Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[marekm1]

Hi Surfer,

It is not point to show up in a new name and still crushed up my friends, who invested in VT7.

As VT7 is a done deal you would be you recommended to take your grudge around Thailand and see the new developments are not done. Just forget VT7 because is nothing to do with you. You can take StopVt7 with you. And don't post it here any more.

...............................................

Hi Markem,

New user of this forum but geez ive been in Thailand on and off for over 15 years and spent a few of those years working in Sri Racha.

I was born and raised by the sea and travelled the globe hugging coastlines surfing, swimming and enjoying what the coast had to offer.

I have an opinion on matters too so I may just be posting here again....

cheers

Meet me than

Sorry Surfer, I didn’t mean what it might look like. It just the global meltdown in financial markets effect me more than purchase of the unit in VT7 and sometimes I get upset.

Of course everyone is entailed to their opinion and that include you and stopVT7. And as I wish stopVT7 would disappear I still have respect for him to take his fight through the legal channels.

You might have an opinion about interpretation of Thai law, but it has nothing to do with VT7 buyers. I don’t know about Phuket but around Jomtien and Pattaya there are a lot of buildings close to the beach. And if you so concern about the beaches and the environment you should join with stopVT7 and extend your fight to all around Thailand and take it up with the proper authorities and not the buyers, as we are the final products of Thai law.

[surfer]

Sorry Surfer, I didn't mean what it might look like. It just the global meltdown in financial markets effect me more than purchase of the unit in VT7 and sometimes I get upset.

Of course everyone is entailed to their opinion and that include you and stopVT7. And as I wish stopVT7 would disappear I still have respect for him to take his fight through the legal channels.

You might have an opinion about interpretation of Thai law, but it has nothing to do with VT7 buyers. I don't know about Phuket but around Jomtien and Pattaya there are a lot of buildings close to the beach. And if you so concern about the beaches and the environment you should join with stopVT7 and extend your fight to all around Thailand and take it up with the proper authorities and not the buyers, as we are the final products of Thai law.

..........................................................

That's Ok, I understand where you are coming from.

Nothing including the fight for or against building developments will be won on this thread on this forum. It is probably just more just a place to participate in public debate and or let off steam.

good luck and have a good day.

[prospero]

I hear the Governor of Chonburi is looking into irregularities in the building permit practices of Pattaya City Hall. Anybody know if this is true?

[Pattayaseven]

We have already concluded with the fact that a 5-storey building and a 27-storey building, will block off just as much area on the beach. Then the StopVT7 group claims that the building will affect the infrastructure, well that is just the way economic development.

The only loser in this case, it is not the Thai public, but it will be JCC. Since this will only affect their seaview, no one else.

The expert witness has already given the court the technical explanation, and they decided that the building permit was issued legally.

Then the StopVT group thinks that their interpretation of Thai law is better than a Thai court. I doubt it.

I think the appeal will be dismissed, since it is no new evidence.

[surfer]

We have already concluded with the fact that a 5-storey building and a 27-storey building, will block off just as much area on the beach. Then the StopVT7 group claims that the building will affect the infrastructure, well that is just the way economic development.

The only loser in this case, it is not the Thai public, but it will be JCC. Since this will only affect their seaview, no one else.

The expert witness has already given the court the technical explanation, and they decided that the building permit was issued legally.

Then the StopVT group thinks that their interpretation of Thai law is better than a Thai court. I doubt it.

I think the appeal will be dismissed, since it is no new evidence.

................................

do the current large scale coastal building projects in Jomtien use septic tanks with overflows into the "public system" (which is basically stormwater drainage, out to sea eventually)? or do they use a public sewerage line to a large scale treatment plant?

If it is septic and overflow then Xm2 x 27 is a lot more crap and effluent to handle then Xm2 x 5. A lot of these developers skimp on the correct sizing for sceptic tanks and it is BS that a bio septic can deal with all of the waste water. Then there is the grey watee from things like showers, washing machines etc...

On top of that there are cars,,,, again times 27 floors of owners. Washing the car and the oil on the drive all goes into the public drains and finds it's way out to sea….

Back to the septic I remember it being big news for a few years in the 90's just how many big hotels and condos (in Pattaya and elsewhere) wastewater was saturating the ground so much that it was flowing out of the sand on the beach right next to the tourist beach chairs and umbrellas giving a lovely colour to the sand and a nice odour to eat by....

