lookat

Let look at the issues and do some thinking!

In the English Translation of January 16, 2008 Rayong Court lifted the Injunction what allows construction to start. This is not the final order.

Rayong court decision said:

"The Court ordered the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning to measure the distance from the shoreline at MSL as prescribed by the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E.

2479 controlling over the region of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhog Prue Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 to the building in dispute to obtain the distance and to submit the Court a map briefly prepared after measuring. The Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning followed the Court's order and submitted its report which can be summarized that: Measurement must be started from the point of MSL having 0.00 meter. While measured from this point outward to sea at the distance of 100 meter, it shall be the construction control area as shown in the map annexed to aforesaid Royal Decree. And while measured from this point toward the land to reach the building by another 100 meter, it shall be the distance from construction control area of 200 meter referred in Article 3 under the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) which restricts the construction of building over 14 meter from road surface. Measurement showed that the building of the Second Prosecuted Person is over 200 meter construction control line. (My Note: Regulation Issue 9 says: "No 3 to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map to the Royal Decree …….at the sea shore in which the following constructions shall not be built: Building of 14 meters higher than road level. How could a witness rewrite Isse9?) The Second Prosecuted Person filed a motion to the Court to revoke the provisional order or judgment before judgment. The Court enquired both Parties and Witness. The Litigant and 9 Associates filed a motion dated 15 January 2008 to clarify on matter of fact and matter of law which can be summarized that the ten Litigants accepted the MSL measurement process conducted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning that the method should be correct in theory, but the Litigants are of opinion that the building control area prescribed in the map annexed to the Royal Decree is at the 100 meter distance from the original shoreline toward the sea and not from the MSL point. (Note this is not what we said!)

Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul, 7th Class Lawyer of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning,

testified as the Witness, that the area controlling the construction as referred in The Royal Decree B.E. 2521 is 100 meter distance from MSL towards the sea. While measuring the Witness did not measure from the MSL point to the dispute building, but he measured from the MSL point until he reached 100 meter from the aforesaid point, and if measurement continued to reach the dispute building, the building would be about 102 or 103 meter far from MSL depending on which side to the building. If the measurement was from the construction control area prescribed by the Royal Decree B.E. 2521, the building distance obtained would be similar to the measurement from the MSL inward the land at the distance of 200 meter. The Court examined and considered the "Most Urgent" Report Ref. Mor Tor 0710/9634 dated 19 December 2007 submitted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning requesting the Court to revoke the provisional order before judgment to the Second Prosecuted Person, and the procedures of the General Meeting of the Judges in the Supreme Administrative Court regarding Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2543. The point to be considered is whether the Court should revoke the provisional order or judgment before judgment to the Second Prosecuted Person. The consideration referred to Article 77 of the Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2543 stated that the Court shall apply Title 1, Division 4 under the Civil Procedure Code to the consideration on motion filed against any provisional orders or measures before judgment as far as the Civil Procedure Code can apply mutatis mutandis, however, without contradiction to the Procedure. Reference was also made to Section 262 Paragraph 1 under the Civil Procedure Code saying that "Where in the course of trial there is any change or modification in the facts or circumstances on which the Court's order granting an application for any provisional measures has been grounded, the Court before which the case is pending may, when it thinks fit or upon the application of the defendant or third person as provided in Section 261, issue an order altering or repealing such measure."

This case the Court granted its order in response to the motion filed by the 10 Litigants on the materialized reason that the Court need time and consideration procedures to determine the correct starting point for measurement the distance as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521), and if the dispute building is properly far from the point of measurement as intended by law.The measurement conducted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning as ordered by the Court, and the testimony of the witness, it appeared that the dispute building is more than 100 meter away from the MSL. The Court is of the opinion that if the measurement was made from the building control area shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 controlling over the region of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhog Prue Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 by another 100 meter further far away in the sea from the MSL as shown in the map annexed to the aforesaid Royal Decree and as testified by the witness, the dispute building would be over 200 meter from the control area as referred by the aforesaid Ministerial Regulation as well.

Therefore, the facts that were used as reasons for granting the provisional order or measure before judgment in this case have now changed. There is not enough ground for which the Court shall maintain its provisional order before judgment further. The Court, therefore, revokes its provisional order or measure before judgment to the Second Prosecuted Person to suspend the construction of its building over 14 meter above road surface with effective immediately.

