In a protected sea area on Hisøy, the high-profile mayoral candidate Linda Dagestad Øygarden (H) and her husband have made major encroachments on their property. But not everything is approved. news can now reveal that seven different changes have been made, without any application being made. The couple risk demands for demolition and fines. When news started asking questions last week, Øygarden consulted with a friend in First House. She wrote a Facebook post about our investigations and tipped off the local newspaper. – We apologize that mistakes have been made in this matter, and we will of course help clarify everything that has happened, writes the Conservative politician in an e-mail. More answers from Øygarden are further down in the article. Local politician and mayoral candidate Linda Dagestad Øygarden (H) was re-elected to the city council in Arendal in 2019. Photo: John-André Samuelsen / news – I was very upset. news also asked Arendal municipality about the construction of Øygarden, and it didn’t take long. time before three employees from the municipality themselves traveled to the house to carry out investigations. During the inspection, seven faults were discovered, according to the municipality’s report. 1. In front of the terrace facing the sea, a double glass door has been inserted that has not been applied for. 2. Behind the door, there is a furnished room that has not been applied for either. 3 and 4: Masonry stairs and cladding on the west side were built without an application. 5. A retaining wall on the right side of the terrace has been illegally erected. 6. The windows to the north-east are larger than what has been applied for. 7. The WC has been moved under the extension, and not where it was originally drawn in and applied for. Øygarden writes to news that they have not applied for stairs and cladding because they “were told in a meeting with the municipality that the measure was not considered to require an application”. The municipality disagrees with this. – I was very put off when Øygarden confronted me during the inspection that I should have agreed to this, says case manager Stian Dalen. He believes it is completely unlikely that he would have verbally agreed in a meeting. – If I had been asked about this, I would have said that you must apply. What has been done here is an offence. From the municipality’s inspection on 6 June. According to the municipality, this staircase has not been applied for. Photo: Arendal municipality The double doors and living room on the same level have not been applied for either. Photo: Arendal kommuhne The windows to the south-east are wider and larger than in the application that Arendal municipality has received. Photo: Arendal municipality The toilet, which according to the application should have been installed in this room, has been moved to another place in the building. Photo: Arendal municipality Unknown drawings The case manager was also surprised when, during the same inspection, drawings appeared which he says he has never seen before. – I was taken aback, but I noticed the date and wondered why these had not been included in the application, says Dalen. The drawings were dated October 2017, the same month that Øygarden agreed to start construction. They contained both stairs, plating and walls, according to Dalen. The same that was built, but was not applied for. – It’s kind of strange that they haven’t been sent in. Those the municipality received were not very detailed, says Dalen. These drawings were made by someone other than the architectural firm used. Case manager Stian Dalen took a photo of the drawings he had never seen before. I think the architect made a mistake Øygarden and the man used KB Arkitekter as the responsible applicant. Architect Thorvald Bernhardt says he is not aware of several of these works that have been carried out. – The external staircase, the plating, new retaining wall and furnished room for living, where the cisterns used to be, are without our knowledge, says Bernhardt. To news, the architect says that they forgot to include some changes that occurred during construction when they submitted the final papers to the municipality. Øygarden writes to news that “based on the drawings we received from the architect and our contact with them, we had reason to believe that everything was in order. Now we see that they have not followed through on their responsibility by registering the changes in the application for a completion certificate, and that is deeply regrettable.” The right-wing politician rejects that they want to place the blame on others. She now says that they want to clean up the mistakes and will comply with what the municipality requires. Øygarden is a high-profile politician in Arendal, and the Conservative Party’s mayoral candidate for this year’s local elections. Here with Conservative leader Erna Solberg. The picture has been published on Øygarden’s Facebook page. Photo: private Was not treated politically Øygarden has more than ten years’ experience as a politician in the city council in Arendal, which also processes building applications in the municipality. In 2016, Øygarden and her husband bought the property in the beach zone east of Hisøy, which consisted of two older houses. The following year, they applied for the demolition and rebuilding of an annex, an extension and facade change of the main house. Øygarden was not on the city council when they received a building permit in 2017, but was re-elected when she was granted a completion certificate in 2020. The building case was never dealt with politically, and the couple received several dispensations. The area has its own zoning plan because it is historic and has a special cultural value. Photo: John-André Samuelsen / news The annex was demolished, and between 60 and 80 lorry loads of stone masses were driven away from the property, according to the contractor that news has spoken to. A new and larger function house was then built where the annex was previously. Øygarden also received permission to build a floating jetty. The state administrator advised the municipality to say no to this, but the municipality nevertheless said yes. The property is located in Helsviga on the east side of Hisøya. Photo: Per-Kåre Sandbakk / news Must respond to the municipality of Øygarden and the man has been given a deadline until 20 June to respond to the municipality and clarify possible errors and misunderstandings. After this, the married couple have two choices for what is not approved by the municipality. They can apply for permits for what they have already done, or they can demolish what is illegally erected, according to unit manager Ola Skei Bekken in Arendal municipality. Øygarden in debate with other local politicians during an event at Bjellandstrand farm in Arendal in May. Photo: John-André