.jpg)
The Nation
By Pasara Puthamat
By Pasara Puthamat
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Condo owners sue for sea view
The Nation
By Pasara Puthamat
By Pasara Puthamat
Condo owners sue for sea view
"Condo owners sue for sea viewA group of Jomtien apartment owners has asked the Administra-tive 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 (mis reported should be "over" 14 metres in height - View Talay 7 is planned to be 27 stories high) 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. "
"Condo owners sue for sea viewA group of Jomtien apartment owners has asked the Administra-tive 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 (mis reported should be "over" 14 metres in height - View Talay 7 is planned to be 27 stories high) 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 Administrative Court Hearing…
Today the court hearing started by having all the lawyers swears to tell the truth. This was a surprise to me, since I never seen a judge in America ask the lawyers to tell the truth. And the majority of American doesn’t expect lawyers to tell the truth. Smile!
The hearing was all in Thai and I could not understand, so I watch Pattaya City Hall and View Talay layers go through tuff question my the judge. I could tell by the expiration on their face and body language they were unprepared and had no good evidence against our case about 200 meters from the beach before they could build a condo taller then 14 meters. They try to argue the city could do what ever they wanted to because it was within their city plan. They did not get very far with the judge in their expiations. Also in the closing the questions were mostly about where to start the measurement from? High tide or low tide and was it was explained to me the judge was favoring high tide in his questioning. City hall and VT7 lawyers argued that 200 meters law is 100 meters to the sea shore and you anther 100 meter into the sea before you start to measure. This did not make any sense to me. I do not think they impressed the judge with all their paper fumbling and twist logic. The judge said he would give a decision in near future.
After the hearing our lawyers were very happy and positive about our changes of getting an injection to stop work by VT7.But our lawyers can not promise the outcome. We were all feeling good and showing smiles in the land of smiles. Now we wait to read what the judge’s court orders. This court order could be very good for all of Thailand , the sea shore and the rules of law.
Today the court hearing started by having all the lawyers swear to tell the truth. This was a surprise to me, since I have never seen a judge in America ask the lawyers to tell the truth and the majority of American don’t expect lawyers to tell the truth. Smile!
The hearing was all in Thai and I could not understand it, so I watched the Pattaya City Hall and View Talay lawyers go through tough questions by the judge. I could tell by the expressions on their face and body language they were unprepared and had no good evidence against our case about the 200 meters from the beach setback requirement before they could build a condo taller then 14 meters. They tried to argue the city could do whatever they wanted to because it was within their city plan. They did not get very far with the judge with their explanations. Also in the closing, the questions were mostly about where to start the measurement? High tide or low tied and as it was explained to me the judge was favoring high tide in his questioning. City hall and VT7 lawyers argued that the 200 meters law is 100 meters to the seashore and you go another 100 meters into the sea before you start to measure. This did not make any sense to me. I do not think they impressed the judge with all their paper fumbling and twisted logic. The judge said he would give a decision in near future.
After the hearing our lawyers were very happy and positive about our chances of getting an injunction to stop work by VT7, but our lawyers cannot promise the outcome. We were all feeling good and showing smiles in the land of smiles. Now we wait to read what the judge’s court orders. This court order could be very good for all of Thailand, the seashore and the rules of law.
The hearing was all in Thai and I could not understand, so I watch Pattaya City Hall and View Talay layers go through tuff question my the judge. I could tell by the expiration on their face and body language they were unprepared and had no good evidence against our case about 200 meters from the beach before they could build a condo taller then 14 meters. They try to argue the city could do what ever they wanted to because it was within their city plan. They did not get very far with the judge in their expiations. Also in the closing the questions were mostly about where to start the measurement from? High tide or low tide and was it was explained to me the judge was favoring high tide in his questioning. City hall and VT7 lawyers argued that 200 meters law is 100 meters to the sea shore and you anther 100 meter into the sea before you start to measure. This did not make any sense to me. I do not think they impressed the judge with all their paper fumbling and twist logic. The judge said he would give a decision in near future.
After the hearing our lawyers were very happy and positive about our changes of getting an injection to stop work by VT7.But our lawyers can not promise the outcome. We were all feeling good and showing smiles in the land of smiles. Now we wait to read what the judge’s court orders. This court order could be very good for all of Thailand , the sea shore and the rules of law.
Today the court hearing started by having all the lawyers swear to tell the truth. This was a surprise to me, since I have never seen a judge in America ask the lawyers to tell the truth and the majority of American don’t expect lawyers to tell the truth. Smile!
The hearing was all in Thai and I could not understand it, so I watched the Pattaya City Hall and View Talay lawyers go through tough questions by the judge. I could tell by the expressions on their face and body language they were unprepared and had no good evidence against our case about the 200 meters from the beach setback requirement before they could build a condo taller then 14 meters. They tried to argue the city could do whatever they wanted to because it was within their city plan. They did not get very far with the judge with their explanations. Also in the closing, the questions were mostly about where to start the measurement? High tide or low tied and as it was explained to me the judge was favoring high tide in his questioning. City hall and VT7 lawyers argued that the 200 meters law is 100 meters to the seashore and you go another 100 meters into the sea before you start to measure. This did not make any sense to me. I do not think they impressed the judge with all their paper fumbling and twisted logic. The judge said he would give a decision in near future.
