‘Best’ fire control

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33917, 9 August 1975, Page 3

‘Best’ fire control

(N.Z. Press Association) j WELLINGTON, ' August 8. Fire requirements for building design in New Zealand were in no way inferior to world standards, the chairman of the fire protection committee of the Stand- : aids Association (Mr George Dunnachie) said today. Mr Dunnachie, who is a j consulting fire protection engineer, was commenting ' on reports that the Minister ' of Local Government (Mr May) expressed concern that some local authorities were granting dispensations from , fire safety regulations far in , excess of standards set down in by-laws. Mr May made the com-j merit during a Local Bills I ■ Committee hearing of sub-j I missions on the Fire Service Bill. “The problem of applying! I fire protection to building : 'design is one 6f some com-li

plexity, and demands the close co-operation of local authorities, the fire service, the design profession, and the fire protection industry,” Mr Dunnachie said. “The best available information on fire fatalities in high-rise buildings overseas show that the design levels for fire protection on those occasions were significantly below that required by New Zealand by-laws,” he said. The New Zealand standard by-law for fire safety was amended in 1967 specifically to cover the high-rise problems, and Mr Dunnachie said the two significant features of the amendment were the requirements for automatic fire alarms in commercial buildings more than 80ft high and for automatic sprinklers to be installed in buildings more than 150 ft high. “This is in keeping with the best world standards,” Ihe said, adding that the by- ! laws were constantly being 'revised. Mr Dunnachie said the | standard by-law, known as I Chapter 5, permitted wide powers of dispensation by 'the local authority engineer.

This was because of the need to make provision for different design concepts.! The basis of permitting dispensation from fire protection by-laws was that the alternative scheme offered must be equal to or better than that specifically required by the by-law. An example of this principle was in industrial buildings requiring continuity of I processes — fire control by I automatic sprinklers was! accepted as an alternative to! compartmentation by fire* walls. Similarly, the principle of: requiring automatic sprinklers for buildings of excessive height was based on: the premise that evacuation of buildings as a basic safety factor was only for heights up to 150 ft. Beyond that the time factor became excessive, and a built-in firefighting system by sprinklers was the acceptable alternative. Mr Dunnachie added that authoritative American information gave a time factor of 8 to 10 minutes for the evacuation of a building about 150 ft.