Out of Scope
From:
Barry Brown <[email address]>
Sent:
Monday, 3 September 2018 4:02 p.m.
To:
Ginny Carter
Cc:
Katie Gordon; Determinations
Subject:
Det 3023/49 Stoneleigh Drive, Rolleston - Referee comment on draft
[UNCLASSIFIED]
Attachments:
Draft Stoneleigh.docx
Ginny
I refer to your e-mail received 30/8 plus the associated referee pack containing draft determination
#3023/Stoneleigh, and offer review comments as below.
1. General
1.1 I presume the site address on the front sheet is 49 Stoneleigh Drive rather than 49 Rol eston Drive, so I
have revised accordingly.
NB : If this is incorrect, please advise the revelance of the descriptor "Stoneleigh" in the draft.
1.2 As noted, the subject of this decision reflects several previous determinations where applicants have
sought to gain "relief" in "staged construction" through use of BA112(1)(a).
1.3 I support the decision reached at DD7.1 and trust the applicant can ultimately find a way through
the regulatory compliance issues involved.
2. Comments on particular DD clauses
2.1 I attach a copy of the draft marked up with suggested text changes.
2.2 My comments regarding Fig 1 and Fig 2 arise in part because I found the figures reproduced in the
Beca report virtual y il egible, and it might be difficult to obtain graphics which are clear enough to
convey the message to readers at large.
3. Summary/Conclusion
3.1 Subject to the adoption of my suggested changes, I confirm my agreement for the draft
determination to proceed to final.
Any queries in relation to the above, please advise.
Barry Brown
Determination Referee
From: Ginny Carter [mailto:[email address]]
On Behalf Of Determinations
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 9:07 AM
To: Barry Brown <[email address]>
Cc: Determinations <[email address]>; Katie Gordon <[email address]>
Subject: Agreement to issue final determination for 49 Stoneleigh Drive Izone Rol eston (Ref 3023) [UNCLASSIFIED]
Dear Barry
Apologies it looks like this step was missed. Please find attached the final draft determination (Ref 3023) for 49 Stoneleigh Drive Izone Rol eston being the word
document called “Regarding the compliance of a warehouse fitout, comprising storage racking and a mezzanine floor, with the fire safety requirements of the
Building Code at 49 Rol eston Drive, Rol eston”, dated 23 August 2018. (
Note: the draft was not forwarded to you prior to being issued to the parties for
comment). A copy of the original application, submissions, expert’s report and draft have been couriered to you.
The determination is being sent to you concurrently with being issued as a draft to the parties for comment. Any substantive submissions wil be forwarded to
you for comment.
1
Can you please, by reply email, confirm your agreement for the Manager Determinations to sign and issue the document as the final determination on this
matter for and on behalf of the Chief Executive.
If you believe
minor changes of an editorial nature are necessary can you please grant conditional agreement subject to those changes being completed prior to
issue. Please return the final draft determination, either by email or fax, with the required changes annotated. Responsibility for making the changes sought wil
rest with the Manager Determinations. Significant changes wil require a new final draft to be issued for which agreement wil then be sought.
Kind regards
Ginny
Ginny Carter
ADMINISTRATOR, DETERMINATIONS
Housing & Tenancy Services, Market Services
Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment
Hikina Whakatutuki - Lifting to Make Successful
[email address] |
s 9(2)(a)
15 Stout Street, Wel ington 6011
CAUTION: This email message and accompanying data is confidential between Fraser Thomas Limited (FTL) and the addressee and may contain
information that is confidential and subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this message or data is prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of
this message and attachments. Any instruction contained in this e-mail message or its attachments must be confirmed with the sender by phone or fax before
being acted upon. FTL reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications that pass through its networks. FTL accepts no liability for any changes which
may be made to this message and/or its attachments after sending by FTL. While this email has been checked for Viruses by "Sophos" FTL gives no
warranty that any email or attachment are virus free and accepts no liability for any consequential or other damage that may result from any virus attached to
or embedded in email from this site ********** Visit our web site at : www.fraserthomas.co.nz ********************** FTL2017
2
Draft Determination 3023
23 August 2018
Regarding the compliance of a warehouse fitout,
comprising storage racking and a mezzanine floor,
with the fire safety requirements of the Building
Code at 49 Rolleston Stoneleigh Drive, Rolleston
1.
The matter to be determined
1.1
This is a determination under Part 3 Subpart 1 of the Building Act 20041 (“the Act”)
made under due authorisation by me, Katie Gordon, Manager Determinations,
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (“the Ministry”), for and on
behalf of the Chief Executive of the Ministry.
1.2
The parties to this determination are:
Mr M Gray of Forbes and Davies Ltd, the warehouse owner who applied for
the determination (“the applicant”)
Selwyn District Council, carrying out its duties as a territorial authority or
building consent authority (“the authority”)
Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) as a party under Section 176(g)2 of
the Act.
1.3
The determination arises from the applicant’s installation of racking in a new
warehouse before appreciating this was building work requiring a building consent. In
1 The Building Act, Building Code, compliance documents, past determinations and guidance documents issued by the Ministry are all
available a
t www.building.govt.nz or by contacting the Ministry on 0800 242 243.
2 Unless otherwise identified in this determination, references to sections are to sections of the Building Act and references to clauses are to
clauses of the Building Code.
15 Stout Street, Wellington 6011
www.building.govt.nz
Tel: +64 4 901-1499
PO Box 1473, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
Reference 3023
Draft Determination
his view the racking and mezzanine floor, which came from his previous warehouse,
only needed minor modifications for installation in this building. However, the
authority considered the warehouse with the racking system and mezzanine floor
installed did not comply with various Building Code3 requirements and issued a notice
to fix requiring him to seek building consent for remedial work.
1.4
While the applicant does not dispute the notice to fix he does dispute the extent of
remedial work needed, especially with respect to fire safety. He has proposed a fire
design to achieve compliance but FENZ, which was asked to comment by the
authority, still has outstanding concerns about this proposal.
1.5
Accordingly, I consider the matter to be determined4 is whether the proposed building
work complies with the Building Code with respect to Clause C Fire Safety.
1.6
In making this determination I have confined it to the matter described in paragraph
1.5 and have not have not considered any other aspects of compliance with the
Building Code. The compliance of the racking system with respect to B1 Structure,
and stairs to the mezzanine level with respect to F4 Safety from falling, has been
addressed by the applicant and is not considered herein.
1.7
In making my decision, I have considered the submissions of the parties, the report of
the independent experts engaged by the Ministry (“the experts”) who are Chartered
Professional Engineers (CPEng) with specialist qualifications and expertise in fire
engineering, and the other evidence in this matter.
2.
The building
2.1
The applicant’s warehouse was built in 2015 at 49 Stoneleigh Drive, Rolleston. It is
used for the wholesale importing and distribution of automotive parts and is not open
to the public. The warehouse is usually staffed by three warehouse workers, while a
sales representative is onsite one day a week.
2.2
The floor area for the warehouse storage area is 928 m2. Associated office space adds
a further 110 m2 and includes a self-contained sleeping area. There are a number of
direct escape points to the outside, including from the sleeping area. The floor plan as
consented is shown in Figure 1.
BJB comment :
[Insert consented floor pla
Need to selec
n]
t
Fig 1 graphic carefully so that
it is legible
Figure 1: The consented floor plan
2.3
The base-build fire safety design for the warehouse included a Type 3 automatic heat
detection system5 throughout all areas with manual call points complying with New
Zealand Standard NZS 4512:20106, a Type 1 smoke alarm within the sleeping area,
and shutdown of the air handling system on smoke detection (Type 9).
2.4
The building itself is mostly constructed from steel portal frames lined supporting
with precast concrete tilt panels on the building partition. These are topped with
profiled steel sheet cladding up to the level of the roof, which has an apex height of
7.9 m.
3 Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 1992
4 Under section 177(1)(a) of the Act
5 Refe
r www.building.govt.nz/building-code-compliance for descriptions of system types
6 NZS 4512:2010 Fire Detection and Alarm Systems in Buildings
Ministry of Business,
2
Draft Stoneleigh
Innovation and Employment
Reference 3023
Draft Determination
2.5
The warehouse racking system includes a platform, or mezzanine, about 2.2 m above
the ground floor. This mezzanine is made from 100 x 50 mm one-way span timber
joists topped with particleboard flooring and is structurally supported to by the
modular racking system below. It has a floor area of 452 m2 (i.e. just over half the
warehouse’s floor area) and is accessed via stairs at each end. The racking system
and mezzanine is shown in Figure 2.
[Insert drawing of racking and mezzanine level]
BJB comment :
Need to select Fig 2 graphic carefully so that
it is legible
Figure 2: The storage racking and mezzanine level
3.
