stopvt7 Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Somebody wrote earlier on this topic that a case has been filed to have VT5 removed. Can this be verified? NO case has been filed for any reason against VT5 condo in Administrative Court in Rayong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookat Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Anyone who had a drafting class high school knows arrows pointing at each only to covey info between the arrows. Why is city hall and vt7 so stupid? The map means is 100 meters form MSL is the borderline of the construction restricted area. That all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tropiccapricorn Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Anyone who had a drafting class high school knows arrows pointing at each only to covey info between the arrows. Why is city hall and vt7 so stupid? Because it seems VT got away with it when building VT3 and VT5 and of course it is anybody's guess how much money there was involved. Now VT7 just in front of JCC is a extrem thing and now all the people adversly affected hope for a court ruling in favour of the existing law. The talk where MSL is supposed to be is stupid because unless the distance is measured vertivally nobody will get the missing 100 meters. They are still pouring concrete like mad and the iron is pointing to heaven. 14 meters +? I do hope they have to stop now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookat Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 The court said vt7 could build to 14 meters. That 4 story at less but I don’t think they get 5 stories? The court will stop vt7 if they go over 14 meters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaiBob Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 A great new posting on http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/ . Which gives good information for understanding concerning the measuring 200 meters from MSL? After reading the posting I would not want to be a purchaser of a condo at vt7. Also a new blog in Thai at http://stopvt7thai.blogspot.com/ . I can't read Thai but the pictures are different. I understand why you used the question mark. This court filing is much more that the titled "Explanations". The key is the underlined in the last paragraph. It is implied that the Court has already issued an order that the measurement be made 100 meter from MSL. This filing was 3 weeks ago (August 31st). Has the court modified the order to 200 meters? Has the "to be named expert witness" performed the survey? The only definable point on the map is Mean Sea Level or MSL. Issue 9 states to measure 200 meter before you can build over 14 meters from road level. So the stopvt7 group claims you measure from the only definable point on the map MSL 200 meters onto the land then VT7 could build over 14 meters from the road height. But city hall claims and VT7 claims the one arrow which notes “100 meter” mean you must measure 100 meter into the sea, before measure onto the land 200 meters or measure 300 meters. The “100 meter” only define where the “Borderline of the construction restricted area” can be found from the only definable point MSL. Two arrow pointing at each other with a dimension on one arrow means only the distance between the arrow points. It doesn’t mean measure into the sea! Yes, I completely understand your position on the application of the 200 meters but I also understand the City's argument of creating a 200 meter zone (100 meters on both sides of the MSL). The real question is what does Court think? If in fact the Court has ordered the 100 meter measurement and does not act on your request for a 200 meter measurement then I think we might have a clue as to the Court's thinking and the possible outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stopvt7 Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Read the reason for issuing the regulations to better understanding. Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) “The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation due to the updating of the construction control areas in Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue, by extending the construction restriction areas as appeared in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 controlling over the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521. It is, therefore, appropriate to amend the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 governing restriction of the construction of some kinds of building within the controlling areas under the aforesaid Royal Decree. “ Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) “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, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2499, 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. “ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaiBob Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Read the reason for issuing the regulations to better understanding.Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) “The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation due to the updating of the construction control areas in Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue, by extending the construction restriction areas as appeared in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 controlling over the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521. It is, therefore, appropriate to amend the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 governing restriction of the construction of some kinds of building within the controlling areas under the aforesaid Royal Decree. “ Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) “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, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2499, 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. “ Understood. When do you expect the Court to rule on your 200 meter measurement request? I think both 100 meter and 200 measurements should be made so that is does not appear the Court has already made up it's mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stopvt7 Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 As of now we have not received info concerning any measure or a date. It seams the filing of our explanation has change the court view? We are asking for a new hearing to discuss are filing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ground Engineer Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 As of now we have not received info concerning any measure or a date. It seams the filing of our explanation has change the court view? We are asking for a new hearing to discuss are filing. How can your interpretation of the building regulations change the view of the court. The regulations should be specific. The fact that they are not means they were badly written / drawn up. Not surprisingly no one now knows what the original intent was. Both arguements put forward to the court have credibility and thererfore any decision made by the court can only be valid for future planning applications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stopvt7 Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 As of now we have not received info concerning any measure or a date. It seams the filing of our explanation has change the court view? We are asking for a new hearing to discuss are filing. How can your interpretation of the building regulations change the view of the court. The regulations should be specific. The fact that they are not means they were badly written / drawn up. Not surprisingly no one now knows what the original intent was. Both arguements put forward to the court have credibility and thererfore any decision made by the court can only be valid for future planning applications. "therefore any decision made by the court can only be valid for future planning applications." OH? Really! Hopefully you bought on the 4th floor that would be 14 meters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubes2 Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Its still going up past 14m you watch. Go take a good look out your window as the view will change soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneMikeInBangkok Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 As of now we have not received info concerning any measure or a date. It seams the filing of our explanation has change the court view? We are asking for a new hearing to discuss are filing. How can your interpretation of the building regulations change the view of the court. The regulations should be specific. The fact that they are not means they were badly written / drawn up. Not surprisingly no one now knows what the original intent was. Both arguements put forward to the court have credibility and thererfore any decision made by the court can only be valid for future planning applications. "therefore any decision made by the court can only be valid for future planning applications." OH? Really! Hopefully you bought on the 4th floor that would be 14 meters. Can you please clarify - would that be 4th floor (American) or 4th floor (British) This doesn't really matter if someone bought on the sixth floor - but could give a glimmer of hope for someone buying on the 5th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stopvt7 Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 As of now we have not received info concerning any measure or a date. It seams the filing of our explanation has change the court view? We are asking for a new hearing to discuss are filing. How can your interpretation of the building regulations change the view of the court. The regulations should be specific. The fact that they are not means they were badly written / drawn up. Not surprisingly no one now knows what the original intent was. Both arguements put forward to the court have credibility and thererfore any decision made by the court can only be valid for future planning applications. "therefore any decision made by the court can only be valid for future planning applications." OH? Really! Hopefully you bought on the 4th floor that would be 14 meters. Can you please clarify - would that be 4th floor (American) or 4th floor (British) This doesn't really matter if someone bought on the sixth floor - but could give a glimmer of hope for someone buying on the 5th 1234 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookat Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 As of now we have not received info concerning any measure or a date. It seams the filing of our explanation has change the court view? We are asking for a new hearing to discuss are filing. How can your interpretation of the building regulations change the view of the court. The regulations should be specific. The fact that they are not means they were badly written / drawn up. Not surprisingly no one now knows what the original intent was. Both arguements put forward to the court have credibility and thererfore any decision made by the court can only be valid for future planning applications. "therefore any decision made by the court can only be valid for future planning applications." OH? Really! Hopefully you bought on the 4th floor that would be 14 meters. Can you please clarify - would that be 4th floor (American) or 4th floor (British) This doesn't really matter if someone bought on the sixth floor - but could give a glimmer of hope for someone buying on the 5th You or they need to go back the vt7 sales office. See if you can swap for the 4th floor. It will be the penthouse level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneMikeInBangkok Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 As of now we have not received info concerning any measure or a date. It seams the filing of our explanation has change the court view? We are asking for a new hearing to discuss are filing. How can your interpretation of the building regulations change the view of the court. The regulations should be specific. The fact that they are not means they were badly written / drawn up. Not surprisingly no one now knows what the original intent was. Both arguements put forward to the court have credibility and thererfore any decision made by the court can only be valid for future planning applications. "therefore any decision made by the court can only be valid for future planning applications." OH? Really! Hopefully you bought on the 4th floor that would be 14 meters. Can you please clarify - would that be 4th floor (American) or 4th floor (British) This doesn't really matter if someone bought on the sixth floor - but could give a glimmer of hope for someone buying on the 5th You or they need to go back the vt7 sales office. See if you can swap for the 4th floor. It will be the penthouse level. What a wonderful idea!! View Talay can cut some of it's losses The top floors fetch a premium price So re-number the floors first floor - 24th floor - 25th floor - 26th floor - 27th penthouse floor Also to save costs - scrap all the elevators - keep the owners fit only max 5 flights of stairs So all you guys who bought on the 24, 25, 26 and 27th floors - don't worry you can still pay your premium prices and all the plebs in the lower floors can go buy in VT8. Now bear in mind VT8 is pretty close o the beach so there is always VT9 which will probably go up between VT7 & VT5 Now VT9 is the place to be - then you can upset the owners in VT7 & VT5 by blocking their views Then there's VT10, 11 ,12 13 - no idea where they will be built but we all know what they will look like don't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaiBob Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 As of now we have not received info concerning any measure