Firstly we are in Thailand not the UK or any other country for that matter. Thailand is a proud nationalistic country that has never been colonised, unlike so many other countries around the world. Why do you think you or a group of farangs can tell them what to do and how to do their jobs, when you are just a visitor here. Thailand is Thailand that is why 95% of the farangs living here love it, the other 5% spend their lives complaining and wishing it was "like back home". We love living here because of the relaxed atmosphere and not always enforced laws, unfortunately you can please some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. The case was made against city hall for issuing what was claimed to be an illegal building permit, who are these people to make such a claim undermining city halls authority? Is their lawyer egging the JCC on with incorrect legal advise in order to get as much money as possible and sod the consequences to his clients? I refer to Jomtien Condotel because they are in a similar situation with another nearby condominium which I fear to mention by name. Who are you to say that the issue of losing face in Thai culture is a weakness and criticise their often bizarre way of life? It is one of the most polite and hospitable countries I have ever had the pleasure and privilage of living in. I am not praising the loosing face issue, simply pointing out that it has been going on in Thai culture since time began and you or anyone else is not going to change that. I would not like to be on the receiving end of the wrath a high ranking Thai may feel after a group of "tourists" have basically called him incompetent and corrupt, think about it.

I will, while you are thinking about this - your smug half-belligerent tone is not very nice, especially when you seem to be egging on and gloating about the authorities doing over farang. I fail to understand how any farang can think this is acceptable in this town, unless you yourself have a vested interest in this outcome.

As for your repeating the ill-informed beer bar myth that Thailand has never been colonized, apart from the Khmers and the Burmese, who I think regularly did it for periods in the distant past (allowing the creation of such a marvelous Thai mix today genetically speaking), what about the Japanese in World War 2 who invaded the country, took it by force, then used Thailand's wealth to fuel their war machine against the British, Aussies and others in all Asian theatres of war. They enslaved hundreds of thousands of Thais, killing (and murdering) many in the jungles of Kanchanaburi building railways, and they forced thousands of Thai women and girls into military brothels for systematic raping as prostitues. They then made Thailand fight for the Japanese against the Allies, and they used Thailand as an important staging post for war material and logistics, as well as a springboard for carrying out air, sea and land operations against the allies.

Maybe I shouldn't say that, in case it reminds Thais what they conveniently have forgotten in the rush to save face from their unfortunate wartime humiliation. But please don't go and grass me up to any of them. I know you want to.

Firstly we are in Thailand not the UK or any other country for that matter. Thailand is a proud nationalistic country that has never been colonised, unlike so many other countries around the world. Why do you think you or a group of farangs can tell them what to do and how to do their jobs, when you are just a visitor here. Thailand is Thailand that is why 95% of the farangs living here love it, the other 5% spend their lives complaining and wishing it was "like back home". We love living here because of the relaxed atmosphere and not always enforced laws, unfortunately you can please some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. The case was made against city hall for issuing what was claimed to be an illegal building permit, who are these people to make such a claim undermining city halls authority? Is their lawyer egging the JCC on with incorrect legal advise in order to get as much money as possible and sod the consequences to his clients? I refer to Jomtien Condotel because they are in a similar situation with another nearby condominium which I fear to mention by name. Who are you to say that the issue of losing face in Thai culture is a weakness and criticise their often bizarre way of life? It is one of the most polite and hospitable countries I have ever had the pleasure and privilage of living in. I am not praising the loosing face issue, simply pointing out that it has been going on in Thai culture since time began and you or anyone else is not going to change that. I would not like to be on the receiving end of the wrath a high ranking Thai may feel after a group of "tourists" have basically called him incompetent and corrupt, think about it.

I will, while you are thinking about this - your smug half-belligerent tone is not very nice, especially when you seem to be egging on and gloating about the authorities doing over farang. I fail to understand how any farang can think this is acceptable in this town, unless you yourself have a vested interest in this outcome.

