Thai Court upholds ruling on Soi Ruamrudee highrise

[webfact]

SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Court upholds ruling on Soi Ruamrudee highrise



BANGKOK: -- A luxurious hotel in Soi Ruamrudee will have to be demolished on the orders of the Supreme Administrative Court, which on Tuesday upheld an earlier ruling that its construction was against city laws.

The court ruling said that highrise in Soi Ruamrudee had been built illegally as the soi is not 10 metres wide as claimed by a former Bangkok governor and a former Pathum Wan district chief, who approved the construction.

Tuesday’s ruling upheld an earlier verdict given by the Central Administrative Court that ruled in favour of a petition by the Foundation for Consumers volunteer lawyer Chalermphong Klabdee, who represented 24 Ruamrudee residents.

The petitioner included Royal Household Bureau’s Deputy Lord Chamberlain Khwankeo Vajarodaya and the petition was against the then Bangkok governor and then Pathum Wan district chief for allowing Tabtimtorn and Lapprathan companies to construct the highrise on Soi Ruamrudee.

The Court ordered the Bangkok Metropolitan and Pathum Wan District to have the hotel demolished partly or wholly within 60 days.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Cout-upholds-ruling-on-Soi-Ruamrudee-highrise-30249006.html


-- The Nation 2014-12-02

[seajae]

about time we saw these people having to actually obey the laws. Just because they have money and influential friends it does not mean they can do as they please, this will be costing them a fortune, first to build it(including paying several big backhanders) and now by having to pay to demolish it, love to se these ar***oles get their come-upance, no chrissy bonus for them

Edited December 2, 2014 by seajae

[MobileContent]

Looks to me it is the Aetas Residence.

Ithink a few guys from BMA and Pathumwan District should get a chop as well.

[MaiChai]

I think it can go to one more court before they have exhausted all courts. Then they can use delaying tactics. I suspect we will still be reading about this in 10 years time...

[SoFarAndNear]

Why the government does not take over ownership and make $$$? Rubbish the building only costs more money and leaves trash?!

[ramrod711]

What would be the purpose, or sense, of partly demolishing the building?

[Longtooth]

Not familiar with the building, but if the soi is short enough, buy a string of buildings on one side or the other and widen the soi to 10 meters. The land holders would probably only want about 5 times market value. Do the math and check the viability. The problem would seem to be traffic congestion on the soi, one would think. With the land bought one could make parking or a planted attractive walkway along the side, as well as widening. It could be a plus. It all depends on the length of the soi.

[webfact]

Court rejects appeal, orders demolition of luxury hotel on Soi Ruamrudee
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- AETAS, A LUXURY 24-storey hotel in Soi Ruamrudee, faces demolition within 60 days on the orders of the Supreme Administrative Court, which yesterday upheld an earlier ruling that the construction violated building laws.

The hotel, which has a connected 18-storey serviced apartment, has 214 rooms in Soi Ruamrudee and is already in service.

The court ruling yesterday said that the hotel buildings in Soi Ruamrudee, which is at the heart of downtown Bangkok, had been built illegally, as the width of the soi is not 10 metres throughout as claimed by a former Bangkok governor and a former Pathum Wan district chief who approved the construction.

Sitthichai Tuamsakon, director of the Pathumwan district office, said that according to the 1979 Building Act, if a road's width is less than 10 metres, a building on the road must not exceed 23 metres in height, or about eight storeys. The building in question has more than 20 storeys, so it may have to be demolished to be about eight storeys tall.

Yesterday's ruling upheld an |earlier verdict by the Central Administrative Court in 2012 that ruled in favour of a petition by Foundation for Consumers volunteer lawyer Chalermphong Klabdee, who represented 24 Ruamrudee residents.

The petitioners included Royal Household Bureau's Deputy Lord Chamberlain Khwankeo Vajaroda-ya, police spokesman Lt-General Prawut Thawornsiri, and Royal physician Songkhram Sabcharoen. The petition targeted the then Bangkok governor and the then Pathumwan district chief for allowing Tabtimtorn and Lapprathan companies to construct the highrise on Soi Ruamrudee.

The co-defendants were Larp-pratharn Co and Thaptimthorn Co, which built the building.

Meanwhile, Bangkok Metro-politan Administration clerk Sanya Cheenimitr said he would look into the court ruling in detail before commenting on the issue.

"I need reports from the Pathumwan district office on legislation and the approval process to decide whether to set up an investigative committee to prosecute officials involved," he said.

