Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[Jimmyd]

Go to http://openvt7.blogspot.com/

View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.

You may read their appeal at http://openvt7.blogspot.com/ then you understand the builders’ side.

It’s a must read.

If someone wouldn't mind translating from legalese to plain English I'd be interested in what it says.

[hughden]

Made my small brain hurt; but that fact that they state their construction costs at 10,000 baht a square metre was interesting; nice profit in these big cereal boxes!

[lookat]

Go to http://openvt7.blogspot.com/

View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.

You may read their appeal at http://openvt7.blogspot.com/ then you understand the builders' side.

It's a must read.

If someone wouldn't mind translating from legalese to plain English I'd be interested in what it says.

It’s easy to understand! Their was a regulation in the Building Control Act called “Issue 8” which set 100 meters from the sea shore before you can build any building over 14 meters high. Then a change was made in the regulation of the Building Control Act called “Issue 9” which changed the measurement from100 meters to 200 meters. Now the new law reads 200 meters from the sea short before you can build a building over 14 meters high.

But city hall and vt7 thinks the change of 100 meters to 200 meters means you measure not from the sea shore but from the “mean sea level” 200 meters. That is you measure a 100 meters to in the direction of the land from the “mean sea level” and 100 meters in the direction of the sea and added together it equals 200 meters which equals the same measurements in original “Issue 8”.

“Mean sea level” is the middle point between high tide and low tide level. The Building Control Act does not explain what is meant by the words sea shore or where to stare or how to measurement of 200 meters.

Now they wait to see if Thailand has laws and justice or a little smoke in plaintiffs face and tea in someone else hand rules?

After looking at those vt7 amazing profit margins, build at 10,000 bht. a square meter and sell at 65,000 bht. a square meter it hard bet against the tea winning.

[Tammi]

Go to http://openvt7.blogspot.com/

View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.

You may read their appeal at http://openvt7.blogspot.com/ then you understand the builders' side.

It's a must read.

If someone wouldn't mind translating from legalese to plain English I'd be interested in what it says.

It’s easy to understand! Their was a regulation in the Building Control Act called “Issue 8” which set 100 meters from the sea shore before you can build any building over 14 meters high. Then a change was made in the regulation of the Building Control Act called “Issue 9” which changed the measurement from100 meters to 200 meters. Now the new law reads 200 meters from the sea short before you can build a building over 14 meters high.

But city hall and vt7 thinks the change of 100 meters to 200 meters means you measure not from the sea shore but from the “mean sea level” 200 meters. That is you measure a 100 meters to in the direction of the land from the “mean sea level” and 100 meters in the direction of the sea and added together it equals 200 meters which equals the same measurements in original “Issue 8”.

“Mean sea level” is the middle point between high tide and low tide level. The Building Control Act does not explain what is meant by the words sea shore or where to stare or how to measurement of 200 meters.

Now they wait to see if Thailand has laws and justice or a little smoke in plaintiffs face and tea in someone else hand rules?

After looking at those vt7 amazing profit margins, build at 10,000 bht. a square meter and sell at 65,000 bht. a square meter it hard bet against the tea winning.

IMO the legal meaning of sea shore is the land between ordinary high and low water marks.

If the Law does indeed state that buildings over 14 metres must be at least 200 metres FROM the sea shore then measurement must begin at the high water mark otherwise the measuremnt would include the seashore.

[Artisan]

IMO the legal meaning of sea shore is the land between ordinary high and low water marks.

If the Law does indeed state that buildings over 14 metres must be at least 200 metres FROM the sea shore then measurement must begin at the high water mark otherwise the measurement would include the seashore.

Tammi........on the face of it, that sounds logical. However, I think that it's an over-simplification due to something being lost in translation from Thai to English. The Thai language hasn't the same number of expressions which are equivalent to "seashore". 'Chy talay' covers them all and doesn't refer directly to the land between the ordinary high and low water marks.

[Irene]

Go to http://openvt7.blogspot.com/

View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.

You may read their appeal at http://openvt7.blogspot.com/ then you understand the builders' side.

It's a must read.

If someone wouldn't mind translating from legalese to plain English I'd be interested in what it says.

It's easy to understand! Their was a regulation in the Building Control Act called "Issue 8" which set 100 meters from the sea shore before you can build any building over 14 meters high. Then a change was made in the regulation of the Building Control Act called "Issue 9" which changed the measurement from100 meters to 200 meters. Now the new law reads 200 meters from the sea short before you can build a building over 14 meters high.

