Keeping pace with new technologies and new fire challenges

New technology is one of main themes of the review

New technologies, urban design and methods of construction have evolved rapidly since the last review of the fire safety regulations in 2011. MBIE identified issues where the Building Code was a barrier for the use of innovative technologies or did not provide protection from new and emerging fire risks.

Questions on the issues

There were 3 questions asked on this topic.

8. Do you agree or disagree with MBIE’s assessment of the issues on keeping pace with new technologies and new fire challenges?

9. Are there any other issues MBIE should consider on keeping pace with new technologies and new fire challenges?

10. Do you have any other comments or feedback on the ability of the Building Code to keep pace with new technologies and new fire challenges?

What we heard

Support for the issues identified for this topic varied by topic (Table 4.1). The highest level of support was for the statement regarding fire hazards of new technology with 75% of submissions agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement. 

22 submitters disagreed or strongly disagreed with at least one statement in this section. 5 of these submitters provided no further comments on why they disagreed. 2 submitters disagreed with all of the statements in this section. The first 2 statements about the use of new products and mass timber construction received lower levels of support. The largest number disagreed with the first statement on the use of overseas building products. 

Table 4.1: Number of submissions agreeing and disagreeing with the statements on keeping pace with new technologies and new fire challenges

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 4.1: Favourability of the statements on keeping pace with new technologies

Overseas products

Statement 1: The Building Code fire safety provisions create barriers to the use of overseas products.

39 submissions agreed or strongly agreed that the Building Code created barriers to overseas products. These submissions suggested often stated that the cited standards in the Building Code were too restrictive on the types of products that can be used in buildings to maintain the desired level of safety. Of those that agreed and provided comments:

• 2 submissions stated that additional international standards need to be cited.
• 4 submissions commented on the restrictions imposed by the citation of standards in the Building Code clause C3.4. 
• 3 considered the timely citation of updated standards in the AS/VM documents as a limiting factor. 
• 2 commented the standards themselves were not updated often enough.
• 1 submission cautioned that not all international standards would be suitable for New Zealand and standards would have to meet the objectives of the New Zealand Building Code.
• 1 submission suggested adopting mid- to large scale fire test for cladding as these would more accurately reflect cladding system behaviour in fire. 

13 submissions disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. This included eight submissions from building consent authorities and those involved in building control. Three submissions preferred that products from overseas have more onerous testing and certification requirements including certification to mandatory product assurance schemes. 

• 2 submissions stated that they did not believe this was an issue in the Building Code clause but a problem with testing requirements in the acceptable solutions and verification methods.
• 2 submissions disagreed with the statement but still suggested that the New Zealand Building Code was not the appropriate location for quantified performance requirements (such as those found for the fire safety of surface finishes in clause C3.4).
• 1 submission stated that products from overseas were already in use in New Zealand so no further changes were required.
• 1 submission stated that removing barriers would mean that local suppliers would lose market share to products from overseas.
• 1 submission stated that products complying with other standards than those in the Building Code could be used through the use of a waiver or modification to the Building Code clause.
• The remaining three submissions did not provide specific comment on why they disagreed with this statement.

Mass timber and modern methods of construction

Statement 2: The Building Code fire safety provisions do not enable mass timber construction and other modern construction methods to be used safely and efficiently.

39 submissions agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. Of those who agreed and provided comments:

• 1 submitter stated that other performance attributes such as seismic, acoustic and sustainability should be included.
• 1 submission stated that increased insulation and airtightness due to modern construction should be considered. 
• 2 submissions stated that the Building Code and AS/VM documents need to be reviewed more frequently. 
• 2 submissions commented that post-fire performance is not addressed in the Building Code including for mass timber.

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

• 4 submissions stated that they did not believe this was an issue in the Building Code clauses but may be an issue in the acceptable solutions and verification methods.
• 1 submission stated that the problem may be with mass timber construction as a technology itself and not with the Building Code.
• 1 submission stated that mass timber was already well accounted for in the Building Code.
• The remaining 6 submissions did not provide specific comment on why they disagreed with this statement.

Fire hazards from emerging technologies

Statement 3: The Building Code is not flexible enough to address fire hazards from emerging technologies such as electric vehicles, solar panels, and battery storage systems.

75%, or 61 submissions agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. Of those who agreed and provided comments:

• 5 stated that the regulatory framework should be more responsive and flexible to address new risks.
• 4 said the current Building Code provisions do not adequately manage the risks posed by electric vehicle charging, battery storage, and solar panels.
• 8 suggested to restrict charging batteries in buildings, by either banning these or requiring consents and specific building features, or policies or guidance.

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

• 4 submissions stated that they did not believe this was an issue in the Building Code clauses but may be an issue in the acceptable solutions, verification methods, or guidance documents.
• 1 submission did not provide specific comment on why they disagreed with this statement.

Modern housing

Statement 4: Further consideration is required in the Building Code for modern housing such as fire spread and access for firefighters.

More than half the submissions (54, or 57%) agreed or strongly agreed with this statement.

• 7 submissions expressed concern for firefighter access requirements.
• 3 submissions stated that further consideration for means of escape and fire spread to other buildings was needed.
• 1 BCA expressed concern that the methods of subdivision for medium density residential does not consider future relevant boundaries when buildings are constructed prior to subdivision. For freehold subdivisions, planning setbacks cease to exist, removing a default compliance for fire spread across boundaries.  
• 1 submitter stated C/AS1 includes low rise apartment buildings, but its content is not detailed enough to support the trades, who are only familiar with the construction of standalone houses. C/AS1 should be expanded to include information on fire separations and fire stopping, etc. 

7 submissions disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. 5 of these submissions were from engineers and two were from building consent authorities. Of those who disagreed:

• 2 submissions stated that they did not believe this was an issue in the Building Code clauses but may be an issue in the acceptable solutions and verification methods.
• 1 submission stated features for firefighting were not required and that Fire and Emergency New Zealand can make decisions when they arrive on the scene.
• 1 submission stated that the features for firefighting needed to be balanced against the costs for building access in rural locations.
• The remaining 3 submissions did not provide specific comment on why they disagreed with this statement.

2 electricity providers asked for consideration of buildings near electrical installations such as transformers and power lines. 

New fire safety systems and technologies

Statement 5: There are barriers in the Building Code to using new fire safety systems or technologies as part of a design.

46, or 55% agreed/strongly agreed with this issue. 3 submissions highlighted that the Building Code was not well placed to permit new technology as the lack of specific details on the performance of systems in the code clauses results on over-reliance of cited standards in the acceptable solutions and verification method documents.

The types of technologies that were discussed in the submissions included:

• fire suppression systems other than wet pipe sprinkler systems.
• fire alarm systems for different applications include visual alerting devices.
• hypoxic fire prevention systems.
• eco-friendly extinguishing agent for extinguishers.
• the use of AI in fire safety systems.

1 submitter expressed concern about the visibility of photoluminescent signs.

9 submissions disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement: 

• 5 submissions stated that they did not believe this was an issue in the Building Code clauses but may be an issue in the acceptable solutions and verification methods.
• 2 submissions stated the barrier for adopting new technology is due to the challenge in demonstrating performance for a building consent application and there was insufficient knowledge of how new technologies performed in fire.
• The remaining 2 submissions did not provide specific comment on why they disagreed with this statement.

< Effectiveness of fire safety measures in the Building Code | Certainty, clarity, and consistency >