Not everyone gives up without a fight. At least not in Bergen. There it is called not to belittle yourself. Standing your ground is often seen as a virtue. In Sædalen in Bergen, Erik Sævereid has taken on the role of David in battle against Goliath. He has both Bergen municipality and the State Administrator in Vestland against him. But Sævereid believes that laws and regulations must apply equally to everyone. The municipality believes he has done something illegal. Sævereid believes the municipality did something illegal long before he did. – Here you see our problem, he says and points down behind a makeshift concrete wall. Problem road He is standing in Sædalsvegen, where the family’s dream house was completed last year. In the steep terrain, there is a wide view from the stylish, black-stained house. But it is not the dream house that is the problem. There is the municipal road just behind. The steep terrain has become a problem that could cost Sævereid at least NOK 600,000. Because when he bought the plot and the excavation work started, things went badly. Much of the road just behind the house collapsed. Even though he had obtained permission to build the house four meters from the road. The block of flats is open and free, but so steep that the road at the back collapsed when the house plot was planned. Photo: Leif Rune Løland / news – Indefensible road filling The entire pavement and part of the carriageway disappeared down the hill together with the road filling. The retaining wall was suspended in mid-air and cracked. A concrete element had to be set up as protection against the gaping hole along the road. They are still there. – The public road has been damaged by a private initiative. It is the plot owner’s responsibility, notes Tord Honne Holgernes, head of department at the Urban Environment Agency in Bergen. But Sævereid does not agree. The retaining wall for the road stood on loose material and more than four meters inside the property, and was hanging in the open air after the digging. Photo: Leif Rune Løland / news He thinks the road was built illegally It was his contractor who roughed up the house plot, but Sævereid believes the municipality is responsible: Firstly, because he believes the road was built in an unsafe manner. – You see the rest of the retaining wall that broke off. It stood over four meters into our property here. The wall was built only on loess, although the rock here is rather up to 70 degrees. No matter where we dug on our property, the road fill had started to collapse under the road wall, he says. Secondly, he believes that the road was built illegally, long before he bought the land. He found that out afterwards, when the surveyor came and measured the house plot: The property boundary went far inside the municipal road. – The road has been extended far into our property without a home. Here they have actually just settled in and developed, and they do not want to take responsibility for anything. Can’t find documentation Bergen municipality admits that the road lies within the plot of land for Sævereid, but has found no documentation of either a building application, neighbor notification or expropriation in connection with the expansion of the road. – It is not unusual for a public road to lie on private land. I have many places in Bergen and other places in Norway, says Holgernes. – Can the public just settle on a private property and build a road there? – No, it is planned and done in a proper way. – But it hasn’t been neighbor notification or expropriation, has it? – No, as far as I can see, there is no such agreement, but I think it is decisive. Tord Honne Holgernes in the Urban Environment Agency denies that the road was built illegally, and says that the plot owner Sævereid is responsible for the damage to the road. Photo: Leif Rune Løland / news The municipality: – Not illegal Holgernes rejects that the road was expanded illegally, neither when the county council was responsible nor after the road became municipal in 2007. – No, it follows from the Roads Act that the road is owned and managed by it general practitioner. In our archives and where we can find information, we cannot see that this is an illegally built road. On the contrary, we believe that we have found evidence that the road was established by agreement with the then landowner. – But you said that they have no documentation? – We have documentation that indicates that it happened in agreement with the landowner at the time. The municipality was then given permission to lay an embankment to hold the road up. – But exactly that is also a sticking point, isn’t it? – We have never had any indications that that road would collapse. If I had, I would have taken action a long time ago. The building with the Natland café stood completely on the side of the road in Sædalsvegen. It was demolished in October 1974. Photo: Morgenavisen 23 March 1974 – Very boring case Erik Sævereid denies that the municipality has documented that in the 1970s permission was given to widen the road onto the property (see fact box). The historic dispute over the cafe building in Sædalsvegen On the property called “Svingen” in Sædalsvegen there was for many years a house with three shop premises and the Natland cafe right on the edge of the road. In the 1960s, it was built on vacant land, because it was unclear whether and how the road should be widened. In January 1972, the deceased owner, Lajla Andersson, wrote impatiently to the National Roads Administration, “as the property has now lain for 10 years awaiting the final design of the Sædalsvegen.” She said “a compensation of NOK 100,000, expropriation fee for the property, and that they get me a new business property in the district, is a common demand.” In August 1972, she received a message from the Norwegian Public Roads Administration that it was “the municipality that will take care of expropriation and property encroachment”, but that “We do not know anything definite about when expropriation will take place.” The municipal administration advised later the same month “that the municipality redeem the property at the present time, and that the site be cleared.” In July 1973, Andreasson offered the municipality “to buy the property, and that I receive an offer from the municipality for a new commercial site as compensation for inconvenience.” She wrote that “in connection with the planned development of the road, the property will be affected, not the road route itself, but in the immediate vicinity of it.” It is not documented that expropriation was ever carried out. On the other hand, the municipality signed an agreement with Andersson in October 1974. The municipality then undertook the work of removing the dilapidated house, and it had an obligation to reimburse NOK 4,800 for the work if it later had the property sold or fully or partially expropriated. The agreement from 1974 says nothing about the road being extended onto the property. According to a handwritten note from the municipality in November 1974, the building was demolished in October of the same year. Source: Several documents from the archive of Bergen municipality. Plot owner Sævereid believes that the construction permit he received in 2021 shows that the municipality has messed it up and is partly responsible for the road collapsing. – I got permission to actually dig right up to the border, and to build the house four meters from the road. They have not had their papers in order in the municipality with regard to the distance from the house and to the road. Holgernes in the urban environment agency says that it was plot owner Sævereid who should have ensured safe digging. – When you apply for permission to build near a road, the road authorities do not go in and actively look at what is left of road masses and the like. It is the initiative owner’s responsibility. For us, this with the property boundary is not the most important thing. The most important thing is that a public road has been damaged. Erik Sævereid is now required to build up the municipal road. It will cost 600,000, but he is considering a lawsuit to get the money back from the municipality. Photo: Leif Rune Løland / news Repair costs 600,000 The municipality has ordered Sævereid to repair the damage. Otherwise, there will be a compulsory fine. He therefore has to spend NOK 600,000 on building the road and a new, safe retaining wall. Sævereid says he has already spent over NOK 100,000 on the case. He believes that the municipality is responsible for the fact that they themselves have not built a safe road with road fill according to regulations. – We have to build a new wall for the illegal road that the municipality has on our property. It’s heavy. It’s not the way it should be, he says. – Here you stand and say that the municipality has done something illegal, and the municipality says that you have done something illegal? – Yes. The problem is that they have the right to order me. I haven’t, he laughs dejectedly. Sædalen’s response to David v. Goliath has engaged a lawyer, and has not given up on taking the case further before the courts. – I have tried to enter into a dialogue with the municipality to avoid court proceedings, but it is like talking to the wall, says Sævereid.
ttn-69
House building damaged a municipal road which the home owner believes was illegal and unjustifiable – news Vestland
