Vantaa|According to administrative law, the mural cannot be considered to cause harm to its neighbors in accordance with the Land Use and Building Act.
Irritation too The Käärijä mural that evoked it was discussed in the administrative court last week.
The mural was painted in honor of Käärijä on the wall of Prisma in Tikkurila last fall. The residents of the neighborhood were not consulted about the mural until its painting had already started. Vantaa Tikkurilan Center, a housing corporation located opposite the mural, complained about the painting.
Vantaa rejected the housing association’s appeal, but admitted that the process did not go “like in Strömsö”.
“It is true that from them [Asunto oy Vantaan Tikkurilan Center] was not asked. They are absolutely right that it should have been,” said Vantaa’s building control manager at the time Risto Levanto.
The city eventually obliged the owner of the mural property to apply for a permit – which was then granted – from Vantaa’s building control at the point when the painting had already started.
Housing company appealed the case to the administrative court.
It justified its complaint by saying, among other things, that “the mural does not fit the street scene” and that it is “the end result of a short-term Eurovision drug.” According to it, the “provocative appearance” of the piece can harm the value of the housing company’s apartments.
According to the housing company, the mural could have been painted on one of the properties owned by the city of Vantaa.
The building company’s previous rectification request had been rejected by the urban environment committee on the basis that the life cycle of the work is only estimated to be 10–15 years. According to Lautakunna, art is “tied to its own time” and “different temporal layers enrich the public urban space”. According to it, the murals are part of the urban cityscape.
The housing company demanded that the deadline for removing the mural be set to August 31, 2032, but that it should preferably be removed by the end of the 2020s.
Helsinki the administrative court found no illegalities in the mural.
According to it, it was sufficient that the residents had been consulted before the decision on the permit was made. The procedure license application was initiated on September 6 and the license was granted on September 12.
In its decision, the court stated that it is not in its jurisdiction to assess whether the mural should have been placed somewhere else. Even so, it could not change the permit decision, but only annul it if it had been illegal.
Tikkurila’s site plan does not have regulations regarding the appearance or coloring of buildings. Therefore, the possible decrease in value of the apartments caused by the wall painting cannot be assessed legally, the administrative court ruled.
According to administrative law, the mural cannot be considered to cause harm to its neighbors in accordance with the Land Use and Building Act. In addition, it noted that since the mural was carried out by a group of experts and the townspeople were allowed to vote on it, it cannot be considered to be in violation of the requirements of “beauty and proportionality”.
Therefore, according to the administrative court, it cannot be considered that there were any obstacles to the granting of a permit to paint a mural.
#Vantaa #Administrative #Käärijä #mural #violate #requirements #beauty #proportionality