or a date. It seams the filing of our explanation has change the court view? We are asking for a new hearing to discuss are filing. Thanks for your reply. I for one appreciate your updates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubes2 Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 (edited) As of now we have not received info concerning any measure or a date. It seams the filing of our explanation has change the court view? We are asking for a new hearing to discuss are filing. Thanks for your reply. I for one appreciate your updates. This thread has been very informative if only to highlight the pitfalls Of property ownership in Thailand. well done for that StopVT7, Hats off to you lot. I think many potential buyers have been scared off investing in Thailand due to this legal wrangle, and rightly so. Buyers beware of Thailand’s very dodgy system. I think you all will be running in and out of court for years. and one day you will notice it's already built. This is Thailand. To much money is at stake. Thailand 1 Falang 0 game over. it's only a question of time. Have a nice day. Edited September 24, 2007 by cubes2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stopvt7 Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 As of now we have not received info concerning any measure or a date. It seams the filing of our explanation has change the court view? We are asking for a new hearing to discuss are filing. Thanks for your reply. I for one appreciate your updates. This thread has been very informative if only to highlight the pitfalls Of property ownership in Thailand. well done for that StopVT7, Hats off to you lot. I think many potential buyers have been scared off investing in Thailand due to this legal wrangle, and rightly so. Buyers beware of Thailand's very dodgy system. I think you all will be running in and out of court for years. and one day you will notice it's already built. This is Thailand. To much money is at stake. Thailand 1 Falang 0 game over. it's only a question of time. Have a nice day. So what are you saying? That VT7 has more money then the former prim minister Thaksin of Thailand. Because The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that VT7 can only build to 14 meters is the court that outlawed Thaksin political party in Thailand. Quotation from court ruling” 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 Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klue and Tambol Nhong Prue of Ampur Bang Lamung 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 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.” Thailand is a country of laws! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookat Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Stopvt7, well said to cubes2! If your group wins this will bring more investors to Thailand. But you don’t have to wave the flag. HaHa! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stopvt7 Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 Anyone notice today VT7 worker was cutting the steel re-rod in half to make the four floors columns for the building. VT7 don’t want to upset the court by violating the order. It seems they understand the Supreme Administrative Court of Bangkok statement. “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.” They are agreeing to build a four story condo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stopvt7 Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 Ho I forgot! HaHa!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary A Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 A four story high condo complex REALLY appeals to me. I hate high rise buildings. I would guess that the units will be VERY expensive. If the foundation was designed for a high rise, I'd guess at four stories it will be very substantial. No cracks in these units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaniel Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Ho I forgot! HaHa!!!! At one time I was cheering for stopvt7 but after this post I've changed my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ungabunga Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 (edited) I agree.... I'm suprised no one to date has suggested that you shove your flag up your a**e. Edited September 27, 2007 by Ungabunga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaiDeeFarang Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 I agree.... I'm suprised no one to date has suggested that you shove your flag up your a**e. Hahaha, very good! Bout time someone told him to shut up again. Thailand is a country of laws, is it illegal to shove a flag up his a**e? Certainly hope not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brooklynbridge Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 I agree.... I'm suprised no one to date has suggested that you shove your flag up your a**e. Hahaha, very good! Bout time someone told him to shut up again. Thailand is a country of laws, is it illegal to shove a flag up his a**e? Certainly hope not! Only if the pole is not over 14 meters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaiDeeFarang Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 I agree.... I'm suprised no one to date has suggested that you shove your flag up your a**e. Hahaha, very good! Bout time someone told him to shut up again. Thailand is a country of laws, is it illegal to shove a flag up his a**e? Certainly hope not! Only if the pole is not over 14 meters. Better make it 13.9 then, just to be safe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneMikeInBangkok Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 I agree.... I'm suprised no one to date has suggested that you shove your flag up your a**e. Hahaha, very good! Bout time someone told him to shut up again. Thailand is a country of laws, is it illegal to shove a flag up his a**e? Certainly hope not! Only if the pole is not over 14 meters. Better make it 13.9 then, just to be safe You just gotta be careful when the pole is removed - cause that is when the sh** hits the fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaiDeeFarang Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 I agree.... I'm suprised no one to date has suggested that you shove your flag up your a**e. Hahaha, very good! Bout time someone told him to shut up again. Thailand is a country of laws, is it illegal to shove a flag up his a**e? Certainly hope not! Only if the pole is not over 14 meters. Better make it 13.9 then, just to be safe Who said anything about removing it? You just gotta be careful when the pole is removed - cause that is when the sh** hits the fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stopvt7 Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Thanks for the funnies! I laugh my a** off! I like this little guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts