Phuket beach banishment drama - hotel within their rights, say district officials

[Arandora]

From the 6th January 2018, the Military and Phang Nga Authorities issued revised Beach Regulations that state that no businesses - restaurants, bars, massage places, sunbed hire - can be carried out on public land adjacent to public beach. This had included land under the control of the local council which allowed limited use. All such activities on public beach had previously been removed three years ago as in other parts of Thailand. From the 6th January this was extended to public land adjacent to public beach. This has included private resorts with the resort on one side of a beach access road with sunbeds on the other side in agreement with the local council. They had to be removed. 

Furthermore the revised Order says that visitors cannot bring their own sunbeds/umbrellas including the very popular wind bags on any part of the beachfront that is not privately owned. Local approaches to have the same zones as Phuket for sunbed hire and to allow visitors to bring their own. Have been turned down. The local police who will have to enforce this order along Khao Lak's 30km coastline say the tourists are allowed to bring their own and questioned about what it says in the Order obtained by a local Thai hotelier, could not explain. 

The penalty for visitors disobeying the Order is 100,00 baht or jail for 1 year.

If all the beaches are "King's Beach" and there is only one government and supposedly one law, how can different provinces not only apply it differently but change it? 

[eisfeld]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Your link doesn't reference beaches but building regulations related to water distance.

And sure, throw in a comparison with a personal beach artificially made in issaan, that makes sense.

 

Well maybe you can link to any law or regulation about beaches? You claimed it was illegal. Please show some reference. I pointed out that the definition of a beach isn't clear and that one can put their own sand somewhere to make a beach or to connect an artificial beach to a natural beach in order to extend the experience of a natural beach into private property which Dusit Thani could have done, who knows?

 

The laws and regulation clearly specify contruction rules using the high water mark as a reference point and not a murky "beach" line. It's incredibly hard to accurately pinpoint the exact end of a beach. Sand easily moves around. That's why they use the high water mark instead. While not perfect, it provides a much better reference point.

[snoop1130]

Phuket beach area ‘belongs to hotel’

By Salinee Prab 
The Nation

 

 

A land official in the seaside province of Phuket confirmed on Monday that the beach in front of a luxurious hotel belongs to the hotel and is not public property as earlier believed.

 

Yongyuth Kanjananurak, of Thalang branch, said he inspected the site, the land rights documents and the boundary markers of Lepang-Bangtao beaches before acknowledging ownership of the area by Dusit Thani Laguna Phuket Hotel.

 

“We found that the land title deeds of about 17 rais of land of the hotel are legitimate and the hotel’s lands cover the beaches in question,” he said.

 

According to the Phuket Gazette, Facebook user Aziz Yotharak recently posted a video that appeared to show a tourist with two children sitting on a mat on the beach in front of the hotel being told to leave the area as it is private property.

 

The tourist was heard replying that the beach “cannot possibly belong to a hotel”. The video went viral, with many FB users wondering how the beach could be private.

 

The Gazette quoted Ma-Ann Samran, president of the Cherngtalay OrBorTor, as saying that he had discussed the matter with hotel management.

 

“The staff said that the general manager only ordered staff at the scene to inform the tourist that if he wanted to use the resort’s facilities, such as the swimming pool, he had to buy a day-pass voucher,” said Ma-Ann.

 

Staff denied that the general manager had ordered that the tourist be moved from the beach. The resort insists “the staff didn’t force the tourist away, as that would create a bad tourism image for Phuket”, said Ma-Ann.

 

Yongyuth said the area in front of the hotel appeared to be a beach because of coastal erosion. 

 

The Land Department has agreed to the hotel owners’ request for it to officially demarcate the hotel’s areas to prevent a similar incident from happening.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30335729

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-1-8

[tryasimight]

2 hours ago, HHTel said:

Yes it can.

Not in Thailand. The previous King declared the beaches are for the people.

That's why you can go to the beach at the Navy base at Sattahip. The Navy don't like it but there is nothing they can do about it. 

All the talk of private beaches in Thailand are just a local 'arrangement' and if it was ever tested in court it would be found to be illegal.

Edited January 8, 2018 by tryasimight

[eisfeld]

4 minutes ago, Arandora said:

If all the beaches are "King's Beach" and there is only one government and supposedly one law, how can different provinces not only apply it differently but change it? 

The text you quoted speaks about public land. The topic here though is about Dusit Thani exercising their right to move people from their private property.

 

There isn't just one government or one law. There are multiple divisions in the government and there are multiple levels of government. For example district, provincial or country-wide administration. Some laws leave it up to the local administration to enforce (or not) certain regulations or to even make up their own.

[eisfeld]

7 minutes ago, tryasimight said:

Not in Thailand. The previous King declared the beaches are for the people.

That's why you can go to the beach at the Navy base at Sattahip. The Navy don't like it but there is nothing they can do about it. 

All the talk of private beaches in Thailand are just a local 'arrangement' and if it was ever tested in court it would be found to be illegal.

