Pier from the 1970s was not illegally constructed

In the 1970s, a 76 square meter pier was constructed on a beachfront property in Bergen municipality. In the 2010s, the municipality conducted a survey of measures in the beachfront zone. Since there was no building permit for the construction of the pier, the municipality ordered its demolition. The current owner of the property, however, argued that the pier was not subject to notification under the Building Act in force at the time.

Section 84 of the Building Act 1965 required notification for certain measures. The provision lists a number of large measures, such as quay facilities, bridges and sports facilities, as well as "other permanent structures and facilities." The main question was whether the term "other permanent structures" should be read on its own or in the light of the examples listed. 

The Supreme Court found that the term "other permanent structures and facilities" had to be interpreted in the light of the examples listed in the provision. While large piers could be included, those intended for private use to provide access the property, which did not deviate from the size and character normal for such piers, could not. 

The pier in the case in the Supreme Court was relatively large, but its size was due to the ground conditions at the site. There were no other factors that strongly supported the notification requirement. Therefore, the Supreme Court, like the Court of Appeal, found that the pier was not subject to notification and that the demolition order was invalid.

The ruling has implications for determining which older piers can be required to be removed as illegally constructed.

Read the judgment from the Supreme Court (Norwegian only) (PDF)

Areas of law: Public administration law, planning and building law, section 84 of the Building Act 1965. 

Key paragraphs: 73-79 

Justices: Matheson, Bergsjø, Falch, Hellerslia, Sivertsen