As for your repeating the ill-informed beer bar myth that Thailand has never been colonized, apart from the Khmers and the Burmese, who I think regularly did it for periods in the distant past (allowing the creation of such a marvelous Thai mix today genetically speaking), what about the Japanese in World War 2 who invaded the country, took it by force, then used Thailand's wealth to fuel their war machine against the British, Aussies and others in all Asian theatres of war. They enslaved hundreds of thousands of Thais, killing (and murdering) many in the jungles of Kanchanaburi building railways, and they forced thousands of Thai women and girls into military brothels for systematic raping as prostitues. They then made Thailand fight for the Japanese against the Allies, and they used Thailand as an important staging post for war material and logistics, as well as a springboard for carrying out air, sea and land operations against the allies.

Maybe I shouldn't say that, in case it reminds Thais what they conveniently have forgotten in the rush to save face from their unfortunate wartime humiliation. But please don't go and grass me up to any of them. I know you want to.

I made my interest very clear in as much that I have bought several units in VT7 and have paid close attention to what is happening to my investment. As for the Japanese invading, I was going to mention that myself, however the Japanese didn't colonise Thailand they over powered the country with their sheer might but didn't stay long, more an invasion than colonisation in my book. I've been to Kanchananuri several times so do know full well what happened during WWII. It is not only the Thais that have "conveniently forgotten" what happened, ask a Jap and they too have "conveniently forgotten". It is not just Thais who do this in a rush to save face, it's common in Asia. I will be pleased if the authorities "do over farang", people like that shouldn't get involved and tell Thais how to run their local authority or indeed shouldn't criticise any government department, no matter how bizarre some may find their practices. We are just visitors here and should respect the Thais as their guests.

Can anyone tell me the current situation at VT7. I've heard from several people around the town that three measurements were taken by three seperate bodies from Bangkok, Pattaya City and the regional office at Chonburi and that they all agree to within an acceptable level that VT7 is in fact 100% legal, all those who attended the meeting including a bunch of 'reluctant' farangs had to sign off the measurements before they were then given to Rayong. The administartive court will soon be issuing it's findings in the form of a letter confirming this. If anyone out there was at this meeting I would like some clarification on the matter as an investor in VT7.

Well, let's hope this show will be over soon.

If, as long expected by me and many others, in 2010 there will be a 27 floor building in front of JCC, I feel sorry for the people of JCC.

They tried something with very little chance of succeeding and took a big risk doing so.

And, although stopvt7 wants people to believe he did it for many noble reasons, it was just an action of self interest because of the loss of his seaview (which is perfectly reasonable, but nothing more than that).

It's like poker, if you want to beat Aces with a pair of Kings, you need a lot of luck...... you'll lose over 80% of the times.

Ok, now the Japanese invaders have been dealt with and the gunsmoke has cleared, can we go back to the interesting issue of VT7.

JDF, you seem to know a lot about this. You mentioned a meeting with all parties and the surveyors and (presumably Jomtien Complex) foreigners to agree measurements, and that these measurements will go/have gone off to Rayong court, but from what you understand they appear to indicate that VT7 is 100% legal.

Nobody has even slightly contradicted you on that point, days later. Is there anyone who can, or is JDF correct.

Is this now just a matter of waiting for the formal court confirmation of these agreed measurements which appear to show VT7 is legal? Any JC input would be aprreciated.

Many thanks,

Sharecropper

Ok, now the Japanese invaders have been dealt with and the gunsmoke has cleared, can we go back to the interesting issue of VT7.

JDF, you seem to know a lot about this. You mentioned a meeting with all parties and the surveyors and (presumably Jomtien Complex) foreigners to agree measurements, and that these measurements will go/have gone off to Rayong court, but from what you understand they appear to indicate that VT7 is 100% legal.

Nobody has even slightly contradicted you on that point, days later. Is there anyone who can, or is JDF correct.

Is this now just a matter of waiting for the formal court confirmation of these agreed measurements which appear to show VT7 is legal? Any JC input would be aprreciated.

Many thanks,

Sharecropper

My information which was not obtained from "someone down the pub" is that whatever way you look at it, whatever measurement you want to take - VT7 is positioned illegally.