But city hall and vt7 thinks the change of 100 meters to 200 meters means you measure not from the sea shore but from the "mean sea level" 200 meters. That is you measure a 100 meters to in the direction of the land from the "mean sea level" and 100 meters in the direction of the sea and added together it equals 200 meters which equals the same measurements in original "Issue 8".

"Mean sea level" is the middle point between high tide and low tide level. The Building Control Act does not explain what is meant by the words sea shore or where to stare or how to measurement of 200 meters.

Now they wait to see if Thailand has laws and justice or a little smoke in plaintiffs face and tea in someone else hand rules?

After looking at those vt7 amazing profit margins, build at 10,000 bht. a square meter and sell at 65,000 bht. a square meter it hard bet against the tea winning.

lookat,

Thank you for the translation. As to the cost of building, I don't think that includes the cost land. Even so, the margin should still be big.

[Artisan]

But city hall and vt7 thinks the change of 100 meters to 200 meters means you measure not from the sea shore but from the “mean sea level” 200 meters. That is you measure a 100 meters to in the direction of the land from the “mean sea level” and 100 meters in the direction of the sea and added together it equals 200 meters which equals the same measurements in original “Issue 8”.

“Mean sea level” is the middle point between high tide and low tide level. The Building Control Act does not explain what is meant by the words sea shore or where to stare or how to measurement of 200 meters.

Is that right? I thought that this 200 metres, as specified by Issue No.9 of the Building Control Act, was in one direction only....who would want to build in the sea? "Mean Sea Level" (or Mid Tide Level) is the internationally recognised datum standard.

Do you know what Thai words are actually used in the BCA Issue 9 that have been translated to "sea shore"?

[Tammi]

But city hall and vt7 thinks the change of 100 meters to 200 meters means you measure not from the sea shore but from the “mean sea level” 200 meters. That is you measure a 100 meters to in the direction of the land from the “mean sea level” and 100 meters in the direction of the sea and added together it equals 200 meters which equals the same measurements in original “Issue 8”.

“Mean sea level” is the middle point between high tide and low tide level. The Building Control Act does not explain what is meant by the words sea shore or where to stare or how to measurement of 200 meters.

Is that right? I thought that this 200 metres, as specified by Issue No.9 of the Building Control Act, was in one direction only....who would want to build in the sea? "Mean Sea Level" (or Mid Tide Level) is the internationally recognised datum standard.

Do you know what Thai words are actually used in the BCA Issue 9 that have been translated to "sea shore"?

And, of course, we have to take into account the INTENT of the Law when/if the Thai language cannot be precise. Do remember that Hua Hin City very quickly stopped issuing building permits for anything over 14 meters within the 200 meters from the sea shore until such time as this is all sorted out. I have recently seen Hua Hin advertisments saying "more than 200 meters from the sea shore".

[Tammi]

But city hall and vt7 thinks the change of 100 meters to 200 meters means you measure not from the sea shore but from the “mean sea level” 200 meters. That is you measure a 100 meters to in the direction of the land from the “mean sea level” and 100 meters in the direction of the sea and added together it equals 200 meters which equals the same measurements in original “Issue 8”.

“Mean sea level” is the middle point between high tide and low tide level. The Building Control Act does not explain what is meant by the words sea shore or where to stare or how to measurement of 200 meters.

Is that right? I thought that this 200 metres, as specified by Issue No.9 of the Building Control Act, was in one direction only....who would want to build in the sea? "Mean Sea Level" (or Mid Tide Level) is the internationally recognised datum standard.

Do you know what Thai words are actually used in the BCA Issue 9 that have been translated to "sea shore"?

This has been discussed on this topic already. VT and Indochine and City Hall are wriggling every which way to build where (it would seem) that they can't. And VT is probably also worried that someone will ask them to take down, or chop, VT5!!

[Artisan]

And VT is probably also worried that someone will ask them to take down, or chop, VT5!!

Most people know that this will never happen in a month of Sundays!

Edited June 27, 2007 by Artisan

[brooklynbridge]

And VT is probably also worried that someone will ask them to take down, or chop, VT5!!

Most people know that this will never happen in a month of Sundays!

Interesting documentry on CNN last weekend called "Costa del Con". It seems that in Spain that is precisely what is about to happen. Buildings built on "absolute beachfront" whose construction permits were deemed to be illegal are going to be demolished. The owners are not happy campers.

