A protected wooden house that was left to decay burned down in Turku in the spring. The city obliged the owner to fence and protect the building. When this did not happen, the city introduced the threat of commission.
Turku has obliged the owner to protect and fence the old wooden house that burned down in the spring by force of the threat of commission. If the owner doesn’t take action, the city will. The costs will be paid by the owner.
The protected 19th-century house was badly damaged in a strong fire at the end of April. The house was in poor condition and empty at the time of the fire. The building is valuable in terms of cultural history and cityscape.
The building is owned by Asunto Oy Turun Linnankatu 73. Vaasa real estate investment company Hirviniemi Capital, formerly PSJ Holding, owns the housing company’s shares.
The city had tried to get the owner to take care of the valuable building even before the fire, but with poor results. Even threatening fines did not work.
“All in all, this is a really outrageous case,” commented the Turku Museum Center researcher Nora Gherghel after the April fire to HS Turku.
From the dilapidation of the house you can read more here.
The Southwestern Finland police suspect the fire was started intentionally and are investigating the fire as vandalism. On Friday, the police communications announced that there is currently nothing else to comment on the investigation.
The wooden house from the 19th century was in bad condition even before the fire. The city had tried to get the owner to take care of the listed building.
Turku the building inspectorate did an inspection on the site of the burnt house at the beginning of May. A representative of the property owner was also present.
The building and licensing board ordered the owner to fence the plot and protect the house from the weather and vandalism. In addition, the owner was ordered to support the structures of the house, so that the building or its load-bearing frame is not damaged further, and the burnt parts of the house do not pose a safety risk to people.
The security measures were not allowed to endanger the conservation values of the building. The owner had to carry out the measures no later than seven days after being informed of the decision.
At the end of May, the building inspectorate conducted a new inspection. At that time, the cleaning and protection work of the building had started and the loose charred material was collected.
On Thursday of this week, the building control inspected again. The building inspectorate stated that protective measures had not been taken sufficiently.
The area around the lot on the street had been cleaned, a small part of the charred roof structures of the building had been removed and a few windows had been covered with plywood. Instead, the plot was not fenced in such a way that outsiders cannot get there. The building was not protected from the weather in any way and the structures were not supported.
Immediately after the fire, the rescue service estimated that the old building, measuring 300 square meters, was destroyed beyond repair.
Thursday the building and licensing board approved a proposal according to which the owner is obliged to put the construction site and its surroundings in such a condition that it does not endanger safety or spoil the environment.
The owner was again given seven days to fence the plot and protect and support the building. The requirements were practically the same as those given to the owner already in May.
The board strengthened the obligation by imposing the threat of commission. If the owner neglects protections, fencing and supporting structures, the work will be done at the owner’s expense.
The decision was decided to be implemented without the force of law, and it must be followed regardless of the appeal. The justifications were that the current situation poses an immediate danger and the building protected by the site plan will be further damaged if it is not protected from the weather immediately. In addition, it was taken into account that the board’s previous order has not been followed and that an appeal against the decision is likely.
The nature of the decision and the public interest were considered to require the immediate implementation of the decision.
In April, the police said they suspected the fire was set on purpose.
In May the owner of the house was ordered to obtain a condition survey, which will clarify the repairs that are obviously necessary from the point of view of health and safety.
Two months were given to submit the report after the owner received information about the decision.
At the same time, the owner must submit a plan for the renovation of the house to the building control.
Do you want more reading from the Turku region? Subscribe to the HS Turku newsletter from here.
#Turku #decisive #measure #threatens #owner #burnt #wooden #house
