The cause of a fire which engulfed much of the Forum 1 building at the Braamfontein Office Park (Braampark) in April has been established, following weeks of intense forensic investigations.
At least five tenants including Nedbank and Mi-Way, occupied the Forum 1 building before the incident.
Its entire roof structure caved in, while significant damage was caused to both the interior and exterior wall as a result of the blaze. A thick cloud of smoke could be seen billowing across the 62 000m² office park as a helicopter hovered over the burning building on 18 April. Emergency medical service personnel on the ground scrambled to contain the blaze as people across the office park were being evacuated.
Despite no injuries being reported, an undisclosed number of people were, however, treated at the scene for smoke inhalation. According to Ralph Wellhoner, asset manager at Sanlam Investments – which owns the office park – on the day of the incident, a contractor, whom he would not name, had been brought in to conduct torch-on waterproofing maintenance on the building’s roof structure. Wellhoner said the reason for this measure was to prevent the risk of waterlogging in the roof in the event of excessive rains. “The maintenance issues were dealt with through the torch-on waterproofing process which meant that an open flame was used in order to waterproof the roof,” explained Wellhoner.
“It was during this time that the [workers] went on a lunch break; the result of that being the roof catching fire.
“It was confirmed with the investigation that the roof caught fire due to the flammable tar material used to perform the torch-on process.” Wellhoner added that the company assigned to conduct the waterproofing maintenance had been approved contractors with whom Sanlam had had good business relations.
“Before the incident, they’d had a good history with us. They have a good standing in the market, and so for that reason, they were on our approved list,” he said.
“It’s difficult to say whether we’ll continue doing business with them since insurance investigations have yet to be completed. Whether negligence is anything to do with it, I cannot say, but they were certainly the cause of it. The negligence aspect will be dealt with by the respective insurers in a separate process.”
Wellhoner said that the cost runs-ins experienced were excessive.
“The insurance company will deal with the issue… whether the claim is made from the contractor and to what extent that will be, I can’t say.
“I can confirm, however, that we are comprehensively insured and that the building will be reinstated by insurance. Effectively, we will not suffer any financial losses even though the damage ran into several millions.”
In conclusion, Wellhoner told the publication that reinstating the building, which before the fire had stood for 20 years, will take several months. “There are tenants that would love to occupy the building before 1 April next year. We’re aiming to have it substantially before that time so that the tenants can conduct their own installations,” he said.
When asked about control measures that will be taken to ensure that a similar incident does not occur in the future, he said, “This incident proved that the contingencies were in place and that it was working. If similar accidents occur in the future, there will certainly be consequences to deal with.”