In forward thinking places they have natural green buffers between the ocean and the first line of buildings to help absorb all this crap seeping to the sea ....

at the end of the day there is a huge difference to the impact on an environment, shading, drain on water resources etc from 5 floors (say 15-20M, less then a big tree) to 27 floors (81-108M a small mountain!?).

Anyway I still think the out to sea and back again argument is a pathetic joke. In the south of Thailand if you want to build anything in the water line (like a floating jetty) I am pretty sure you apply to the marine department for a permit and not the Orbitor. The waterline is the mark there

[marekm1]

It just stroke me. I should be in Thailand next week. Still pending my exposure to the market. But why not throw the party let’s say in the Irish Pub next to JCC. I know some people will be in Thailand at that time. I would love to meet OhdLover and JayDeeFarang from my side and meet Mike or Surfer and StopVT7 and even Lookout in this Pub. I know we are sitting on different side of fence but it would be a good idea to exchange our opinion. To warm up the party I am willing to pay for the first 30 drinks.

I am waiting for the response from the people who have been involved in the fight of VT7 and who would like to have a meeting around Wednesday 26^th March.

[Daisy75]

Do the people honestly believe VT7 will be torn down?

[marekm1]

Do the people honestly believe VT7 will be torn down?

Probably not, but if you have that smiling guy pinned in you can get a free drink on me.

[Tammi]

Do the people honestly believe VT7 will be torn down?

Yes, if VT builds over 14 meters in height. Then VT5 will come down as well.

[Pattaya46]

Do the people honestly believe VT7 will be torn down?

Yes, if VT builds over 14 meters in height.

I walked yesterday in Jomtien near VT7.

From what I saw, there are at least 3 more floors build since the work restarted.

VT7 is now more than 20 meters height... far more than 14.

[Guderian]

Do the people honestly believe VT7 will be torn down?

Yes, if VT builds over 14 meters in height.

I walked yesterday in Jomtien near VT7.

From what I saw, there are at least 3 more floors build since the work restarted.

VT7 is now more than 20 meters height... far more than 14.

Now that they are in the swing of things, they are putting up 2 or 3 floors a month. I should guess that they will be topping it out before the end of the year.

So when is the result of the appeal expected? Leave it too much longer and people will be living in VT7!

[JaiDeeFarang]

It just stroke me. I should be in Thailand next week. Still pending my exposure to the market. But why not throw the party let's say in the Irish Pub next to JCC. I know some people will be in Thailand at that time. I would love to meet OhdLover and JayDeeFarang from my side and meet Mike or Surfer and StopVT7 and even Lookout in this Pub. I know we are sitting on different side of fence but it would be a good idea to exchange our opinion. To warm up the party I am willing to pay for the first 30 drinks.

I am waiting for the response from the people who have been involved in the fight of VT7 and who would like to have a meeting around Wednesday 26^th March.

Sorry Marek but I don't want anything to do with these 'people' unless you want a brawl on your hands. Mike has made some ridiculous comments in the past and no doubt is likely to continue to do so. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. I'll join you for a beer though, just PM.

[ThaiBob]

Do the people honestly believe VT7 will be torn down?

Yes, if VT builds over 14 meters in height. Then VT5 will come down as well.

Don't forget VT3, Northpoint and others. If your dream comes true the City of Pattaya would have to compensate everyone since they issued the illegal (according to you) building permits. Do you really think that will happen?....But dreams can come true....many along Dong Taan beach believe it is the Land of Oz.

[tropiccapricorn]

The law concerning buildings higher than 14 m within 200 m of MSL has been in place for a long time.

And the violations of it accordingly date very far back.

Of course the building permits were always issued with the blessing of city hall which of course must always have been aware of the situation.

But it seems there has been until VT7 never a real challenge to those permits issued and therefore

peace and quietness.

For the first time now, the permit has been challenged by lawyers and courts.

The result can be seen on site. Of course, remunerations in many directions notwithstanding,

the people putting in place this law must have been completely ignorant of the avalanches of money pressure arising as a conflict of interest which is a good example having a law and having the ability

to enforce it. Two different worlds. To clarify the situation? Give VT7 as a reference.

Of course, if any future happenings would prove different, ah well, we are no prophets just guessing.