Members of the Judge carrying the trial.

Mr. Kittinai Kromtach"

Now did not the court expert witness rewrites the issue 9 regulation and the Administrative Supreme Court conclusion?

Administrative Supreme Court in July said:

"Nevertheless, where No. 3 (8) under the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 prescribed that the 200 meter line measured from the construction control line shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree promulgating the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 governing ……..Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 on the seaside shall be restricted from constructing of any building exceeding 14 meter high from road surface. Therefore, if the Construction Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2006 granted by the Defendant No. 1 to the Defendant No. 2 should appear to be unlawful against the Ministerial Regulation thereto as being claimed by the ten plaintiffs, the Court of First Instance should have sentenced this point of being unlawful, i.e. the judgment shall be focused on the permission of construction the building exceeding height limit by the Defendant No. 2. Whilst the Administrative Court of First Instance ordered the provisional measure to cease construction before judgment, the building's base rocks were built, the construction did not reach the height limit of 14 meter above the road surface. Where the Administrative Court of First Instance issued the order of provisional measure to effect temporary protection by ceasing the entire construction is, therefore, in excess of what reasonable under the circumstances.

The Supreme Court, therefore, gives an order to amend the order of the Administrative Court of First Instance. That the Defendant No. 2 shall cease the construction performed, under the Work Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2007, on the part exceeding 14 meter height. On a temporary basis until the Court has ordered otherwise.

Mr. Vorapoj Visarutpich

Judge of Supreme Administrative Court"

Rayong said "Court is of the opinion that if the measurement was made from the building control area shown in the map"

Vs:

Supreme Administrative Court said "prescribed that the 200 meter line measured from the construction control line shown in the map"

It look to me the fight may just started? Area vs, line

เขต kèt · area ; region ; district ; zone

เส้น sên · line ;

Go back and read the court order and you see the case is not over in court. The court does not give a final order! I heard to the stopvt7 group had meets this week thing are going on….

you are as bad as that other fool Mike, why should it be blood on the investors? You don't really have a grasp of the English language do you?

I would say that many of your clothes and consumables were produced by child workers, is their blood, sweat and tears on your conscience? Ignorance is bliss eh? Get a life.

Their difference between vt7 and factories. I have visited many clothes, shoe and other factories all over Asia in the last 40 years. Only in Indonesia I saw children employs.

Many people are aware that vt7 reputation and buy anyway! many to resell. Investor should demand their condos are building to all building standards and regulations even EIA regulation. Now they know!

What the saying, you sleep with dogs you wait up with fleas!

I was able to read the EIA requirements for vt7 to get a building permit. As I remember; hard hats and steel tip shoes for all works are required. The worker killed was hit in the head with steel rebar. Is that blood on the investors?

Also required as truck wheel wash off pit. For the wheel of all trucks leveling the construction sight. Go by other big construction sights and you see these wash off pits for truck. Look when you go by new Central center on 2^nd road

All tucks entering or leaving must tune left. Their more requirements but it was all is a joke. Because EIA does not enforce their permit requirements!

The arrow from the sea pointed toward the land is claimed to mean ( <-- 100meters located at Borderline control construction area), you measurer from control construction line at MSL ( –->) toward the sea 100 meter to the Borderline construction control area?

Look at the on the map and you will see the arrow is point from the sea toward the land. Why does Pattaya City Hall claim to means measure the opposite direction? See Issue 9 map

How does a witness use a arrow to divide 200 meter from MSL?

Where do is the statement measure into the sea measure onto the land come from? It's not in Issue 8 or 9.

I heard it was used in court. Who first used it in court?

Add to stopvt7 blog posting tell use alot. It looks they clearly understand to law on thier side.

Expert witness: The expert witness testified you measure 100 meters into the sea from MSL and 100 meters onto the land from MSL which equals 200 meters. The regulation in issue 9 said "to fix 200 meters measured from the construction control line" which is at MSL on the map. The expert witness divides the "fix 200 meter measurement" in half and applies on each side on MSL. The expert witness never addresses the fact in Issue9. They miss represented the meaning of arrows on a map. How could this happen?

