The Administrative Court of Rayong Province ordered the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning of Bangkok to survey and reports the measurement location of VT7 from MSL. We think they failed to follow the court order and in their answer to the court the meaning of Issue 8 and 9 was changed, The report to the court made statements changed the meaning of issue 9 by stating the following: "Which if measured from the said point out into the sea for 100 m. shall be the building control boundary in accordance with the plan attached to the Royal Decree promulgating the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479 in the locale of Nongprue, Nongplalai, Naklua, Chonburi B.E. 2521 and when measured from the said point in land to the front of the building another 100 m shall be the distance away from the building control point 200 m .as in point 3 of Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519), amended by Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479 that prohibited the building with height above 14 m. from the road”
We think this questionable statement rewrote Issue 9 and who could this be aloud? Read the RULE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY of Administrative Court Procedures below:“Clause 55. The Court, if it thinks fit or upon an application by a party, may issue an order appointing an expert for studying, examining or analyzing any matter in connection with the case, provided that it is not the determination of a question of law, and then preparing a report or giving statements to the Court.........”
The case goes to and Appeal!
40 comments:
If you still think you're going to get satisfaction out of the court system I think you will be disapointed. You are applying western logic and legal thinking to a Thai problem, If you think you will get common sense in Pattaya I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you ( or maybe a condo on the beach in Thailand ) :)
Has the Rayong Court actually made the final decision? If not, when is the next court date? When you (stopVT7 group) say appeal, does that mean to the Rayong court or the Supreme Court? Unless another stop construction order can be issued quickly the situation does not look good.
The end has come
Protect the beaches or protect your own seaview and money???
Reveal your real motive, you're not the heroe here....
From A JCC co-owner:
When we bought a condo many years ago, we paid for a condo with seaview, this was included in the price ( I still have the brochure)
So, we have the right to protect that. Personally the money doesn't mean shit to me, but they have to keep their hands off our view.
Honesty last the longest......
Have a nice day
hopefully the appeal will be successful.
Well - duhhh! Of course they're protecting their own sea view AND in doing so, protecting yours as well as beaches throughout Thailand. Unless of course you've bought into VT7 in which case protecting the beach and environment is obviously your last priority.
I really despair of you guys "getting it". Have you any concept of the impact highrises can have on the beaches and local infrastructure unless they are properly planned and regulated? And that's all stopvt7 is asking for.
Have any of you VT investors taken a walk thru one of their existing prison block style buildings lived in for any significant period of time? Go to the one off Tappraya Rd for a start and see how those poor suckers are living.
Do you guys VT7 investors realise that you are supporting gangster robbing Thailand's evironment? Especially, with ugly tasteless similar to cheap flats as monument of ill archetecture/design, of long mono square block. like a big trains everywhere in Pattaya. Which obstruct all beauties of Pattaya. Imagin, if we have another 10 or 20bldgs like this afterwards if they win in this case.
The city is not even seems to care of this. I am not sure whether illegal to build hundreds of meters long straight like that.
Their duty is in fact to protect the city and benefit of the resident not just to give away the construction permits. Either the environment dept. who ignored our protest. They are too weak and no brave-heart soldier amoung them to stand out. Just close your eyes and telling yourselves that it is legally correct.
The law is just letters of intention to keep the sosiety in order which can be easily twisted by dishonor persons who pretend and ignore the intention.
Really,hopeless !!!
Use a very commom sense...
JCC developer set the condo behind ~200 m of MSL and in front of it was planned for a low rise (4 floors) hotel. Do you think they are so stupidly did that? They knew that closer to the beach is illegal !!!
When bought the condo, the sale person told me that the developer has signed an agreement with Land Department not to build anything tall building obstruct JCC's view. Never mind, if that was existed it might be disappearred, somehow ???
Developer did not continue the project but sold the piece of land to a speculator. The speculator believe that with their power, they can find a loophole in the law with invisible help and make benefit.
