A BUILDING may be fully compliant when its Occupational Permit (OP) is issued, but the more important question is whether it remains equally compliant and safe five, 10 or even 20 years later, particularly after extensions, renovations and changes in use have gradually transformed it from what was originally designed, assessed and approved.
This question has become increasingly relevant following several major fires over the past month involving shophouses, semi-detached factories, extended warehouses and storage facilities.
While the circumstances behind every fire are different, these incidents provide an important reminder that the fire safety of a building cannot be viewed solely according to what was approved when it was first completed.
During the planning and construction stages, considerable attention is given to ensuring that a building complies with the necessary requirements.
Plans are submitted and assessed, while the intended use, floor area, setbacks, separation distances, means of escape, firefighting access and other safety provisions are taken into consideration before the building is permitted to be occupied.
Architects, consultants, builders, authorities and owners each play their respective roles throughout this process.
When the building is completed according to the approved plans and the relevant requirements are satisfied, the OP confirms that it has met the necessary conditions for occupation at that point in time.
The concern begins when a building subsequently undergoes alterations that gradually change the conditions upon which the original assessment was based.
A roof may be extended to provide additional shelter, an open area enclosed for storage, or structures added to the sides and rear as the needs of a business expand.
Each alteration may appear relatively minor when considered individually, but when these changes accumulate over several years, the actual building footprint, floor area, usage and configuration can become significantly different from what appears on the approved plans.
Additional floor area can also bring more machinery, stock, materials and equipment, increasing the fire load and potentially altering the level of risk within the premises.
One important example involves semi-detached industrial or IKS buildings originally designed with setbacks and separation distances between neighbouring premises.
These spaces should not be regarded merely as vacant land because they can form part of the building’s safety considerations, including limiting the potential spread of fire and maintaining access around the premises.
Over time, extensions may gradually occupy these spaces, particularly when neighbouring premises expand towards their respective boundaries.
Roofs may be extended and walls erected until two buildings originally designed as semi-detached premises begin to resemble terrace factories.
The distinction is important because terrace factories are designed from the outset as connected buildings, with requirements such as party walls and other fire protection provisions incorporated to restrict the spread of fire between adjoining premises.
When two semi-detached buildings effectively become connected through later extensions, it cannot automatically be assumed that the same protection exists.
Questions must therefore be raised over what has happened to the original setback and separation distance, whether an appropriate party wall exists and whether the fire safety strategy considered adequate for the original configuration remains appropriate after substantial alterations.
The same principle applies to the means of escape.
An exit door may originally have been designed to lead occupants directly from an enclosed building into an open-to-sky area, allowing them to move towards safety during an emergency.
If that area is subsequently roofed and metal-deck walls installed along its sides, the location of the exit may remain unchanged, but the conditions beyond it are no longer the same.
What was previously an open area has effectively become another enclosed portion of the premises, potentially changing travel distances, smoke movement and the route occupants must take to reach safety.
More seriously, subsequent additions could result in a route that once provided direct access to an open area becoming a dead end.
A door cannot necessarily continue to be regarded as providing the same means of escape simply because it remains in the position shown on an approved plan when the environment beyond it has fundamentally changed.
This is why adding a roof or enclosing an open area should not be viewed purely as creating additional usable space.
Such alterations can affect evacuation, smoke movement, firefighting access and the overall fire safety strategy upon which the original building assessment was based.
Every line on an approved building plan is there for a reason, just as every setback, separation distance and open-to-sky area may serve a particular function within the overall design.
An empty area around a building is therefore not necessarily wasted space waiting to be utilised.
There is naturally a commercial desire to maximise available space, particularly when businesses grow and require additional areas for production or storage, but the benefit gained from additional floor space must always be considered alongside the safety implications of removing features that formed part of the original design.
An OP should therefore never be interpreted as a licence to freely alter a building once it has been inspected and certified.
The permit relates to the building assessed according to its approved plans and intended use at that time, and if the building changes substantially afterwards, the assumptions supporting that assessment may also have changed.
Before undertaking any significant modification, the consideration should not merely be whether an extension can physically be constructed, but whether the building will continue to retain the safety characteristics of the structure originally designed, assessed and approved.
Otherwise, the approved plan and OP may identify a property as a semi-detached industrial building, while the structure standing on the ground resembles a terrace factory without the original separation distance or party wall.
Similarly, an escape route may remain on the approved plan while the open-to-sky area that once formed part of that route has disappeared beneath roofing, walls and additional storage.
There are five critical components that must work together to safeguard a building throughout its lifespan, namely the authorities, designers, builders, inspectors and owners.
Each carries a different responsibility, but none can operate effectively in isolation when significant changes are made.
Any substantial alteration should therefore be made known to the relevant parties so that its implications can be considered and an appropriate risk assessment undertaken, particularly when changes involve floor area, configuration, usage, storage, means of escape or separation between adjoining premises.
Fire safety does not end when construction is completed, an inspection is carried out or an OP is issued, because buildings continue to evolve according to how they are occupied, maintained and modified over the years.
The OP may remain safely kept in a file and the approved plans may continue to show the building exactly as it was originally designed, but the building standing on the ground may already be telling a very different story.
Ultimately, maintaining fire safety throughout the lifespan of a building requires continuous understanding, compliance and responsibility from everyone involved, because fire safety is determined not only by plans, certificates and approvals, but by the decisions and actions taken long after an OP has been issued.
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune. The writer can be reached at khirudindrahman@sslborneo.com.my.