Arrows: · Arrows on the map are used only to point and give you information. · One arrow pointed to the construction control line and said (at the sea shore mean sea level MSL). That is why, Bangkok City Planning in their June letter to the court said in Issue 9 it specifies you measure from MSL. · One arrow points to the boundary line and said "100 meters". This arrow pointing on the map is the reason the court expert witness testified you measure 100 meters into the sea and 100 meters onto the land which equals 200 meters. · Arrows are not used to divide ask any draftsman or someone who have taken a high school class in mechanical drawing. Issue 9 regulation and the maps. 1) The map show where the boundaries of the law are applied. 2) Where from you make the measure. (Answer is MSL which is the construction control Line) 3) The law tells you to make a measure of 200 meters. What are the facts in Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B. E. 2521)

A) to fix the 200 meters measuredfrom the construction control line

C) at the sea shore

D) following constructions shall not be built (Building of 14 meters higher than road level)

Keeping it simple!

The legal sup-committee thanks all co-owner which support action to stop VT7. We think the above facts are clear!

JaiDeeFarang needs to face the facts that he may not see his new condo at vt7?

Sorry but can someone just spell it out in black and white without refernece to 100 lines of various rulings, codes, links etc.

So the court says you have to go out to sea 100m then come back in 200m ? Yes or no ?

So why not just say from MSL inland 100m as it is the same thing ?

Obviously a tea money judgement but is that the end ?

Thanks.

More black and white! The expert witness testified you measure 100 meters into the sea from MSL and 100 meters onto the land from MSL which equals 200 meters. The regulation issue 9 said “to fix 200 meters measured from the construction control line” which is at MSL on the map. So much for expert witness! So much for the Rayong admin court who duties are to investigate corruption in government!

Blach and White!

Now the stopvt7 group needs to appeal the facts of the law to the Administrative Supreme Court.

From the facts of their appeal will be include an unwritten question for the Administrative Supreme Court. Is Thailand a country of fair and honest courts?

http://www.transparency.org/

Is there any new evidence? NO! An appeals court won't even look at the case now. Save your money for now, View Talay will soon take it from you. NO Thailand is not a country of fair and honest courts, anyone who has spent time here will tell you that. Thailand looks after Thais, not farangs so get over it.

Don’t show your ignorance! Appeal court are about correcting misstate made by lower courts. In this case the Administrative Supreme Court are both a appeal court and the final court.

I asked my Thai friend who followed the court filings and believe in the Kings good action in setting up a fare court call Administrative Court system about the ruling.

Who said in anger the expert witness was wrong!

You measure 200 meters into the sea why leave any beach to tourism.

The god of money won.

This is not about farangs it about the protecting the Thai environment.

Copy taken from the Government Gazette No. 93 Section 87 dated 29 June 1966.

Note: The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation is that further to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 applying to some areas of...... Tambol Bang Lamung, and the aforesaid areas are open public resorts. It is appropriate that the areas shall not be allow to construct some kinds of building considered to disturb good environment and generating any kind of wastes, pollutions. This Ministerial Regulation is, therefore, issued.

Now the stopvt7 group needs to appeal the facts of the law to the Administrative Supreme Court.

From the facts of their appeal will be include an unwritten question for the Administrative Supreme Court. Is Thailand a country of fair and honest courts?

http://www.transparency.org/

The law as written is very clear in its statement “to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore” The map may not be clear to the court experts?

All he had to do was to look at the map to find out where was construction control line at the sea shore (according to the annexed map)? The map says at MSL at the sea shore.

Anything other then this was dreamt up at the tea party. Has your attorney explained about these tea parts?

Keep it simple and all can understand what happen with your attorney and the court at the tea party. Only thing they should ask was it Thai, American or Euro tea served?

The court decision move the building closer to the sea but elsewhere in Thailand all the regulations were moving the build further back from the beach.

Why? To protect the beaches for further of Thai and farang users.

Look at the poster Explanation at http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/ the facts are very interesting.

Did not your attorneys bring these fact out at the court hearings? Did they question the expert witness? What was said in court about moving the 14 meters building closer to the sea? Was your attorney at the tea party?

