The fire department highlighted 'large amounts of flammable material far exceeding the designated fire load' in its decision. Even if the decision is appealed, the prohibition on living there will apply.
Many of the tenants are now desperate. One of them is Marjo Kiviluoma, a pensioner who has lived in the building for a year. Now she is in danger of becoming homeless.
– Everyone is depressed and desperately looking for a place to live. We've only had two weeks. How can you find a new place in two weeks? she says.
At the end of January, authorities including the police, fire department, and building inspectors conducted a joint inspection of the property. This was followed on February 1 by a decision from the Rescue Service prohibiting the building's use for residential purposes. Residents must vacate the premises by February 16.
Unlike previous closures impacting individuals drawn to the city's booming job market, this case involves residents with no direct connection to Skellefteå's rapid growth.
While the building's exterior might suggest apartments, an inspection revealed the ground and first floors were being rented out as living spaces. However, these spaces lacked proper conversion from their original non-residential use and crucial fire safety features.
"If a fire were to break out there, it would be extremely life-threatening – the risk of people dying is high," says Daniel Haarala, of the fire protection servce..
–They are rooms, not separate apartments. It wasn't originally built as a residential building, and it doesn't have a fire compartmentation, explains Haarala of the fire protection service.
– What we can establish is that it have been tenants there for more than ten years, he says.
In its decision, the rescue service explains why the rooms in the house are unsuitable for living in.
"Due to the fact that the building does not have fire protection adapted to the requirements of a multi-family dwelling, it is immediately unsuitable for renting rooms as dwellings. The conditions in the building pose a danger to the life and health of the tenants."
The reasons for the evacuation are then listed in the decision:
- The building is constructed without any fire cell division between living spaces, stairwells and floors.
- At the time of the inspection, there was neither an automatic fire alarm nor a working fire alarm.
The fire department noted, among other things, that doors were locked with padlocks.
- There are no reliable escape routes. During the inspection, interior doors were locked with padlocks, corridors and rooms were cluttered with things, windows could not be opened, door handles on interior doors and balcony doors were missing, and there was no escape route from the floors more than five meters from the ground.
- Large quantities of combustible material that far exceed the design fire load. During the inspection, the entire building was cluttered with large amounts of material that can be described as symptomatic of hoarding behavior.
- Increased fire risks. During the inspection, many factors were discovered that lead to an increased risk of fire. These included: unprofessional electrical installations, smoking indoors, broken fixtures, broken electrical appliances, battery-powered means of transport that are charged indoors, signs of previous fire incidents and more.
- Extinguishing equipment is missing. At the inspection visit, there was no extinguishing equipment that can be assumed to prevent a fire in the house.
The fire department noted, among other things, that doors were locked with padlocks.
In previous cases reported by Norran, the property owner was given the opportunity to correct the situation, including applying for a building permit. That is not the case here.
– Our assessment was that it would be extremely difficult to convert this building into apartments. It would require total reconstruction, says Haarala.
Windows in the house were covered with cardboard during the check at the end of January.
The fire department also pointed out issues with the electricity in the rental property in its decision.
For Marjo Kiviluoma, the future feels uncertain. She doesn't know where to go.
– I'll probably end up in the shelter. But what will we do with our things?
What happens to the residents?
– It's very tricky. It's not our responsibility to find new accommodation, says Haarala.
The ban will take effect on February 16, even if an appeal is made to the county council.
Haarala notes that he has never come across a similar situation.
– It is unique. I don't think anything like it has ever happened before, he says.
Norran has also spoken to the owner:
– I can't say anything today. I have appealed the decision, he says.