The court will give their ruling - sometime in the New Year - and then will come the months/years of appeals.

Ok, now the Japanese invaders have been dealt with and the gunsmoke has cleared, can we go back to the interesting issue of VT7.

JDF, you seem to know a lot about this. You mentioned a meeting with all parties and the surveyors and (presumably Jomtien Complex) foreigners to agree measurements, and that these measurements will go/have gone off to Rayong court, but from what you understand they appear to indicate that VT7 is 100% legal.

Nobody has even slightly contradicted you on that point, days later. Is there anyone who can, or is JDF correct.

Is this now just a matter of waiting for the formal court confirmation of these agreed measurements which appear to show VT7 is legal? Any JC input would be aprreciated.

Many thanks,

Sharecropper

My information which was not obtained from "someone down the pub" is that whatever way you look at it, whatever measurement you want to take - VT7 is positioned illegally.

The court will give their ruling - sometime in the New Year - and then will come the months/years of appeals.

I too would like to know what "inside" information JDF might have or is it just wishful thinking on his part or spreading rumors. Whatever the Court decision might be, any appeals by either side (if any) must be based on a legal point of law or the appeal may not even be heard. The higher Court will not simply re-try the case. I do agree with JDF that the JCC complaintants will probably face consequences for their actions.

JDF has NO inside information. He is an investor in this project with a lot to lose potentially.

Any court decision in the new year is bound to result in appeal by either side.

I am willing to bet if the investors could offload their commitments to VT7 now and get their money back then they would do that in the blink of an eye.

VT7 completed by 2010? Wishful thinking.

JDF has NO inside information. He is an investor in this project with a lot to lose potentially.

Any court decision in the new year is bound to result in appeal by either side.

I am willing to bet if the investors could offload their commitments to VT7 now and get their money back then they would do that in the blink of an eye.

VT7 completed by 2010? Wishful thinking.

I didn't think JDF had the "insider scoop" either.

Their has to be a legal basis for an appeal. Just can't say "we didn't like the Rayong's court decision".

"I am willing to bet if the investors could offload their commitments to VT7 now and get their money back then they would do that in the blink of an eye.".....Of course, 20-20 hindsight or Monday morning quarterbacking. I bet the stopVT7 crowd wish they could retract all the litigious comments they've made too. Will they be sued for damages or libel? Will they be denied retirement visas (they can use a tourist visa!)? Have they formed one of those illegal Thai companies and/or have they paid their taxes? Do they own more than one unit condo? All of the above probably being investigated and could happen, after all Thailand is a country of laws.

I think this is one of the strangest disputes Pattaya has ever had. People who I highly respect in the industry are equally divided on the outcome, but this weekend, I heard from someone whose opinion I greatly respect, and who is very clued in, that VT7 have won the case.

He wouldn't tell me where this information came from, but he was adamant. And given his contacts I have to treat that seriously, but I have no idea if it is correct. How could it be, you may ask - or the 50% who think it could never be correct. But we do live in Thailand remember. Everything is possible.

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.

Edited December 29, 200718 yr by ThaiBob

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.

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 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.

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?

Personaly I like Japanese green tea - I usualy pay 59 Baht a bag from Lotus in Bangkok

Any idea how much tea is in Pattaya City Hall nowadays?

Any idea how much tea is in Pattaya City Hall nowadays?

Don't know for sure but I'll bet a pound to a penny that whatever it cost has been spent and VT7 will not get it back and they'll press on trying to make sure that now they've bought their tea they dam_n well get to drink it !

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?

It was my understanding that only the 2 MSL measurements were being addressed. A 200 meter measurement was never taken, only 100 meters. Couldn't the Court rule on the 100 meter Vs 200 meter debate at some future date? Are you implying the Court will not tackle the 200 meter issue?

Edited January 1, 200818 yr by ThaiBob

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?