It looks as the tea party people did not think about what the fact in the court order would show all of Thailand?

Jaidee Farang - but surely Thailand is a country of laws??

.... and what does this mean for others such as Regatta? Hmmm

The Judge must of joint in at the tea party?

It has not ben confirm he was car shopping today?

New posting on http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

Administrative Court Hearing on January 15, 2008

This could be the last hearing before the final decision from the Rayong Administrative Court. The hearing is to discuses the surveyor's report by Bangkok Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning.

The question concerning the court is the questionable claims by Pattaya City Hall, VT7 and Bangkok Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning claims you measure 100 meters into the sea from the construction control line and measure 100 meter onto the land from the construction control lin.

Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B. E. 2521) that sets Construction standards. This regulation has an explanation below which tell you how the apply the regulation called:

"No 3 to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 at the sea shore in which the following constructions shall not be built:

Building of 14 meters higher than road level.

What are the facts in Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B. E. 2521)

1) to fix the 200 meters measured

2) from the construction control line

3) at the sea shore

4) following constructions shall not be built (Building of 14 meters higher than road level)

5) according to the annexed map.

From the construction control line at the sea shore is shown to be at MSL on the Issue9 which all parties agree you stare to measure.

What are the Difference between Issue 8 and Issue 9:

Issue 8 "to fix the 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction"

Issue 9 "to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction"

We think the facts are clear for the judge to make his final decision.

It looks like today is a big day.

Dose this make sense?

There is a law which is call Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B. E. 2521) that sets Construction standards. This regulation has an explanation which tell you how to apply the regulation called:

"No 3 to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 at the sea shore in which the following constructions shall not be built:

Building of 14 meters higher than road level."

What are the facts in Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B. E. 2521) see below?

1) to fix the 200 meters measured

2) from the construction control line

3) at the sea shore (Note:sea shore is at MSL shown in yellow on the above map and all parties agree)

4) following constructions shall not be built (Building of 14 meters higher than road level)

5) according to the annexed map.

Could you go to the beach and make a measurement if their was a marker stake shown you were MSL is at the sea shore which mark the construction control line?

With the above facts Pattaya City Hall, VT7 and Bangkok Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning claims you measure 100 meters into the sea from the construction control line and measure 100 meter onto the land from the construction control line ?

Yes I understand!

But, you do not understand the new simple on the map (100 meters --> <-- MSL) which tells you to divide 200 meters measured in half. After you do the math, you can measure 100 meters into the sea from the construction control line and measure 100 meter onto the land from the construction control line. Is this not clear to all? Maybe they had a tea party where they all agreed to divide the 200 meter measurement in half? Or maybe you are dealing with people who can not read map?

Maybe - Just Maybe View Talay know the result of the court hearing to take place on the 15th of January.

Today - Sunday they are removing one of the cranes

I have to agree with you that they know SOMETHING is going on, but I believe they are getting ready for a massive burst of activity down there, not to wrap it up.

The amount of building materials they have recently loaded onto the top of the 4th floor, as well as the increasingly busy site preparation, the increased labourer activity (and noise) on the site, all point to exactly the opposite conclusion - that they indeed do know the result, and the result is that they will be continuing shortly.

The crane may be down for maintenance or repair. Or maybe they are adding sections to it to make it bigger.

To me nothing about the state of that site says "we lost". It says "we won".

You don't take a crane down to add sections!

Now I heard someone bought a report?

Does anyone know why vt7 took one of the crane down from the construction sight today? Only 2 cranes now!

I have heard from a trusted source that the Rayong Court has scheduled a hearing on January 15 regarding the two MSL measurements that have been taken. This should not be interpretted as the final ruling on this case.

Your trusted source seems to be..........well........trusted

There will be a meeting on the 15th of January at Rayong Court to discuss the report on measurment of MSL

Could you please ask your trusted source - what is the outcome of this meeting?

I have already been told it looks like a bought report? The Bangkok surveyors seem to of had a tea party with VT7 because their report was written to change the wording of issue9. Only in amazing Thailand! This meeting mite could be the start of more court hearing to explain how Pattaya is special issue from all the other parts of Thailand. All over Thailand it sets a 200 meter measurement from the seashore at MSL before you can build a high-rise building but Pattaya city hall claims their special with have a 100meters setback from the shoreline at MSL. How knows?

