Guest wowpow Posted October 2, 2007 Posted October 2, 2007 Friday, September 28, 2007 VT7 Can Build up to 14 Meters High Condo The Supreme Court, "therefore, gives an order to amend the order of the Administrative Court of First Instance. That the Defendant No. 2 shall cease the construction performed, under the Work Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2007, on the part exceeding 14 meter height.” Posted by stopvt7 at 6:46 PM http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/2007/09/vt7-ca...eters-high.html HOORAY ! ! ! Quote
Up2u Posted October 2, 2007 Posted October 2, 2007 Friday, September 28, 2007 VT7 Can Build up to 14 Meters High Condo The Supreme Court, "therefore, gives an order to amend the order of the Administrative Court of First Instance. That the Defendant No. 2 shall cease the construction performed, under the Work Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2007, on the part exceeding 14 meter height.” Posted by stopvt7 at 6:46 PM http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/2007/09/vt7-ca...eters-high.html HOORAY ! ! ! This is old news so I wouldn't get too exited just yet. On August 8, the Rayong Court did not give a final ruling and the stopVT7 group I am told was miffed. Since then the Court has ordered the survey be done using the 100 meter measurement (hint, hint) from the MSL (mean seal level) and not the 200 meter mark that the stopVT7 group requested. StopVT7 filed another appeal. Everyone now waits for the final ruling. I thought you owned in VT5? If Court rules against the City of Pattaya and VT7, all buildings greater than 14 meters in violation of the 200 meter rule and built within last 5 years could be sued and ordered torn down. That would be VT3, or VT5 for example. It would seem you have a vested interest that the Court rules in favor of the Pattaya City and VT7. Quote
Guest wowpow Posted October 2, 2007 Posted October 2, 2007 Up2u I am not following this case that closely BUT Friday 28th September may be old news to some but not to me. I merely looked up reports in the Stop VT5 Blog and reported. What you say is accurate to a degree BUT this report is not about The Administration Court in Rayong it says that it is the decision of the Supreme Court so presumably matters have moved on. There is usually no higher court than The Supreme Court! If the court has clarified the law then that is good. I don't think that there is any doubt that View Talay 5 is illegal by any interpretation of the law. I sold my property there and continue to live next door in The Grand Condotel though with a much reduced view due to VT5 and I would be happy to receive compensation from the council's illegal granting of planning permission. So I have little vested interest and even if I had that does not make what I reported inaccurate. I rather suspect that we have not heard the last of this conflict as yet. Somehow, I get the feeling that you were not trying very hard to be nice to me? Please try harder. Quote
Up2u Posted October 2, 2007 Posted October 2, 2007 Up2u I am not following this case that closely BUT Friday 28th September may be old news to some but not to me. I merely looked up reports in the Stop VT5 Blog and reported. What you say is accurate to a degree BUT this report is not about The Administration Court in Rayong it says that it is the decision of the Supreme Court so presumably matters have moved on. There is usually no higher court than The Supreme Court! If the court has clarified the law then that is good. I don't think that there is any doubt that View Talay 5 is illegal by any interpretation of the law. I sold my property there and continue to live next door in The Grand Condotel though with a much reduced view due to VT5 and I would be happy to receive compensation from the council's illegal granting of planning permission. So I have little vested interest and even if I had that does not make what I reported inaccurate. I rather suspect that we have not heard the last of this conflict as yet. Somehow, I get the feeling that you were not trying very hard to be nice to me? Please try harder. No hard feelings. There was simply later news than you posted and didn't want some to get wrong impression that the "Supreme Court" had ruled adversly against the City of Pattaya. The final ruling is still to come from the Rayong Court. I have friends who live in many of the VT projects (VT5, VT2, etc.) and others along the beach. I personally (and realize I might be in the minority) think VT5 was a nice addition. I remember coming to Dongtan beach in 1998 and quite frankly it was nothing to write home about. People (both Thai and tourists) used the old fence where VT5 is now as a public bathroom. There have been frustrating hipcups along the way but the "yellow brick road", newly planted palms, street and ocean lighting, the Amari Hotel, AND VT5 have all been nice additions and have added value to ALL who live in the area. Walking at night from the Rabbit Resort to the 7-11 can now be a pleasant experience. I hope you did well on your VT5 sale. Quote