They forget to realise that the case has a bigger impact i.e. to the whole shore line of Pattaya and perhaps, the whole country.
Let's see what going to come out.
For VT owner, how do you so sure that your view will be there forever? Especially, if you can see the view from the side. Taller buildings beside you are waiting to be built. Perhaps, by your own developer. They are greedy, powerful and more everyday. Trust me...you can trust noboby in this business.
"Use a very commom sense...
JCC developer set the condo behind ~200 m of MSL and in front of it was planned for a low rise (4 floors) hotel. Do you think they are so stupidly did that? They knew that closer to the beach is illegal !!!" These are assumptions not facts. If you look at the plot of land, the JCC twin towers could not have built differently without one building blocking the view of the other and therefore the current design. Just look across the road at the JomTien Plaza condo which is well within 200 meters.
"When bought the condo, the sale person told me that the developer has signed an agreement with Land Department not to build anything tall building obstruct JCC's view. Never mind, if that was existed it might be disappearred, somehow ???" ...You were obviously lied to. I too looked at JCC condos for purchase but didn't believe that story.
"Developer did not continue the project but sold the piece of land to a speculator. The speculator believe that with their power, they can find a loophole in the law with invisible help and make benefit.
They forget to realise that the case has a bigger impact i.e. to the whole shore line of Pattaya and perhaps, the whole country.
Let's see what going to come out." Do you really think VT paid big baht for the land with the intent of building a 4 story building? They knew the law and JCC developer didn't.
"For VT owner, how do you so sure that your view will be there forever? Especially, if you can see the view from the side. Taller buildings beside you are waiting to be built. Perhaps, by your own developer. They are greedy, powerful and more everyday. Trust me...you can trust noboby in this business." What's your point?.... Anyone knows a view is not guaranteed. Any VT5 buyer should know there view would be comprised by VT7 and later by a high-rise condo adjacent to them (VT5 A & B?).
Although we bystanders can't be directly involved in the suit, there is something we can do which WILL have an impact:
As noted before, the Pattaya news media has turned a blind eye to this issue. Not one article (since the 2006 coverage of the march on City Hall) has addressed it. It would have been appropriate to place articles in the "Real Estate" or "Legal" sections of newspapers, or as straight news and I can see no legitimate reason for their failure to report.
I suggest we launch a letter-writing campaign demanding an UNBIASSED coverage of this case. If enough people write in, this may persuade the media that it is in their interest to respond. If it fails to persuade, then a boycott perhaps, or another march - this time upon the offices of Pattaya Mail, Pattaya Today, etc. might be considered.
Why? Because reportage shines a light on the issue. As we all know, if you turn the light on in the kitchen all the cockroaches & mice scurry for cover.
I bought in VT7 and guess what?
I LIKE IT!
I like the architecture, and I like the fact that I can create a very luxurous 3 units big appartment with a nice seaview.
I know this is Thailand, so if in future my seaview is blocked by whatever is built, so be it. I am not so infantile to believe that if some broker tells me I will have seaview forever, that will be the case.
JCC owners (talking about ugly architecture!!) were a little innocent believing that with this big piece of land in front, their seaview would be protected. Come on! Wake up!!
You also don't believe the guy on the street who promises you big returns if you borrow him your money, because he sounds so sincere, right?
Jomtien is developing and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I didnt do a lot of investigation before I bought in VT7. I knew VT succesfully built a lot of other projects before, and the price/location seemed right for me. Now don't accuse me of a lot of things I couldn't even think of, like building (to?) close to the sea etc., I'm just somebody looking for a nice place to live, that's all.
Stopvt's one and only motive is to protect his own seaview. If VT7 was being build 500 meter to the right, there wouldn't be any blog from stopvt/richard.
So, don't act like a hero, you're just acting out of selfish motives (which is ok, but admit it), and not to "Protect Thailand Beaches".
