4. Certainty, clarity, and consistency
Building Code provisions need to be clear enough to support consistent decisions on whether buildings comply with fire safety.
On this page
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 has 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.
4.1. Gaps in regulations have created a complex Building Code system to use
MBIE has identified issues where gaps in the requirements have resulted in an overly complex system.
Even for simple buildings, there are close to 300 pages of acceptable solutions and verification methods with fire safety provisions.
To address gaps in the Building Code and a lack of clarity for specific circumstances, more than a dozen guidance documents have been developed to understand the fire provisions.
There are also various design guides used by government agencies covering the design of hospitals, schools, fire stations, correctional facilities and more.
Understanding and working through the complex set of documents and fire safety provisions causes:
- delays in construction
- sparks disputes
- increases the fire risk in buildings
- leaves gaps in the regulatory system that can lead to more costs
- frustrations for designers, engineers, and building consent officers who are left to understand vague requirements.
The Building Code is used by a wide variety of people with different levels of knowledge of fire science and fire safety.
Stakeholders have told MBIE that the fire safety provisions in the Building Code need to be:
- less complex
- equal to the skills and abilities of the people who use it
- have its supporting documents simplified where possible
- be easy to work through
- easy for people to quickly understand what is required for them to do their jobs, at all stages of a building’s life.
Figure 6. Current fire safety requirements can add complexity to the building process
4.2. Multiple building classifications make requirements unclear
The building regulatory system contains multiple definitions of a building’s use, and these often overlap, or leave gaps in the classification of buildings.
Every building is designed for a specific use and must meet Building Code requirements that ensure it will be safe, healthy, and durable when used in the way it was designed.
To comply with the fire safety provisions, the building’s use may be defined as one of:
- 7 classified uses in Building Code clause A1
- 15 uses for determining the change in use
- 7 risks groups used in the Acceptable Solutions C/AS1 and C/AS2
- 3 risk groups used for emergency lighting in clause F6 of the Building Code
- 5 importance levels in clause A3.
International building codes commonly have one set of building classifications that cover all requirements, not just fire safety. These classification systems provide a common language and structure for developing building code requirements.
Where the classification of building is confusing, designers, owners, and councils may not agree on whether the building provides a suitable level of safety.
4.3. Unclear language leads to inconsistent decision making
Some of the language used in the Building Code’s objectives and some of its fire safety provisions is unclear. This makes it difficult to work out if a building’s compliant with the Building Code.
The most recent changes to the Building Code’s fire safety provisions in 2012 were made to:
- give more precise performance criteria when assessing building designs
- improve building quality
- streamline the consent process
- reduce the scope for disputes, and ensure building users were safer.
Stakeholders have raised concerns that the performance criteria in the current Building Code requirements do not achieve the right balance between clarity and flexibility. For example, some performance criteria for building materials are very specific and rigid and require use of a standard, but other performance criteria include wording such as ‘low probability of injury’.
The Building Code includes terms such as ‘unacceptable risk’ and ‘low probability.’ These terms are not defined in the regulations, and the performance criteria are not adequately supported by verification methods like they are for other Building Code clauses such as B1 Stability.
While the performance criteria reflect the performance-based nature of New Zealand’s Building Code, MBIE invites feedback on whether the Building Code system achieves an appropriate balance between clarity and flexibility for fire safety.
MBIE has also identified other concerns regarding inconsistent use of terminology and clarity of wording.
Unclear requirements can introduce uncertainty when designing and consenting buildings. People who use the Building Code can form conflicting opinions on whether designs are acceptable or not, and these can vary across different buildings. There are risks this could lead to inconsistent decision making on what is required to comply with the Building Code.
4.4. Inconsistencies when also complying with other legislation and regulations
The fire safety provisions in the Building Code generate inconsistencies with other parts of the Building Code and other legislation and regulations in New Zealand. This leads to:
- inconsistencies and incompatibilities with provisions for weathertightness or structural design
- discrepancies between the specified fire safety systems and categories of building use in other regulations under the Building Act
- no clear direction on fire safety systems, and
- Building Code users not knowing what fire safety system upgrades are needed when altering a building or changing its use.
There are also other pieces of legislation and regulations in New Zealand that contain measures for fire safety. This includes Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act, including evacuation schemes, work health and safety legislation (including hazardous substance regulations), and requirements for residential tenancies and retirement villages.
The Building Code has limited consideration for these requirements, which can result in conflicts between the Building Code and these other legislative requirements.
These issues add uncertainty over where the building is also required to comply with other legislation and regulations in New Zealand.
Inconsistencies across the multiple sets of requirements can also make it harder for people to build and can add unnecessary delays and costs in designing, consenting, and constructing buildings.
Case study: Hazardous substance regulations
Fire resistance ratings indicate how long a building material is expected to continue to satisfy stability, integrity, and insulation criteria during a fire.
When the building is to be used for the storage of hazardous substances after consent, in many cases the required fire resistance rating imposed by the Health and Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017 is 240 minutes (4 hours).
However, the highest fire resistance rating required by C/AS2 is 180 minutes (3 hours) which can mean that extensive building renovations may be required when a building changes use. There are also no 240-minute rated fire doors available in New Zealand which can make it difficult to practically comply with requirements.
4.5. Questions on certainty, clarity, and consistency
Please consider these questions if you are going to give MBIE feedback on this section.
- Do you agree with MBIE’s assessment of the issues on certainty, clarity and consistency?
- Are there any other issues MBIE should consider on certainty, clarity and consistency?
- Do you have any other comments or feedback on the certainty, clarity and consistency of fire safety provisions in the Building Code?