It was my understanding that only the 2 MSL measurements were being addressed. A 200 meter measurement was never taken, only 100 meters. Couldn't the Court rule on the 100 meter Vs 200 meter debate at some future date? Are you implying the Court will not tackle the 200 meter issue?

As I stated before there were three seperate measurments taken, not two. There is no law about 200 metres, only 100 metres from the MSL. If you are not convinced that I have inside knowledge, believe what you want and watch this space!

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.

"Is the judge setting a trap for Bangkok surveyor and city hall"?

Don't be so bl**dy stupid and grow up!

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

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

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".

<br />

Maybe - Just Maybe View Talay know the result of the court hearing to take place on the 15th of January.<br /><br />Today - Sunday they are removing one of the cranes

<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />The crane may be down for maintenance or repair. Or maybe they are adding sections to it to make it bigger.<br /><br />To me nothing about the state of that site says "we lost". It says "we won".<br /><br />

<br /><br /><br />

I have to agree, as I've been saying for some time now.

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?

I’m Richard Haines who organized the co-owners at Jomthien Complex Condotel to take legal action against VT7 to stop construction.

The 200 meters from high tide law is that you can not build over 14 meters high. For more info of this group of 10 go to http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

This regulation was issued for city planning to follow. No one ever tried to enforce this law in Thailand . Administrative Court is a new court formed in 1999 to fight corruption in government. See below and got to http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/ and read the case which was filed. They have a good legal team to represent them. See the Ministerial Regulation below.

Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521)

Issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479

By the virtue of the Section 15 of the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479, te Ministry of Interior issued the following Ministerial Regulations:

1. No. 1 of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 to be amended by the followings statement:

“No. 1. This Ministerial Regulation applies within the boundary line of the map annexed 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. 2520”

2. No. 3 of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 to be amended by the following statement:

“No 3. Setting of 200 meters measured from the map annexed 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 seaside in which the following constructions shall not be built:

Building of 14 meters higher than road level.

The Ministerial Regulation is hereby given on the date of twenty-third of November B.E. 2521 (1978).

General Lek Naewmalee

Minister of Interior

(Mr. Somchai Leelaprapaporn)

Civil Engineer Grade 7

Note: 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.

Copy taken from the Government Gazette No. 95 Section 157 dated 31 December 2521 (1978)

Let's go back to the beginning. Has anybody seen the map mentiomed in Item # 3?

BTW, I have heard that pile driving has commenced at Regatta.

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”

Issue 9 has a reason attached:

“Note: 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.

Copy taken from the Government Gazette No. 95 Section 157 dated 31 December 2521 (1978)”

A better close-up map showing MSL and the construction control line!

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 ?

I'm not sure where the MSL comes in to all this.

The normal legal definition of seashore is "Ground lying between high-water and low-water marks"

This is not a line but an area that is either wet or dry depending on tide.

In all other countries measurements taken inland from the seashore to define restricted areas is taken from the HIGH tide mark. The MSL is NEVER used for this purpose in any other countries and I would be very surprised if this is the case in Thailand.

If MSL is used in an area with a very gentle sloop of the beach, like some beaches in Koh Chang, 200m inland from the MSL would be right at the sea level at high tide leaving NO clear area at all between the sea and the construction!! This would make the restriction completely useless and defeat the purpose and intention of the law.

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?

I'm not sure where the MSL comes in to all this.

The normal legal definition of seashore is "Ground lying between high-water and low-water marks"

This is not a line but an area that is either wet or dry depending on tide.

In all other countries measurements taken inland from the seashore to define restricted areas is taken from the HIGH tide mark. The MSL is NEVER used for this purpose in any other countries and I would be very surprised if this is the case in Thailand.

If MSL is used in an area with a very gentle sloop of the beach, like some beaches in Koh Chang, 200m inland from the MSL would be right at the sea level at high tide leaving NO clear area at all between the sea and the construction!! This would make the restriction completely useless and defeat the purpose and intention of the law.

MSL is shown on Issue 9 map to be located at the sea shore.

Our understanding "sea shore" means "high tide as nornal in fromed by nature" not hih tide in a strom.