I have heard from a trusted source that the Rayong Court has scheduled a hearing on January 15 regarding the two MSL measurements that have been taken. This should not be interpretted as the final ruling on this case.

I was told the same by one of the ten complainants. They made two measurements because city hall and Bangkok surveyor could not agree where MSL is located? Then they measured 100 meters. Why did they not measure 200 meters? Is the judge setting up a trap for Bangkok surveyor and city hall? Remember the duty of Administrative Court is to investigate corruption.

The MSL average differences between the Andaman Sea (Indian Ocean) and the Gulf of Thailand is well over 2 m. The surveys have fool someone by applying that one should uses the average of Thailand. Why?

It has been explained to me that their way over a metre, maybe 2m, difference in MSL averages from the Andaman Sea side (India Ocean) and Gulf of Thailand side where Pattaya in located.

You VT7 and The Regatta buyers look at the information.

The local MSL is +2.45 meters is above 0.00 which is located in Portsmouth, England. It is meters or metres! Not mm! The Bangkok surveyor used +1.448 not the local. Why?

"The concept of a "mean sea level" is in itself rather artificial, because it is not possible to determine a figure for mean sea level for the entire planet, and it varies quite a lot even on a much smaller scale. This is because the sea is in constant motion,. The best one can do is to pick a spot and calculate the mean sea level at tha affected by the high and low pressure zones above it, the tides, local gravitational differences, and so forth t point and use it as a datum."

Issue 9 needs should use the local MSL. The court needs to protect the local community which the law applies not the whole of Thailand where the law doesn't apply. A meter difference from the Thailand average MSL and the local MSL is a BIG difference.

Walk down tho the beach and check what a meter more height would mean?

Shouldnt local mean sea level be somewhere between local high and low tide. Even using +1.4m seems to put the line above high tide level. So if for example the land in front of VT7 falls at a gradient of 1 vert in 20 horizontal then the MSL line would be another 20m futher up the shore line.

Amazing! Your miss understanding of the MSL and the other issues on this blog. I counld of said this with one word but I wont.

You VT7 and The Regatta buyers look at the information.

The local MSL is +2.45 meters is above 0.00 which is located in Portsmouth, England. It is meters or metres! Not mm! The Bangkok surveyor used +1.448 not the local. Why?

“The concept of a "mean sea level" is in itself rather artificial, because it is not possible to determine a figure for mean sea level for the entire planet, and it varies quite a lot even on a much smaller scale. This is because the sea is in constant motion,. The best one can do is to pick a spot and calculate the mean sea level at tha affected by the high and low pressure zones above it, the tides, local gravitational differences, and so forth t point and use it as a datum.”

Issue 9 needs should use the local MSL. The court needs to protect the local community which the law applies not the whole of Thailand where the law doesn’t apply. A meter difference from the Thailand average MSL and the local MSL is a BIG difference.

Walk down tho the beach and check what a meter more height would mean?

The new 200 location from MSL

I think its pretty obvious from the aerial photo that local mean sea level cannot possible be + 2.5m. That would mean half of Pattaya would be washed away during high tide. I think there is an error in the units here. It should be 2.5mm not 2.5m. Maybe the THai surveyor has got a problem with his units.

The 2.45meters is above 0.00 which is located in Portsmouth, England. It is Meters! Not mm! You need to use the internet to learn not just to show your stupidly.

Pattaya City Hall want the world to make Pattaya 0.00. They will need to position the UN to make the change not claim the change.

“The concept of a "mean sea level" is in itself rather artificial, because it is not possible to determine a figure for mean sea level for the entire planet, and it varies quite a lot even on a much smaller scale. This is because the sea is in constant motion, affected by the high and low pressure zones above it, the tides, local gravitational differences, and so forth. The best one can do is to pick a spot and calculate the mean sea level at that point and use it as a datum.”

So Issue 9 needs should use the local MSL.

Traditionally, one had to process sea-level measurements to take into account the effect of the 228-month Metonic cycle and the 223-month eclipse cycle on the tides. Mean sea level does not remain constant over the surface of the entire earth.