The south of the original design is the raised floor. 20 12-8-4 The defendant proposed a change to the Planning Bureau, and the change announcement of the Planning Bureau suggested that the reason for the change was to optimize the use of functions. After adjustment, the planning situation is as follows: The overhead floors of two units on the south side of the first floor of Building A1# are adjusted to foyer, which is convenient for the owners to enter and manage, and meets the requirements of relevant codes after adjustment. In fact, in September 2065438+2003, we found that there was no road in the south, (photo) and then launched a large-scale rights protection action. On September 28th, the Metropolitan Channel and the Political Science and Law Channel reported that the defendant promised to rectify, and the current situation (photos) came into being. However, this is not what we want. The defendant repeatedly explained that the planning was originally walled, and it was illegal to change it to this way, which did not conform to the procedure. We continued to defend our rights and refused to take over the house. In order to realize the rectification, the defendant asked us to cooperate in collecting the owner's signature and apply for the change plan. On June 6th, 20 14- 1, for the first time, in order to facilitate the residents of Building A 1 1, an application was made to the Planning Bureau to change the southbound access passage on the first floor from north to south. Planning reply: 1 The number of signature owners does not meet the requirements, 2 is not mandatory, and the opinions of the municipal education department are sought. In fact, the number of signatures was calculated by the defendant and collected according to this number. 20 14-3-7 completed the signing and submitted it to the planning bureau again, and completed the on-site publicity, online publicity and construction modification according to the planning requirements, without objection. However, the education department has become a mandatory requirement and needs their consent. The defendant told us that they had communicated with Director Zhou of the Development Planning Department of the Education Bureau many times, but the other party temporarily disagreed. Therefore, the Planning Bureau refused to handle it, so the declaration could not be completed. According to the telephone number of the Education Bureau provided by the defendant, the reporter called through the city channel, and the other party's answer was: We didn't receive this document here, so we don't know. "Metropolitan Channel 05 19 people talk for about 70 minutes (Figure). So what I want to say here is that the reason for the change of 20 12 August -4 is the same as that of 20 14. How is the change of 20 12 reported? Access is convenient, but there is no road. How did it get in and out? Can it fly?
A 1 1, the owner of the existing building, has taken the developer to court and will use legal weapons against this rich and powerful developer. June 19 at 2: 45pm in Yuhua District Court Civil Court 13, we will wait and see! (Now Xincheng New World has applied for postponement of the trial)