After the hearing our lawyers were very happy and positive about our chances of getting an injunction to stop work by VT7, but our lawyers cannot promise the outcome. We were all feeling good and showing smiles in the land of smiles. Now we wait to read what the judge’s court orders. This court order could be very good for all of Thailand, the seashore and the rules of law.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Rayon Administrative Court hearing will be held on March 28
Our first Rayon Administrative Court hearing will be held on March 28, 2007 at 10:00AM in Rayon.
What Ministerial Regulation sets the 200 meter measurement?
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 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 to be amended by the following statement:
“No 3. Setting of 200 meters measured from 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:
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
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 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 to be amended by the following statement:
“No 3. Setting of 200 meters measured from 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:
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
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Rayon Administrative Court hearing will be held on March 28
Our first Rayon Administrative Court hearing will be held on March 28, 2007 at 10:00AM in Rayon.
The hearing is answers our request for a injunction to stop the work by VT7.
They ask for the Pattaya mayor and VT7 to appear and answer why not issue this our requested injunction.
An injunction is a “Law, a court order that requires somebody involved in a legal action to do something or refrain from doing something”.
A bus is being organized to take interest people to Rayon Admin Court. We want to go and listen to the hearing and we all give our up most respect to the court.
The hearing is answers our request for a injunction to stop the work by VT7.
They ask for the Pattaya mayor and VT7 to appear and answer why not issue this our requested injunction.
An injunction is a “Law, a court order that requires somebody involved in a legal action to do something or refrain from doing something”.
A bus is being organized to take interest people to Rayon Admin Court. We want to go and listen to the hearing and we all give our up most respect to the court.
Monday, March 19, 2007
PRESS RELEASE the long story
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 Rayong, Thailand against Pattaya City Hall by ten plaintiffs living at the 32 stories Jomthien Complex Condotel. To file the lawsuit was the final result after a long odyssey of the co-owners which dates back to the beginning of the 1990’s. At this time the developer of Jomthien Complex Condotel started the marketing of the condominium and issued prospectus of how the final construction should look like when everything is finished. According to this prospectus, the land now in dispute should house a small detached hotel complex with tropical gardens and recreation areas. However, the whole project started for the first couple of years very slow and the sales figures started to increase finally after the millennium. There were once signs to finally develop the land in dispute but this was stopped after a geologist survey showed that the soil conditions can not cope with the planed construction of a small detached hotel complex. It is not known if this or financial shortage or whatever reason forced the landowner to sell the plot of land to the developer which is successful with its “View Talay Condominiums” in Pattaya. In 2005 it became public information that the new developer will start to erect a new condominium under the name “View Talay Project 7”. This causes a lot of confusion taken the above mentioned geologist survey into account and the responsibility of the developer of Jomthien Complex Condotel in relation to their sales prospectus granting the co-owners an undisturbed sea-view.
The now plaintiffs and other co-owners took their stand and started to approach all people and government bodies involved but discovered that they were not taken seriously and left behind neglected. On this long journey they received only two positive responses. One by the royal household and the second by the Office of the Natural Resource and Environmental Policy and Planning (EIA) in Bangkok. The first was represented by a secretary of the Royal Household and was invited by the plaintiffs and asked for legal assistance. The secretary replied they can not intervene in legal disputes and mentioned that Thailand is a state of laws and if there is something not in accordance with the laws the co-owners should approach the responsible courts. In addition, the secretary stressed the fact that he will stay aside as close observer for the whole legal dispute. The above mentioned second party involved sends a representative to the construction side in February 2007 to inspect the fulfillment of a long list of measurements which have to be taken by the developer but until today totally neglected in most of the cases. The construction permit was issued by Pattaya City Hall after the Office of the Natural Resource and Environment Policy and Planning issued a thick catalogue of conditions which have to be fulfilled by the developer. The ignorance of this measurement can lead to the revocation of the construction permit. The Pattaya Mayor, responsible for the construction permit and therefore responsible for the fulfillment of the conditions set by the Bangkok Office was invited to the construction side after many letters of complaint for not fulfilling the measures was than approached by the representative from Bangkok and reminded to its duties. However, the neglecting of the measures goes on.
Therefore, the co-owners saw no other way as filing a law suit and ask the Administrative Court for their assistance to finally receive a judgment for the believed illegal issuance of a building permit for the View Talay 7 high rise condominium that is located on the entry to Dongtan Beach in Jomthien. This building permit is believed to be in violation and illegal according to Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B. E. 2521), that amended issued in essence of the Construction Act B.E. 2479. Amongst other prohibited construction close to the beaches of Pattaya and Jomthien, this regulation stipulates that no building over 14 meters may be constructed within 200 meters of the from the high tide line. Any building over 14 meters in height above road level are not allowed. The permit was issued for a 27 stories 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.
Did not Pattaya City Hall employees know of the Ministerial restriction before issuing a permit? Because this is an Administrative Court case, the plaintiffs are asking 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.