That's just pathetic.
I totally agree with the above post.
There will never be a blessing on VT7
I hope it burns to the floor
Keep challenging, it's your legal and human right.
It is very obvious that VT7 is within a typical 200M zone and that the rules were twisted to suit.
The rules were so badly bent that they are comical.
VT7 investors,,, calm down now and get back in your box. See what happens next or maybe put your hannds in your pocket and fight for your supposed legitimate cause. Or go whinge at the bar with mate Red Neck.
Is Stop VT7 saying that buildings above 14 metres height may be built on the sea side ie west side of the building control line?
It seems perfectly reasonable to prohibit buildings on the beach as well as inland.
100 metres out and 100 metres inland is very logical.
Isn't that why the orders refer to the 'sea side'?
Otherwise you could have uncontrolled building out from the beach ie piers, lagoons, condos etc once you were past the building control line.
"Is Stop VT7 saying that buildings above 14 metres height may be built on the sea side ie west side of the building control line?
It seems perfectly reasonable to prohibit buildings on the beach as well as inland.
100 metres out and 100 metres inland is very logical.
Isn't that why the orders refer to the 'sea side'?
Otherwise you could have uncontrolled building out from the beach ie piers, lagoons, condos etc once you were past the building control line."....Please don't confuse the issue with logic. Many high-rises have been built within the 200 meters (JomTien Plaza and the Adriantic Hotel) so the precedent has long been established. In reality it is the stopvt7 group that is trying to twist the law to protect their seaviews which they seem to think is a God given right.
stopvt7 is not just Richard bleating about his view and I think if YOU think you'll see this is true.
The threat came to our door & so we are handling it. Those who believe the laws should be clear, fairly and justly interpreted, and such matters conducted in an open, above board manner will offer support. Those who believe that the building of highrises should be carefully planned and controlled will offer support.
If the threat had come to another building, it's true we might not have spent so much money and time. But we would have supported the efforts of those who did. What we would NOT have done is to accuse and attempt to demean those who dare to fight. Someday you may find that the fight they are fighting today is yours.
Noboby has right to build on the seaside. There is no land (sea) certificate even you have big money to buy or try to get it, back door.
If your logic applied, then you can built a highrise in the sea after 100m from the beach. How?
Please make the law simple and try not to twist it. Use comon sense and protect public benefit is what the law tells you. Arguments beyond this is cheating.
If the building is 5 storeys high or 27 storeys high, the area will not be anymore public. The area will still be occupied of building.
True, as far as it goes. But the impact on resources, infrastructure and environment of a 5 storey bldg. is considerably less that that of a 27 storey one. And a 5 storey bldg is legal...
Impact on the infrastructure and resoursces? What does that have to do with proximity to the beach?
VT 7 is 105 m from the MSL, which means it is buildt perfectly legal (The limit is 100 meteres not 200).
The court has already made its ruling. JCC is trying to twist the law in their favor.
Even a glass eyed man can see who has twisted the 'law'.
Pattaya/Jomtien requirement is 200m from MSL same as everywhere else.
Be honest with yourselves.
This case is giving Thailand big problems with law abiding investors who will not touch it with a barge pole after seeing what has happened here.
"Even a glass eyed man can see who has twisted the 'law'.
Pattaya/Jomtien requirement is 200m from MSL same as everywhere else...." You and StopVT7 mis-state the facts repeatedly. If you tell a lie long enough people will believe it is the truth. Issue 9 does NOT say measure from the MSL, it says from the Control Line. If Issue 9 wanted to measure from the MSL it would have stated so! The Court's expert witness testified based on the annexed map that VT7 is over 200 meters from the control line and over 100 meters from the MSL. Please get your facts straight.
Everybody knows where the 'lies' are in this matter and who is telling them.You want association with the lies up to you.
Troule is once you start lies you always have to tell more lies to keep covering the start lie.
