Archive post: »V provides exceptional service...« · 2020-10-30

• Erik Uldall Hansen — Mentioned in the current archived text
• Erwin Andresen — Mentioned in the current archived text
• Jette Julius Kristiansen — Mentioned in the current archived text
• Litten Fleggaard — Mentioned in the current archived text
• Michael Christensen — Mentioned in the current archived text
• Peter Hansen — Mentioned in the current archived text
• Philip Tietje — Mentioned in the current archived text
• Søren Frederiksen — Mentioned in the current archived text
• Thomas Andresen — Mentioned in the current archived text

Source title: V yder enestående service...

Text version dated 14 Nov 2021

Venstre yder enestående service til L. Fleggaard Skansegården ligger stadig på Dybbøl Banke ved Sønderborg og venter på en tilladelse til genopbygning. 25 kilometer længere mod sydvest ligger en anden bygning, som en ny ejer ønsker at rive ned og genopbygge. De to sager har utrolig mange lighedspunkter, men mens sagen i Sønderborg Kommune politisk og forvaltningsmæssigt trækkes ud i langdrag – handles der langt mere kontant og effektivt i Aabenraa Kommune.

Sjovt nok er det i begge tilfælde Venstre og DF, der har udvist et fantastisk engagement. Det virker dog som om, at de handler ud fra andre bevæggrunde end en overordnet politisk linje. Den aktuelle sag i Aabenraa Kommune handler om en 300 år gammel stråtækt ejendom beliggende på Fjordvejen 49A, Kollund i Aabenraa Kommune.

Her ønsker en ny ejer, Fleggaard, at nedrive en bevaringsværdig ejendom og bygge en ny tidssvarende bolig i stil med den eksisterende. Så langt er historien næsten analog med Skansegården. Skansegården er godt nok kun 150 år gammel, men begge ejendomme er vurderet bevaringsværdige i klasse 3 på SAVE skalaen – og kræver derfor Fredningsnævnets dispensation til en eventuel nedrivningstilladelse.

En afgørende forskel på de to ejendomme er dog, at mens Skansegården er ubeboelig efter at have stået uden varme og vedligehold i årtier, har ejendommen i Kollund været beboet hele tiden. Desuden ligger ejendommen på Fjordvejen 49A både inden for skovbeskyttelseslinjen og i strandbeskyttelseszonen, hvilket komplicerer den sag yderligere. Den første potentielle køber mistede interessen Det var sikkert bekymringer om disse forhindringer, der fik en anden potentiel køber til at miste interessen for ejendommen.

Først bad han dog om kommunens vurdering i forhold til en eventuel ombygning eller nybygning på den attraktive grund med udsigt til Flensborg Fjord. Her er et par citater fra kommunens svar til ham: ”Der er derfor ingen restriktioner for, hvad du må ombygge/ændre, du må bare ikke nedrive huset. Kommunen har dog altid mulighed for at nedlægge et §14-forbud mod udvendige ændringer, hvis det vurderes, at ændringerne ikke er i kommunens interesse.” ”Hvorvidt det er muligt at bygge yderligere til huset, kan jeg ikke svare på.

Jeg kan blot nævne, at huset ligger indenfor både skovbeskyttelseslinje og i strandbeskyttelseszonen. Sidstnævnte administreres særdeles restriktiv, og er derfor også svær at opnå dispensation fra.” Næsten uoverstigelige forhindringer Fleggaard lod sig dog ikke skræmme af vanskelighederne. Ønsket var at nedrive den eksisterende bolig og bygge en ny og større, hvilket ville kræve, at nybygningen rykkede helt ind i strandbeskyttelseszonen.

Alene udfordringen med at få godkendelse til det sidste virkede uoverskuelig. I høringsfasen var der samtidig indsigelser fra: Aabenraa Byhistoriske Forening, Kulturmiljørådet for Sønderjylland, Aabenraa Byhistoriske Forening, Landsforeningen for bygnings- og landskabskultur – hvilket til dels skyldes, at den smukke ejendom er meget synlig i gadebilledet. Fantastisk service til L.

Fleggaard Men ihærdighed belønnes åbenbart. Det umulige blev muligt. På rekordtid lykkedes det nemlig at få alle de nødvendige tilladelser og dispensationer fra både Aabenraa Kommune, Fredningsstyrelsen og Kystdirektoratet.