Sitthichai added it is expected that the owners of the buildings would takes its appeal against the court rulings to the BMA. The demolition cost will be paid by the owners, he said.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Court-rejects-appeal-orders-demolition-of-luxury-h-30249047.html


-- The Nation 2014-12-03

[zaphod reborn]

Good decision. This is a fire safety statute. For firetruck access to combat high rise fires, the roadway must be of a certain minimum width. Obviously, like most Thai laws, the requirement was being exploited by politicians to extract bribes.

Edited December 2, 2014 by zaphod reborn

[webfact]

Court orders Aethas hotel and residences dismantled in 60 days



BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Administrative Court on Tuesday ordered Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and Pathumwan district office to dismantle the 24-storey luxury Aetas hotel and residences in Ruamrudee within 60 days.

The order for the dismantling the hotel came after the court found boththe Bangkok governor and Pathumwan district office guilty of negligence of duty for granting a permit for Larp Prathan and Thaptimtorn companies to build the hotel.

Under the ministerial regulation of the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2522, a building over 8 stories or taller than 23 metrescannot be built on a soi with its surface width less than 10 metres. But the soi is less than 10 metres wide throughout its distance. Road measurement of eight different points of the soi shows the width of the soi surface at 9.146, 9.207, 9.434, 9.150, 9.658 and 9.283 metres respectively.

The court’s ruling ended a six-year legal battle beween 24 long-time residents of the soi and the BMA and Pathumwan district office.

Mr Suchart Sawasdikul, one of the residents, said he had sympathy for the hotel for having invested a huge amount of money in building the hotel although the hotel was fully aware that the soi is less than 10 metres wide but still it claimed it had the consent of the city administration.

He said that the officials who gave the licence to build the hotel should be held accountable and made to pay the hotel of to serve his term in prison.

Pathumwan district director SitthichaiThuansakon said he had to see the court’s ruling first before deciding what to do next.

He, however, said that the hotel could sue the district office and BMA or to appeal against the dismantling order.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/court-orders-aethas-hotel-residences-dismantled-60-days


-- Thai PBS 2014-12-03

[robblok]

Good thing that people in the last article are saying that the corrupt officials need to serve a term in prison. However I think its unlikely, but it should be so easy to do they can prove the road is not 10 meters so its a blatant lie by those that gave permission. Should not be too hard to at least fine them and take away some assets.

I seldom see them do that maybe people in power are afraid to set a precedent. Can anyone tell me of a case where the corrupt had to pay ?

[wilcopops]

As ever one has to question the motivations behind all this. For the good of the people? I doubt it.

[asdecas]

about time we saw these people having to actually obey the laws. Just because they have money and influential friends it does not mean they can do as they please, this will be costing them a fortune, first to build it(including paying several big backhanders) and now by having to pay to demolish it, love to se these ar***oles get their come-upance, no chrissy bonus for them

Dream on.

[Seastallion]

What would be the purpose, or sense, of partly demolishing the building?

It's a height issue.

It will probably be legit if it was several stories lower.

[Bluespunk]

As ever one has to question the motivations behind all this. For the good of the people? I doubt it.

It's a long running case where the law has won out. Good for everyone.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Bluespunk

[ezzra]

As long as the people who authorised and permitted the contraction of said building will remain

unaffected and keep the bribes the were paid that all this demolition defeat the purpose

of the true issues of corruption... those people should be jailed and their possessions

confiscated forthwith..

[jacko45k]

What would be the purpose, or sense, of partly demolishing the building?

To prove that building regulations cannot be usurped by telling lies (and passing envelopes) , and that those regulations are to be followed?

Also that current residents have a voice.

[BKKdreaming]

Under the ministerial regulation of the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2522, a building over 8 stories or taller than 23 metres cannot be built on a soi with its surface width less than 10 metres. But the soi is less than 10 metres wide throughout its distance. Road measurement of eight different points of the soi shows the width of the soi surface at 9.146, 9.207, 9.434, 9.150, 9.658 and 9.283 metres respectively.

they must have pissed the wrong people off , the street is less than 1 meter too narrow and they want to tear it down !

Fine the builders, fine the local building officials whatever they think they proffited and leave the building and the people living there to be

[kinmaew]

Too bad for any Farang who invested his life savings. Zero recourse.

[Gonzo the Face]

What would be the purpose, or sense, of partly demolishing the building?

It's a height issue.

It will probably be legit if it was several stories lower.

That in itself would be very costly...... but perhaps for a sizable percentage of that amount of expenditure, used as promotional funds, the law could be changed to read minimum with of 9.145 meters.

..... and no mess to clean up....

Edited December 3, 2014 by Gonzo the Face

[Saan]

Why the government does not take over ownership and make $$$? Rubbish the building only costs more money and leaves trash?!

It does seem to be a waste of resources to just pull it down. Much better to confiscate building and resell it on an open market.

