Determinations issued
Determination 2008/42
Dispute about safety devices on small water heaters used in internal alterations in a multi-storey building
The matter for determination
The application arose from the territorial authority's decision to issue a notice to fix for the installation of five water heaters because it did not accept that they complied with the Building Code. The building owner applied for the determination.
The building work and the submissions
The water heaters serve hand wash basins and were installed as part of an alteration to an existing building. The water heaters were different from those specified in the building consent, and were installed without prior approval from the territorial authority.
Each heater is fitted with a thermostat, a thermal fuse that cuts power to the heater when the water temperature exceeds 90oC, and a cold water expansion valve. The water heater provides water to a maximum temperature of 85oC, and is certified by an independent agency.
The territorial authority issued a notice to fix. It required the water heaters to be replaced, as they were considered non-compliant. The territorial authority required the replacement heaters to be fitted with a cold water expansion valve, a thermostat, and two separate safety devices (a temperature and pressure reducing valve, and an energy cut-off device).
The owner provided technical documentation and evidence that the water heaters complied with the relevant British Standards. After a draft determination was issued, the territorial authority repeated its earlier concerns and sought verification that the water heaters would perform at a temperature of 90oC or higher.
Discussion
The Building Code requires water heaters to be fitted with operational devices that allow for normal pressure and temperature as well as safety devices that allow for abnormal temperature and pressure.
The determination found that the water heaters met the requirements of Acceptable Solution G12/AS1 for the operational devices (being a thermostat and a cold water expansion valve). For the safety devices, the determination found that the operation of the thermal fuse alone meant that the water heaters met the requirements of the Building Code. As the thermal fuse did not allow the water temperature to exceed 90oC, the water heaters would not be subject to abnormal pressure and an additional temperature and pressure relief valve was therefore unnecessary.
The water heaters' safety devices were considered an acceptable alternative solution to G12/AS1. Accordingly, the territorial authority's requirement that two separate safety devices be installed was not accepted.
It was noted that the thermal fuse could not be reset once it had been activated. The replacement of the fuse would provide a specific opportunity for the water heaters to be checked to determine why the fuse had been activated.
The determination noted that the onus was on building consent applicants to provide enough information and to an acceptable standard to show compliance with the Building Code. In this case, the water heater had been certified by a European certifying organisation. The approval process would have been assisted by the supplier of the water heaters providing independent verification of the relevance of the European certification to the requirements of the New Zealand Building Code.
Conclusion
The determination concluded that the water heaters had the safety devices necessary for them to comply with Building Code Clause G12.3.8, and recommended that the owner seek an amendment to the existing building consent to formalise the changes to the consented work.
The decision
The territorial authority's decision to issue a notice to fix was reversed.
Determination 2008/47:
Providing lift access in a proposed development of 25 unit-titled properties
The matter for determination was the decision by the territorial authority to refuse to issue a building consent for a proposed building complex containing 25 unit-titled properties ('the complex') because a lift was not installed. The building owner applied for the determination.
The buildings
The complex comprises two adjoining two-storey buildings that contain a total of 25 unit-titled properties with warehouse, and retail and office accommodation. Under-cover car parking is also provided on the lower level. The buildings are located on a sloping site, and each storey has level access to the outside and level access to nearby accessible car parks. Each building has two sets of external stairs connecting the two storeys. There is no inter-storey connection between the individual unit-titled properties.
Discussion
The complex is a building type to which Schedule 2 of the Building Act applies requiring access and facilities for people with disabilities. Therefore the complex is required to comply with section 118 of the Building Act so that:
. . .reasonable and adequate provision by way of access, parking provisions, and sanitary facilities must be made for persons with disabilities who may be expected to -
a) visit or work in the building; and
b) carry out normal activities and provesses in that building
As the complex involves new buildings, the Department could not grant a waiver of those provisions under section 69 of the Building Act. It was noted that, under normal circumstances, the complex would require a lift, given its occupant density and floor area. However, in this case, the determination considered that the complex was not a two storey building, but two single-storey buildings, one located above the other, with each building having level access from adjacent walkways and accessible car parks.
Because the complex contains only unit-titled spaces, there is no common and secure area (for after-hours use) on each level that a lift could open into.
While there are two sets of external stairs, the determination considered that the stairs were not fundamental to the way the complex operated. Only if a business on the upper level operated in conjunction with one in the lower level would people have a clear need to move between the two levels. At the present time, that was considered unlikely.
Conclusion
The determination considered that the individual unit-titled properties in the complex had no purpose in common, whether commercial or otherwise. The determination considered it was unlikely that any person, disabled or otherwise, would want to go to more than one unit in the complex in the course of one visit, or that such a person would need to go to more than one unit in order to work.
As there was ground floor access to both levels of the complex, the relevant provisions of section 118 of the Act were met. The complex was in fact two buildings, located one above the other, each complying with the provisions of the Building Act and the access requirements of the Building Code.
It was noted that the requirements of Clause D1 would need to be reassessed if further subdivision of the spaces in the complex took place.
The decision
It was determined that the territorial authority's decision to refuse to issue a building consent for the proposed building unless a lift is provided was reversed.
To read all the determinations in summary or in full, go to: www.dbh.govt.nz/determinations