regulatory provision specifies the maximum processing of terrain in order to limit the terrain works within the scope of the zoning plan. The works in question were carried out some time ago, but are being re-applied in accordance with today's current planning requirements.
The works have a negative effect in terms of these conditions as there are discrepancies regarding the provision.
However, it is specified on this occasion that the wall provides a clear demarcation towards the roadway, and that by establishing a wall and filling in the ground, significantly increased usability of the plot's outdoor areas is ensured. This has been important for the initiative holder in terms of use and furnishing of these areas. It is also specified that the expression of the wall is well adapted to the architectural expression of the home.
In the area, many terrain fillings have been carried out and many cuttings/fillings have been established which are both smaller, similar in size and also significantly larger than the measure in question.
The establishment of a wall is not a significant or unreasonable inconvenience for neighbours, either in terms of the measure itself or traffic conditions.
The owner of the measure misunderstood the regulations and acknowledges that the measure has not been applied for in accordance with pbl, but still asks for understanding that you thought this was in line with what you could do without an application. It was further understood that this had actually been clarified with PBE after conversations with
case manager at PBE. Of course, this does not make the "illegality" any more legal, but we still ask for your understanding that the owner of the measure then feels it very unreasonable if you have to remove the entire wall. Financially, this is very burdensome for the initiative owner. A lot of time and resources have already been spent on the wall.
After an overall assessment, in our opinion, the advantages of granting a dispensation outweigh the disadvantages. The considerations behind the provision and purpose in the plan are not significantly disregarded.
Dispensation can be granted.
Application for dispensation from the requirement for placement 15 m from the middle of the road, cf. section 29 of the Road Act:
An application is hereby made for a dispensation from the requirement for a location 15 m from the middle of a regulated road, cf. § 29 of the Roads Act.
An application is hereby made for exemption from the above-mentioned requirements for the placement of a shed up to 12.5 m from the middle of a regulated road, and the placement of a wall up to 3.5 m from the middle of a regulated road.
When applying for a dispensation, the application must be justified, the considerations in
the purpose provisions are not significantly disregarded, and the advantages of granting a dispensation are greater than the disadvantages after an overall assessment, cf. pbl § 19-2.
The plot is regulated for residential purposes. The road area is regulated as a road.
The shed serves the home, and is a good distance from the road. The purpose is not considered disregarded by the chosen location of the store.
An established retaining wall ensures significantly better outdoor areas, which is a stated goal of the amended regulations (S-4220). The purpose of residence is not affected by the chosen location.
Smaller parts of the wall lie in the roadway. As far as we understand, this is primarily due to errors with the old building boundaries on the plot. The wall was placed on top of the original wall on the site, with a gentle slope towards the developer's property. The parts of the wall located in
regulated road area will obviously affect road engineering considerations to some extent as they seize parts of the area set aside for roads. It is clarified on this occasion that the location of the wall does not affect the actual use of the road or the operation and maintenance of the road itself. The wall may, however, touch a smaller part of the road's shoulder in the event of a full build-up. On this occasion, it is pointed out that any positive decision related to this case will trigger a demand for a temporary declaration, which will in any case ensure that the wall - if it prevents the full width of the road - must be processed, or in the worst case removed. The purpose of the road is consequently to some extent affected by the location of the wall, but consideration of the road area can
difficult to be significantly disregarded degree, cf. above.
Overall, the storage room and/or wall is not considered to override the purpose of the plan to a significant extent.
The requirement for a location 15 m from the center of a straight road is intended to ensure that road engineering considerations, including use, for example sufficient visibility when driving, etc., operation and maintenance, including, for example, plowing etc. and possibly full-width processing.
Regarding use, it is pointed out that the road in the relevant area is almost completely straight. Establishing a store many meters from the road in no way affects visibility etc. Regarding the wall, then this is laid up to approx. 1 m from (at the nearest 95 cm) from the established asphalt edge/roadway. The wall slopes gently away
the roadway towards the property owner. The road has been in use - and worked well - for several seasons since the wall was erected.