[Artisan]

Interesting documentry on CNN last weekend called "Costa del Con". It seems that in Spain that is precisely what is about to happen. Buildings built on "absolute beachfront" whose construction permits were deemed to be illegal are going to be demolished. The owners are not happy campers.

I read the synopsis of this report on "Foreign Correspondent" (ABC.net.au). Interesting reading and, yes, I see too many correlations with Thailand now!!

Spain - Costa del Con

Broadcast: 20/02/2007

Reporter: Chris Clark

FINAL STORY

SERIES 16

EPISODE 22

Synopsis

Take one building boom, add chaotic planning laws, sprinkle with a generous dash of Russian mafia money and you have Spain’s biggest corruption scandal in years.

Chris Clark reports from Marbella and the tourist mecca of the Costa del Sol – but instead of the romantic images of the glossy brochures, he finds a real mess.

Billions have gone missing in crooked development deals and the courts have ordered the demolition of more than 30 thousand illegally built apartments.

Francisco Bugallal bought an apartment at the Banana Beach development, right on the beach at Marbella; 5 years later the courts ordered its demolition because it was built on public land.

“They will have to take me out with the machines, with the cranes, or a squad of police. I’ll lock myself inside the flat,” he tells Clark.

Local activist Mercedes Vazquez says it’s vital that some of the buildings are demolished, as an example to others.

“It’s very, very important,” she says, standing outside the abandoned shell of the six storey Senator Hotel, which is one of the illegal buildings. “If they’re not demolished, a lot of people will think, ‘no problem’ – it’s illegal, but after a time, you will have it legal.”

Former Marbella Deputy Mayor, Isabel Garcia Marcos is one of several former Marbella councillors facing gaol, if convicted of corruption charges.

Police says they found more than 300 thousand Euros (A$ half a million) in cash in her house – she says it belongs to her daughter.

Retired Supreme Court Judge, Jose Antonio Martin Pallin says it’s not just about dodgy developers.

“It’s money laundering by the mafia, especially the Russian mafia,”

It’s a time of a massive building boom in the country. About 3 million houses have been started or finished in Spain in the past 4 years, more than half of them on the coast. Since the Marbella scandal broke dozens of other similar cases have come to light across Spain.

[DeputyDawg]

Former Marbella Deputy Mayor, Isabel Garcia Marcos is one of several former Marbella councillors facing gaol, if convicted of corruption charges.

Police says they found more than 300 thousand Euros (A$ half a million) in cash in her house – she says it belongs to her daughter.

That could never happen in Thailand

[lookat]

Addition point:

Vt7 made claims that their private interest and the taxes they paid to the government are more important then public interest and public law.

But, the 10 plaintiff (stopvt7 group) ask for protection as given in public law. The Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 dose covers the protection of public interest which must be supported by the state and its courts.

So, this public interest point is difficult one for vt7 appeal to overcome in their request to overturn the injunction which stopped vt7 working.

Any one who understands basic law knows public interest trumps private interest!

[eljeque]

200 meters from the seashore must mean from the mean high tide mark.

I have not looked at the slope of the shore here, but

1 meter from the "Mid Tide Level" mark would be under water for almost 12 hours per day. NO one would be able to build here unless they were building on stilts.

2 or 3 or 4 or 5 meters from the "Mid Tide Level" mark would more than likley be under water for several hours each day as well.

The 200 meters must start from the "MEAN high tide mark", just in case someone wants to counter with the highest tide mark from a storm of thirty years ago.

[philliphn]

How's about a poll on this thread, who thinks VT will win & who thinks JCC will win? or something along those lines...

I think that all the condo unit owners in the vicinity of the new building will be losers. I have read the entire thread and it seems to me that the property is awfully close to the shoreline and that this particular strip is being over developed. The dispute reminds me of the arguments that marked the crazy development of the miami beach area in the mid 1980's. Today the place is distinguished by; its glut of condos that haven't maintained the assumed value, increasing condo fees, unit holders that can't get insurance and where people are crammed onto a sliver of beach area in many parts. The net result is that the beach paradise is anything but. I got a hunch that the existing utility supply system (power, water, sewage) can't handle all this development and that something will have to give.

Seems to me the smartest people are the ones that are not so close to the beach and that can retain their privacy. Who wants to go out onto the balcony and see some droopy topless gal across the way or be so packed in that Pete the Perv can see into your bedroom?