I've heard about this before but I can't find any proper reference for this. I honestly would like to read the exact wording of this royal decree. As often, details might be lost when people spread the word.

[tryasimight]

Seems like the guy may have been on private land not the beach, with the 'beach' encroaching onto the hotel's land by erosion. If that is the case then the hotel is right.

[Arandora]

Sorry, I thought the topic dealt with resorts claiming that public beach adjacent to their private land was also private, which I agree it is not. What I was drawing attention to is the disparity of treatment of what hitherto I understood was the management of public beach and public land and the use of both by visitors when there is different and conflicting application in different provinces. 
I find your comment that there isn't just one government "surprising." 

[eisfeld]

11 minutes ago, Arandora said:

Sorry, I thought the topic dealt with resorts claiming that public beach adjacent to their private land was also private, which I agree it is not. What I was drawing attention to is the disparity of treatment of what hitherto I understood was the management of public beach and public land and the use of both by visitors when there is different and conflicting application in different provinces. 
I find your comment that there isn't just one government "surprising." 

Yup you misunderstood then. They never claimed public land being private. They only tried to enforce their right of their private land. Yes all the different agencies, offices, ministries, divisions etc form a government. My point is that there are many different parts and levels in this government.

[Psimbo]

1 hour ago, eisfeld said:

No. Of course you can own a beach. You can make an artificial beach somewhere in Isaan if you fancy it. And where does a beach start and stop? How far the sand reaches? What's the exact definition of a beach when it comes to land titles in Thailand? What if I put my own sand that connects my property with the natural part of the beach?

 

This page might give a better view on the issue: http://lantaislandproperty.com/lanta-property-buyers-resources/

 

 

I can't say for sure without visiting the site and taking measurements but to me it looks like Dusit Thani were careful (no surprise, they are not exactly amateurs) and are well over 20m away from the high tide mark and all the buildings within 50m/150m respectively seem to adhere to the law. Again, I have not checked this on-site but I've been to this beach and hotel before and have quickly checked some satelite pictures. The only thing that could get close to a violation could maybe be the height of their main lobby building. Not sure if that's higher than 12m, could be close.

I guess they must have missed the current construction at the north end of Kamala! Clearly in breach of BOTH zone restrictions.

[Puccini]

9 hours ago, lovelomsak said:

The property ends at high tide line like I said in another post about this  incident.

 So legally anyone can do what ever  they want below the high tide mark.But go above the high tide mark they would be on private property. During high tide they probably allow anyone to pass through.using their private beach.

 

Do I remember correctly that you wrote that this was the case in Canada?

[NamKangMan]

1 hour ago, eisfeld said:

I've heard about this before but I can't find any proper reference for this. I honestly would like to read the exact wording of this royal decree. As often, details might be lost when people spread the word.

 

"As often, details might be lost when people spread the word." - don't you mean, "As often, details might be lost when people spread the baht????"

[Maestro]

9 hours ago, lovelomsak said:

  I know people who own Islands.

 

Do they own these Islands in Thailand?

[Puccini]

7 hours ago, upena said:

No such thing as a private beach in Thailand.

 

Perhaps a distinction should be made between a "private beach" annd a "privately-owned beach"

 

A beach may be private because nobody else is there, in the case of beach that is the subject of this thread apparently because persons have been hired to keep other people away.

 

A beach is privately owned if a person, natural or juristic, has a land title deed for it.

[Tofer]

4 hours ago, HHTel said:

Yes it can.

Really!!! 

 

Kindly justify that statement.

[Tofer]

4 hours ago, Bendi said:

Just gotta love it. All those thavisa members posting their wiews..and wrong again..lmao??

So kindly enlighten us, what is the correct assumption?

[Thian]

My friend has a condo in Dusit Hua Hin, stayed there a few times but from now on i won't visit ANY Dusit resort anymore.

 

 

[Puccini]

2 hours ago, Arandora said:

From the 6th January 2018, the Military and Phang Nga Authorities issued revised Beach Regulations that state that no businesses - restaurants, bars, massage places, sunbed hire - can be carried out on public land adjacent to public beach. This had included land under the control of the local council which allowed limited use. All such activities on public beach had previously been removed three years ago as in other parts of Thailand. From the 6th January this was extended to public land adjacent to public beach. This has included private resorts with the resort on one side of a beach access road with sunbeds on the other side in agreement with the local council. They had to be removed. 

Furthermore the revised Order says that visitors cannot bring their own sunbeds/umbrellas including the very popular wind bags on any part of the beachfront that is not privately owned. Local approaches to have the same zones as Phuket for sunbed hire and to allow visitors to bring their own. Have been turned down. The local police who will have to enforce this order along Khao Lak's 30km coastline say the tourists are allowed to bring their own and questioned about what it says in the Order obtained by a local Thai hotelier, could not explain. 

The penalty for visitors disobeying the Order is 100,00 baht or jail for 1 year.

If all the beaches are "King's Beach" and there is only one government and supposedly one law, how can different provinces not only apply it differently but change it? 