Background
3.1
After the Canterbury earthquake sequence7 damaged his Hornby warehouse the
applicant decided to build a new facility in the Izone Rolleston business precinct.
The authority issued a building consent for this on 1 May 2015 (BC150389),
conducted its final site inspection on 20 August 2015, and issued a code compliance
certificate on 20 November 2015: I have not seen a copy of the code compliance
certificate.
3.2
The applicant installed relocated the existing racking system and mezzanine from
the Hornby warehouse as it had not been damaged. After installing this in August
2015 the applicant sought a building warrant of fitness but was advised that the
racking and mezzanine installation was building work that should have had a
building consent. He then approached the authority to seek a certificate of
acceptance to cover the code-compliant aspects of the installation (knowing that a
building consent would be required for any remedial work).
3.3
On 8 August 2016 a representative of FENZ visited the warehouse. In an email to the
authority and the applicant on 15 August 2016 the representative:
recommended the fire alarm system be upgraded to include smoke detectors
under the mezzanine floor
said the doors linking the warehouse to the office/sleeping area could be
upgraded to provide self-closing mechanisms to provide greater escape time
from the sleeping area, and
said that providing the housekeeping was kept to a high standard i.e. good
separation of oils, aerosols, paints etc, together with combustible waste was
kept tidy and to a minimum and staff are were made aware of the evacuation
procedures “the [FENZ] would be happy that the life risk has been looked
after”.
3.4
On 5 September 2016 the applicant applied for a certificate of acceptance. The
authority subsequently issued a certificate (CA 161864) on 8 November 2016 but for
compliance with Clause G8 Artificial light only. It listed a number of other clauses it
was unable to verify compliance with and issued a notice to fix (No. NF0481) in
respect of these.
3.5
To help demonstrate the racking system’s compliance with the Code’s fire safety
requirements, the applicant had commissioned a fire engineering consultancy (“the
applicant’s fire engineer”) to assess the installation. On 10 October 2016 the
applicant’s fire engineer presented a Fire Engineering Brief (FEB) to the authority
that proposed a performance-based design
Ministry of Business,
3
Draft Stoneleigh
Innovation and Employment
Reference 3023
Draft Determination
7 T
he Canterbury Earthquake Sequence includes the ‘Darfield Earthquake’ of 4 September 2010 with a moment magnitude of 7.1, followed
by a series of aftershocks that included a 6.3 magnitude event on 22 February 2011.
Ministry of Business,
4
Draft Stoneleigh
Innovation and Employment
Reference 3023
Draft Determination
approach as an alternative solution proposal8 for code compliance. This FEB was
based on the premise that the installation was a building alteration so that section
112 applied; i.e. code compliance for means of escape from fire was only required
to be provided “as nearly as is reasonably practicable” standard under section 112.
3.6
The authority provided submitted this proposal FENZ for comment. FENZ
responded on 31 October 2016, and again in 29 November 2016 and 19 May 2017
following an onsite meeting and further details from the applicant’s fire engineer.
3.7
In its initial response to the FEB, FENZ said the application for a certificate of
acceptance did not allow for compliance as near as is reasonably practicable with the
requirements of the Building Code under section 112, and, while the authority might
grant consent nevertheless, it FENZ was obliged to offer its comments on the
proposal “regardless of any pre-determined agreement or limitations”.
3.8
In its 29 November 2016 letter, FENZ identified issues with the proposed fire design
relating to:
what it considered a selective approach use of the verification method for
fire safety, C/VM2
assumptions in the FEB relating to ventilation of the fire and smoke production
the sufficiency of some of the fire modelling calculations
the fire rating of the mezzanine floor, which the applicant’s fire engineer
argued could be assessed on an “as near as is reasonably practicable” basis
under section 112, but which FENZ said it had to consider as new work
the “disapplication” of some Building Code clauses by the applicant under
section 112, which FENZ considered inappropriate.
3.9
In its 19 May 2017 letter, FENZ said a number of these issues had been addressed at
the onsite meeting but detailed re-stated outstanding concerns it had relating to:
the calculations of period of structural adequacy for the mezzanine’s
unprotected steel supports, and
the fire rating of the intermediate floor in relation to the operational response
time. Although the FEB suggested no applied fire protection was required as
the structure inherently provided 20 minutes’ fire resistance, FENZ’s said the
total time required was likely to be “significantly greater” than this, and noted
that the Acceptable Solutions and Verification Method C/VM2 required a fire
rating of intermediate floors of at least 30 minutes.