This sort of overdevelopment is precisely what the co-owners of the Complex and the Condotel are working to stop. Our legal case is that it is also what the Ministerial Regulation and Buildings Control act is there to stop. We fully intend to pursue our case in the Administrative Court so that Dongtarn Beach does not become Miami Beach, or the Costa Del Sol, or Atlantic City, New Jersey, or so many other overdeveloped beachfronts. We may or may not win, but we are devoting our energy and our resources to the struggle. It's not just about our sea views, it's about the long-term quality of the Dongtarn Beach environment.

I wonder where they will get the enourmous quantity of potable water that will be required?

Also, the large amount of energy and sewage treatment. It will become Poop Tang Beach!

[gharknes]

Go to http://openvt7.blogspot.com/

View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.

You may read their appeal at http://openvt7.blogspot.com/ then you understand the builders' side.

It's a must read.

If someone wouldn't mind translating from legalese to plain English I'd be interested in what it says.

It’s easy to understand! Their was a regulation in the Building Control Act called “Issue 8” which set 100 meters from the sea shore before you can build any building over 14 meters high. Then a change was made in the regulation of the Building Control Act called “Issue 9” which changed the measurement from100 meters to 200 meters. Now the new law reads 200 meters from the sea short before you can build a building over 14 meters high.

But city hall and vt7 thinks the change of 100 meters to 200 meters means you measure not from the sea shore but from the “mean sea level” 200 meters. That is you measure a 100 meters to in the direction of the land from the “mean sea level” and 100 meters in the direction of the sea and added together it equals 200 meters which equals the same measurements in original “Issue 8”.

“Mean sea level” is the middle point between high tide and low tide level. The Building Control Act does not explain what is meant by the words sea shore or where to stare or how to measurement of 200 meters.

Now they wait to see if Thailand has laws and justice or a little smoke in plaintiffs face and tea in someone else hand rules?

After looking at those vt7 amazing profit margins, build at 10,000 bht. a square meter and sell at 65,000 bht. a square meter it hard bet against the tea winning.

I have posted many times about the rip off profit margins in all types of properties here mostly driven by greedy falangs then adopted by Thais when they found out how much they could charge for a residence and get away with it, people you are being robbed, a 4million property is more likely worth half that, I would say something will happen here that will cause a massive sale of property at very reduced prices, they will be bought by locals and the cycle begins again.

[brooklynbridge]

How's about a poll on this thread, who thinks VT will win & who thinks JCC will win? or something along those lines...

I think that all the condo unit owners in the vicinity of the new building will be losers. I have read the entire thread and it seems to me that the property is awfully close to the shoreline and that this particular strip is being over developed. The dispute reminds me of the arguments that marked the crazy development of the miami beach area in the mid 1980's. Today the place is distinguished by; its glut of condos that haven't maintained the assumed value, increasing condo fees, unit holders that can't get insurance and where people are crammed onto a sliver of beach area in many parts. The net result is that the beach paradise is anything but. I got a hunch that the existing utility supply system (power, water, sewage) can't handle all this development and that something will have to give.

Seems to me the smartest people are the ones that are not so close to the beach and that can retain their privacy. Who wants to go out onto the balcony and see some droopy topless gal across the way or be so packed in that Pete the Perv can see into your bedroom?

This sort of overdevelopment is precisely what the co-owners of the Complex and the Condotel are working to stop. Our legal case is that it is also what the Ministerial Regulation and Buildings Control act is there to stop. We fully intend to pursue our case in the Administrative Court so that Dongtarn Beach does not become Miami Beach, or the Costa Del Sol, or Atlantic City, New Jersey, or so many other overdeveloped beachfronts. We may or may not win, but we are devoting our energy and our resources to the struggle. It's not just about our sea views, it's about the long-term quality of the Dongtarn Beach environment.

I wonder where they will get the enourmous quantity of potable water that will be required?

Also, the large amount of energy and sewage treatment. It will become Poop Tang Beach!

Perhaps Mark Bowling would care to answer this. He is the Sales Manager for Indochine Assets Management. If you go to their website, you find this:

"We, as the developer of the Regatta site wish to be a neighbor of choice. Further more we manage our developments transparently and act in good faith."

[marekm1]

Go to http://openvt7.blogspot.com/

View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.

You may read their appeal at http://openvt7.blogspot.com/ then you understand the builders' side.

It's a must read.

If someone wouldn't mind translating from legalese to plain English I'd be interested in what it says.

