It would be interesting to know what real impact the changes are having on projects versus theoretical impact.
I agree. If there is a real impact after discussing the project with the BCA then that would be significant.
If this issue was incompetence by MBIE, then why did they work closely with FENZ?
Refer Paragraph 7:
āFire and Emergency NZ worked closely with us on the amendment and are of the view it will help to improve the life safety aspects of building design.ā
Itās very interesting that FENZ are pushing for more alternative design that would exclude them from the process.
I got the impression that FENZ contributed heavily to the changes in Design Scenario FO that were excluded from this amendment. No doubt excluded due to life safety concerns that I raised during the public consultation.
I donāt think it excludes FENZ at all. It gives them more power. FEB = all stakeholders must agree. FENZ will get more power, not less as they will not agree until they get what they want. MBIE endorsed of course.
With Alternative Solutions being more relevant now C/VM2 becomes a reference document or goes unused. The intent and the result are two different things. I think C/VM2 is more likely to end up on the scrapheap like NZS 4514.
Before changing C/VM2 all stakeholders should have been consulted. For the FEB process you donāt exclude the designers and every other Council. Since when does Auckland Council represent the entire country?
Kenneth not sure what your reference to NZS4514 is about but it certainly isnāt dead. Every accommodation building in the country starts off with F7/AS1 that references NZS4514.
There still seems to be confusion around FEB and the level of agreement. Determination 2017-040 is clear that FEB is a C/VM2 requirement not a Building Act requirement and therefore by default not an alternative solution requirement.
The latest VM scope tells us that an alternative solution for buildings outside scope can (not must) use FEB process and can use all or part of VM design.
The larger issue from that determination being that agreement on all FEB points (para 10.1.7) is not required for consent, regardless of which stakeholder is pushing their case. By virtue of that MBIE canāt be supporting the FENZ notion that they will always get 100% agreement. They will in the near future (unless things change again) get to see even more projects and wield more muscle.
That may be the case in theory, but in practice, it is councils that decide, not the fire engineer. If councils demand FENZ agreement, then that is what will happen. Going to determination on every issue is usually too expensive for clients. The time cost is too great. Why would councils want to disagree with FENZ? There is no benefit, only risk, or perceived risk.
If MBIE does not support FENZ, then why did they work together on the new VM2 rules in isolation of everyone else? It is no accident and MBIE openly admit it on their own webpage.
Yet the changes are made in the shadows. Given that C/VM2 decreases fire safety and the FO Design Scenario places building occupants and firefighters lives in danger perhaps this should be perused by SFPE?
There are also other methods of addressing Council operating outside of their role as a BCA. You can file complaints internally and externally with MBIE. With MBIE complaints you need to chase up 2-4 weeks after you lodge it because they lose every complaint sent in. Do not expect instant results and the complaints process is for serious matters. It also helps if your design is precisely and clearly put together. Expect a lot of stonewalling and dirty tactics, however it is worth filing a written complaint everytime someone does something wrong.
This is what fire engineering is in New Zealand: red tape, complaints and legal processes all while MBIE decrease fire safety and increase the cost of construction to the detriment of the public.
A subtle question but did MBIE work with FENZ or did FENZ work on MBIE?
The results are plain to see. At this rate FENZ will be the certifier, BCA will collect fees and hold the rubber stamp and MBIE will just keep making policy. Unless fire engineers stand up and say enough to Councils ādemandingā things.
We are the professionals who have completed the design and all the other stakeholders play minor parts around the periphery.
There is no dispute MBIE and FENZ are working hand in hand to manipulate fire codes, and are doing so behind everyoneās back. This latest change proves it as MBIE admit they worked with FENZ, but excluded everyone else. SFPE is not the only party affected. It affects the entire industry.
However I do not believe fire engineers standing up to councils will fix any of these problems. Councils have to follow the regulations and typically stick to guidelines as if they were legislation, even though most guidelines MBIE produce are total garbage. Hence why FENZ are so keen to manipulate and collude with MBIE.
