Short Press Release

Press Release

Ten plaintiffs file Administrative Court case against Pattaya City Hall for issuing a questionable building permit for a 27-story condominium at Jomthien Beach .

An Administrative Court case was filed in Rayon, Thailand against Pattaya City Hall by ten plaintiffs living at Jomthien Complex Condotel for the questionable issuance of a building permit for the View Talay Project 7 high rise condominium that is located on the entry to Dongtan Beach in Jomthien. This building permit is believed to be in violation of Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B. E. 252) that amended the Construction Act B.E. 2479. Amongst other prohibited construction close to the beaches of Pattaya and Jomthien, this regulation stipulated that no building over 14 meters high may be constructed within 200 meters of the high tide line. The permit as issued is for a 27 story, 87 meter high condominium to be built less than 100 meters from the high tide line and will block the views of several condominiums nearby. This area of land was originally zoned for a high-class hotel of just 14 meters in height.

Did not Pattaya City Hall employees know of the Ministerial restriction before issuing a Building permit? After plaintiffs and other co-owners took their stand and started to approach all people and government bodies involved. But they discovered that they were not taken seriously and left behind neglected. On this long journey they received only two positive responses by the royal household and the Office of the Natural Resource and Environmental Policy and Planning (EIA) in Bangkok.

Because this is an Administrative Court case, the plaintiffs hope to revoke the building permit. They are looking for a ruling, or at least a "Stop Work Order" to be issued, by the court before the construction gets over 14 meters.


Copies of the Administrative Court case filing and the Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B। E। 2521) are available by e-mailing stopvt7@yahoo.com . The attorney firm hired is AsianLaw Works Co,. Ltd and Amnat Thiengtham and Markus Klemm in Pattaya City.

The Case filing:

Asia LawWorks Co., Ltd.
___________________________________________________________________________
A t t o r n e y s – a t – L a w
R e c h t s a n w ä l t e
________________________________________________________________________________
UNOFFCIAL TRANSLATION OF BLACK CASE NO. 54/2550
Plaint
Case Black No 54/2550
Administrative Court Rayong
Date 12th March 2007
We, Mr. Anton K. Petersvik 1, Mr. Ove Erland Jensen 2,
Mr. Jack Archer Lindeborg 3, Mr. Richard Kent Haines 4,
Mr. Mark Stephen Hastings 5, Mr. Max Robert Schweizer 6,
Blue Wheels Co., Ltd. represented by Mr. Erhard Schwarzrock, Director 7, Sunset Palace Co., Ltd. represented by Mr. Arthur James Shipp, Director 8,
By the Sea Holding Co., Ltd represented by Mr. Adam Shipp, Director 9,
Mr. Aloysius Joannes Tenbuelt 10,
all represented by Mr. Amnat Thiengtham, recipient of Power of Attorney to bring this case to trial maker of plaint
Detail of addresses of the plaint makers are attached.
We intend to file a plaint against the competent officer of Pattaya City, (the Mayor of Pattaya City) receiver of plaint
situated at Pattaya City Hall, North Pattaya Road, Nongprue, Banglamung, Chonburi 20150, tel. 1337
The plaint maker would place the following plaints on the receiver of plaints as follows:
In making the plaint and proceeding with the case all the plaint makers have given their Power of Attorney to Mr. Amnat Thiengtham to file the case in court on their behalf as per detail of Power of Attorneys attached.
Translation © Asia LawWorks Co., Ltd. 2007
2. The receiver of the plaint in the capacity of competent officer of the locale in accordance with Buildings Control Act B.E. 2522 empowered with the responsibility in accordance with the regulations in the administration of Pattaya City B.E. 2542 and act as the competent officer in the administration of Pattaya City which is a section of the administration of the locale and is a unit of the administrative authority in the control and be responsible for the actions of the authorities of Pattaya City which is an Administrative unit of the realm in the meaning of Section 3 of the Act to establish the Administrative Court and the procedure in the Consideration of Administration B.E. 2542 and has further power under related law through to granting a Construction, Alteration or Demolition Permit with senior competent officers in Pattaya City as subordinates such as chief of the artisan department, director of the artisan department and deputy mayors being responsible to carry out government duties to be in accordance with the laws, Ministerial Regulations, regulations, rules, decrees orders from the plaint receiver and the Ministry of Interior.
The filer of plaints, all 10, are owner of rights to units in the Jomtien Complex Condotel Building Unit No. 414/274, 17th floor Building 1, Unit 414/547, 30th floor Building 1, Unit No. 414/316, 18th floor Building 1, Unit No. 414/138, 8th floor Building 1, Unit No. 414/501, 28th floor Building 1, Unit No. 414/486, 27th floor Building 1, Unit No 414/422, 16th floor Building 1, Unit Nos. 414/205-206, 12th floor Building 1, Unit No. 414/283, 16th floor Building 1, Unit No. 414/107, 7th Building 1 situated at Thappraya Road, Moo 12, Nongprue sub-district, Banglamung district, Chonburi province, details can be found in Certified Registration Certificates of Juristic Persons, Certified Units ownership registrations attached to the plaint, attachment No. 1.
On 28th November 2006 the receiver of plaint in the capacity of competent officer who proceeded with considerations and issued a permit to Construct, Alter a Building or Demolish a Building no. 162/2549 dated 28th November 2006 to View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd, situated at 315/187 Tappraya Road, Nongprue sub-district, Banglamung district, Chonburi province giving permission to construct a large permanent building, 912 units, 24 shops of reinforced concrete, 27 floors with a sky roof as a residential condominium with an area of 101,469 sq. m., parking space of 11,708 sq. m. for 418 cars swimming pool of 1,134 sq. m. piping 1,261 m. details of which can be found in the building permit attached to the plaint, document attached 2. The building under dispute armed with a building permit is situated on Title Deed No.
Translation © Asia LawWorks Co., Ltd. 2007
104606, 123238 and (1149 granting servitude) Nongprue sub-district, Banglamung district, Chonburi province with an alignment bordering Jomtien Beach with a cluster of garden and footpath in the middle, the Jomtien Condotel Complex in which the 10 plaint makers reside in and have the ownership to is situated to the West of the building under plaint which has a building permit.
The plaint maker would respectfully advise the court that the receiver of plaint, a competent officer of the locale, in consideration and issuance of any building permit under the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2522 besides ensuring the strength and stability and the safety, consideration must also be paid to the plans of the area close by submitted for building permit prior to the issuance of the building permit, but, it appeared that the consideration and the issuance of the building permit by recipient of plaint per plaint point 4 was an omission in following the standards, method and conditions stipulated in the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521), issued in essence of the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479 point 3 which stipulated that the area within 200 m., measuring from building site as per map attached to the Supreme Court’s standard applicable in the use of the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479, locale of Banglamung sub-district, Nongplalai sub-district, Naklua sub-district, Nongprue sub-district, Banglamung district, Chonburi province, B.E. 2521 seafront side, being the area of the said building which henceforth can not be constructed as per Sub-Section 8 the building with height above 14 m. from road level also is not in the scope for which building permit can be issued which has been notified, effective as of 23rd November B.E. 2521 (1978) and this Ministerial Regulations is still effective as of date. There has been no alterations or cancellation in any way, as can clearly be seen in the application form that the said building did not fall into the exempted point that the recipient of plaint shall have considered and issued the permit, but the recipient of plaint had deliberated and issued the building permit for a building of 27 storey which has a distance of less than 200 m. from the sea front to the building control alignment. And furthermore the height was also higher than that stipulated in the Ministerial Regulations which is a consideration to issue and the issuance of a building permit which was contrary to the law. The said consideration to and the issuance of the said building permit was aimed solely in the contributing of benefits to View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd which is not for the benefits of the public and in violation of the law. Details as appeared in the map of the vicinity, drawings of the View Talay Jomtien Beach Condominium Project 7 and Ministerial Regulations attached to plaint, attachment 3.
Translation © Asia LawWorks Co., Ltd. 2007
Resultant from the distorted and erroneous consideration and not consulting the relevant rules and related laws till the issuance of the illegal permit by the said recipient of the plaint being the reason for all the 10 plaint makers to have received much discomfort through to others who have not submitted their plaints for damages and/or may receive damage, namely, if there were to be construction work as stated till completion as per order of the recipient of plaint in granting the building permit will have the effect of altering the sea breeze from the direction of Jomtien sea to blow elsewhere and not to the Jomtien Complex Condotel in which the 10 plaint makers held ownership rights to and reside in. Furthermore the view where residents can see the beach will be blocked/obliterated affecting the health and feelings, the basic feelings of the 10 plaint makers and others residents in the Jomtien Condotel Complex in which they resided in originally, because the building that the receiver of plaint had considered and granted the said permit, besides having the effect of blocking the beach front and Jomtien Beach the building to be constructed shall rise to 27 floors or about 81 metres near to the building of the 10 plaint makers and many other residents. The 10 plaint makers would advise the court that after the receiver of plaint had issued the permit to View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd., presently there had been work on the site such as preparation and grading of the land. And from the piling of the View Talay Condominium (1999) which has caused the cracks in Jomtien Complex Condotel where the 10 plaint makers resided and there had been no protection from the dust caused by the building site which created pollution resulting in affecting of the breathing system to all 10 plaint makers and other residents of Jomtien Complex Condotel. If the building permit remains in effect the health will be endangered, cracks in building(s), blockage of view, blocking sea breeze will continue, so it can be taken that the 10 plaint makers and others residing in the vicinity of the construction have all been unavoidably, directly affected and troubled.
Prior to making the plaint all the 10 plaint makers and other residents of Jomtien Complex Condotel had demanded for justice and had objected to the issuance of the building permit by the receiver of plaint by having gathered at the City Hall, Pattaya City which was the Offices of the receiver of the plaint on
Translation © Asia LawWorks Co., Ltd. 2007
29th November 2006 and other related government units throughout but there has been no rectification to the plight of the 10 plaint makers and others who joined in with the objection whatsoever, details of which can be found attached to the plaint.
The 10 plaint makers have no other means of withdrawing the Building. Alteration to or Demolition Permit No. 162/2549 dated 28th November 2006 therefore have brought this case for the virtuous consideration of the Administrative Court.
The action of the receiver of plaint in the issuance of the permit contrary to the law, all 10 plaint makers or any one person is able to take up the said actions and make a plaint so that the court may issue a cancellation of the permit which is an order of the administration
Closing request to the Administrative Court
It is respectfully requested that the Administrative Court to determine and to enforce a schedule as follows:
For the Administrative Court to issue an order to temporarily cancel Permit No. 162/2550 dated 29th November 2549 that permitted View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. to construct a building 27 storey high before the court shall order or define and be retrospective to 28th November 2006 as, if View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. continues with the construction it will cause damage to the 10 plaint makers which will be difficult to rectify later.
To revoke the permit to Construct, Alter a Building or Demolish a Building no. 162/2549 to View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. dated 28th November 2006.
Signed…………………… plaint maker
(Mr. Amnat Thiengtham)
Recipient of Power of Attorneys in this case
And to proceed with the case on their behalf
Translation © Asia LawWorks Co., Ltd.
Asia LawWorks Co., Ltd.
300/46 Moo 12, Thepprasit Road, Nongprue, Banglamung, Chonburi 20260 Thailand
Tel.: 0066-(0)38-411591 Fax: 0066-(038)-411592