[rametindallas]

Why the government does not take over ownership and make $$$? Rubbish the building only costs more money and leaves trash?!

It's a safety hazard. You can't get a hook and ladder fire truck down that narrow soi. To have the owners to tear it down at their expense makes for an abject lesson for others who think some well-placed bribes lets them not have to follow the rules as we, who can't pay bribes. Rules is rules and the sooner these hi-so better-than-you <deleted> realize that, the sooner Thailand will catch up to the modern world of responsible behavior. These owners have made the local residents suffer through extra construction noise and dust for the time it took to build 16 stories on the hotel and 10 stories on the serviced apartments that were more than was allowed. Believe me, the sound of this abortion coming down will be music to their ears. When I first read about the construction of this hotel, I thought I'd never see the day it had to come down. I hope it bankrupts those that don't go to prison.

[WitawatWatawit]

1. Why are the articles talking about appeals? Has the fat lady not sung?

2. Why aren't the officials named?

3. Who are the principals and lead shareholders of the companies involved?

4. Why didn't the court issue directions on legal action against all involved?

As usual, gaping holes and deficiencies.

[rubl]

Good thing that people in the last article are saying that the corrupt officials need to serve a term in prison. However I think its unlikely, but it should be so easy to do they can prove the road is not 10 meters so its a blatant lie by those that gave permission. Should not be too hard to at least fine them and take away some assets.

I seldom see them do that maybe people in power are afraid to set a precedent. Can anyone tell me of a case where the corrupt had to pay ?

I wonder who the former Bangkok Governor involved may be. It would seem names are withheld on purpose, probably due to the interesting Thai defamation laws.

[whybother]

Under the ministerial regulation of the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2522, a building over 8 stories or taller than 23 metres cannot be built on a soi with its surface width less than 10 metres. But the soi is less than 10 metres wide throughout its distance. Road measurement of eight different points of the soi shows the width of the soi surface at 9.146, 9.207, 9.434, 9.150, 9.658 and 9.283 metres respectively.

they must have pissed the wrong people off , the street is less than 1 meter too narrow and they want to tear it down !

Fine the builders, fine the local building officials whatever they think they proffited and leave the building and the people living there to be

The regulations are there because large buildings lead to more traffic. Leaving the building there means that other residents have to deal with that extra traffic.

[rametindallas]

The owners only have themselves to blame as they knew, when they had to pay huge bribes, that the soi was too narrow for their purposes. They were challenged in court not long after they started construction but thought they had impunity, because of the permission their bribes bought, and that, with enough money, they could beat down those insignificant residents who challenged them. A rare opportunity to see justice served on the Hi-Sos.

[Estrada]

"The petition targeted the then Democrat Party Bangkok governor and the then Pathumwan district chief for allowing Tabtimtorn and Lapprathan companies to construct the highrise on Soi Ruamrudee". The then Bangkok Governor was Democrat Aphirak Kosayodhin who was up for relection at the time and shortly after his re-election he had to resign, after he was indicted for corruption in the fire engine purchase scandal.

[whybother]

Good thing that people in the last article are saying that the corrupt officials need to serve a term in prison. However I think its unlikely, but it should be so easy to do they can prove the road is not 10 meters so its a blatant lie by those that gave permission. Should not be too hard to at least fine them and take away some assets.

I seldom see them do that maybe people in power are afraid to set a precedent. Can anyone tell me of a case where the corrupt had to pay ?

I wonder who the former Bangkok Governor involved may be. It would seem names are withheld on purpose, probably due to the interesting Thai defamation laws.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/09/17/headlines/headlines_30083719.php

However, he said, though the construction began during Apirak Kosayodhin's term, the complaints had been filed against the office of Bangkok governor.

[Suradit69]

about time we saw these people having to actually obey the laws. Just because they have money and influential friends it does not mean they can do as they please, this will be costing them a fortune, first to build it(including paying several big backhanders) and now by having to pay to demolish it, love to se these ar***oles get their come-upance, no chrissy bonus for them

"...about time we saw these people having to actually obey the laws."

I agree, but when it comes to enforcing immigration laws or anything to do with farang, there seems to be a double-standard amongst a vocal minority on Thai Visa who show less enthusiasm for the rule of law.

[whybother]

"The petition targeted the then Democrat Party Bangkok governor and the then Pathumwan district chief for allowing Tabtimtorn and Lapprathan companies to construct the highrise on Soi Ruamrudee". The then Bangkok Governor was Democrat Aphirak Kosayodhin who was up for relection at the time and shortly after his re-election he had to resign, after he was indicted for corruption in the fire engine purchase scandal.

... which he was later acquitted of.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/667212-bangkok-fire-truck-scandal-amlo-to-size-up-assets-of-pracha-ex-official/