Just be honest with yourself,a glass eyed man can see where the lies are.Be honest my friend.
Yes the courts expert witness says issue 9 lets you build closer to the sea than issue 8.
VT7 investors beware because issue 10 may let you build closer to the sea than issue 9!!!
"Yes the courts expert witness says issue 9 lets you build closer to the sea than issue 8.
....!!!"....The Court's witness said no such thing. He explained referring to the map (or maps) that the control line for Issue 8and Issue 9 are not the same. Issue 9 creates a 200 meter wide restricted construction zone beginning 100 meters seaward from the MSL and ending 100 meters landward from the MSL.
Same thing!
Whether you like it or not,
The courts expert witness explanation now allows building closer to the sea under 9 than before under 8 !!.
"Same thing!
Whether you like it or not,
The courts expert witness explanation now allows building closer to the sea under 9 than before under 8 !!.".....you obviously lack the technical expertise to understand the witnesses testimony then you would understand your statement is baseless. Why don't you try looking at the maps on this blog and then you might have a better understanding.
Following the expert witness testimony,and the court ruling the question is very simple .
Can you now build closer to the sea under issue 9 than before under issue 8.
Yes or No
Or is this to technical for you.
"Can you now build closer to the sea under issue 9 than before under issue 8.
Yes or No".....The answer is a simple "No".
As I thought...to technical for you.
"As I thought...to technical for you." VT7 is about 104 meters from the MSL as per Issue 9, the City of Pattaya and the Rayong Court. VT7 couldn't be built less than 100 meters under Issue 8 either so I don't understand your point.
Well go speak the glass eyed man ,he sees it,and he also sees that now,after the so called expert witness testimony you can build a 27 storey building 100m out to sea from the CCL.ie in the sea outside the expert witness plus/minus 100m zone.
Gets better!
The expert witness quite wrongly redefined the measuring datum,misrepresented the intent of issue 9, and thus moved the goalposts.
100m into the sea,LOL.
"The expert witness quite wrongly redefined the measuring datum,misrepresented the intent of issue 9, and thus moved the goalposts.
100m into the sea,LOL."....Really? The map looks pretty clear to me, to a glass eyed man, to anyone who has basic knowledge on how to read a map (and without an agenda) but most importantly to the judge!
As usual you miss the point.
The simplicity of the glass eyed man is that he does not see the map,he does not see the words,he does not see the judge...he only sees the truth.
Your failure to grasp this concept tells the glass eyed man all he needs to know.
"As usual you miss the point.
The simplicity of the glass eyed man is that he does not see the map,he does not see the words,he does not see the judge...he only sees the truth.
Your failure to grasp this concept tells the glass eyed man all he needs to know."....Spin it any way you want but look at the annexed Issue 9 map on this blog and you will see the bold construction control border line clearly marked 100 meters from the MSL. It's not there on the Issue 8 map. Did the City of Pattaya add it to the Issue 9? No. Did View Talay? No. The only logical conclusion a person can make is the other construction control border line is 100 meters landward from the MSL thus creating the 200 meter restricted construction zone that this blog talks about. Remember stopVT7 continually confuses the discussion by mentioning "seaside", "constructioncontrol line" and MSL all in the same breath. They are not the same.
Forget the map,its only an attempt at summarising the written word of the law in the regulations.
Regulation 9 is very clear in its wording and its intent.
You only distort what you see from the map because you have no argument by the words of written regulation 9.
For me the correlation between the issue 9 words and map illustration is very clear,and obvious to anybody without an agenda.
If your twisted logic conclusion on the issue 9 map was valid then just what was the point of issuing regulation 9,basically its no different to issue 8 ,except of course it would let you build closer the sea and also 100m m out into the sea
Previously your argument was based upon technical ability to read a map (no mention of ability to read the words in issue 9 regulation),now its based upon logic!!
Which is it,you are having a laugh.What will it be tomorrow,..because view talay say so?
Post a Comment