[ThaiBob]

The law concerning buildings higher than 14 m within 200 m of MSL has been in place for a long time.

And the violations of it accordingly date very far back.

Of course the building permits were always issued with the blessing of city hall which of course must always have been aware of the situation.

But it seems there has been until VT7 never a real challenge to those permits issued and therefore

peace and quietness.

For the first time now, the permit has been challenged by lawyers and courts.

The result can be seen on site. Of course, remunerations in many directions notwithstanding,

the people putting in place this law must have been completely ignorant of the avalanches of money pressure arising as a conflict of interest which is a good example having a law and having the ability

to enforce it. Two different worlds. To clarify the situation? Give VT7 as a reference.

Of course, if any future happenings would prove different, ah well, we are no prophets just guessing.

Please do not repeat repeat erroneous information because some folks unknowingly assume they are facts. The law (Issue 9) has never restricted buildings greater than 14 m within 200 m of the MSL. The law restricts buildings greater than 14 m within 200 m of the construction control line (not MSL). Issue 9 creates a 200 m wide construction restricted zone. The expert court witness clarified this for everyone and his testimony is supported by the often referred to "annexed map". VT3, VT5, JomTien Plaza and VT7 are all outside the construction restricted zone.

[surfer]

The law concerning buildings higher than 14 m within 200 m of MSL has been in place for a long time.

And the violations of it accordingly date very far back.

Of course the building permits were always issued with the blessing of city hall which of course must always have been aware of the situation.

But it seems there has been until VT7 never a real challenge to those permits issued and therefore

peace and quietness.

For the first time now, the permit has been challenged by lawyers and courts.

The result can be seen on site. Of course, remunerations in many directions notwithstanding,

the people putting in place this law must have been completely ignorant of the avalanches of money pressure arising as a conflict of interest which is a good example having a law and having the ability

to enforce it. Two different worlds. To clarify the situation? Give VT7 as a reference.

Of course, if any future happenings would prove different, ah well, we are no prophets just guessing.

Please do not repeat repeat erroneous information because some folks unknowingly assume they are facts. The law (Issue 9) has never restricted buildings greater than 14 m within 200 m of the MSL. The law restricts buildings greater than 14 m within 200 m of the construction control line (not MSL). Issue 9 creates a 200 m wide construction restricted zone. The expert court witness clarified this for everyone and his testimony is supported by the often referred to "annexed map". VT3, VT5, JomTien Plaza and VT7 are all outside the construction restricted zone.

The "expert witness" was merely stating his/ her own version of the 200m ruling and to many the expert witness is a joke (maybe with some mates in the pool of vt7 or city hall etc). The setback law is common in thailand even if it is stated as 20m, 100m, 200m or other I have never heard of a setback rule going out to sea and back. Once agian in the south, if you want to build out to sea from the "set back" line you talk with the marine department.

[tropiccapricorn]

Construction control line. Wow I am shattered.

Of course I am sure this term is included in the wording of the original law as well

as the follow up procedures to get to the desired results that all those VTs are out of

the ‘danger’ zone. So 49 pages and several court proceedings wasted and one

can only state as already inspector clouseau remembered to say ‘Case closed’.

[Tammi]

The law concerning buildings higher than 14 m within 200 m of MSL has been in place for a long time.

And the violations of it accordingly date very far back.

Of course the building permits were always issued with the blessing of city hall which of course must always have been aware of the situation.

But it seems there has been until VT7 never a real challenge to those permits issued and therefore

peace and quietness.

For the first time now, the permit has been challenged by lawyers and courts.

The result can be seen on site. Of course, remunerations in many directions notwithstanding,

the people putting in place this law must have been completely ignorant of the avalanches of money pressure arising as a conflict of interest which is a good example having a law and having the ability

to enforce it. Two different worlds. To clarify the situation? Give VT7 as a reference.

Of course, if any future happenings would prove different, ah well, we are no prophets just guessing.

Please do not repeat repeat erroneous information because some folks unknowingly assume they are facts. The law (Issue 9) has never restricted buildings greater than 14 m within 200 m of the MSL. The law restricts buildings greater than 14 m within 200 m of the construction control line (not MSL). Issue 9 creates a 200 m wide construction restricted zone. The expert court witness clarified this for everyone and his testimony is supported by the often referred to "annexed map". VT3, VT5, JomTien Plaza and VT7 are all outside the construction restricted zone.

