Industrial Unit Conversion to a Children's Play Venue on One Staircase

Start with feasibility, not with the plans. The controlling constraint here is the escape strategy, so the fire engineering assessment comes first; there is no point spending on planning or lease work for a scheme that cannot be built.

The consents, in a sensible sequence:

1. Zoning. The site is zoned 'Industrial'. Check the Notes to the outline zoning plan: 'Shop and Services' and any place-of-public-entertainment use may be in Column 2 (always permitted) or Column 3 (permission required). If Column 3 or not listed, a section 16 application to the Town Planning Board is needed, with supporting fire safety and traffic information.
2. Land/lease. The temporary waiver expires next year and was for 'shop and services'; a children's play venue may fall outside it, and a play centre may also breach the lease. Consent or a variation from the Lands Department must be obtained, and the expiry date means the client cannot rely on the waiver for the life of the fit-out.
3. Buildings Ordinance. Plans under section 14(1) for the alteration and addition, covering means of escape, fire resisting construction, fire services installations and structural works, with Fire Services Department consultation. A change of use also requires the affected parts to meet current fire safety standards.
4. Fire Safety (Buildings) Ordinance. An industrial building first approved in 1979 falls within the Ordinance; check whether a Fire Safety Direction is outstanding for the common areas, because the unit cannot be made safe while the common escape route is deficient.
5. Licensing. A venue of this kind will likely need a place of public entertainment licence or similar approval, plus food business licensing for the café; the licensing authority will require Building and Fire Services confirmation before issuing.

The client should be told the whole chain now, so the programme and budget reflect it.

The unit has one effective exit, not two. The 900 mm door onto the service corridor does not count as an alternative exit if that corridor discharges back into the same single staircase - occupants would be routed into the same fire-affected zone. So the strategy is single-directional escape through one 1.05 m staircase serving eight floors.

The arithmetic has two parts, and both must pass:

• Occupant capacity versus exit provision. Using the Code of Practice for Fire Safety in Buildings, derive the occupant number from the floor area and the occupancy factor for the proposed use. A play and party venue is assembly-type accommodation, and the factor for assembly uses is much more onerous than for storage. 240 persons in 1,200 m² is about 5 m² per person, which may look generous, but the party rooms and café concentrate people and their local exits must be checked separately.
• Discharge capacity of the staircase. A 1.05 m staircase has a finite capacity and must carry the cumulative population of all floors above. A staircase designed in 1979 for flatted factory use will not have been sized for an assembly population, and the ground floor final exit must also take the whole building.

For assembly accommodation of this occupant load, a single staircase is not acceptable: the code requires at least two independent exits where the population and travel distances exceed the single-exit allowance, and here the second 'exit' is not independent. Add the neighbouring racked warehouses - a substantial fire load sharing the same staircase - and the risk is plainly intolerable. Conclusion: the scheme as proposed cannot be approved.

Be constructive about what is possible, and firm about what is not. A second, genuinely independent exit cannot be created inside the unit, because both existing routes lead to the same staircase. That means the options are limited and should be set out honestly:

• Reduce the hazard and the population. A low-intensity use with a small occupant number - for example a showroom, office or small training room with a population low enough to satisfy the single-direction escape and travel distance limits - could be supportable. That is a different scheme from a 240-person play venue, and the client should hear it as such.
• Relocate. A unit in a building with two staircases, or a purpose-designed commercial building, is the straightforward answer.
• Pre-submission consultation. An informal approach to the Building Authority and the Fire Services Department to test the escape concept is sensible, but only with an honest description of the constraints. It is not a means of obtaining tacit endorsement of a non-compliant scheme.

Where the line is: I will not submit plans, or sign a fire strategy report, that characterise the service corridor as a second exit when it re-enters the same staircase, or that relies on management measures and staff assistance in place of physical escape provision for a children's venue. Nor will I present the 1.05 m staircase as adequate by reworking the occupancy factor to a number the escape strategy cannot actually serve.

Practical protection for the client and for me: put the advice in writing with the reasons, record the alternatives and their cost, and confirm the instruction if the client decides to proceed on a different basis with someone else. A clear written trail protects the client from a wasted fit-out and protects me from later being said to have encouraged the scheme.