The ten plaintiffs hired the Pattaya based law firm “Asia LawWorks Co., Ltd.”, represented by its two senior partners Mr. Amnat Thiengtham, LL.M and Mr. Markus Klemm, LL.M to prepare and file the lawsuit. Mr. Thiengtham has a long proven record of 20 years practice in Pattaya and obtained its Master Degree in Administrative Law in 2006 as his commitment to a new and interesting area of law in Thailand and to the law firm of constant further education. Mr. Klemm was working for the German-Thai Chamber of Commerce in Bangkok before setting up Asia LawWorks Co., Ltd. with the aim of providing qualified legal service to mainly European companies with investments at the Eastern Seaboard as well as Thai companies with investments in the European Union.
We are attaching a copy of the Administrative Court case complaint and copies of the Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B. E. 2521) are available from stopvt7@yahoo.com. This action group of Thai and Foreigners was organized to bring the court action.
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 Rayong, Thailand against Pattaya City Hall by ten plaintiffs living at the 32 stories Jomthien Complex Condotel. To file the lawsuit was the final result after a long odyssey of the co-owners which dates back to the beginning of the 1990’s. At this time the developer of Jomthien Complex Condotel started the marketing of the condominium and issued prospectus of how the final construction should look like when everything is finished. According to this prospectus, the land now in dispute should house a small detached hotel complex with tropical gardens and recreation areas. However, the whole project started for the first couple of years very slow and the sales figures started to increase finally after the millennium. There were once signs to finally develop the land in dispute but this was stopped after a geologist survey showed that the soil conditions can not cope with the planed construction of a small detached hotel complex. It is not known if this or financial shortage or whatever reason forced the landowner to sell the plot of land to the developer which is successful with its “View Talay Condominiums” in Pattaya. In 2005 it became public information that the new developer will start to erect a new condominium under the name “View Talay Project 7”. This causes a lot of confusion taken the above mentioned geologist survey into account and the responsibility of the developer of Jomthien Complex Condotel in relation to their sales prospectus granting the co-owners an undisturbed sea-view.
The now plaintiffs and other co-owners took their stand and started to approach all people and government bodies involved but discovered that they were not taken seriously and left behind neglected. On this long journey they received only two positive responses. One by the royal household and the second by the Office of the Natural Resource and Environmental Policy and Planning (EIA) in Bangkok. The first was represented by a secretary of the Royal Household and was invited by the plaintiffs and asked for legal assistance. The secretary replied they can not intervene in legal disputes and mentioned that Thailand is a state of laws and if there is something not in accordance with the laws the co-owners should approach the responsible courts. In addition, the secretary stressed the fact that he will stay aside as close observer for the whole legal dispute. The above mentioned second party involved sends a representative to the construction side in February 2007 to inspect the fulfillment of a long list of measurements which have to be taken by the developer but until today totally neglected in most of the cases. The construction permit was issued by Pattaya City Hall after the Office of the Natural Resource and Environment Policy and Planning issued a thick catalogue of conditions which have to be fulfilled by the developer. The ignorance of this measurement can lead to the revocation of the construction permit. The Pattaya Mayor, responsible for the construction permit and therefore responsible for the fulfillment of the conditions set by the Bangkok Office was invited to the construction side after many letters of complaint for not fulfilling the measures was than approached by the representative from Bangkok and reminded to its duties. However, the neglecting of the measures goes on.
Therefore, the co-owners saw no other way as filing a law suit and ask the Administrative Court for their assistance to finally receive a judgment for the believed illegal issuance of a building permit for the View Talay 7 high rise condominium that is located on the entry to Dongtan Beach in Jomthien. This building permit is believed to be in violation and illegal according to Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B. E. 2521), that amended issued in essence of the Construction Act B.E. 2479. Amongst other prohibited construction close to the beaches of Pattaya and Jomthien, this regulation stipulates that no building over 14 meters may be constructed within 200 meters of the from the high tide line. Any building over 14 meters in height above road level are not allowed. The permit was issued for a 27 stories 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.
Did not Pattaya City Hall employees know of the Ministerial restriction before issuing a permit? Because this is an Administrative Court case, the plaintiffs are asking 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.
The ten plaintiffs hired the Pattaya based law firm “Asia LawWorks Co., Ltd.”, represented by its two senior partners Mr. Amnat Thiengtham, LL.M and Mr. Markus Klemm, LL.M to prepare and file the lawsuit. Mr. Thiengtham has a long proven record of 20 years practice in Pattaya and obtained its Master Degree in Administrative Law in 2006 as his commitment to a new and interesting area of law in Thailand and to the law firm of constant further education. Mr. Klemm was working for the German-Thai Chamber of Commerce in Bangkok before setting up Asia LawWorks Co., Ltd. with the aim of providing qualified legal service to mainly European companies with investments at the Eastern Seaboard as well as Thai companies with investments in the European Union.
We are attaching a copy of the Administrative Court case complaint and copies of the Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B. E. 2521) are available from stopvt7@yahoo.com. This action group of Thai and Foreigners was organized to bring the court action.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
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 รค 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
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 รค 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)