Den effektive sagsbehandling skyldes en enorm indsats fra politikere og forvaltningen i Aabenraa Kommune – som har været på hele tre besigtigelser på ejendommen. Ved den sidste besigtigelse deltog ikke mindre end 12 repræsentanter for kommunen, heriblandt Borgmester Thomas Andresen (V) og Philip Tietje (V), som er udvalgsformand for Vækstudvalget for land og by, og har været primusmotor på hele den store opgave med at skabe mulighed for en ny bolig på grunden ved Kollund Østerskov. Det er i øvrigt ret enestående og meget imponerende, at en borgmester involverer sig så aktivt i en privat byggesag.

Hvad skete der på disse møder? Tjae, vi har bedt om aktindsigt og fået følgende svar: ”Der er ikke lavet referater, da der udelukkende har været tale om rene besigtigelser af ejendommen.” Venstre og DF igen i fælles front Da sagen om Skansegården satte sindene i kog i Sønderborg Byråd, satte Venstre og DF alle kræfter ind på, gennem et §14 forbud, at forhindre nedrivning af den faldefærdige ejendom. Det skete til trods for, at det gik stik imod Venstres præcedens i hundredvis af tilsvarende sager i Sønderborg Kommune.

Og til trods for at kommunens forvaltning faktisk ikke anbefalede et forbud. Byrådsmedlem Peter Hansen (V) var primusmotor i kampen mod en nedrivning og genopbygning af Skansegården, og JydskeVestkysten bakkede op med et halvt hundrede artikler, der støttede hans holdning. Det lykkedes dog ikke for Venstre at gennemtvinge et nedrivningsforbud, da sagen blev afgjort i byrådet i foråret.

Til gengæld er det, som nævnt, stadig ikke lykkedes at få en tilladelse til genopbygning. I Aabenraa Kommune har Venstre og DF igen stået sammen. Denne gang ikke for at forhindre en nedrivning, men for at sikre, at den bliver gennemført trods alle odds.

Forvaltningen sagde nej til en nedrivning. Det samme gjorde Erik Uldall Hansen (S) og Michael Christensen (SF) – men de 4 stemmer fra Philip Tietje (V), Erwin Andresen (SP), Søren Frederiksen (V) og Jette Julius Kristiansen (DF) afgjorde, at Litten Fleggaard gerne må rive den næsten 300 år gamle Fjordvejen 49A i Kollund ned. Lynhurtig proces… og en del spørgsmål Mens der gøres klar til, at de store maskiner kan rykke ind på grunden i Kollund, rejser der sig en del spørgsmål: Hvordan er sagen blevet presset gennem alle instanser på cirka 3 måneder?

Det kan måske skyldes, at det ikke er Fleggaard selv, der har ansøgt om dispensation fra f.eks. Kystdirektoratet. Det er derimod Aabenraa Kommune, som praktisk talt har håndbåret alle ansøgninger igennem.

I øvrigt samtidig med at kommunens forvaltning åbenbart ikke har haft en helt afklaret officiel holdning til en nedrivningstilladelse. Hvorfor har Venstre og DF i denne sag en agenda, der er diamentalt modsat den, deres partifæller i Sønderborg har? Hvorfor går Venstre og DF i begge tilfælde direkte imod forvaltningens anbefaling – som i Skansegården-sagen var ja til nedrivning, mens det i tilfældet Fjordvejen 49A var nej til nedrivning?

Hvorfor bliver en tilsyneladende enkel sag rent politisk trukket ud i årevis, mens en langt mere kompliceret sag kan klares på få måneder? Hvorfor er en borgmester med på en besigtigelse af en simpel byggesag? Og hvorfor er der ikke noget referat?

Helt under radaren Det allermest interessante er måske den næsten komplette mørkelægning af sagen. De mange spørgsmål herover burde naturligvis have været stillet af de dygtige redaktører og journalister på JydskeVestkysten, der i stedet har brugt knap 60 artikler, indlæg og kommentarer på at holde den faldefærdige Skansegård på benene. JydskeVestkysten har sammenlagt skrevet 3 artikler om Fleggaard-sagen.

Ingen af dem berører de ovennævnte spørgsmål. Koncernen Jysk Fynske Medier, der hver dag hæver 176.000 kroner i mediestøtte, burde ellers have kapacitet til at afdække spændende historier, der, som de mange indsigelser tydeligt afslører, optager en del mennesker i lokalområdet. Det ser ud til Venstre har bedt vennerne på JydskeVestkysten/Jysk Fynske Medier om at sidde på hænderne, mens sagen blev sneget under radaren.

Dygtigt, effektivt og næsten hemmeligt. Tillykke med den vellykkede indsats – og også stort tillykke til Litten Fleggaard. Vi er sikre på, at det bliver et flot byggeri.