Regarding operation and maintenance, it is shown that the road has been in use for several seasons. The owner of the initiative states that plowing and other maintenance of the road surface appears to be working well. On this occasion, we have also asked the Urban Environment Agency for a statement on the matter. We understand it so that they
have not received inquiries related to problems in fm. the wall.
The owner of the initiative considered it very appropriate to have an external shed that ensured good and dry storage, regardless of the garage and basement. The shed was established on an area that was in little use (north facing slope/fence). The storage solution was accepted by the nearest neighbour, the project is well under 15 square meters, and the project owner was consequently of the clear opinion that the establishment of
the stall would not trigger an obligation to apply. He has also never received any negative feedback on the stall, which is both designed with a muted expression, with good aesthetic design and further professionally well executed. The shed is located at a height below the neighbour's fence, and is to a small extent visible from the surroundings.
Establishing a wall has given the project owner a significantly more usable outdoor area. By establishing a retaining wall, the project owner has achieved a significantly better living environment quality through better usability of the outdoor areas, including an almost flat west-facing area where different types of outdoor recreation 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 at the municipality's discretion. By establishing the retaining wall, the initiative owner has just achieved this. In the current situation, there is a west-facing total area of slightly over 8x8 m. There is 8.1 m from the house wall to the fence at the top of the wall. This was not possible before the establishment of the wall. The wall is approx. 1 m from a paved road and that the situation works well today.
The owner of the initiative contacted PBE and asked if it was OK to put up a new wall where a previous wall had stood. According to the owner of the initiative, this was perceived as unproblematic and exempt from the obligation to apply. The initiative owner apologizes for having misunderstood, but it is still pointed out that it would have been difficult to contact PBE if you had not acted in good faith, and that you raised the wall
as was believed to be in line with the regulations. This opinion is strengthened by the fact that there are apparently no retaining wall cases in the immediate area, despite the fact that several walls have been established there. Care has also been taken to ensure that the work was carried out professionally.
The former wall was located in the old plot boundary. A new wall has been erected where the old wall was. Unfortunately, there was something wrong with the old borders, which has meant that the wall is a few cm. out in a regulated way. This was first discovered during surveying. The wall lies almost exactly on the previously indicated plot boundary, which is therefore somewhat incorrect. It is requested that PBE in its assessment take into account the consequences of a possible refusal
the owner of the measure is in no way in relation to the consequences of the measure in terms of circumstances.
Both the consequences for the quality of the living environment and, not least, the financial consequences will be significant for the owner of the measure.
In our opinion, the establishment of a storage room and wall is not a significant or unreasonable inconvenience for neighbours, neither in terms of the measures themselves or traffic conditions. There is also consent from the nearest neighbour.
After an overall assessment, in our opinion the advantages of granting a dispensation outweigh the disadvantages. The considerations behind the provision and purpose in the plan are not significantly disregarded.
Dispensation can be granted
Other walls/stalls in the area and the principle of equal treatment:
It is correct that PBE writes in its decision that many of the walls that have been established in the area were probably established before the current plan was adopted. However, it is not correct that all the walls were established before the single-family house plan came into force. Several walls have been established facing the roadway in recent years.
When assessing the current wall in ft. other walls in the area, it is also specified that the wall in question is in no way the largest wall in the area, either in height or length. We note that PBE on that occasion points out that many walls were built before the single-family house plan was made
applicable. The owner of the measure then wonders whether these are then legal, even if they have never been applied for and they must obviously have been in conflict with both previously applicable plans and exemption provisions in the Planning and Building Act. On that occasion, we understand that the initiative owner - who himself believes
they have followed the municipality's recommendation - consider it unreasonable that they are the only ones being followed up.
The owner of the initiative finds it further unreasonable that PBE defends what the owner of the initiative perceives as a neighbour's illegally erected wall in its argument against the owner of the initiative's own wall. The owner of the initiative points out on this occasion that it is not correct that the neighbours' wall is not in a regulated road.
Whether the neighbour's wall has been erected illegally is unclear to us, but it is correct that the owner of the measure points out that the walls on the complaining neighbour's property (both the wall on the other side of the road and the nearest neighbour's wall) may appear to be located partly in areas regulated for roads.
