Phuket beach banishment drama - hotel within their rights, say district officials

[Puccini]

I thought I had nailed it, but it is not the Civil and Commercial Code. Is section 1336 reads as follows:

 

Quote

Section 1336
Within the limits of law, the owner of property has the right to use and dispose of it and acquires
its fruits; he has the right to follow and recover it from any person not entitled to detain it, and
has the right to prevent unlawful interference with it.

 

The challenge is still on.

 

[Tofer]

3 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

Some of the beach areas around the old mining operations are artificial and or reclaimed land. This means that the beach was never there previously. I don't believe the public right of access on those beaches apply.

 

Having stayed at the Dusit years ago, I found it to be a lovely resort. Management did a fantastic job of keeping beach touts away. All guests were very grateful to be left in peace. Also, unsavoury people who tried to take advantage of the investment the Dusit had done in keeping the beach clean and groomed were politely moved along. Mr.Aziz should be content at his lower cost  abode which most likely doesn't invest anything in maintaining the beach the way the Dusit does.  A clean beach requires money and the Dusit does its part, hence the reason the Dusit charges more.

All credit to them, but it doesn't give them the legal right to exclude the public from using it.

[Tofer]

The Meridien Hotel, on a small cove / beach just South of Patong Beach, built in such a way as to try to prevent access to the beach and by default maintain it as a private facility. They were, I believe, forced to provide a public access way to the beach.

[Puccini]

As beach-goers, we tend to see the sand-covered area along the seashore as the beach. This may, however, not be and most likely is not the definition of "beach" in the relevant Thai law, which is why I have issued the challenge to find this law. I know it is not the definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, where I looked it up earlier, but this is beside the point in a discussion of; the only thing that counts is the definition given in the law.

 

 

[ostyan]

In Thailand, the coast is the property of the crown. You may rent some part of it, but it does not mean that this property is yours. 

Otherwise, there is a decreasing number of tourists here and they spend less than the past years. Only a total fool can believe that sweeping out a family with kids is a good idea, especially on an empty, and boring beach.

The hotel may have five stars, but the management surely does not have a 5-gram brain, all together. 

Congrats, a good model for attracting tourists. I would have also lashed them or caned, maybe make them sit on a Spanish donkey or something… Finally, they are fallangs, next time they may come to my hotel ….. Oh , no

[Puccini]

49 minutes ago, Tofer said:

I would have thought DL should have delineated their boundaries with a clear wall / sleepers to avoid confusion. 

 

I don't think the Land Department can go beyond installing border markers. Additional physical delimiters such as a wall, fence, hedge, etc are up to the owner. In the case of this hotel, they obviously want to allow their guests an unobstructed view of, and unfettered access to, the sea and for this reason built no physical barrier.

[rwill]

I can find references to all beaches being public in Thailand, such as the one included.  But have not found anything official yet.  Seems I remember Prayut at some time saying all the beaches were public.

https://www.oyster.com/articles/62458-8-surprising-destinations-where-there-are-no-private-beaches/

 

[phil2407]

Another fact you should be aware of is that all beaches in Thailand are public.  When you buy beach front land, you are buying private access to the public beaches.  You are purchasing the view and the convenience of living right on the ocean.  If your land is absolute beach front, your property line is at the water mark at high tide.  If you are lucky enough to have a property where there is limited access to a stretch of beach because of natural obstructions such as a high water line or rocks, then you may have a "private" beach ... unless someone lands a boat there.
 

[HHTel]

7 hours ago, Tofer said:

Really!!! 

 

Kindly justify that statement.

Let's try simple logic.

 

There has to be a point where private land ends and public beach starts.

 

This line is marked with official boundary markers as shown in the picture.

 

I live in Hua Hin and if you walk along the high end of the beach, you will find these markers all along denoting where private land finishes.  These survey markers reflect the land set out on the different chanotes.

 

Any erosion of your land doesn't free it to the public domain.  You still own it by law.

[jacko45k]

Sounds like an arrogant land grab.

I too thought all beaches were public land and nobody could lay claim to them. Doesn't stop it happening though, from beaches, to National Park land to the pavement and a lane of the highway in front of their shophouse!