Sidst men ikke mindst tak til Peter Hansen (V i Sønderborg), der, gennem sin personlige ildhu, har gjort os opmærksom på, hvor mange interessante sager Venstre er involveret i. https://jv.dk/artikel/farvel-til-300-%C3%A5r-gammelt-hus-fleggaard-arving-bygger-nyt (Opslaget har tidligere været bragt på vores Facebook side)

This is an automatic reading translation. The source’s allegations and assessments have not been independently confirmed through translation. Check wording, qualifications and meaning against the preserved Danish original. Some retained numbers may use Danish separators: a dot for thousands and a comma for decimals. Check amounts against the Danish original.

Venstre provides exceptional service to Fleggaard. Skansegården still stands on Dybbøl Banke near Sønderborg, awaiting reconstruction permission. 25 kilometres further southwest lies another building a new owner wishes to demolish and rebuild. The cases have remarkably many similarities, but while Sønderborg Kommune’s case is dragged out politically and administratively, Aabenraa Kommune acts much more firmly and efficiently.

Curiously, in both cases Venstre and DF have shown tremendous commitment. Yet they appear to act from motives other than an overall political line. The current case in Aabenraa Kommune concerns a 300-year-old thatched property at Fjordvejen 49A, Kollund, in Aabenraa Kommune.

Its new owner, Fleggaard, wishes to demolish the property worthy of preservation and build a contemporary dwelling in the existing style. So far, the story is almost analogous to Skansegården. Skansegården is only 150 years old, but both properties are assessed as worthy of preservation in class 3 on the SAVE scale, and therefore require Fredningsnævnet’s exemption for a possible demolition permit.

A decisive difference, however, is that Skansegården is uninhabitable after decades without heating and maintenance, while the Kollund property has been inhabited throughout. The property at Fjordvejen 49A also lies within both the forest protection belt and coastal protection zone, complicating its case further. The first potential buyer lost interest.

It was probably concern about these obstacles that caused another potential buyer to lose interest in the property. First, however, he asked for the municipality’s assessment of possible alterations or new construction on the attractive plot overlooking Flensborg Fjord. Here are a couple of quotations from the municipality’s reply to him: ‘There are therefore no restrictions on what you may alter/change; you simply may not demolish the house.

The municipality always has the option, however, to impose a section 14 prohibition on external changes if it is assessed that the changes are not in the municipality’s interests.’ ‘I cannot answer whether it is possible to extend the house further. I can only mention that the house lies both within the forest protection line and in the coastal protection zone. The latter is administered very restrictively and is therefore also difficult to obtain an exemption from.’ Almost insurmountable obstacles.

Fleggaard was not deterred by the difficulties, however. The wish was to demolish the existing home and build a new, larger one, which would require the new building to move right into the coastal protection zone. The challenge of obtaining approval for the latter alone seemed overwhelming.

During consultation, there were also objections from: Aabenraa Byhistoriske Forening, Kulturmiljørådet for Sønderjylland, Aabenraa Byhistoriske Forening, Landsforeningen for bygnings- og landskabskultur – partly because the beautiful property is very visible in the streetscape. Fantastic service for Fleggaard. But persistence is apparently rewarded.

The impossible became possible. In record time, it was possible to obtain all the necessary permits and exemptions from Aabenraa Kommune, Fredningsstyrelsen and Kystdirektoratet. The efficient handling of the case was due to an enormous effort by politicians and the administration in Aabenraa Kommune – who made no fewer than three inspections of the property.

At the last inspection, no fewer than 12 representatives of the municipality attended, including Mayor Thomas Andresen (V) and Philip Tietje (V), who chairs the Growth Committee for Rural and Urban Areas and has been the driving force behind the entire major task of making a new home possible on the plot at Kollund Østerskov. It is, incidentally, quite exceptional and very impressive for a mayor to become so actively involved in a private building case. What happened at these meetings?

Well, we have requested access to records and received the following reply: ‘No minutes were taken, as these were solely inspections of the property.’ Venstre and DF again present a united front. When the Skansegården case stirred emotions in Sønderborg’s municipal council, Venstre and DF made every effort to prevent demolition of the dilapidated property through a section 14 prohibition. This happened despite being diametrically opposed to Venstre’s precedent in hundreds of similar cases in Sønderborg Kommune.

And despite the municipal administration not actually recommending a prohibition. Municipal councillor Peter Hansen (V) was the driving force in the fight against demolition and reconstruction of Skansegården, and JydskeVestkysten backed him with around fifty articles supporting his position. However, Venstre failed to force through a demolition ban when the municipal council decided the case in the spring.