The matter needs to go beyond councils and to parliament, as this issue is probably going undetected at ministerial level. Whilst ministers are ultimately responsible for this, there is an obligation for the public to let them know what is happening as ministers do not know every little detail.
MBIE and FENZ cannot be trusted, no matter what they say or what pacifying statements they make. Pacifying statements mean nothing if the way you act is blatantly deceptive.
Going back and asking MBIE and FENZ to stop doing what they are doing is a total waste of time. One can only suspect much more is to come with the MBIE Fire Programme unless something is done at ministerial level.
Hi John,
FENZ will be working hard not to be the certifierā¦they donāt want the liability. They are happy with the āall care and no responsibilityā approach and āworking with MBIEā to achieve their obvious end desire of controlling all fire design in all buildings in NZ with no liabilityā¦
They want us (as CPENG) to issue PS4s for the building, therefore acting as private certifiers (and we know what happened to them in the early 2000s, and open to tort for 10 years joint and severalā¦
The BCA will like this as it sorts out a massive resource issue of them.
One thing that Natalie has correctly said is that the councils should simply act within the Law and stop requesting things that they are not able to ask for.
FENZ donāt need to be the certifier, they just get MBIE to manipulate the legislation and codes to their satisfaction. Most councils are scared of their own shadow, so they will accept FENZ comments no matter the cost to the owner, regardless of whether they are even justified or validated.
Whilst councils should be sticking to the legislation, even if they do, FENZ is in there manipulating endlessly. FENZ do not have to run a business, they get their money mostly through levies. So they donāt have to work for an income or be productive. They can manipulate at the expense of others.
Councils are not much better. They donāt have to compete for work, it just comes in and there is nobody else to choose from if they are being unreasonable.
The ever growing problem is MBIE allowing FENZ to manipulate of the legislation. Ridiculous water supply requirements, restrictions on VM2, endlessly whispering in MBIEās ear. Regrettably, I donāt see it stopping unless somebody shines a light on this darkness.
The buck stops with MBIE. They let it happen and they alone can just tell FENZ to go away and anything you donāt like, make a public submission so everyone can see it and comment on it.
Hi Natalie
You are starting to sound like meā¦so you my not get too many replies to your post!!!
Your observation about FENZ and MBIE bit like the forum - either make your comments known or āgo awayāā¦, if the comment is not in the public domain it should not count in any final decisionā¦
Arguably SFPE should be doing to the BCA what you suggest MBIE should do to FENZ.
So behind the scenes/under the table manipulation goes on at all sorts of levels from all sorts of companies. Donāt think that only FENZ and MBIE worked in isolation on these changes through, I have heard that at least 1 of the larger companies assistedā¦therefore either playing along with MBIE/FENZ or manipulating the ārulesā to suit themselvesā¦
One of the things that surprises me, knowing that this forum is read by many parties, is the lack of comment by FENZ or MBIE when they are freely able to respond. If they were to make some statements they could at least widen the discussion to all parties. BCAās are also members of the forum and conspicuous by their absence.
Hi John, it may be the default setting of the user account. I was not receiving any notifications until I changed my settings.
Either that or people are too busy/apathetic/fear of putting head above the wall -as some comments recently have been rather antagonistic.
More likely, they have communication standards to work too.
I agree that many of the comments are antagonistic and seem to be taunting them. I would not respond to them in this forum, if they were targeted at me or my organization.
1 Like
If you arenāt invited to be part of the policy writing that directly affects you then how else do you state your case/convey the message?
MBIE have not followed communication standards, based on what my local MP has said as I have discussed this issue with her; she is not impressed and is investigating the matter. Government departments working behind closed doors, and admitting it, is not going to elicit a positive response from society. It is the sort of thing you expect in undemocratic countries, not New Zealand.