3.10
On 12 January 2018 the authority issued the applicant with a further notice to fix for
non-compliant building work (No. NTF0570, to replace No. NTF0481). A cover
letter identifying areas of non-compliance included:
Contrary to clauses C4-C6, the FEB process demonstrating compliance in regard
to movement to a place of safety, access and safety for firefighting operations, and
structural stability, has not yet been agreed to.
3.11
The applicant applied to the Ministry for a determination on 26 February 2018.
8 A means of compliance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code. For information about alternative solutions, Acceptable
Solutions and Verification methods go t
o www.building.govt.nz
Ministry of Business,
4
Draft Stoneleigh
Innovation and Employment
Reference 3023
Draft Determination
4.
Submissions
4.1
The applicant
4.1.1
With his application for determination the applicant included a submission, summary
of events and copies of:
the fire design report for the warehouse dated 26 January 2015 (and included in
the building consent application for the warehouse) and PS1 producer
statement (design) dated 13 February 2015
the FEB regarding the racking system and mezzanine prepared dated 10
October 2016 as prepared by the applicant’s fire engineer
correspondence August 2016 - May 2017 with FENZ and between the
applicant’s fire engineer and the authority.
4.1.2
In response to my request for additional information, on 7-8 March 2018 he the
applicant sent me copies of:
further building consent documentation for the warehouse
A chartered professional engineer’s PS4 (Producer Statement – construction
review) and associated inspection report for the racking system as installed at
the Rolleston warehouse dated 15 August 2016 regarding compliance with
clause B1 Structure
an application for a certificate of acceptance for the racking system and an
associated compliance schedule
drawings for the racking and mezzanine
correspondence between the applicant’s fire engineer, FENZ and the authority
October 2016 – January 2018.
4.1.3
In his submission the applicant said he hoped there was some room for “practical
suggestions, logic and common sense to prevail (as has been demonstrated by
[FENZ] Canterbury) to enable this business to continue economically trading with its
existing, proven, safe warehouse fit out/racking system”.
4.1.4
He said he was seeking a determination to allow the existing racking to continue in
its current configuration and for the authority to issue a certificate of acceptance (for
the compliant work) and building consent to carry out the additional safety upgrades
that had been identified as being required, which he said included:
installation of a Type 4 smoke alarm throughout the warehouse and underneath
the mezzanine, with direct connection to FENZ (plus associated signage)
self-closing doors to the office/sleeping area
various structural and safety improvements including handrails on both
stairways to the mezzanine, support stays around the mezzanine railing, and
additional hold-down bolts
the warehouse to continue to be closed to the public and to have the current
occupancy (i.e. three staff plus a travelling sales representative).
4.1.5
The applicant also said (in summary):
Ministry of Business,
5
Draft Stoneleigh
Innovation and Employment
Reference 3023
Draft Determination
The raised storage platform (mezzanine) meant there was no potential for
products to fall from any shelves over 2 m high and he did not believe portable
picking trolleys were as safe, especially in an active seismic area.
The FEB was prepared as an alternative solution proposal as agreed with the
authority at the time. This process did not transpire and it was sent to FENZ in
Wellington for review. However, the conclusion of this review effectively
discounted the summary of FENZ’s Canterbury safety officer, who had
actually inspected the building.
Regarding occupancy, he said this warehouse working model had operated for
the last 17 years with three warehouse staff and one sales representative who
was out of the warehouse four days a week. The sleeping room was only ever
occupied at night and in that case would only be one person on site.
The FEB had demonstrated that the potential egress on a compliant 35m2
mezzenine floor could be 39 m, but as installed the mezzanine had two means
of escape the egress provided in this case was 37.3 m.
4.2
The authority
4.2.1
On 14 March 2018 the authority supplied a summary of key events and copies of:
warehouse floor plans and elevations from building consent BC150389
photos of the racking system and a layout and shelving plan
the certificate of acceptance application for the racking and mezzanine (work
carried out in August 2015), and a PS1 design and associated specifications (re
compliance with B1 structure) dated 11 August 2016
correspondence relating to the racking system including an email of 3 August
2016 regarding a search for relevant consents relating to its previous use at two
warehouse facilities (none were found)
the authority’s inspection notice 13 October 2016 for the certificate of
acceptance, the certificate of acceptance issued 8 November 2016 (for
compliance with clause G8 only), and a project information memorandum
issued 21 September 2016
correspondence from FENZ re the FEB on 19 May 2017
notices to fix NTF0572 and NTF057 issued 12 January 2018 regarding the
applicant’s failure to supply a compliant building warrant of fitness and the
non-compliant building work, plus a covering letter.
