Zimpapers Logo

Pardon Gotora

Urban Scape

If we were to take a stroll in the Central Business District (CBD) and some old neighbourhoods, we may lose count of some buildings that are or appear dangerous in the eyes of an outsider.

Of course, there are some buildings that appear dangerous from the outside, but “safe” from the inside, especially if you happen to be the occupant.

You “see no evil and hear no evil” and you are prepared to fight tooth and nail to convince the outsiders that the building is safe. There are two distinct, but related scenarios to discuss in this instance.  The first case is where the buildings are structurally sound due to the quality of workmanship at the time of construction and the quality of materials used then.

The usage of the structure has turned it to be an eyesore or a “dangerous” building. The only thing that tells that the building is not derelict is the traffic of people who use it on a daily basis and in some cases the signage.

There are buildings in the CBD that give you goosebumps as you walk up the stairs looking for a tailor, or some printing shop, or a cellphone fixer.

The paint is peeling off, the elevators are dysfunctional, the toilets are blocked and locked, the lighting, especially in the staircases, is not on the priority list to the extent that it poses a danger to the visitors. The valley-gutters are so dilapidated that the rains flow down the brickwork which is on the verge of turning green due to algae.

The property owner is merely focusing on rental collection, oblivious of the need to repair and maintain the building. Such buildings usually distort the aesthetics of those in its vicinity and that of the entire CBD.

Some property owners take initiatives to refurbish their old buildings or at least face-lifting so as to protect the persons utilising them. In countries such as Singapore, it is mandatory to facelift your building after every five years, failure of which the authorities will do it on your behalf and invoice you.

The second instance is where the building is on the verge of collapse. The structure has been weakened by peppered cracks. Underpinning these cracks has become futile, the trusses are moulded by ants, and huge boulders are supporting the roof from inclement wind because the nails cannot hold anymore.

The floors are potholed, thereby depicting a mirror image of a shooting range or a missiles testing field. The whole structure is a death trap to the persons using it. Any sane person would not want to risk or dice with death.

The Housing and Buildings Act (Chapter 29-08) (the Act) takes care of the dangerous buildings.

It states that “notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, an authority may, if it is satisfied that;  any building is:

in a dangerous condition; or

being used in a dangerous manner;

it is necessary for immediate action to be taken for the protection of persons using, or in the vicinity of, the building . . . shore up, fence, demolish or close the building . . . and recover the cost of such action, together with interest on such cost at the standard rate . . .”

The authority (which in my view can be the central government or local authority) is expected to notify the owner and any right holder of the building of its intention to take such action as may be practicable given the circumstances.

In the event that the person occupying the building is not the owner of the property, he or she is expected to avail any pertinent information in her/his possession as may be required by the authority such as any information concerning the name, address and whereabouts of the owner, any right holder or the responsible person.

Non-disclosure is an offence which attracts either a fine or imprisonment or both. Thus, even if you have title deeds to a dangerous building, the authority is empowered to condemn it for demolition, refurbishment or to just close it so as to discontinue its usage.

According to the Act, the authority is not liable to provide the occupant of the dangerous building or premises with alternative accommodation.

The authority has the power to enter and inspect any building deemed dangerous, provided there is a reasonable ground for believing that it might form the subject of a control order.

The Act says “Any member or employee of an authority authorised in writing by the authority to do so may at all reasonable times enter and inspect any building which, on reasonable grounds, he suspects to be of an unsatisfactory standard or overcrowded”.

In the event that there is an obstruction or hindrance to the authorised person intending to inspect the dwelling or building or knowingly gives false information or gives information which she/he does not know or believe to be true, he/she shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months or to both.

However, it must not be misconstrued that old buildings are dangerous buildings. There are some new buildings that are even more dangerous than the old buildings due to the type of material used and poor workmanship.

Local authorities have the power to condemn any structure whenever they are satisfied that it has become a dangerous building.