Iam not understanding where this construction control line is. Is it in the sea?

[ThaiBob]

The law concerning buildings higher than 14 m within 200 m of MSL has been in place for a long time.

And the violations of it accordingly date very far back.

Of course the building permits were always issued with the blessing of city hall which of course must always have been aware of the situation.

But it seems there has been until VT7 never a real challenge to those permits issued and therefore

peace and quietness.

For the first time now, the permit has been challenged by lawyers and courts.

The result can be seen on site. Of course, remunerations in many directions notwithstanding,

the people putting in place this law must have been completely ignorant of the avalanches of money pressure arising as a conflict of interest which is a good example having a law and having the ability

to enforce it. Two different worlds. To clarify the situation? Give VT7 as a reference.

Of course, if any future happenings would prove different, ah well, we are no prophets just guessing.

Please do not repeat repeat erroneous information because some folks unknowingly assume they are facts. The law (Issue 9) has never restricted buildings greater than 14 m within 200 m of the MSL. The law restricts buildings greater than 14 m within 200 m of the construction control line (not MSL). Issue 9 creates a 200 m wide construction restricted zone. The expert court witness clarified this for everyone and his testimony is supported by the often referred to "annexed map". VT3, VT5, JomTien Plaza and VT7 are all outside the construction restricted zone.

Iam not understanding where this construction control line is. Is it in the sea?

I believe this has been discussed before but the 200 meter construction restricted zone has two borders, one 100 meters seaward from the MSL and the other 100 meters landward from the MSL. This is equivalent to measuring 200 meters from the construction line border to land. For a better understanding see the blow-up of the annexed map at http://bp0.blogger.com/_1x8bR0BbXM4/Rv2uMz...200+meter+Q.jpg

Issue 9 does not say to measure 200 meters from the MSL.

[JaiDeeFarang]

All quiet here, anything happening lately? I went past the site today and VT7 seems to be coming along well. I think I saw OMIB on his balcony (with a FOR SALE sign) waving a white flag

[Tammi]

The law concerning buildings higher than 14 m within 200 m of MSL has been in place for a long time.

And the violations of it accordingly date very far back.

Of course the building permits were always issued with the blessing of city hall which of course must always have been aware of the situation.

But it seems there has been until VT7 never a real challenge to those permits issued and therefore

peace and quietness.

For the first time now, the permit has been challenged by lawyers and courts.

The result can be seen on site. Of course, remunerations in many directions notwithstanding,

the people putting in place this law must have been completely ignorant of the avalanches of money pressure arising as a conflict of interest which is a good example having a law and having the ability

to enforce it. Two different worlds. To clarify the situation? Give VT7 as a reference.

Of course, if any future happenings would prove different, ah well, we are no prophets just guessing.

Please do not repeat repeat erroneous information because some folks unknowingly assume they are facts. The law (Issue 9) has never restricted buildings greater than 14 m within 200 m of the MSL. The law restricts buildings greater than 14 m within 200 m of the construction control line (not MSL). Issue 9 creates a 200 m wide construction restricted zone. The expert court witness clarified this for everyone and his testimony is supported by the often referred to "annexed map". VT3, VT5, JomTien Plaza and VT7 are all outside the construction restricted zone.

Iam not understanding where this construction control line is. Is it in the sea?

I believe this has been discussed before but the 200 meter construction restricted zone has two borders, one 100 meters seaward from the MSL and the other 100 meters landward from the MSL. This is equivalent to measuring 200 meters from the construction line border to land. For a better understanding see the blow-up of the annexed map at http://bp0.blogger.com/_1x8bR0BbXM4/Rv2uMz...200+meter+Q.jpg

Issue 9 does not say to measure 200 meters from the MSL.

Thank you for this - I must have been out of town when the map was put on the topic but I remember pointing out that only reason to measure 100 meters into the sea would be to protect the beach and shallow waters from being built on.

So all the buildings that are along the sea side of Walking Street are illegal?

Edited March 25, 2008 by Tammi

[stopvt7]

The law concerning buildings higher than 14 m within 200 m of MSL has been in place for a long time.

And the violations of it accordingly date very far back.

Of course the building permits were always issued with the blessing of city hall which of course must always have been aware of the situation.

But it seems there has been until VT7 never a real challenge to those permits issued and therefore

peace and quietness.

