Certainty, clarity, and consistency
We asked whether the Building Code provides enough clarity and consistency to support confident, nationwide decision-making, and heard strong support for addressing regulatory gaps, confusing classifications, and misalignments with other legislation.
On this page
Certainty, clarity and consistency of the building code is one of main themes of the review
The Building Code system aims to ensure building designs will be consistently assessed across the country. Its provisions need to be clear enough to support consistent decisions on whether buildings comply. MBIE identified issues where the requirements do not achieve this, leaving gaps in the regulatory framework. Gaps and inconsistencies can lead to costly and unnecessary disputes and delays.
Questions on the issues
There were 3 questions asked on this topic.
11. Do you agree or disagree with MBIE’s assessment of the issues on certainty, clarity and consistency?
12. Are there any other issues MBIE should consider on certainty, clarity and consistency?
13. Do you have any other comments or feedback on the certainty, clarity and consistency of fire safety provisions in the Building Code?
What we heard
There were high levels of support for the issues identified for this topic (Table 5.1). This was consistently the highest levels of support in the consultation. Seven submitters disagreed or strongly disagreed with some of these statements.
Table 5.1: Number of submissions agreeing and disagreeing with the statements about certainty, clarity, and consistency
| Statement | +SA | +A | N | -D | -SD | NR |
| [1] Gaps in regulation have created a complex system to navigate. | 36 (43%) | 29 (35%) | 15 (18%) | 4 (5%) | 0 (0%) |
29 |
| [2] The multiple ways to classify buildings can cause confusion on what is required. | 34 (40%) | 33 (39%) | 14 (16%) | 3 (4%) | 1 (1%) | 28 |
| [3] Unclear language in the fire safety provisions can lead to inconsistent decision making. | 44 (52%) | 29 (34%) | 9 (10%) | 2 (2%) | 1 (1%) | 28 |
| [4] The fire safety requirements in the Building Code have inconsistencies with other legislation and regulations. | 28 (34%) | 28 (34%) | 23 (28%) | 3 (4%) | 0 (0%) |
31 |
Key: +SA = Strongly agree, +A = Agree, N = Neither agree or disagree, -D = Disagree, -SD = Strongly disagree,
NR = No response, don’t know, or not applicable
Figure 5.1: Favourability of the statements on certainty, clarity and consistency
Gaps creating a complex system
Statement 1: Gaps in regulation have created a complex system to navigate.
78% of submissions agreed that gaps in the regulation created a complex system.
Overall, submitters stated 76 times for further information on the requirements was needed. 4 submitters stated that certain concepts needed to be better defined. Others stated that the interpretations of the requirements are inconsistent, even within the same organisation, and this leads to delays in design and consenting.
Several submissions mentioned the lack of alignment between the Building Code clauses and the acceptable solutions and verification methods.
Only 4 submissions disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. Of those who disagreed:
- 3 submissions did not provide any additional comments on why they disagreed with this statement.
- The remaining submission that disagreed noted that in many fields there are often competing and contradictory requirements, and it was the job of practitioners to navigate their way through.
“…unless your building type fits exactly within the acceptable solution, it can be difficult to find a means of compliance for your building and often fire design can become complicated very quickly for otherwise very simple buildings and design proposals, adding huge costs to relatively small projects… The huge costs of fire design for the varying types of buildings now proposed for development is an inhibitor of development and growth, particularly in cities.”
“As a landlord it is challenging to get answers from councils as to what they will accept causing delay and confusion with trades.”
“The interpretation of means of escape by IQPs and the lack of specificity on Compliance Schedules to distinguish between fire and smoke separations for means of escape and those for property protection or external spread of flame is causing significant additional work and costs for BWoF passive fire compliance without improving fire safety.”
Building classification
Statement 2: The multiple ways to classify buildings can cause confusion on what is required.
67, (79%), submissions agreed the building classifications were confusing.
6 submissions mentioned there are too many ways to classify a building, and the classifications in C/AS2 (risk groups) do not align with the Classified Uses in the Change the Use Regulations. Four others stated there should be more refinement within the risk groups, especially for sleeping accommodation. There were specific mentions to improve the classification of residential uses, such as transient accommodation and at home care.
There were only 4 submissions that disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. Of these, 3 submissions did not provide any additional comments on why they disagreed with this statement. The remaining stated they disagreed but noted in their comments that importance levels, risk groups, classified uses, and change of use regulations should all be consistent.
Unclear language
This issue received the most support with 44 submitters strongly agreeing and 29 submitters agreeing, a total of 86%. Several submitters, including BCAs, said the lack of clarity led to different interpretations which create uncertainty and delays in the consenting process. Submitters stated that better definitions for building features such as means of escape, crowd, exitway and places of safety were needed.
“I believe that many barriers would be illuminated if all building features are clearly defined, including elements that are deemed obvious (like a wall – at what angle is a wall no longer a wall but a roof). It should not be assumed that everyone knows the difference between an egress route, escape route, exitway, safe path, external route, open path or dead-end open path. Building code clause A2 should be revised to include all possible definitions. Importance levels are differently defined for seismic performance than for fire performance, both B and C clauses should reference building code clause A3 instead of separately defining importance levels.”
“The clearer the requirements within the code in how they are written and supported by effective diagrams then the less time designers and BCAs will spend in interpreting them and coming to the same agreement. There is a big productivity gain possible from clearer documents.”
“The central regulator should not defer or encourage local regulators to interpret controversial matters differently.”
There were 4 submissions that disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. Two submissions did not provide any specific comments on why they disagreed with this statement. The remaining submission suggested the issue was with the qualifications and skills of those using the documents.
Inconsistencies with other legislation and regulations
Statement 4: The fire safety requirements in the Building Code have inconsistencies with other legislation and regulations
Fifty-six (68%) agreed that the Building Code is inconsistent with other legislation. Submitters stated that there needed to better linkages between the Building Code and:
- the Fire and Emergency Act, and the Evacuation Scheme regulations
- the Resource Management Act (for firefighting water supplies)
- the Change the Use Regulations
- the Health and Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances) Regulations
- Ministry of Education licensing regime
- structural requirements in other code clauses.
“Fire-fighting water supply must be included in the NZBC and not just left to be magically dealt with in Resource Consent (or not dealt with as seems to be the case now)”
There were 3 submissions that disagreed with this statement. 1 submission stated that not all fire safety designs had to have the same outcome. 1 submission stated that the inconsistencies may indicate problems with other legislation and not the Building Act/Building Code but did not provide further explanation. The remaining submission did not provide any further specific comments on they disagreed.