4.3
The draft determination and submissions received in response
4.3.1
The draft determination was issued to the parties for comment on DD MM 2018.
5.
The experts’ report
5.1
On 11 May 2018 I engaged the experts (refer paragraph 1.7) to provide their opinion
on the fire safety design proposed by the applicant’s fire engineer, taking into
account any relevant technical comment made by FENZ.
5.2
I also advised the experts that it appeared the racking installation was a first use fit-
out in the building rather than an alteration to an existing building to which section
Ministry of Business,
6
Draft Stoneleigh
Innovation and Employment
Reference 3023
Draft Determination
112 applied. Accordingly, I advised that their expert opinion should be in relation to
the fire safety of the building as a whole treated as for a new installation.
5.3
The experts received copies of the material supplied by parties and made a site visit
on 18 May 2018. On 28 May 2018 they requested any further analysis or details
available to show how compliance would be achieved, given the FEB contained
indicated that modelling was proposed to demonstrate compliance, but did not
provide the results of this modelling. On 29 June 2018, as I received no further
information from the applicant, I asked the experts to finalise their report. I received
this report on 19 July 2018 and sent copies to the parties for comment.
5.4
In the experts’ opinion:
the building as currently constructed with the internal racking fit-out installed
does not comply with Code clauses C1-C6 Fire safety
the alternative solution approach based on the FEB will not result in
compliance with these clauses, and
additional quantitative fire engineering analysis will be required to support the
demonstration of compliance.
5.5
The experts note that the FEB’s proposal for an alternative solution only outlines this
the intended approach and does not provide all documentation and assessments
necessary to determine Code compliance. However, in their view (in summary):
The proposed use of an equivalency method with Acceptable Solution C/AS59
for the mezzanine (regarding means of escape) is not sufficient to show
compliance with Clauses C4.3 and C5.6.
The inherent fire resistance of the mezzanine flooring and supporting system
using AS 1720.410 is not considered adequate to comply with Clauses C4.3 and
C5.6 (the experts said this standard was applicable to timber, and a number of
timber products, but not to particle board).
There is a lack of information demonstrating compliance for smoke control
within the warehouse caused by as a consequence of the extended
mezzanine floor.
There is a lack of information demonstrating compliance with the requirements
for firefighting access and operations.
5.6
The experts also reviewed the alternative solution proposal against the relevant
Acceptable Solutions C/AS5 and C/AS211. They considered there were the following
departures:
the mezzanine floor area, at 452 m2, is well above the maximum for
intermediate floors of 35m2 (considering the building as a warehouse with
storage higher than 3 m)
the mezzanine’s construction and supports (i.e. particle board flooring on a
light steel frame system) do not achieve the minimum required fire resistance
rating of 30/30/30 and 30/-/- respectively, and
more exit signs are needed throughout the building to indicate escape routes
through the racking system.
9 C/AS5 (buildings used for business, commercial and low level storage) dated November 2017
10 AS 1720.4-2006 Timber structures Fire resistance for structural adequacy of timber members
11 C/AS2 (buildings used for sleeping) dated November 2017
Ministry of Business,
7
Draft Stoneleigh
Innovation and Employment
Reference 3023
Draft Determination
6.
Discussion
6.1
The matter to be determined is whether the proposed building work relating to fire
safety complies with the Building Code.
6.2
As noted earlier (paragraph 5.2), I consider the installation of the racking and
mezzanine floor to be the first use fit-out for the warehouse rather than an alteration
to an existing building. In doing so, I appreciate that a code compliance certificate
was issued for the warehouse in 2015. However, the building consent
documentation I have seen does not include any racking fitout or similar; yet the
installation of this – which is building work– would clearly be have been required
in a subsequent construction stage given the building’s intended use as a
warehouse.
6.3
I refer here to a previous determination (No 2004/5) in which the Building Industry
Authority (an antecedent to the Ministry) considered the argument that a first use fit-
out within a new building could be treated as was an alteration to a that building. In
its determination the Building Industry Authority said:
… In the view of the [Building Industry Authority], the fit-out of a particular area in
the shell of a building to suit the needs of the first tenant is part of the construction
of the building and cannot be treated as an alteration of an existing building. The
various building consents were all for stages of construction, not for alterations. In
other words, the Authority takes the view that a building is to be treated as a new
building under construction until all of it is actually completed and ready for use.
