Vehicle Tyre Servicing Facility

Building with a 6 metre height to underside of roof for trucks and a lesser height in a separate area for cars. Cars and trucks drive in, have new tyres fitted, you know the drill. The truck bay is a bit like a VTNZ facility.

BCA (Hastings District Council) is stating that because the spaces are capable of storage over 3 metres the property rating needs to be increased, and a type 3 fire alarm system fitted.

Is this kosha?

I have argued that churches are capable of high storage as are some older office buildings, but this falls on deaf ears.

Has anyone experienced similar issues?

Interestingly Napier City Council do not adopt this approach - only 22km away.

Depends on what you nominate the means of compliance to be.

C/AS2. Why? Have I have missed something?

The wording in the AS document states “capable” not actual…The space is a workshop, but the storage use “fits” under WB. As the storage capability is higher than 3m then I think that the BCA is correct, if you follow C/AS2 for compliance.
Yes we have has similar situations and the result was to add in a type3 and increase the FRR to the building.

No comment on Napier…:slight_smile:

One of the reasons the “capable of storage” > 3m is being pushed is that currently the building is a tyre workshop (tyre workshops also store tyres) but the building will be there for 50 years in theory and may not always be a tyre workshop but will still have a Building Use WH (storge > 3m. So the issue may not be so much about the current use but the potential future use where a Building Act s 115 change of use would not be required.

3m came from the WM -WH limit in the “old” AS document. The 5m was added into the Rick Groups. If less than 3m WM would be the most likely “Use” but over 3m is WH. It is possible to have WH and Risk Group WB and also WM and Risk Group WB…There is massive confusion about the difference between Risk Groups and Use…Risk Groups mean nothing in Law, whereas the Use does. Robert is correct though and we have caught some designers using Risk Groups to “hide” the Use and to avoid Change Of Use issues. The Use should always be listed in the fire design as it is one of the triggers for CoU.

Thank you gentlemen, that makes things 100% clear. I understand the logic. Sort of. Much appreciated.

C/AS2 Table2.2c states “A Type 3 system is required where the storage height exceeds 3.0 m.” So the question is not what the capability for storage is, it’s what the actual storage height will be.

The term “capable of storage” is only used in C/AS2 to determine whether risk group WB or WS applies.

I agree with comments that difficulties often arise when BCAs try and anticipate future uses for a building (rightly or wrongly). However, in my experience, the change of use regulations almost always capture these scenarios - typically a change from WM to WH for example as Alan points out. Whether building owners declare this and go through the process of applying Section 115 when adding high level racking to a taller workshop building is another matter, but that problem is not limited to changes of use arising from storage height.

F8/AS1 doesnt have storage height restriction signage within non-sprinkler protected buildings. Would need to change F8 and C1-6 compliance to an alternative solution based on MBIE Guidance for storage height restriction signage. Authorities may accept or refuse this at their discretion, but if refused would indicate MBIE not suitable to give guidance on the use of their own documents, which has far reaching implications.