http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/crimes/135780/loophole-clouds-santika-charges
The owner of the fire-ravaged Santika pub -- described as a "deathtrap" -- may escape charges for violating the Building Control Act through a legal loophole.
As the pub was not a ``controlled building'' under the law, it was not required to have a fire control system or emergency exits, according to the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration's public works department.
Chatnai Navaphut, chief of the public works department, yesterday revealed the building was originally registered as a private residence, but its owner later requested a change in the building type to an entertainment venue.
Mr Chatnai said he had no idea whether the request had been approved by the Metropolitan Police Bureau which is in charge of issuing entertainment business licences.
A source from the BMA's public works department said although there were concerns the pub building had a number of safety flaws, the owner was unlikely to face charges for breaking the Building Control Act.
``Santika pub's building is neither a large building nor a high rise, therefore it is not required to have fire escapes and exits,'' the source said.
The City Hall clarification over the building's status came after engineering and architectural experts pointed the finger at Watthana district office, which granted the construction permit for the pub which opened in 2005.
They said the construction permit issued by the district office held the key for pinpointing who should be responsible for the fire that killed 64 revellers and injured 68 others.
Under the Building Control Act, buildings categorised as private accommodation are not required to adhere to the same rigid safety regulations as entertainment venues.
The district's construction permit would reveal if the pub building had been used for the purpose listed in the permit and if the building owner followed safety regulations issued for a certain type of building, they said.
Watthana district officials yesterday refused to give details about the construction permit, saying the document was issued during the term of the previous district chief.
One official said the office could not even find a blueprint of the pub building, submitted for construction approval.
The owner of the fire-ravaged Santika pub -- described as a "deathtrap" -- may escape charges for violating the Building Control Act through a legal loophole.
As the pub was not a ``controlled building'' under the law, it was not required to have a fire control system or emergency exits, according to the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration's public works department.
Chatnai Navaphut, chief of the public works department, yesterday revealed the building was originally registered as a private residence, but its owner later requested a change in the building type to an entertainment venue.
Mr Chatnai said he had no idea whether the request had been approved by the Metropolitan Police Bureau which is in charge of issuing entertainment business licences.
A source from the BMA's public works department said although there were concerns the pub building had a number of safety flaws, the owner was unlikely to face charges for breaking the Building Control Act.
``Santika pub's building is neither a large building nor a high rise, therefore it is not required to have fire escapes and exits,'' the source said.
The City Hall clarification over the building's status came after engineering and architectural experts pointed the finger at Watthana district office, which granted the construction permit for the pub which opened in 2005.
They said the construction permit issued by the district office held the key for pinpointing who should be responsible for the fire that killed 64 revellers and injured 68 others.
Under the Building Control Act, buildings categorised as private accommodation are not required to adhere to the same rigid safety regulations as entertainment venues.
The district's construction permit would reveal if the pub building had been used for the purpose listed in the permit and if the building owner followed safety regulations issued for a certain type of building, they said.
Watthana district officials yesterday refused to give details about the construction permit, saying the document was issued during the term of the previous district chief.
One official said the office could not even find a blueprint of the pub building, submitted for construction approval.