Furthermore, the owner of the measure cannot understand what significance it has that the neighbour's walls (at least some of them) are connected to the carport. The walls are not lower, or affect the area or roadway less, for that reason.
Incidentally, not all the walls in the area were established before the single-family house plan came into force.
Several of the walls in the area appear to have been established after 2006. From our review of the case, we cannot see that any cases have been registered in Stormyrveien that explicitly concern walls in the past 100 years.
We assume that some walls are assessed in fm. other buildings, but notes that it may seem that the owner of the measure is right in that several of the walls have not been the subject of a reality assessment.
Regarding natural transition to the road, it is pointed out that very few plots in the area have a natural transition to the road. On most of the plots along Stormyrveien, walls and or cuttings have been established in one form or another. Fclay of these has a similar size to the wall in question.
Regarding the requirement for natural stone, it is pointed out that there is great variation in the walls in the area, and that there is a significant number of walls in plastered brick and concrete, i.e. with a similar expression to the wall in question. Reference is made in this connection to, for example, the walls in Stormyrveien 9 and 12.
Regarding contiguous green areas, then the project owner perceives PBE's argumentation as a little too far-fetched. Again, reference is made to virtually all the plots in the immediate area where this green area has been broken up with some form of terrain work - primarily the creation of walls. All complaining neighbours' properties end towards the road with what PBE refers to as an unnatural transition that breaks the green contiguous areas towards the road.
The owner of the initiative is surprised that residents in the immediate area should have been granted a dispensation for a built-up store (case 201316839 – Stormyrveien 9C). We are a little unsure whether there are major differences in that case and the present case, but we at least note that it is also the case here
about an illegally erected storage room and that % BYA of up to 60% was stated in the case. We also note that the plot is covered by another regulation, without us being sure how that affects the assessment criteria. We also assume that PBE has an overview of the fact that no corresponding dispensations have been granted with regard to % BYA for similar measures in the scope of the Small House Plan.
We have not been able to provide an exact answer to several of the above-mentioned statements. As it is PBE's statements that the initiative holder is referring to, we find it most natural to leave it to PBE to comment on this in the complaint case
See here for the full discussion of the cases:
https://blog.janchristensen.net/2021/10/nr-2940-vi-har-papekt-at-plan-og.html
https://blog.janchristensen.net/2019/04/nr-2446-selv-om-pbe-vil-na-komme-oss-i.html
https://blog.janchristensen.net/2019/04/nr-2448-flere-og-flere-er-enig-med-meg_21.html
https://blog.janchristensen.net/2019/05/nr-2474-fremmet-nye-sknad-til-pbe.htmla
https://blog.janchristensen.net/2019/06/nr-2475-fremmet-nye-sknad-til-pbe.html
https://blog.janchristensen.net/2019/05/nr-2468-det-er-ikke-skt-om-mur-i.html
https://innsyn.pbe.oslo.kommune.no/saksinnsyn/casedet.asp?mode=&caseno=201609223
See especially points 2, 9 and 13 where it says From FERDIGATTEST BYGGESAK AS.
Concluding remarks.
Here, Paal Erik Løvaas highlights many things, including this with guidance that it was probable. Blue. because no one has ever applied for a wall here at Hellerudtoppen before we did. This is - or was - the outskirts of Oslo where everything went well apart from being completely naughty.
https://blog.janchristensen.net/2019/05/nr-2468-det-er-ikke-skt-om-mur-i.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6JGHiKRZoA&t=50s
Today, the opposite has become the case with the toxic PBE, where you allow anything down in the city. With big monster buildings all over the place, only it's big enough. Then it will be approved. While here, a few meters from Østmarka where the fox and other wild animals live. There it goes on cm and "nice."
Furthermore, Paal Erik Løvaas has realized that the fall on our property is not a flat terrain, but a steep one.
