Outcomes of the fire safety review
MBIE proposed key outcomes to improve clarity, consistency, and relevance in Building Code fire safety provisions. Over 80% of submitters supported these outcomes, with strong agreement on the need to minimise gaps and inconsistencies.
On this page
Outcomes to achieve in the overall review
The overall review proposed the following outcomes:
- Building Code requirements need to be clear on protection levels based on building types and their users.
- Fire safety provisions in the Building Code need to keep up with changes in urban design, modern construction methods, and the different ways buildings are being used.
- Ensure fire safety regulatory requirements in the Building Code are fit for purpose and cost-effective.
- Minimise gaps inconsistencies in fire safety regulation to provide certainty, clarity, and consistency.
Questions on the outcomes
These questions were asked on the outcomes of the review. Responses received that were out of scope or discussed individual issues are analysed in other parts of this document.
1. Do you agree or disagree with the outcomes MBIE identified for the review of fire safety provisions in the Building Code?
2. How well do you think the fire regulations in the Building Code are currently performing against these suggested outcomes? Please provide evidence if you can.
3. Are there other outcomes MBIE should consider for the review?
4. Would you like to provide feedback on your answers?
Outcomes of the safety review were highly supported
There was a high level of agreement on each outcome proposed. Of those who responded to question 1, over 80% strongly agreed or agreed on each outcome (Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1). The highest level of agreement was with the outcome to minimise gaps and inconsistencies; 92% of submissions agreed or strongly agreed with this outcome. Building consent authorities, designers, and engineers were more likely to support the outcome on consistency in the requirements. Building users (owners, occupants, and others) were more likely to support the outcome on the level of safety.
There are only five submitters who disagreed or strongly disagreed with at least one of the outcomes. Four of these submitters disagreed with all of the outcomes and did not provide comments stating why they disagreed. Instead, they provided comments on other items to be changed in the Building Code or regulatory system. One submitter disagreed with some of the outcomes. This submission stated that there was no issue with the current level of performance in the Building Code and that, as a performance-based Building Code, it was not sensitive to changes in technology or building type or use. None of the industry associations disagreed with any of the outcomes proposed.
While submitters provided comments and feedback on question 3 for other outcomes to consider, none of these comments contained items that were substantially different than the outcomes identified in the consultation document. Some submitters identified that the acceptable solutions and verification methods also required a review.
Table 2.1: Number of submissions agreeing and disagreeing with the outcomes identified in the consultation
| Statement[1] | +SA | +A | N | -D | -SD | NR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Building Code requirements need to be clear on protection levels based on building types and their users. | 56 (64%) | 24 (27%) | 3 (3%) | 3 (3%) | 2 (2%) | 25 |
| Fire safety provisions in the Building Code need to keep up with changes in urban design, modern construction methods, and the different ways buildings are being used. | 55 (59%) | 21 (24%) | 6 (13%) | 2 (1%) | 3 (1%) | 26 |
| Ensure fire safety regulatory requirements in the Building Code are fit for purpose and cost-effective. | 52 (59%) | 21 (24%) | 11 (13%) | 1 (1%) | 3 (3%) | 25 |
| Minimise gaps and inconsistencies in fire safety regulation to provide certainty, clarity, and consistency. | 63 (71%) | 19 (21%) |
3 (3%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (4%) | 24 |
[1] 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.
Percentages in this table for +Sa, +A, N, -D, -SD are based on submissions with response.
Figure 2.1: Favourability of the outcomes identified in the consultation
Performance of the Building Code against the outcomes
Submitters were asked how well they thought the fire regulations in the Building Code are currently performing against the suggested outcomes (Table 2.2 and Figure 2.2).
Table 2.2: Number of submissions on the performance of the Building Code against the outcomes
| Statement | Very well | Somewhat well | Not very well | Not at all well | Don’t know or not applicable |
| How well do you think the fire regulations in the Building Code are currently performing against the suggested outcomes? | 4 (8%) | 44 (59%) | 23 (23%) | 14 (16%) | 27 |
Figure 2.2: How well the Building Code is performing against the outcomes
The responses were split on how well the Building Code was performing. 60% of the responses stated that the Building Code was performing ‘somewhat well’. 4 submissions stated that the Building Code was performing very well. From these 4 submissions:
- 1 submission provided no additional comments on why they thought it was performing well.
- 2 of these submissions provided additional statements of items to improve in the Building Code fire safety requirements.
- 1 submission stated that the current C-clauses in the Building Code were a significant improvement on the previous performance requirements in C1 to C4 from pre-2012.
37 submissions stated that the Building Code was not performing well. Generally, the submissions noted specific reasons why they thought the Building Code was not performing very well. From a high-level, this included that:
- Life safety was not provided to an adequate level for specific building occupants which put some people at higher levels of risk. Some raised concerns that consideration of the financial implications would result in lowering life safety to an unacceptable level.
- The lack of clarity in the requirements and the gaps in the Building Code cause frustration for both new construction and when altering existing buildings. This issue was the most mentioned in comments. Many submitters made specific comments about the lack of certainty, clarity, and consistency in the Building Code alongside the disconnects to other legislation and regulation such as the Resource Management Act, Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act, and Health and Safety Act. Other submissions stated that inconsistencies and gaps the acceptable solutions and verification methods also need to be updated as part of the review.
“The performance requirements C1-6 are structured differently from the rest of the building code and out of alignment with the C/AS1 and C/AS2 acceptable solution documents.”
- The operation of specific buildings such as early childcare centres, hospitals, courthouses, and police stations are not addressed well in the Building Code and this results in unnecessary costs when trying to demonstrate compliance.
- Fire safety requirements were not as cost effective as they could be for design, consenting, and construction and that costs were increasing.
“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. More prescriptive principles and performance requirements would improve this.”
Other comments on specific items are discussed later in this document.
Broken down by the types of submitters; engineers, architects, and designers generally agreed with all the outcomes, but were split on the performance of the Building Code. Building consent authorities strongly agreed with the outcomes and generally thought the Building Code was performing somewhat well. Other submitters generally indicated that the Building Code was not performing well. This included building owners and occupants.