 

It would only seem legal if the hotel owned the only access or had actually constructed the beach in a place where there wasn't one prior.

[jacko45k]

17 hours ago, smedly said:

I actually think it is BS, the hotel in question is likely or has likely paid for the privilege, money talks 

Yes, the aforementioned 'District Officials' may be sporting recently acquired wealth.

[pattayadgw]

Like several people have stated above ' there is no such thing as a private beach in Thailand'.  The powers to be need to look at who signed off on the land title deed that included the beachfront land.

[HHTel]

I give up.  Nobody's listening.  Nobody's reading.  Nobody's checking.

Just the usual drivel!

[lovelomsak]

40 minutes ago, HHTel said:

I give up.  Nobody's listening.  Nobody's reading.  Nobody's checking.

Just the usual drivel!

Yes I agree. You can tell them but they do not listen they just keep posting the same drivel. Makes you wonder about why we even post here. 

[Tofer]

7 hours ago, Puccini said:

 

I don't think the Land Department can go beyond installing border markers. Additional physical delimiters such as a wall, fence, hedge, etc are up to the owner. In the case of this hotel, they obviously want to allow their guests an unobstructed view of, and unfettered access to, the sea and for this reason built no physical barrier.

I completely agree. But it's a bit ridiculous of DL to try enforcing their privacy on, what appears to be, a public beach without some form of delineation, other than a few concrete posts purchased at the local builders merchants for 100 odd baht each, which most tourists wouldn't have a clue what their significance is.

 

It wasn't as if the visitor was using their guest only beach loungers or anything.

[Tofer]

4 hours ago, HHTel said:

Let's try simple logic.

 

There has to be a point where private land ends and public beach starts.

 

This line is marked with official boundary markers as shown in the picture.

 

I live in Hua Hin and if you walk along the high end of the beach, you will find these markers all along denoting where private land finishes.  These survey markers reflect the land set out on the different chanotes.

 

Any erosion of your land doesn't free it to the public domain.  You still own it by law.

Thank you, and there you have it in your eventual distinction between "private land and public beach"!

 

If you read my other posts I note quite clearly you can own land that has been eroded by the sea provided it is properly recorded as such in the title documents.

 

By the way, the concrete fence posts, shown in the picture, are not official boundary markers. Chinote markers are tubular concrete posts set in the ground at, or slightly above ground level with a reference mark on top for cross referencing on the title deed plans.

 

My beach front property had concrete fence posts concreted into the beach approximately 15m beyond our Chinote boundary, that doesn't make it our private land.

[Borzandy]

14 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

The tourist was heard replying that the beach “cannot possibly belong to a hotel”

The tourists again, they don't understand Thai laws.

[Tofer]

10 hours ago, Puccini said:

As beach-goers, we tend to see the sand-covered area along the seashore as the beach. This may, however, not be and most likely is not the definition of "beach" in the relevant Thai law, which is why I have issued the challenge to find this law. I know it is not the definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, where I looked it up earlier, but this is beside the point in a discussion of; the only thing that counts is the definition given in the law.

 

 

Quite agree, hence the futility of trying to police a section of "apparent" public beach without clear delineation. There didn't appear to be any hotel loungers or anything to make this action necessary, and even if there were they could easily be noted as for hotel guest use only. Perhaps they were also overstepping the mark by policing the area including the public domain, which we all know is possible by the well known example of shop front roadside parking.

 

I also agree a physical boundary of wall / sleepers / planters would spoil the aesthetics and look rather incongruous sticking out into the general beach area. There lies the dilemma!

[HHTel]

13 minutes ago, Tofer said:

By the way, the concrete fence posts, shown in the picture, are not official boundary markers.

I know that.  A survey marker is shown in the OP's picture which is what I was referring to. 

[Keesters]

Unless that part of the beach is artificially created I doubt that it is 'private'.

 

Ambassador City, Jomtien has what appears to be a huge artificial beach. If they made it IMO it's theirs. But the part that is natural should not be.

 

And if beaches are public what about access to them?

 

Royal Cliff Pattaya has a beach but to get to it you have to go through private land. Used to be able to but last time I tried I was stopped.

