19 hours ago, CanuckThai said:

If a hotel claims they have a private beach, and I pay a premium for "a hotel with private beach", then I would like to think it's a private beach.  If I'm "bending nickels" and pay half (or less) for a hotel, with no beach...then public beach it is.  Where's the issue?  I'd be choked if I was expecting the private beach, the "soi dogs" made camp, and wandering Chinese mega tours started a beach, kid crapping contest.... 

Canuck, what language are you using? It certainly is not English.

17 hours 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.

Exactly. Beaches are NOT privately owned in Thailand even if all access to the beach is owned. You can legally paddle or swim up to a beach and use it. You may not be able to leave the beach because of the surrounding land but you can certainly use the beach.

11 minutes ago, FitnessHealthTravel said:

Exactly. Beaches are NOT privately owned in Thailand even if all access to the beach is owned. You can legally paddle or swim up to a beach and use it. You may not be able to leave the beach because of the surrounding land but you can certainly use the beach.

 

Question is, where does that beach end?  Other posters claim it's the high tide line.  If that's the case, anywhere you see (or sit on) dry sand could be private land.

 

3 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Question is, where does that beach end?  Other posters claim it's the high tide line.  If that's the case, anywhere you see (or sit on) dry sand could be private land.

 

In Thai law it is defined as the high-water mark, averaged over a few years. I have not seen a beach on Phuket where the high-water mark was not at least a metre past the actual "beach".

2 minutes ago, mikebike said:

In Thai law it is defined as the high-water mark, averaged over a few years. I have not seen a beach on Phuket where the high-water mark was not at least a metre past the actual "beach".

 

Good point, and tides do vary throughout the year(s) with the moon and sun.  I don't know if they average it, or draw the line at the highest tide.

 

My main point would be that just because there's water on one side and sand on the other, doesn't mean it's legally public land.

2 hours ago, giddyup said:

Why is it I have been refused twice to enter the Navy beach then?

They don't like you?

Only joking.

The times I have been there was in a hired van with a Thai driver and I seem to recall there was something about this that met the navy's criteria.

I've never attempted to enter as a 'farang only' if you know what I mean.

20 hours ago, CanuckThai said:

If a hotel claims they have a private beach, and I pay a premium for "a hotel with private beach", then I would like to think it's a private beach.  If I'm "bending nickels" and pay half (or less) for a hotel, with no beach...then public beach it is.  Where's the issue?  I'd be choked if I was expecting the private beach, the "soi dogs" made camp, and wandering Chinese mega tours started a beach, kid crapping contest.... 

 

46 minutes ago, BradinAsia said:

Canuck, what language are you using? It certainly is not English.

He's basically saying that if someone has paid a lot of money, they are entitled to expect that the 'riff-raff' are kept away.

29 minutes ago, mikebike said:

In Thai law it is defined as the high-water mark, averaged over a few years. I have not seen a beach on Phuket where the high-water mark was not at least a metre past the actual "beach".

I guess the tsunami screwed up the averages then. Top end of bangla road is probably beach land now!

An interesting thread, as clearly Thais and most expats believe beaches are public 'land' - owned by the King.

A good explanation here: https://www.phuketgazette.net/news/part-beach-front-dusit-thani-laguna-privately-owned-land-office

20 hours ago, HHTel said:

 

There are markers showing the line (as shown in the pic) between privately owned and public.  From the pic it seems that there is a notice pointing out private land.

I have seen markers moved before. A friend was buying land and after the survey the woman next door was caught moving them a meter inside his property. It was seen as a pretty serious offence given the cost of land here.

 

Just because a marker is there it doesn't mean it's in the right place- the disputed area needs re-surveying by qualified people, not done on the back (other bits may apply) of an envelope by Ma -Ann.

 

As for Laguna's 'falling branches' excuse- pathetic.

I got run off Ambassador City beach, a couple months ago, by security. I didnt want to argue the point, with them. Sometimes, they just think they own it, but I doubt its worth fighting about. 

Exactly.

The sign says it’s private property. The survey marker says it’s private property. In the video the security guard (very politely) informs the ferang that it’s private property and asks the ferang to move to another part of the beach. But no, the ferang prefers to argue and cause an unnecessary fight.

It all boils down as to whether or not beaches are owned by the King IMO.

 

I can understand the 'erosion' argument, but those owning land/property just beyond the beach know about this and surely have to expect to gradually lose their land as the coast moves inward?

Just like Eva in Rawai.

9 minutes ago, Cylon said:

Just like Eva in Rawai.

Nah. Eva wasn't even close to being legal.

I think its time to start demanding that property lines on beaches be clearly demarcated. 

On 1/8/2018 at 3:07 PM, 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.

Please tell me how you know, and what evidence (perhaps local legislation?) that what you say,  is true for Thailand ?