Samuelsen / news If they apply for approval for what has been done illegally, the case will be treated as if nothing had been built before. The married couple can then either get permission, or demand to demolish what has been built illegally. Bekken says they will not issue fines in this case until everything is clarified. He adds that the municipality takes such matters seriously. – You should refer to the permit and the accompanying drawings. Based on experience, the threshold should be low before a change application should be submitted, especially in the hundred-metre belt and the conservation area, says Bekken. Hello! Did you think of anything when you read this case? Feel free to send me an email! Previously, I have written, among other things, about illegal construction in the beach zone in Tjøme municipality. This is how Linda Dagestad Øygarden (H) responds: Wednesday 7 June: “Hello, Here are our answers to your questions, but first some comments and factual information that we believe are relevant in any discussion of the matter: We apologize that it has been mistake in this matter, and we will of course help to clarify everything that has happened. We engaged an architect to ensure that the building matter would be handled correctly, but now see that the architect as responsible applicant has not followed through on his responsibilities. The architect has apologized for that, but we take full responsibility, and demands for the correction of errors will of course be complied with. After news Vestfold contacted us about the matter, we have reviewed the application papers and drawings. We then see that there is a discrepancy between the documents Arendal municipality has received from the responsible applicant and the documents we as initiative holders have received. This is mainly due to two factors, as the architect has now subsequently described to us, but which we were not informed or consulted about during the application and construction phase: 1) That the architect, as an expert in the area, believed that parts of the work were changes (on the facade and inside) “within an approved framework permit, which could be approved together with a use permit, without a separate neighbor notification.” 2) “The intention was to report this in connection with an application for a completion certificate / use permit. Regrettably, this was not followed up on our side.” (The quotes are taken from an e-mail dated 6 June this year from KB Arkitekter.) We engaged KB Arkitekter in Tønsberg as the responsible applicant based on recommendations, and precisely because we were dependent on professional assistance from an environment that knows the proceedings and knows the formal requirements that apply. Based on the drawings we received from the architect and our contact with them, we had reason to believe that everything was in order. Now we see that they have not followed through on their responsibility by registering the changes in the application for a completion certificate, and that is deeply regrettable. Arendal municipality has, after news Vestfold contacted us about the matter, been on an inspection – and we have received an inspection report with deviations from the granted building permit, which we will follow up together with the responsible applicant. The municipality then notifies that a closer assessment of the measures and further follow-up will be carried out. We will of course take responsibility for following the orders and recommendations made by Arendal municipality. Here are our answers to your questions: Where in the application is it specified that you want to insert a door and use a room under the terrace? The door is not specified in the application. In the drawings we received from the responsible applicant, the door is drawn in, but not in the drawings the responsible applicant sent the municipality. This was unknown to us until the inquiry from news came. The room inside the door is originally an old water cistern. It is still isolated from the rest of the house, and is used today mainly as a storage space, but occasionally also for gatherings on the pier by the children. It now appears that no updated changes were submitted on the north-east facade, where three windows were drawn in as a replacement for two windows. We will of course, in cooperation with the responsible applicant, follow up with the municipality with the measures necessary for everything to be correct. When we now go into the case, we also see that there are minor changes in the drawings indoors that are not captured in what has been sent to the municipality from the responsible applicant. It concerns the lower floor, where the usable area has been reduced compared to what was drawn up. This has resulted in the bathroom being smaller and moved to make room for a technical room. Where in the application does it say that you want to build stairs and cladding to the west of the house? It is not stated in the application, as we were informed by the municipality that the measure was not considered to require an application. If this subsequently turns out to be incorrect, we will of course adapt to a possible new assessment from the municipality’s side. As a politician, you have seen many exemption applications. What do you think was the reason why this matter was not dealt with politically but was taken on delegation by the administration? I cannot and will not speculate on what assessments the administration has made and ask that the question be addressed to the municipality, who can explain this. In general, I would like to emphasize that I am very concerned that we politicians should act in a way that safeguards the trust we depend on from the population, and then we must of course correct mistakes when we commit them. For the record, I would like to point out that in 2017, when this building case was dealt with, I was not elected. I left the city council in 2010, and returned to politics as a city council representative after the election in 2019.” Thursday 8 June: “I have the following comment on your questions: We engaged a professional architectural firm to fulfill the role of responsible applicant, and they have apologized for not following up on the matter as they should have. It is real, but it is equally our responsibility as the initiative holder to clean this up – and therefore we are clear that we will follow up on any orders and recommendations that may come from the municipality. It goes without saying, because right must be right. To your question about whether I have used First House in this case, the answer is that I have consulted with someone I know who works at First House, but as a friend and not as a customer. Apart from this, I have no further comments!”
ttn-69
Conservative politician built illegally in the beach zone – news Sørlandet – Local news, TV and radio