He points this out, and PBE never really answered this. But only based on all the lies that they are obviously used to being allowed to do. Then one has to count this berm in PBE as bicycle theft etc. Then they are allowed to do most things, and it becomes generally accepted that bicycle theft becomes here in Norway.
https://blog.janchristensen.net/2022/11/nr-3111-plan-og-bygningsetaten-her-i.html
Løvaas has also realized that what we have built is neither dominant, ugly nor anything else that PBE and some of "our" neighbors claim.
He writes this, which is for us the most important point if there is anything negative to say about our wall;
"Regarding use, it is pointed out that the road in the area in question is almost completely straight."
The road is 100% straight, and it has been driven every day for the last 8 years many times a day by regular buses and other large vehicles.
Plow trucks in winter and passenger cars. Everything imaginable is possible, but not a single vehicle has ever once had problems with what we have built.
But the neighbor on the other side, there are problems every day as they do not have a suitable exit or a wall that is 1 meter from the road.
And the neighbor on the other side in Stormyrveien has a wall that is at least ½ meter higher, and all this shows that our wall is not dominant as is claimed. The neighbor has a larger wall also onto our plot.
All arguments that PBE makes are baseless!
All the arguments that certain neighbors such as Roar Telje and others have made are completely meaningless and have not been proven to be true that our wall will cause any serious problems with regard to plowing etc.
The whole case against us is a narrative from beginning to end
Ferdigattest As also writes the following in our application:
"Furthermore, care has been taken to ensure that the work was carried out professionally."
Everything we have built matches our house and other buildings.
Nothing is dominant, unsightly or negative.
What is unsightly and negative is PBE opbehavior.
As well as the neighbour's, especially this Roar Telje which we experience is filled with bitterness and has as PBE it is. Tragic!
Furthermore, Paal Erik Løvaas writes the following:
"We assume that some walls are assessed in fm. other buildings, but notes that it may seem that the owner of the measure is right in that several of the walls have not been the subject of a reality assessment.
Regarding natural transition to the road, it is pointed out that very few plots in the area have a natural transition to the road. On most of the plots along Stormyrveien, walls and or cuttings have been established in one form or another. Several of these have a similar size to the wall in question.
Regarding the requirement for natural stone, it is pointed out that there is great variation in the walls in the area, and that there is a significant number of walls in plastered brick and concrete, i.e. with a similar expression to the wall in question. In this connection, reference is made to, for example, the walls in Stormyrveien 9 and 12."
There is simply nothing special about our wall compared to others. Neither positive nor negative as we see it.
Our wall is like everyone else's, it is adapted to the terrain and our house so that we get a natural and good separation between the road and our property.
Everything is in the best order, except with some hateful and very toxic case managers at PBE and in the public sector. Sad!
https://blog.janchristensen.net/2022/01/nr-2978-den-frekke-og-nrtagende.html
Paal Erik Løvaas writes the following:
"Regarding contiguous green areas, then the project owner perceives PBE's argumentation as a little too far-fetched. Again, reference is made to virtually all the plots in the immediate area where this green area has been broken up with some form of terrain work - primarily the creation of walls. All complaining neighbors' properties end facing the road with what PBE refers to as an unnatural transition that breaks the green contiguous areas facing the road."
Here again, this is pointed out, that what we have built is like normal. One wants a flatter terrain, and access down to Stormyrveien.
What we have built is miles within what should have been approved when one uses the legislation as it is intended to be used.
Then none of what we have built sets aside any rules or anything else important.
And there are more pros than cons, not really any cons.
Here I can go on and on, but stop here with the statements from Ferdigattest Byggesak AS by Paal Erik Løvaas!
Final comment:
We have stripped PBE and the public completely in this matter.
They are not only taken with their "pants" down, but off!
But unfortunately, there are so few who care about public law violations in such "small" cases it seems?
Everyone is closest to themselves, and the press, which should have uncovered and written about such relationships, is completely silent.
They would rather write about corruption abroad and anything else!
This is really an unhealthy democratic problem, where will this end?
In any case, we will never align ourselves with a criminal agency like PBE!
Not only that, but they don't even answer very real questions, just say the matter is settled, closed and no more to discuss.
What a "dictatorship" and idiotic people who are completely incapable of and cannot tolerate criticism and contradictions. Real narcissists and power people!
