Lift fire rating to EN1363-1

Just wondering if anyone can offer some background or advice. I see that a Feb '13 erratta to C/ASx removed EN1363-1 from C5.1.1 (test standards for fire rated elements). I have a client who wants to install a lift with landing doors tested to EN1363-1… so curious as to why EN1363-1 was removed and if it may be possible to assess them to comply with NZS4520? Was/is EN1363 less stringent?
EDIT: NZS4520 is the incorrect standard, would be AS1530. Also just heard from Ed Soja and seems they have done an assessment to AS1530.4:2008 before…

Hi Rob,

Under the Building Act (BA04), proposed changes to the Acceptable Solutions and Verification Methods must be publicly notified under s29(2) via the Gazette (see BA04 definition of publicly notify under s7), where the reasons (or references to where reasons can be found) for the changes are given. This errata was not publicly notified (going by my Gazette database and the online version) as there is no Gazette notification number for these changes. As such, it is not possible to formally know what the administrative reasons for the changes were (or any of the other changes in this errata revision) unless you were to request for this information via the OI Act (I have no idea myself).

I suspect that the real nature of your question is whether your client can use lift doors tested to EN1363-1. Whilst TA’s routinely allow ‘minor’ permutations to the C/AS & C/VM instruments, it is strictly not in accordance with the BA04 (s22(2)), not that such concessions are always harmful (and sometimes very helpful in a practical sense). However, this is a negotiation exercise which I am sure you are more than familiar with and capable of presenting (should you hopefully have enough information to assist your client). I have never looked into this issue, so I have no idea about the robustness of EN1363-1 off-hand.

As a matter of side interest, the Gazette is something that the courts given their opinion on, with the most notable case being Singlewood v Attorney-General Court of Appeal 328/88 [1988].

There are other ways to solve this kind of problem, but I would be here all day writing it up, they only work under certain circumstances, and I have paper deadlines to meet. I only took the time to answer this question (to which I hope you found some of it interesting, maybe useful) as it is an area of research and publication of mine that UC is undertaking for engineering-based issues across Australasia, to which I have been publishing and presenting in Australia as NZ’s technical avenues are too limited (such issues - in my view - are economic issues caused by how our laws are written which have an effect on the engineering market, a different line of enquiry that uses different tools than what is found in the engineering literature).