14 hours ago, Tofer said:

...If you read my other posts I note quite clearly you can own land that has been eroded by the sea provided it is properly recorded as such in the title documents...

 

 

What does land that has been eroded by the sea look like, as compared to land that has not been eroded?

 

Looking at the photo below, can one recognise what land has been eroded and what has not been eroded? 

 

10 hours ago, mikebike said:

In Thai law it is defined as the high-water mark, averaged over a few years. I have not seen a beach on Phuket where the high-water mark was not at least a metre past the actual "beach".

 

Thank you, mikebike, this is exactly the definition I, and I believe many others, have been waiting for. The only thing you forgot to include is a link to the particular Thai law that gives this definition, without which your statement is unfortunately not authoritative and we are back to square one.

What does the Thai text of the inscription on this boundary marker mean?

 

 

 

Image source: https://www.thairath.co.th/content/1171370

In the image below, the strip of sand adjacent to the water seems to be of a lighter shade than the sand farther back from the water, where the men are standing. Is this due to a shadow or to a steeper angle of decline?

 

 

Picture source: https://www.thairath.co.th/content/1171370

This is Thailand we are talking about. I had the privilege of sitting at the beach in

front of the Kata beach resort. I let the server know that I was not a hotel guest but

asked how much for a chair under their umbrella if I bought lunch from their menu

and a beer. I got to stay for 3 hours and I did the same at Club Med, later that week

and again no problem. This case seems to be Cheap Charlie guy with his own

beach blanket, and kids.

Geezer

10 hours ago, Puccini said:

 

What does land that has been eroded by the sea look like, as compared to land that has not been eroded?

 

Looking at the photo below, can one recognise what land has been eroded and what has not been eroded? 

 

According to the OP, as HHtel quite rightly pointed out, it is the area that has Chanote markers and concrete posts, assuming they are genuine and recorded as such on a land title deed document and the land office master survey plan.

 

Otherwise I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments as I noted previously that the exercise of policing this beach area is futile and petty, and should be clearly delineated by some method if they wish to maintain privacy across it.

4 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

This is Thailand we are talking about. I had the privilege of sitting at the beach in

front of the Kata beach resort. I let the server know that I was not a hotel guest but

asked how much for a chair under their umbrella if I bought lunch from their menu

and a beer. I got to stay for 3 hours and I did the same at Club Med, later that week

and again no problem. This case seems to be Cheap Charlie guy with his own

beach blanket, and kids.

Geezer

Well bully for you, we all bow to your superiority!!

 

God forbid the chap only wants to sit on the beach, and mother of all offences - he has kids......

20 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

It all boils down as to whether or not beaches are owned by the King IMO.

 

I can understand the 'erosion' argument, but those owning land/property just beyond the beach know about this and surely have to expect to gradually lose their land as the coast moves inward?

Not if they build a sea wall / sea defences.

11 hours ago, Puccini said:

 

Thank you, mikebike, this is exactly the definition I, and I believe many others, have been waiting for. The only thing you forgot to include is a link to the particular Thai law that gives this definition, without which your statement is unfortunately not authoritative and we are back to square one.

My knowledge in this area is from some, limited, personal involvement in the Eva Beach proceedings. I had the opportunity to read the court proceedings and judgement regarding the high-water line in relations to the demarcation  of property boundaries in Phuket. I have no idea if this information is publicly available on the internet. Feel free to speak to the principals involved or ask the court for the transcripts if you doubt my statements.

For Tofer,This is Thailand, right, not the beach in your home country or mine.

  I know that beaches are likely public property near the ocean, but I was

told long ago that in Phuket, if the hotel staff or someone who says they are

hotel security tells you to move off their private beach, it is better to move

than to argue. I asked why and he showed me his shattered knee, where the

Thai mafia broke for him a day after his arguement.  So in my humble opinion

it is not the greatest idea to argue in a foreign country.

Geezer

 

 Who said anything about arguing Stargazer?

 

My comment was referring to your last sentence in which you alluded to the inferiority of quote - "cheap Charlie guy with his own beach blanket and kids", as if he was some low life that cannot afford to pay for a beach chair and lunch...

 

Or was it too subtle for you!

14 hours ago, Puccini said:

What does the Thai text of the inscription on this boundary marker mean?

 

 

 

Image source: https://www.thairath.co.th/content/1171370

It is a Chanote post with the reference number inscribed which relates to survey and will be recorded on the land office master plan and the land title deed.

6 minutes ago, Tofer said:

It is a Chanote post with the reference number inscribed which relates to survey and will be recorded on the land office master plan and the land title deed.

 

Trouble is that these Chanote Posts are often moved or even removed in the quiet of the night. My neighbour in Kata did that to gain a meter frontage  x 30m back on our undeveloped piece of land.