 

If there is a law saying that beaches are "King's Beach", a clause in a local or regional Beach Regulation that is contrary to that law is invalid and cannot be enforce if challenged in a court.

[Puccini]

6 hours ago, johnarth said:

I have heard high tide water line is the point...

 

You have read this in some posts made by somebody who stated that this was the case in Canada.

[Puccini]

5 hours ago, Chris Lawrence said:

They can put up a fence to the high water mark on the beach. That is where ownership of land should end as there is no point in owning land that is underwater. Maybe a Thai surveyor could give a better definition?

 

They can, but do they have a legal right to it?

[DUNROAMIN]

How deep are your pockets, just slip the guy 500B and the beach is yours for the day.

 

Edited January 8, 2018 by DUNROAMIN

[Maestro]

Removed an off-topic post about a law in France.

 

We have already had a post about a law in Canada. Let us, please, not bring the laws of all other countries that have beaches into the discussion of this topic and limit ourselves to Thailand. Thank you.

[Tofer]

2 hours ago, tryasimight said:

Seems like the guy may have been on private land not the beach, with the 'beach' encroaching onto the hotel's land by erosion. If that is the case then the hotel is right.

I agree, but only if they have previously recorded boundaries by way of a Chanote or NS3.

 

We own beachfront land that has physical evidence that it extended more than 15m beyond our current sea wall before being eroded, but the Chinote has only ever been granted for the land within our sea wall boundary. Everything outside of that is public under the jurisdiction of the Marine Department.

 

I was offered beachfront land in front the Sheraton next door to the Dusit Laguna 30 odd years ago. It no longer exists due to coastal erosion. Without formal title deeds recording GPS referenced posts it doesn't exist in the private domain.

[Puccini]

5 hours ago, Gregster said:

Top photo also shows survey marker saying it’s hotel’s property. 

 

Sign says private property, survey marker says same, so why not just comply and enjoy a swim further up the beach. 

 

This photo you mention puts the discussion into perspective. One part of the area covered by sand, the part closer to the hotel, in the photo to the left of the concrete boundary markers, is privately-owned property, the other part is public land. End of the discussion, it would seem.

 

Image source: https://www.phuketgazette.net/news/part-beach-front-dusit-thani-laguna-privately-owned-land-office

Edited January 8, 2018 by Puccini
added image source

[Puccini]

Pardon me, I was too hasty. There is still room for discussion, from the photo below it is not clear where the spot from where the complainant was sent away was, on the privately-owned area or the public area.

 

 

[NamKangMan]

16 minutes ago, Puccini said:

 

This photo you mention puts the discussion into perspective. One part of the area covered by sand, the part closer to the hotel, in the photo to the left of the concrete boundary markers, is privately-owned property, the other part is public land. End of the discussion, it would seem.

 

Image source: https://www.phuketgazette.net/news/part-beach-front-dusit-thani-laguna-privately-owned-land-office

 

Ahhhhh, wouldn't the discussion revolve around whether the hotel has the right to buy said "sand / beach" and put up said "concrete boundary markers????"

 

Oh, that's right, they have a piece of paper that they bribed a Land Office Official to create for them, giving them ownership, so they must own it. 

[Puccini]

8 hours ago, Pinot said:

King owns all beaches. Sorted. 

 

If a Thai law says so, what is the name of the law and how does it define "beach"? I am genuinely curious.

[Puccini]

8 hours ago, spiroinusa1 said:

 Thai Law.    Sec 1336....The beach is public domain. The hotel does not own the beach.

 

The above post earlier in this topic gives a pointer. Who is first to find this law and post the cited section here?

Edited January 8, 2018 by Puccini

[Tofer]

12 minutes ago, NamKangMan said:

 

Ahhhhh, wouldn't the discussion revolve around whether the hotel has the right to buy said "sand / beach" and put up said "concrete boundary markers????"

 

Oh, that's right, they have a piece of paper that they bribed a Land Office Official to create for them, giving them ownership, so they must own it. 

Perhaps they already owned it, and the posts are recorded on bona fide title deeds before coastal erosion turned the land into beach.

 

I would have thought DL should have delineated their boundaries with a clear wall / sleepers to avoid confusion. 

 

As Puccini states the videos do not make clear which part of the beach the visitor is actually on.

[geriatrickid]

Some of the beach areas around the old mining operations are artificial and or reclaimed land. This means that the beach was never there previously. I don't believe the public right of access on those beaches apply.

 

Having stayed at the Dusit years ago, I found it to be a lovely resort. Management did a fantastic job of keeping beach touts away. All guests were very grateful to be left in peace. Also, unsavoury people who tried to take advantage of the investment the Dusit had done in keeping the beach clean and groomed were politely moved along. Mr.Aziz should be content at his lower cost  abode which most likely doesn't invest anything in maintaining the beach the way the Dusit does.  A clean beach requires money and the Dusit does its part, hence the reason the Dusit charges more.