It's easy to understand! Their was a regulation in the Building Control Act called "Issue 8" which set 100 meters from the sea shore before you can build any building over 14 meters high. Then a change was made in the regulation of the Building Control Act called "Issue 9" which changed the measurement from100 meters to 200 meters. Now the new law reads 200 meters from the sea short before you can build a building over 14 meters high.

But city hall and vt7 thinks the change of 100 meters to 200 meters means you measure not from the sea shore but from the "mean sea level" 200 meters. That is you measure a 100 meters to in the direction of the land from the "mean sea level" and 100 meters in the direction of the sea and added together it equals 200 meters which equals the same measurements in original "Issue 8".

"Mean sea level" is the middle point between high tide and low tide level. The Building Control Act does not explain what is meant by the words sea shore or where to stare or how to measurement of 200 meters.

Now they wait to see if Thailand has laws and justice or a little smoke in plaintiffs face and tea in someone else hand rules?

After looking at those vt7 amazing profit margins, build at 10,000 bht. a square meter and sell at 65,000 bht. a square meter it hard bet against the tea winning.

I have posted many times about the rip off profit margins in all types of properties here mostly driven by greedy falangs then adopted by Thais when they found out how much they could charge for a residence and get away with it, people you are being robbed, a 4million property is more likely worth half that, I would say something will happen here that will cause a massive sale of property at very reduced prices, they will be bought by locals and the cycle begins again.

Anybody knows if that 10 000 Bath includes the cost of the land, labor and other overheads? If it doesn’t, it looks to me that 500% is pretty thin, considering all the risk the developer takes. It certainly is no much to the profit of the branded t-shirt made in China for a buck and sold in western countries for $50. The profit of 5 000%.

The raw figures are pretty misleading and have to be taken in the understanding of the whole value.

I just wonder if you gonna stop drinking beer specially the draft one if you realize that the profit margin you pay for it is about 400-500%

[lookat]

Anybody knows if that 10 000 Bath includes the cost of the land, labor and other overheads? If it doesn't, it looks to me that 500% is pretty thin, considering all the risk the developer takes. It certainly is no much to the profit of the branded t-shirt made in China for a buck and sold in western countries for $50. The profit of 5 000%.

The raw figures are pretty misleading and have to be taken in the understanding of the whole value.

I just wonder if you gonna stop drinking beer specially the draft one if you realize that the profit margin you pay for it is about 400-500%

It was report at Jomthien Complex Condotel by the JCC developer that the land was sold for 200 million baths. In reading the blog it my understanding the land cost is NOT included alone with marketing cost. Labour, materials, overhead and taxes are included in the 10,000 Bt per square meter. Nice profits! That why vt7 thinks their private interest is more important than the public interest under the public law!

[lookat]

I heard that the Department of Civil Engineering and City Plane of the Inertial Ministry has given to the Administrative Court a detail explanation of Ministerial Regulation Issue 9. Issue 9 specified the 200 metre measurement be taken from the shore line only at the MSL (mean sea level) line.

This means vt7 will not be built as planed because it sets at 100 metres from MSL line!

Now vt7 well need to be moved another 100 metres back. Is their enough land?

[brooklynbridge]

What is your source for this? There are so many rumors.

I heard that the Department of Civil Engineering and City Plane of the Inertial Ministry has given to the Administrative Court a detail explanation of Ministerial Regulation Issue 9. Issue 9 specified the 200 metre measurement be taken from the shore line only at the MSL (mean sea level) line.

This means vt7 will not be built as planed because it sets at 100 metres from MSL line!

Now vt7 well need to be moved another 100 metres back. Is their enough land?

[Tammi]

What is your source for this? There are so many rumors.

I heard that the Department of Civil Engineering and City Plane of the Inertial Ministry has given to the Administrative Court a detail explanation of Ministerial Regulation Issue 9. Issue 9 specified the 200 metre measurement be taken from the shore line only at the MSL (mean sea level) line.

This means vt7 will not be built as planed because it sets at 100 metres from MSL line!

Now vt7 well need to be moved another 100 metres back. Is their enough land?

I heard a while ago that Admin Court would ask for opinions from various Ministries and Departments. Maybe the opinion cited by Lookat is the first to be received and we can now look forward to the others coming in.

Just had a look at Jomthien Condotel's web site and it doesn't mention hearing anything but does say that Jomthien Condotel and Grand Condotel were built 200 meters from the shore and according to the Law and that Law has not been changed. As I've mentioned before I can't understand how VT5 was allowed. What were the co-owners at Grand thinking in not objecting that cereal box monstrosity?

