Effectiveness of fire safety measures in the Building Code

Effectiveness of the Building Code is one of main themes of the review

Questions on the issues

5. Do you agree or disagree with MBIE’s assessment of the issues on the effectiveness of fire safety measures in the Building Code?

6. Are there any other issues MBIE should consider on the effectiveness of fire safety measures in the Building Code?

7. Would you like to provide any other comments or feedback on the effectiveness of fire safety measures in the Building Code?

What we heard

There was much support for the issues identified for this topic (Table 3.1). 21 submitters agreed or strongly agreed with all statements on effectiveness of the code. For all but 1 of the statements, 3 to 5 times more submitters (strongly) agreed than (strongly) disagreed. The first statement, regarding the evacuation needs of different occupants in a building, received the highest net level of support. The lowest level of support was for the third statement regarding the protection of a building which still had twice as many of those agreeing than disagreeing.

There were 30 submitters who disagreed or strongly disagreed with one or more of the statements used as examples for this issue. 10 of those submissions did not provide comments or did not provide specific reasons to why they disagreed with the statements. 

Table 3.1: Number of submissions agreeing and disagreeing with the statements on effectiveness of the code

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 3.1: Favourability of the statements on the effectiveness of the Building Code

Evacuation needs for all occupants

Statement 1: Insufficient consideration is given to the evacuation needs of different occupants in a building, such as vulnerable occupants. This means that some people could be at greater risk in a fire.

• mentioning features that are provided in buildings around the world but not in New Zealand such as visual alerting devices, accessible escape paths, and lifts as part of the means of escape
• personal stories from disabled people and the difficulties faces when trying to evacuate a building
• the threshold levels of the fractional effective dose (FED) specified in the Building Code and whether this was appropriate for all building types.

9 submissions disagreed with this first statement. 2 of these submissions disagreed it was an issue in the Building Code clauses and instead that it was an issue in the acceptable solutions and verification methods. The other 7 submissions did not provide further comments about their disagreement with this statement.

Consideration of specific hazards

Statement 2: The Building Code fire safety provisions do not adequately consider the specific hazards, such as building height, building importance, building use, or other factors. This means that the requirements may not be cost-effective for all building owners.

54 submissions agreed or strongly agreed that the Building Code did not adequately consider specific fire hazards for the use or type of building. Comments in the submissions highlighted specific challenges for:

• residential accommodation buildings where the level of safety provided is not adequate for the users of the buildings
• simple standalone and low-rise residential buildings where simple solutions are desired in design and construction
• early childcare centres and schools, courthouses, police stations, and hospitals where security features and operational procedures in the buildings are not aligned with the Building Code
• warehouse buildings where the lack of fire safety features puts firefighters at increased risks when responding to an incident.

Some of the additional hazards provided in the comments included charging electrical vehicles and solar panels, wildfires, storage of flammable materials, and automated racking systems in warehouses. The height of the building was also identified as a risk factor which the Building Code does not adequately address.

11 submissions disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. Of those who disagreed:

• 1 submission stated that the issue was with the users of the documents and not the documents themselves.
• 1 submission disagreed with the statement because it was focused on the hazards in the building and not the people in the building.
• 1 submission stated that the Building Code already considers building height and importance level but also noted that these were hard to find and inconsistent in their use in the Building Code.
• The remaining 8 submissions did not provide comment on why they disagreed with this statement.

Protection of the building

Statement 3: The fire safety objectives in the Building Code focus on keeping people safe and protection of other property. It does not address protecting owners’ investments. This can leave gaps in the protection of buildings and increases the risk for responding firefighters.

40 submitters supported this statement. Those who supported stated that protecting a building in a fire has flow on effects that can limit the impact of the fire on the community from disruptions of services, limit the impact on the environment by reducing pollution to the air and water run-off, and reduce the carbon impact of rebuilding or repairing the building. The submissions also highlighted that protection of a building was also important to prevent structural collapse of tall buildings.

18 submitters disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. This was the highest number of disagreements for this section. This included 8 engineers, 4 building consent authorities and 2 building owners. Of those who disagreed:

• 1 submission stated focusing on life safety and firefighting safety provides a high level of safety already to prevent and confine fires.
• 4 submissions stated that protection of a building should be at the owner’s discretion or should not be part of the Building Code.
• 3  submissions stated it was not required in the Building Act and therefore should not be considered in the Building Code.
• 1 of the building owners was concerned about cost increases.
• The remaining ten submissions did not provide comment on why they disagreed with this statement.

Emergency response

Statement 4: The Building Code does not provide comprehensive measures for firefighters responding to fires or other emergencies.

35 submitters agreed or strongly agreed there were not enough measures to facilitate firefighting in the Building Code. Excluding submissions provided by firefighters and Fire and Emergency New Zealand, there are 7 main topics commented on by others from the submissions:

• Alignment of the Building Code with Fire and Emergency New Zealand operational procedures (11 submissions)
  • It is not clear what assumptions on firefighting are provided for in the Building Code.
• Inconsistencies between the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act and Building Act (6 submissions)
  • The FENZ Act considers that firefighters have additional fire safety objectives not promoted by the Building Code (i.e. the principles objectives in section 10, 11, and 12 of the FENZ Act versus the objectives in clause C1 of the Building Code).
  • S112 of the Building Act does not consider compliance for firefighting operations which means that the provisions for firefighting can worsen over time as buildings are altered.
• Firefighting access to infill and densified housing (7 submissions)
• Attendance points including rural property access and requirements (6 submissions)
  • There is a disconnect on the expectations for rural locations and volunteer fire service brigades versus urban locations with fulltime firefighters.
  • There needs to be a balance of practicality for remote or existing buildings.
• Water supplies for firefighting (8 submissions)
• Hand-held suppression (6 submissions)
• Other emergencies such as medical response (2 submissions)
• Access and water supplies for fires during construction (2 submissions)

Comments from firefighters highlighted similar issues with firefighting access and response and provided specific examples of warehouses and other buildings in which firefighters had been put at increased risk due to a lack of safety features.

11 submitters disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. This included 6 submissions from engineers and 3 submissions from those involved in building control. Of those who disagreed:

• 2 stated that Fire and Emergency New Zealand did not help save lives or were not effective in their role.
• 1 submission stated that firefighter safety is an operational issue for the staff on site but also supported alignment with other building codes overseas.
• 1 submission disagreed it was an issue in the Building Code clauses but an issue in the acceptable solutions and verification methods instead.
• 1 submission stated that they were unaware of what more could be done that was cost effective to enable fire service intervention.
• 1 submission preferred removing the dependency or consideration of firefighting from the Building Code and instead providing overall higher levels of fire safety to the building and its occupants which would make the Building Code simpler.
• 1 submission stated that the provisions for firefighting were sufficient but were not enforced well enough.
• The remaining 4 submissions did not provide comment on why they disagreed with this statement.

Fire safety over the life of a building

Statement 5: The Building Code does not provide sufficient consideration on maintaining fire safety over the life of a building including during construction.

35 submitters agreed there is insufficient consideration for fire safety over the life of a building. Specific concerns brought up in the comments were on the fire safety during construction and the maintenance of fire safety systems in buildings. 

9 submitters disagreed with this statement. No one strongly disagreed. Of those who disagreed:

• 2 submissions stated that this was not a matter for the Building Code and instead the problems were with the Building Warrant of Fitness regime and change of use provisions in the Building Act.
• The remaining 7 submissions did not provide comment on why they disagreed with this statement.

< Outcomes of the fire safety review | Keeping pace with new technologies and new fire challenges >