Request a Court Hearing to make 200 Meter Measurement

Request for Court Hearing:

The Administrative Court of Rayong Province

Date: September 2007

Mr. Aloysius Joannes Maria Tenbuelt No.1 and 9 Associates Litigants

Between

Pattaya City Local Official First Prosecuted Person

View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. Second Prosecuted Person

The 10 litigants would respectfully request that the Administrative Court sets a date for a hearing ,prior to the proposed measurement by the court appointed persons. To hear are evidence concerning our explanation regarding the 200 meter measurement as required in Issue 9 (2521).

We request that the surveyor make and 200 meter measurement when the survey is made as required in Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (2521).

We would like to note to the court that the Supreme Administrative Court order stated “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 Gambol Bang Lamung, Gambol Nhong Plalai, Gambol Na Klue and Gambol 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.” The Supreme Administrative Court recognizes that only a measurement of 200 meters is acceptable and required when a survey is made under Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (2521) issue pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479.

The following is a quote from Mr. Surpass, Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning, from Bangkok letter dated 19 of June 2007. “The distance of 100 m as per point 3 of the Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) issued pursuant to the Building Control Act B. E. 2479 and the distance of 200 m. as per point 3 of the Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Building Control Act B. E. 2479 are not the same alignment. In that the alignment of the coat line in accordance with the Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (b. E. 2519) had not specified the measurement be taken at MSL. But in accordance with the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B. E. 2521) it specified the measurement of the alignment of the coast line be taken only at MSL.” The Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning of Bangkok should be asked to make a map using the written Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (2521) issue pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479 and map. Which specifies a 200 meter “measurement of the alignment of the coast line be taken only at MSL.” and to place both the location of View Talay Project 7 building with the alignment of the coast line at 200 meter on the same map.

Let the surveyor explain if it makes since to measure 100 meters into the sea before turning around and measure onto the land. Or if the ten litigants are correct in their Explanation to the court about the arrows on the Issue 9 map. “Arrow and the “100 Meter” remark is shown in red. Directly opposite there is a second arrow directing you to the “shoreline at mean sea level MSL”. The position or arrangements of these two arrow points, opposite of each other, on the map conventionally defines the distance between the “borderline of the construction restricted area” and the Coastal Line at mean sea level MSL is 100 Meters. Because the distance between the two lines is so small, the measurement of the two lines (= 100 Meters) is written at the left hand side. According to Mapping Standards, “

Also the Administrative Court could request Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning of Bangkok to make a second map. By using the written Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (2519) issue pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479 and map to show 100 meter measurement alignment of the coast line and the location of View Talay Project 7 building.

Then this maps could be compared to determine if First prosecuted Person and the Second prosecuted Person was right when they claim Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (2521) issue pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479 and Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) issued pursuant to the Building Control Act B. E. 2479 are the same alignment as they have claimed.

As a result of the above mentioned reasons, the 10 litigants would kindly request a court hearing date to be set,prior to the proposed measurement by the court appointed persons, and respectfully request to modify the order for the named expert witness not to measure 100 Meters, but to measure 200 Meters from mean sea level MSL which equals the Construction Control Line onto the land as this is as shown the only logical and legal point to measure and show that the planed construction of the Second Prosecuted Person is in the no-construction zone according to Ministerial Regulation Issue 9, or make both survey’s. Therefore, the 10 litigants request the court to revoke the construction permit No. 162/2007

Yours respectfully,

Mr. Amnat Thiengtham