Property Law

Jetty from the 1970s was not unlawfully constructed

By 24. December 2024 #!31Wed, 25 Dec 2024 15:14:22 +0100+01:002231#31Wed, 25 Dec 2024 15:14:22 +0100+01:00-3Europe/Oslo3131Europe/Oslo202431 25pm31pm-31Wed, 25 Dec 2024 15:14:22 +0100+01:003Europe/Oslo3131Europe/Oslo2024312024Wed, 25 Dec 2024 15:14:22 +01001431412pmWednesday=1125#!31Wed, 25 Dec 2024 15:14:22 +0100+01:00Europe/Oslo12#December 25th, 2024#!31Wed, 25 Dec 2024 15:14:22 +0100+01:002231#/31Wed, 25 Dec 2024 15:14:22 +0100+01:00-3Europe/Oslo3131Europe/Oslo202431#!31Wed, 25 Dec 2024 15:14:22 +0100+01:00Europe/Oslo12# No Comments

In the 1970s, a 76-square-metre jetty was constructed on a waterfront property in the Municipality of Bergen. During the 2010s, the municipality conducted a survey of structures and developments located within the shoreline zone. As no building notification relating to the construction of the jetty could be found, the municipality issued an order requiring its demolition. The current owner of the property argued, however, that the jetty had not been subject to notification requirements under the Building Act in force at the time.

The former Building Act

Section 84 of the 1965 Building Act required notification for certain types of construction. The provision referred to a number of larger structures and facilities, such as quays, bridges, and sports facilities, as well as “other permanent structures and installations.” The principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the phrase “other permanent structures and installations” should be interpreted independently or in light of the examples specifically listed in the provision.

The Supreme Court found that the jetty was not subject to notification requirements

The Supreme Court held that the phrase “other permanent structures and installations” must be interpreted in light of the examples set out in the statutory text. Larger jetties could fall within the scope of the provision, but, as a general rule, this did not include jetties intended for private use by the property to which they provided access and that did not differ from the normal size and character of such structures.

The jetty at issue before the Supreme Court was relatively large. However, its size was related to the ground and shoreline conditions at the site. There were no other considerations of sufficient weight to support the conclusion that notification had been required. Accordingly, the Supreme Court, like the Court of Appeal, found that the jetty had not been subject to notification requirements and that the demolition order was invalid.

The significance of the judgment

The judgment provides guidance on which older jetties may be required to be removed on the grounds that they were unlawfully constructed.

Source: Supreme Court

Martin Edelsteen Woll

Martin Edelsteen Woll

Lawyer

mwoll@melo.no
+47 414 87 832

Any questions regarding real estate?

Send us a non-binding inquiry

Contact form

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Name*