For the first time now, the permit has been challenged by lawyers and courts.

The result can be seen on site. Of course, remunerations in many directions notwithstanding,

the people putting in place this law must have been completely ignorant of the avalanches of money pressure arising as a conflict of interest which is a good example having a law and having the ability

to enforce it. Two different worlds. To clarify the situation? Give VT7 as a reference.

Of course, if any future happenings would prove different, ah well, we are no prophets just guessing.

Please do not repeat repeat erroneous information because some folks unknowingly assume they are facts. The law (Issue 9) has never restricted buildings greater than 14 m within 200 m of the MSL. The law restricts buildings greater than 14 m within 200 m of the construction control line (not MSL). Issue 9 creates a 200 m wide construction restricted zone. The expert court witness clarified this for everyone and his testimony is supported by the often referred to "annexed map". VT3, VT5, JomTien Plaza and VT7 are all outside the construction restricted zone.

Iam not understanding where this construction control line is. Is it in the sea?

No! The Construction Control Line is at MSL!

The expert witness claims you measure from MSL and the Construction Control Line into the sea to the borderline of the area before measuring onto the land. Screwy?

borderline >noun a line marking a boundary

area >noun 1 a part of an expanse or surface. 2 the extent or measurement of a surface. 3 a space allocated for a specific use

[Thailandvisitor]

I have lost touch with events. Can you clarify for me?

The court ruled that the building is legally entitled to proceed and lifted the injunction. Yes?

Work is proceeding.

The ruling was based on the expert witness testimony.

The contradictory opinion of your own expert witnesses who countered this evidence was not accepted. Yes?

On what basis is there an appeal? The case has been heard and adjudicated.

Why isn't it game set and match for the Town Hall and VT7?

[JaiDeeFarang]

I have lost touch with events. Can you clarify for me?

The court ruled that the building is legally entitled to proceed and lifted the injunction. Yes?

Work is proceeding.

The ruling was based on the expert witness testimony.

The contradictory opinion of your own expert witnesses who countered this evidence was not accepted. Yes?

On what basis is there an appeal? The case has been heard and adjudicated.

Why isn't it game set and match for the Town Hall and VT7?

It is....

[Tammi]

Dear StopVT7,

We are all getting a bit worn out and confused. Please tell us is there an appeal? What are reasons for the appeal? When can we expect to hear news that you have won or news that VT has permission to erect a 27 storey building?

Also, in your opinion, do you think the underground parking will flood? I have heard that in another building one section lower than ground level floods during the rainy season.

[karazyal]

Stay in Hotel may be cheaper.

Enjoy!!

http://www.hotel2thailand.org

Condo owners sue for sea view

PATTAYA: -- A group of Jomtien apartment owners has asked the Administrative Court in Rayong to halt the construction of a new residential building that will block their sea views.

Ten foreign Jomtien Complex Condotel apartment owners are fighting to preserve their uninterrupted beach views following Pattaya City Council building permission for a new apartment building directly in front of them.

The complaint asserts Pattaya City wrongly granted construction permission to View Talay Jomtien Condominium.

It adds the permission did not meet 1978 planning regulations and alleges it will deprive them of their present unobstructed views of Jomtien Beach.

Jomtien Complex Condotel resident of two years Richard Haines, 62, retired, is one of the plaintiffs. The United States expatriate claims the development of View Talay 7 is in breach of planning law.

The building is on the beachfront and will obstruct views, he argued. "I purchased my condo in October 2005 when I decided to make Thailand my retirement home.

"But the new View Talay 7 building will block me from ever seeing another sunset from my condo," he said.

Haines alleged View Talay 7 was illegal because it was 14 metres in height and within 200 metres of the sea. Buildings of this height are prohibited within 200 metres of the shore by planning law, he said.

Pattaya Mayor Niran Wattana-sartsathorn said the city correctly issued building permission.

"I'm not worried that some foreigners are suing the city in the Administrative Court because we are just an agent to mediate this problem.

"If the foreigners succeed it will be a precedent for others and maybe developers will think before getting into problems like this," Niran added.

The court will hold a preliminary hearing tomorrow.

--The nation 2007-03-27

[Pattaya46]

Hi.

And about this same 200m rule, do you think the 32 story hotel of the new "Central Festival Pattaya Beach" in Soi 9 respect it ?