6.4
Therefore, it is my view that the proposed building work should comply fully with
the Building Code under section 17, and not comply “as near as is reasonably
practicable” with the Building Code with regard to means of escape from fire under
section 112(1)(a)(i) as outlined in the FEB: I asked the experts to consider the
compliance of the building on this basis.
6.5
As outlined in section 5 of this determination, the experts consider that the building
as currently constructed with the racking and mezzanine fit-out does not comply with
the Building Code’s fire safety requirements. They also consider that the alternative
solution proposal presented by the applicant’s fire safety engineer would not lead to
compliance, and additional quantitative fire engineering analysis is required to
demonstrate this.
6.6
I acknowledge the applicant’s frustrations in endeavouring to demonstrate
compliance for fire safety, especially given the initial visit from a FENZ
representative (paragraph 3.3). However, I have considered the experts’ report and
agree with its key findings; namely that:
the warehouse with the racking and mezzanine installed does not currently
comply with Code clause C, and
the proposed fire design requires additional analysis – or indeed other changes
– before it will lead to this compliance.
6.7
I also note that there appear some valid concerns given the large size of the
mezzanine and the fire rating of its flooring (particle board) and support frame.
These are highlighted by the experts’ consideration of the proposed fire design
against the relevant Acceptable Solutions (paragraph 5.6). However, I acknowledge
that Acceptable Solutions only provide one way to demonstrate compliance.
6.8
I also note, the travel distance measurement that is provided by the applicant to
determine the total open path available commences at the mid-point of the
mezzanine,. In my view, this which does not provide a worst case travel distance
Ministry of Business,
8
Draft Stoneleigh
Innovation and Employment
Reference 3023
Draft Determination
that would occur for an occupant at one end of the mezzanine yet unable to use the
closest exit.
6.9
Accordingly, having considered the experts’ report, submissions from parties and
other evidence in this matter, I conclude that the proposed building work with respect
to fire safety does not comply with the fire safety clauses of the Building Code.
6.10
While the experts have raised a number of matters that are considered to be non-
compliant, FENZ and the applicant’s fire engineer had narrowed the outstanding
matters to two key areas of concern, refer paragraph 3.9. The parties may wish to
use this as a basis start point for identifying remedial work required to make the
installation compliant.
6.11
The application has been made in respect of the issue of a certificate of acceptance
for the racking system and mezzanine floor. However, a certificate of acceptance can
only be issued in respect of work consider to be code compliant. Once the parties
have agreed on the work required to bring the racking system and mezzanine floor
into compliance with the C Clauses, a certificate of acceptance can be issued for the
existing components of these elements consider to be compliant, with a building
consent sought for the remedial work required to achieve compliance.
7.
The decision
7.1
In accordance with section 188 of the Building Act 2004, I hereby determine that the
building work proposed to the racking system and mezzanine floor will not comply
with the Building Code with respect to Clause C Fire Safety
Signed for and on behalf of the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and
Employment on DD MM 2018.
Katie Gordon
Manager Determinations
Disclaimer: This document is a draft only and is based on the evidence that I have received so far. As such, it is likely to
contain items that may be subject to alteration, addition or deletion. The draft is confidential to the parties.
Ministry of Business,
9
Draft Stoneleigh
Innovation and Employment
Reference 3023
Draft Determination
Appendix A
A.1
The relevant sections of the Act include:
17 All building work must comply with building code
All building work must comply with the building code to the extent required by this Act,
whether or not a building consent is required in respect of that building work.
112 Alterations to existing buildings
(1)
A building consent authority must not grant a building consent for the alteration of an
existing building, or part of an existing building, unless the building consent authority
is satisfied that, after the alteration,—
(a)
the building will comply, as nearly as is reasonably practicable, with the
provisions of the building code that relate to—
(i)
means of escape from fire; and
(ii)
access and facilities for persons with disabilities (if this is a requirement
in terms of section 118): and
(b)
the building will,—
(i)
if it complied with the other provisions of the building code immediately
before the building work began, continue to comply with those
provisions; or
(ii)
if it did not comply with the other provisions of the building code
immediately before the building work began, continue to comply at least
to the same extent as it did then comply.
Ministry of Business,
10
Draft Stoneleigh
Innovation and Employment
