BMA Alleges Bangkok's Grand Park Avenue Illegally Modified

[webfact]

DEADLY HOTEL FIRE

BMA plans legal action against blaze hotel

The Nation

Bangkok authority plans to seek legal action against the Grand Park Avenue Hotel, the scene of a fire that killed two tourists and injured some 20 others on March 8 for allegedly modified the building without a permit.

BMA deputy governor Theerachon Manomaipibul said the BMA's public works department investigation had found the landlord had asked the Klong Toei district office for permission in 1999 to expand the parking lot, but instead they had modified it to serve as a party hall - which was in violation of the Building Control Act 1979.

Theerachon said he has had the Klong Toei district office director file a complaint at the Thong Lor police station against the hotel's landlord for the illegal building modification - punishable for up to three months in jail and/or Bt60,000 in fines.

Theerachon also said an order was signed yesterday for 50 BMA teams to begin inspecting building safety measures in 50 districts. The project should start this week after the BMA public works department chief had selected additional team members to help with the inspection work.

The city would also find more manpower to help officials whose job it was to check and issue building inspection certification, which must be renewed annually. He said the city would hire engineers to assist the officials in their building inspections.

Theerachon said the city would also get help from some 1,000 private agencies that held building inspection permits from the Interior Ministry.

All district offices were to submit the inspection results within 30 days, so the information could be presented to the BMA Governor, he added.

-- The Nation 2012-03-12

[webfact]

Bangkok authorities plan action against blaze hotel

BANGKOK, March 12, 2012 (AFP) - Thai authorities plan to take legal action against a Bangkok hotel where a major fire killed two foreign tourists and injured about 20 others, a local official said on Monday.

The blaze broke out in a function room at the 221-room Grand Park Avenue Hotel off the Sukhumvit Road in the Thai capital on Thursday evening.

Two Russian tourists died and about 20 people suffered smoke inhalation.

The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration will file a complaint for police to take action against the hotel, said Viparat Chaiyanukit, chief of Klong Toey district where the hotel is located.

"Legal action will be taken against the hotel for violating construction laws," Viparat told AFP.

Viparat said she could not provide details but reports said the hotel had requested permission to renovate car parks but instead constructed ballrooms.

If found guilty, the hotel owner could face three months in jail or a 60,000 baht ($2,000) fine.

Thailand is a tourist magnet but its image as the "Land of Smiles" has been tested in recent years by deadly political unrest, devastating floods and more recently a bungled bomb plot involving Iranian suspects.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2012-03-12

[Thai at Heart]

How come this is happening so quickly? Who owns this building?

[robblok]

I really have to laugh about this, 3 months in jail or 60.000 bt. That is nothing at all. They should go for something more substantial like causing death or something.

[EyesWideOpen]

Hmmm the blame game is happening pretty quickly in this case. Clearly the owner is not well connected, or is a foreign entity. Let's see........how about checking the BMA official who signed off on the parking garage modification ????? No wait, that might cause a Thai official to lose face. A bit of a dilemma for the BMA.

[blitzfix]

Wow! They're gonna take action? Just like they did with Santika?

[SilentReader]

I am sure that in most other countries when a building permit is approved and issued that the relevant authority has to make progress inspections or at least a final inspection to be satisfied the completed building work complies with the original building permit. In particular to commercial, public or most multi-unit residential buildings. I know TIT but surely the same process should apply here ? I guess the BMA just sign off on permits and then forget.

[mowgus]

So, they added a 'party hall' on in 1999 and there are supposed to be annual inspections according to the article. Ok....how can they go 13 years without the inspector noticing a new addition?

This is clearly just something thrown out there to make it appear as if action is being taken. TIT...even if they have 50 officials go out, find infractions, 1000 baht will make the inspector go away.

Has anyone heard what the cause of the fire was?

[mrtoad]

Foreign managed still?

[Payboy]

How about BMA's annual inspections?

[MaiChai]

Like shouldnt there be a car park here instead of a ball room?

Strange its overlooked every year, until there is a fire and then someone needs to account for the discrepancy?

Which brings me to those huge condo complexs that are only accessable via a narrow soi? Surely they are a fire risk not to mention poor planning and leading to traffic congestion in the soi and surrounds? Guess someone approved that?

Edited March 12, 2012 by MaiChai

[TAWP]

Hmmm the blame game is happening pretty quickly in this case. Clearly the owner is not well connected, or is a foreign entity. Let's see........how about checking the BMA official who signed off on the parking garage modification ????? No wait, that might cause a Thai official to lose face. A bit of a dilemma for the BMA.

The person signing off did nothing wrong.

The hotel later took their new parking garage space and turned it into part of the hotel, against their permit.

[EyesWideOpen]

Hmmm the blame game is happening pretty quickly in this case. Clearly the owner is not well connected, or is a foreign entity. Let's see........how about checking the BMA official who signed off on the parking garage modification ????? No wait, that might cause a Thai official to lose face. A bit of a dilemma for the BMA.

The person signing off did nothing wrong.

The hotel later took their new parking garage space and turned it into part of the hotel, against their permit.

In the real / non-Thai world, a construction permit is applied for with a set of plans. It is approved, and work is started. There are inspections during the work phase to ensure the work is following the plan. Upon completion, there is a final inspection, and then it is signed off.

What are you implying here? That in amazing Thailand, I can apply for a permit to build a ten story building, build a fifty story building, and no one will notice ????? That once the initial permit is applied for, the BMA people sit in their offices sipping coffee and never check if work is done as per the permit ? " Hey Khun Som, remember that huge parking garage area? Well, we just turned it into a banquet area. In order for you to get over the pain of seeing a radical change in the building usage, here is some tea money to help your Mercedes payments..."

Edited March 13, 2012 by EyesWideOpen

[anterian]

the landlord had asked the Klong Toei district office for permission in 1999 to expand the parking lot, but instead they had modified it to serve as a party hall - which was in violation of the Building Control Act 1979.

So 13 years and a fire to notice a building where it should not be. One minute to notice a one day overstay in a passport.

[Payboy]

So 13 years and a fire to notice a building where it should not be. One minute to notice a one day overstay in a passport.

Half a sec to notice a foreign cigarette butt around Emporium.

[Lancashirelad]

If you read this thread carefully it seems they did apply for permission to build a new parking garage on part of the parking lot.

It was built in accordance with the plan, subsequently inspected and signed off.

At some point forward from then they turned the new parking garage into a ballroom without applying for change of use.

Who knows if that was always the intention?

I stayed at this hotel courtesy of the TAT when the yellow shirts had the airport blockaded a few years ago. Have to say, it was very nice.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Lancashirelad

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

If you read this thread carefully it seems they did apply for permission to build a new parking garage on part of the parking lot.

It was built in accordance with the plan, subsequently inspected and signed off.

You're kind of missing the point, at least in part.

Even if they did build and have inspected some or all of the originally applied for work, they also ended up doing something that was apparently never applied for or permitted.

And supposedly, there are what the OP article refers to as annual building inspection certifications from the BMA... So for more than a decade, this illegal ballroom facility sat there and no one from the BMA ever noticed something was amiss during any of the inspections they may or may not have done????