 

In England we have "public rights of way" which often run through private land. Do such thing exist here?

 

 

 

[Tofer]

9 hours ago, ostyan said:

In Thailand, the coast is the property of the crown. You may rent some part of it, but it does not mean that this property is yours. 

Otherwise, there is a decreasing number of tourists here and they spend less than the past years. Only a total fool can believe that sweeping out a family with kids is a good idea, especially on an empty, and boring beach.

The hotel may have five stars, but the management surely does not have a 5-gram brain, all together. 

Congrats, a good model for attracting tourists. I would have also lashed them or caned, maybe make them sit on a Spanish donkey or something… Finally, they are fallangs, next time they may come to my hotel ….. Oh , no

Well said. But be more specific, if there is a Chinote or NS3 title deed on the land it is not the property of the Crown. 

 

Send them all to Hua Hin as punishment, there they can ride horses and kick around the horse turds in the waves lapping on the beautiful (vendor inundated) beach front at sunset.... My apologise if they've actually cleaned this area up since my visit 25 years or so ago, as I had no inclination to return.

[Tofer]

27 minutes ago, HHTel said:

I know that.  A survey marker is shown in the OP's picture which is what I was referring to. 

Fair enough. But without clear delineation of their owned area wouldn't you agree the exercise of policing it is futile and quite frankly petty.

 

If they have signs stating it's private maybe they should run a rope around the area laid in the sand so the public can see it without having to be confronted by the hotel security. I'm sure those Chinote markers are not so clear as in the photo on a regular basis.

 

I also note, it appears, they have marked off the swimming area, do they police that as well? Just being flippant, I know the beach drops off very quickly and is dangerous there for swimmers. 

[giddyup]

15 hours ago, tryasimight said:

Not in Thailand. The previous King declared the beaches are for the people.

That's why you can go to the beach at the Navy base at Sattahip. The Navy don't like it but there is nothing they can do about it. 

All the talk of private beaches in Thailand are just a local 'arrangement' and if it was ever tested in court it would be found to be illegal.

Why is it I have been refused twice to enter the Navy beach then?

[Juan B Tong]

Used to be "Dusit's beach" down at their polo resort near Hua Hin, and their ocean too as they had their bit protected by a anti-jellyfish net.  

[peperobi]

15 hours ago, tryasimight said:

Not in Thailand. The previous King declared the beaches are for the people.

That's why you can go to the beach at the Navy base at Sattahip. The Navy don't like it but there is nothing they can do about it. 

All the talk of private beaches in Thailand are just a local 'arrangement' and if it was ever tested in court it would be found to be illegal.

1

Can be only illegal, like you wrote King Rama 9 give all the Thai beaches at disposal of the peoples, someone makes a really good deal with that beach.

[Baerboxer]

15 hours ago, tryasimight said:

Not in Thailand. The previous King declared the beaches are for the people.

That's why you can go to the beach at the Navy base at Sattahip. The Navy don't like it but there is nothing they can do about it. 

All the talk of private beaches in Thailand are just a local 'arrangement' and if it was ever tested in court it would be found to be illegal.

 

Not only illegal - but all those involved in claiming otherwise might find themselves on some very difficult ground.

 

But even so, it does seem to deter them from trying; or refusing to back down when challenged. 

[impulse]

1 hour ago, giddyup said:

Why is it I have been refused twice to enter the Navy beach then?

 

Probably because he meant the beaches were for the Thai people.

 

[eisfeld]

1 hour ago, peperobi said:

Can be only illegal, like you wrote King Rama 9 give all the Thai beaches at disposal of the peoples, someone makes a really good deal with that beach.

Do you have any information as to which Royal Decree declared beaches public land? I'd like to read the exact wording.

[fakename]

I got run off Ambassador City beach, a couple months ago, by security. I didnt want to argue the point, with them. Sometimes, they just think they own it, but I doubt its worth fighting about. 

[Pdavies99]

What everyone fails to note is the "elitist" attitude of the Dusit Thani Laguna Phuket Hotel that forbids the everyday person from walking or sitting on there beach! Pity them!