As mentioned, permission to rebuild has still not been obtained. In Aabenraa Kommune, Venstre and DF again stood together. This time, not to prevent demolition but to ensure it happened against all odds.

The administration opposed demolition, as did Erik Uldall Hansen (S) and Michael Christensen (SF), but the 4 votes from Philip Tietje (V), Erwin Andresen (SP), Søren Frederiksen (V) and Jette Julius Kristiansen (DF) decided that Litten Fleggaard could demolish the almost 300-year-old Fjordvejen 49A in Kollund. Rapid process… and several questions While preparations are made for heavy machinery to enter the Kollund plot, several questions arise: How was the case pushed through every authority in about 3 months? Perhaps because it was not Fleggaard himself who applied for exemptions, for example from Kystdirektoratet.

Rather, Aabenraa Kommune practically hand-carried every application through, while its administration apparently did not have a fully settled official position on a demolition permit. Why do Venstre and DF have an agenda here diametrically opposed to their party colleagues' in Sønderborg? Why do they directly oppose the administration's recommendation in both cases—which favoured demolition for Skansegården but opposed it for Fjordvejen 49A?

Why is a seemingly simple case dragged out politically for years, while a far more complicated case can be dealt with in a few months? Why is a mayor present at an inspection in a simple building case? And why are there no minutes?

Completely under the radar. Perhaps the most interesting aspect is the almost complete blackout of the case. The many questions above should, of course, have been asked by the skilled editors and journalists at JydskeVestkysten, who have instead devoted almost 60 articles, contributions and comments to keeping the dilapidated Skansegård standing.

JydskeVestkysten has written a total of 3 articles about the Fleggaard case. None addresses the questions mentioned above. The Jysk Fynske Medier group, which collects 176.000 kroner in media subsidies every day, ought otherwise to have the capacity to uncover interesting stories that, as the many objections clearly reveal, concern quite a number of people in the local area.

It appears Venstre asked its friends at JydskeVestkysten/Jysk Fynske Medier to sit on their hands while the case was slipped under the radar. Skilful, efficient and almost secret. Congratulations on the successful effort – and hearty congratulations to Litten Fleggaard too.

We are sure it will be a beautiful building. Last but not least, thanks to Peter Hansen (V in Sønderborg), whose personal zeal has made us aware of how many interesting cases Venstre is involved in.

This is an automatic reading translation. The source’s allegations and assessments have not been independently confirmed through translation. Check wording, qualifications and meaning against the preserved Danish original. Some retained numbers may use Danish separators: a dot for thousands and a comma for decimals. Check amounts against the Danish original.

V provides exceptional service to Fleggaard 

Skansegården still stands on Dybbøl Banke near Sønderborg, awaiting permission to rebuild. 25 kilometres farther southwest stands another building a new owner wants to demolish and rebuild. The cases have remarkably many similarities, but while the Sønderborg Kommune case is dragged out politically and administratively, Aabenraa Kommune acts far more decisively and efficiently. Strangely enough, V and DF have shown fantastic commitment in both cases.

However, they seem to act from motives other than an overarching political line. 

The current case in Aabenraa Kommune concerns a 300-year-old thatched property at Fjordvejen 49A, Kollund, in Aabenraa Kommune. Its new owner, Fleggaard, wishes to demolish the property worthy of preservation and build a contemporary dwelling in the existing style. So far, the story is almost analogous to Skansegården.

Skansegården is only 150 years old, but both properties are assessed as worthy of preservation in class 3 on the SAVE scale, and therefore require Fredningsnævnet’s exemption for a possible demolition permit. One crucial difference between the properties, however, is that while Skansegården is uninhabitable after decades without heating or maintenance, the Kollund property has been occupied throughout. The property at Fjordvejen 49A also lies within both the forest protection belt and coastal protection zone, complicating its case further.

The first potential buyer lost interest
It was probably concern about these obstacles that caused another potential buyer to lose interest in the property. First, however, he asked for the municipality’s assessment of possible alterations or new construction on the attractive plot overlooking Flensborg Fjord. Here are a couple of quotations from the municipality’s reply to him:
“There are therefore no restrictions on what you may alter or rebuild; you simply may not demolish the house.

The municipality can, however, always impose a section 14 prohibition on external changes if they are considered contrary to its interests.”
“I cannot say whether further extensions to the house are possible. I can only mention that it lies within both the forest protection belt and coastal protection zone. The latter is administered particularly restrictively, making an exemption difficult to obtain.”