From http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=176724

Pattaya46

[khunyae]

Thank you for this - I must have been out of town when the map was put on the topic but I remember pointing out that only reason to measure 100 meters into the sea would be to protect the beach and shallow waters from being built on.

So all the buildings that are along the sea side of Walking Street are illegal?

Off topic of course, but this is an interesting question. Another poster wrote recently that this would make the buildings on beach-side of Walking Street - the very same ones that have been deemed "illegal" for many years and successive Mayors have vowed to tear them down - would be LEGAL, as long as they are less than 14m in height. He went further, and wrote that you could build up to 14m along the beach, on the beach, and in fact up to 100m out into the sea. Thus, you could build a floating pontoon of some kind, anchor it to the land, and build on it.

This may be why they have interpreted the law in this way with regard to the View Talay 7 situation, as it has far more important (profitable) ramifications all along the shoreline. However, I understand that the View Talay 7 site is in a particular 'zone' and I am not sure if the decision would apply to Pattaya, Naklua, etc...

And to reclaim land by dumping sand along the shoreline (as in Dubai, Singapore, Macau) would be very exciting... All those beachfront condos would no longer be beachfront.

[lookat]

Dear StopVT7,

We are all getting a bit worn out and confused. Please tell us is there an appeal? What are reasons for the appeal? When can we expect to hear news that you have won or news that VT has permission to erect a 27 storey building?

Also, in your opinion, do you think the underground parking will flood? I have heard that in another building one section lower than ground level floods during the rainy season.

They filed a appeal

Edited March 30, 2008 by lookat

[stopvt7]

Dear StopVT7,

We are all getting a bit worn out and confused. Please tell us is there an appeal? What are reasons for the appeal? When can we expect to hear news that you have won or news that VT has permission to erect a 27 storey building?

Also, in your opinion, do you think the underground parking will flood? I have heard that in another building one section lower than ground level floods during the rainy season.

Yes! It was filed at the Supreme Administrative Court and I do not know how long for a decision.

The Rayon Admin Court lifted the injunction the Supreme Administrative Court but on the construction site.

The Rayong Admin. Court never answered the question of law concerning the Issue 8 and 9 but used a questionable grade 8 lawyer report to remove the Administrative Supreme Court injunction. Go back and read Issue 8 and 9 and the court Administrative Supreme Court decision which was post on http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

The Supreme Administrative Court Court Ruled:

"The circumstance is justified to the Court to order provisional measure, or give temporary protection before judgment that the Defendant No. 2 temporary ceasing the construction of the building according to the Construction Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2006 until the Court gives judgment or orders otherwise.

The last question to be considered is that whether the provisional measure before judgment shall render negative effect to the Defendant No. 1 on their routine administration. The consideration was that when the Court has the order to give temporary protection and issuance of the provisional measure to cease the construction of the building is only involved with the construction work at the site. There is nothing to enforce or change or to affect whatsoever to the Work Permit that the Defendant No. 1 issued. Therefore, the Court's order is not interfering with the administration of the Defendant No. 1

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. On a temporary basis until the Court has ordered otherwise.

Mr. Vorapoj Visarutpich

Judge of Supreme Administrative Court"

Rayong court lifted the injunction before make a judgmrnt and order ruling on the question of Issue 8 and 9 which our case was filed about?.

Also please remember the construction control line is at MSL on the map and the written law never said to measure into the sea before you measure onto the land!

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, the 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 is 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 is to be amended by the following statement:

“No 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see 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:

1. Place for keeping and selling fuel
   
2. Theatre
   
3. Wooden shop
   
4. Concrete shop house
   
5. Market
   
6. Garage or paint shop for car, motorcycle or motor boat
   
7. Warehouse
   
8. 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)

Certified correct

(Mr. Yuthana Rittisit)

Administrative Officer Public Utility Section

Please remember the "construction control line", "MSL" and "the seaside" are the same place on the map which from you make measurement. Also, the written regulation is clear an never said to measure into the sea before you measure onto the land!.. Please reread this posting. Do you get the picture?

FYI: After Issue 9 update all of Thailand following regulation on this subject was 200 meters from the seaside onto the land. Also the last couple of issued regulation had the measurement from 200 meters before a 14 meter building and increased to 500 meter before you can build over 16 meter high building!

The reason for these regulation in Thailand is to protecting their beach environment for future of tourism and the Thai people.