[lookat]

What is your source for this? There are so many rumors.

I heard that the Department of Civil Engineering and City Plane of the Inertial Ministry has given to the Administrative Court a detail explanation of Ministerial Regulation Issue 9. Issue 9 specified the 200 metre measurement be taken from the shore line only at the MSL (mean sea level) line.

This means vt7 will not be built as planed because it sets at 100 metres from MSL line!

Now vt7 well need to be moved another 100 metres back. Is their enough land?

I read a letter from and signed by Director of Department of Civil Engineering and City Plane in Bangkok to a admin court judge.

[ZZZ]

To use the MSL line makes no sense at all.

Many places have a difference between low tide line and high tide line that is over 400m. That means that in these cases the mean sea level line would be 200m out at sea from the high tide mark and you would be allowed to build right on the beach.

Now, there is no law saying that laws must make sense so you never know

[mrbojangles]

Just going off topic abit but didn't want to start a new one.

Does anyone know what is happening with Jomtien Complex?

A friend of Mrs BoJ owns a bike rental shop in the complex and they have given her notice that they will not renew her rental contract for the shop / office. She's been there quite a long time and so i can only assume there is something going on with redeveloping it. But into what, i can have a guess but not sure?

[lookat]

To use the MSL line makes no sense at all.

Many places have a difference between low tide line and high tide line that is over 400m. That means that in these cases the mean sea level line would be 200m out at sea from the high tide mark and you would be allowed to build right on the beach.

Now, there is no law saying that laws must make sense so you never know

The difference between low tide line and high tide the MSL line is a about 20 meters!

VT7 building construction was set at 100 meters form the MSL line. That’s 100 (one hundred meters) short of the 200 meter measurement as required in Ministerial Regulation Issue 9!

[ZZZ]

To use the MSL line makes no sense at all.

Many places have a difference between low tide line and high tide line that is over 400m. That means that in these cases the mean sea level line would be 200m out at sea from the high tide mark and you would be allowed to build right on the beach.

Now, there is no law saying that laws must make sense so you never know

The difference between low tide line and high tide the MSL line is a about 20 meters!

VT7 building construction was set at 100 meters form the MSL line. That’s 100 (one hundred meters) short of the 200 meter measurement as required in Ministerial Regulation Issue 9!

It happens to be 20m in Jomtien but not all over Thailand. For the law to make sense it should cover all eventualities. To use the high tide mark would always ensure a 200m strip of land between the beach and any high rise buildings.

[sibeymai]

I agree the distance measured must be 200 metres from the high water mark otherwise in places like Patong the legislation would be unworkable.

This is by far one of the most interesting threads on TV and I eagerly await the court's decision.

In my view VT7 will loose as it is a simple application of the relevant law.

Of some concern to the government will be the possibility of VT sueing the Pattaya local government for incorrectly issueing the building permit, but if possible could only be to recover construction costs incurred by VT thus far. The onus is on VT to confirm what type of construction is allowed on land they purchase before they buy. If VT did pay 200 million baht and it's really only worth 40 million after the court decision that's a loss they will have to take. Maybe the VT chairman can build himself a beachfront house instead....but he might loose too much face living on the old VT7 site.

As for VT5, the residents who have been affected by this building must definitely seek redress from the courts. It should be torn down as an example to all developers. However compensating affected neighbours is a more practical and likely outcome.

Without a court injunction construction of Regatta will no doubt proceed but having issued an injunction for VT7 the court will inevitably issue one for Regatta if petitioned. For the developer it's their decision if they want to waste money by starting to build foundations for an 8 storey building when they'll only be allowed to build 4 storeys.

[ThaiBob]

To use the MSL line makes no sense at all.

Many places have a difference between low tide line and high tide line that is over 400m. That means that in these cases the mean sea level line would be 200m out at sea from the high tide mark and you would be allowed to build right on the beach.

Now, there is no law saying that laws must make sense so you never know

The difference between low tide line and high tide the MSL line is a about 20 meters!

VT7 building construction was set at 100 meters form the MSL line. That’s 100 (one hundred meters) short of the 200 meter measurement as required in Ministerial Regulation Issue 9!

...and what about other projects? I was at the Royal Garden Mall a few days back and listened to the Northpointe sales pitch. The sales staff proudly promotes they are only 100 meters from the water. Right or wrong, looks like Pattaya City has been consistent in applying their interpretation of the law.