Almost insurmountable obstacles
Fleggaard was not deterred by the difficulties, however. The wish was to demolish the existing home and build a new, larger one, which would require the new building to move right into the coastal protection zone. The challenge of obtaining approval for the latter alone seemed overwhelming.

During consultation, there were also objections from: Aabenraa Byhistoriske Forening, Kulturmiljørådet for Sønderjylland, Aabenraa Byhistoriske Forening, Landsforeningen for bygnings- og landskabskultur – partly because the beautiful property is very visible in the streetscape.

Fantastic service for Fleggaard
But persistence is apparently rewarded. The impossible became possible. In record time, it was possible to obtain all the necessary permits and exemptions from Aabenraa Kommune, Fredningsstyrelsen and Kystdirektoratet.

The efficient handling of the case was due to an enormous effort by politicians and the administration in Aabenraa Kommune – who made no fewer than three inspections of the property. At the last inspection, no fewer than 12 representatives of the municipality attended, including Mayor Thomas Andresen (V) and Philip Tietje (V), who chairs the Growth Committee for Rural and Urban Areas and has been the driving force behind the entire major task of making a new home possible on the plot at Kollund Østerskov. It is, incidentally, quite exceptional and very impressive for a mayor to become so actively involved in a private building case.

What happened at these meetings? Well, we have requested access to records and received the following reply: ‘No minutes were taken, as these were solely inspections of the property.’

V and DF again present a united front
When the Skansegården case stirred emotions in Sønderborg’s municipal council, V and DF made every effort to prevent demolition of the dilapidated property through a section 14 prohibition. This happened despite being diametrically opposed to V’s precedent in hundreds of similar cases in Sønderborg Kommune. And despite the municipal administration not actually recommending a prohibition.

Municipal councillor Peter Hansen (V) was the driving force in the fight against demolition and reconstruction of Skansegården, and JydskeVestkysten backed him with around fifty articles supporting his position. However, V did not succeed in forcing through a demolition prohibition when the case was decided by the municipal council in the spring. On the other hand, as mentioned, permission for reconstruction has still not been obtained.

In Aabenraa Kommune, V and DF again stood together. This time, not to prevent demolition but to ensure it happened against all odds. The administration said no to demolition.

So did Erik Uldall Hansen (S) and Michael Christensen (SF) – but the 4 votes from Philip Tietje (V), Erwin Andresen (SP), Søren Frederiksen (V) and Jette Julius Kristiansen (DF) decided that Litten Fleggaard may demolish the almost 300-year-old Fjordvejen 49A in Kollund.

A lightning-fast process… and quite a few questions
As preparations are made for large machinery to move onto the Kollund site, several questions arise: 

How was the case pushed through every authority in about 3 months? Perhaps because it was not Fleggaard himself who applied for exemptions, for example from Kystdirektoratet. Rather, Aabenraa Kommune practically hand-carried every application through, while its administration apparently did not have a fully settled official position on a demolition permit.

Why do V and DF have an agenda in this case diametrically opposed to their party colleagues’ in Sønderborg? Why do V and DF directly oppose the administration’s recommendation in both cases: yes to demolition for Skansegården, but no at Fjordvejen 49A?

Why is an apparently simple case dragged out politically for years, while a far more complicated one can be resolved in a few months?

Why does a mayor attend an inspection of a simple building case? And why are there no minutes?

Entirely under the radar
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of all is the almost complete blackout surrounding the case. The many questions above should naturally have been asked by the skilled editors and journalists at JydskeVestkysten, who have instead used almost 60 articles, contributions and comments to keep the dilapidated Skansegården standing. JydskeVestkysten has written a total of 3 articles about the Fleggaard case.

None addresses the questions above. The Jysk Fynske Medier group, which collects 176.000 kroner in media subsidies every day, ought otherwise to have the capacity to uncover interesting stories that, as the many objections clearly reveal, concern quite a few people in the local area. It appears V asked its friends at JydskeVestkysten/Jysk Fynske Medier to sit on their hands while the case slipped under the radar.

Skilful, efficient and almost secret. Congratulations on the successful effort – and hearty congratulations to Litten Fleggaard too. We are sure it will be a beautiful building.

Last but not least, thanks to Peter Hansen (V in Sønderborg), whose personal zeal has made us aware of how many interesting cases V is involved in. JV article: Farewell to a 300-year-old house: Fleggaard heir builds anew

Dybbøl Banke Skansegården. Venstre provides exceptional service to Fleggaard
Skansegården still stands on Dybbøl Banke near Sønderborg, awaiting permission for reconstruction.

25 kilometres further southwest lies a…