While most fire engineers are in private practice, James Firestone is with the engineering unit of the New Zealand Fire Service.

Among other things, his work involves reviewing and commenting on fire safety matters in applications for building consents.

Territorial local authorities are Building Consent Authorities (BCAs) under the Building Act. Under section 46 of that Act, the Fire Service provides advice to BeAs on means of escape to ensure people can get out of a building in the event of a fire. The Service also advises on how firefighters can get in to fjght fires and effect rescue.

There is a specific provision in the Act prohibiting the Fire Service from providing advice which enables the building “to meet performance criteria that exceed the requirements of the Building Code”.

“[The councils] used to employ engineers, who could assess compliance with the more technical aspects of the Building Codes, but now this is the exception. It is now more common for BeAs to engage regulatory reviewers from the private sector to provide this function,” Mr Firestone says. Given the small size of the fire engineering industry in New Zealand, he says there are risks consulting firm is acting for an applicant one week and then for a council assessing another party’s application the next.

In this respect, Mr Firestone highlights the potential risk that where the Fire Service makes comment on a proposed building, its report is often directly referred by a BCA to the private consulting firm doing the regulatory review. The firm may then negotiate with the applicant to get an acceptable solution. The Fire Service does not get the opportunity to comment on the peer reviewer’s report of its initial assessment, nor to comment on the reviewer’s final report to the BCA.

He thinks BCAs should send applications back to the Fire Service for a second – and even third – comment to ensure any significant concerns raised have been adequately resolved.

“It is important for councils to realize they are accepting this risk when they grant approval. The checks and balances could be tighter than they are,” he believes.

Buildings have to comply with the Building Code. The Building Act lays down broad principles; regulations made under the Act say how statutory requirements may be met, and the Building Code stipulates the performance

requirements.

The “Police” for the built environment are the Building and Housing Group (part of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment – MBIE) which has delegated many powers to the BCAs.

There are three ways to achieve requirements of the Approved Documents – or “Acceptable Solutions”, which set out matters such as the number of fire escapes the building must have, the required fire alarm system, whether a sprinkler system is necessary and so on.

Most buildings are built this way. The second is “specific design”. In this, the applicant demonstrates through engineering calculations and analysis that the building meets the performance requirements of the Building Code. A check and final balance assessment evaluates whether the level of safety “equates” to that set out in the Approved Documents under the Building Code. If the building required a sprinkler system, which was omitted, the designer would have to demonstrate that the alternatives proposed would achieve the same level of safety as a sprinkler system.

“The two main requirements are always to get people out safely, and to protect neighbouring buildings. These are the ‘public good’ issues,” Mr Firestone says. The corollary of this approach is that the protection of the building itself is not a public good issue. That is almost entirely a matter for the owner.

The third method is the new verification method – which has largely taken over from the performance based measure.

This requires meeting an “established” template for engineering fire safety in a building. There are 10 fire scenarios which need to be met by the proposed design, The Building Code’s recent amendments quantify performance measures like the maximum heat to which occupants are permitted to be exposed when escaping, and the smoke layer heights.

“It is vital that occupants can escape quickly and easily, when smoke may be present in an escape path, so there is a maximum height and visibility distance for smoke allowed,” Mr Firestone explains.

Despite his doubts about aspects of the current approval process, Mr Firestone says generally the system is working adequately, but adds there are still buildings being constructed the Fire Service sees as substandard, although he acknowledges these are now rare.

“Lives are not to be put at risk, as buildings must comply with the Building Code. But a big part of it is about getting the documentation right, as buildings get built from plans, so making sure that the level of detail is there is the industry challenge.

Buildings are getting better, and the industry is getting better … without a doubt” he says.

In extreme circumstances, the Fire Service can seek a “determination” from MBIE. “We pursue a determination when we have serious concerns over the design or (occasionally) about how it has been implemented. If we think a building is ‘directly’ dangerous, we can pursue this directly with the relevant BCA under section 121 ofthe Building Act.”

So how can engineers in private practice, and other professionals involved in building design, best achieve least cost design compliance without compromising safety? Mr Firestone thinks the best way is to “promote the simplest fire mitigation strategies such as automatic fire sprinklers. Sprinklers aren’t the wonder drug – but they are close to it, and anything which reliably keeps a fire small has essentially removed the fire risk.

“Ideally the fire sprinkler industry could investigate how more ‘engineered’ options could be made available, rather than the present ‘one size fits ali’, which could reduce sprinklering costs.

“Fire designers should ideally be trying to address the central problem – which is the risk of a growing fire. However, the Building Act mainly sees the problem as ensuring people can get out of a building safely before the fire is of a size that threatens them. “That’s unfortunate, as it would be better to prevent the growing fire in the first place. The old adage of an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure still holds true.”