Determinations issued
Determination 2008/68
Provision of an access stair in a proposed -multi-storey serviced apartment/ hotel building
The matter for determination
The matter for determination was whether a proposed multi-storey serviced apartment/hotel building, without an accessible stairway to the top 41 floors, complied with Clause D1 of the Building Code. The building owner applied for the determination after the building consent authority had confirmed that it would decline the application for consent as it believed the building, without an accessible stair, would not comply with the Building Code.
The building
The proposed building is 134 metres high between the street entry and level of the top floor, and contains a three-level basement, a four-level podium and a 41-level apartment tower. The building has an accessible stairway up to level 5 and two sets of common stairways from levels 5 to 45. The building has two accessible apartments on each of levels 28 and 29. The design purpose group for the building is SA (sleeping accommodation).
Accessible and common stairways
Accessible stairways are defined as:
- A stairway having features for use by people with disabilities. Buildings required to be accessible shall have at least one accessible stairway leading off an accessible route whether or not a lift is required.
Accessible stairways have a maximum pitch of 32° and have a maximum riser of 180 mm and a minimum tread of 310 mm.
Common stairways are defined as:
- A stairway which is used, or intended to be used, by public whether as of right or not, and is not a private stairway, service stairway or accessible stairway.
Common stairways have a maximum pitch of 37° and have a maximum riser of 190 mm and a minimum tread of 280 mm.
The submissions
The owner submitted that as the lifts would be used as a matter of course by all staff and guests, a common stairway was adequate, as neither ambulant nor disabled persons would normally use them. The owner queried whether the objectives of Clause D1 could be obtained other than by strict adherence to its performance requirements. Following the issue of a draft determination, the owner noted that emergency access was not a 'normal' function of a building, and only a common stairway was required to meet egress requirements.
Discussion
As the building was a 'service apartment/hotel with a design purpose group SA', it was a 'hotel' as defined in paragraph (j) of Schedule 2 of the Building Act. Schedule 2 lists buildings for which access and facilities for people with disabilities are required. Accordingly, an accessible stairway must be provided to serve the entire height of the building, which would also make egress easier when the lift is not operating.
Performance criteria in relation to a building are defined in section 7 as 'qualitative or quantative criteria that the building is required to satisfy in performing its functional requirements'. Accordingly, as the performance criteria of Clause D1 overrides the generalised requirements of its objectives, the requirements of Clause D1.3.3 must be applied. These require access routes to:
- include stairs to allow access to upper floors irrespective of whether an escalator or lift has been provided.
An emergency when the lift is not functioning was an additional consideration, over and above the other activities and functions that people with disabilities would carry out in the building. In addition, the definition of 'intended use' of a building in Clause A2 includes:
- Activities taken in response to fire or any other reasonably foreseeable emergency - but does not include any other maintenance and repairs or rebuilding.
The decision
It was determined that the proposed building required an accessible stairway to service all floors in order for it to comply with the requirements of Clause D1 of the Building Code.
Determination 2008/78
Provision of lift access to a unit in an office development
The matter for determination
The matter for determination was whether a building consent authority was correct to issue a notice to fix requiring a lift to be installed in an individual unit of a business complex. The unit owner applied for the determination.
The building and background
The unit, which is used as a dental clinic and law office, is situated on the upper floor of a two-storey business complex that contains a total of about 30 units. External stairs connect the two levels, but there are no internal stairs or horizontal connections between individual units. All car parking is at the lower level.
A building consent was issued for the internal fitout of the unit, which was for the first tenant for this part of the building. The building consent said the work was for:
- Internal fitout law office and dentist. This is stage 1 of 2, stage 2 is installation of lift.
The internal fitout was completed and a code compliance certificate was issued, which noted:
- This is stage 1 of 2, stage 2 is installation of lift.
The submissions
The building consent authority said that it had been assured that a building consent application for a lift would be made as stage 2 work. As this had not happened, the building was not Code-compliant.
The owner submitted that it was impractical and extremely expensive to install a lift at this stage and that the Department should waive the need for a lift. Use of the premises over the past one-and-a-half years had not indicated any real need to cater for the needs of 'incapacitated patients'. The owner also noted the close proximity of other similar facilities that had ground level access.
No submissions were made suggesting that the fitout of the unit was anything other than new building work.
Discussion
Section 118 of the Building Act requires access and facilities for people with disabilities to be provided for buildings listed in Schedule 2 of the Building Act. As the unit was to be used as a dental surgery, it fell within section (f) of Schedule 2 of the Building Act, which refers to:
- commercial buidings and premises for busines and professional purposes, including computer centres:
In addition, Clause D1.3.4(c)(iv) of the Building Code says (emphasis added):
D1.3.4 An accessible route, in addition to the requirement of Clause D1.3.3, shall: ...
- (c) Include a lift complying with Clause D2 "Mechanical Installations for Access" to upper floors where: ...
- (iv) an upper floor, irrespective of design occupancy, is to be used for the purposes of public reception areas of banks, central, regional and local government offices and facilities, hospitals, medical and dental surgeries and medical, paramedical and other primary health care centres, ...
The determination took the view that the fitout work must be treated as a stage of construction of the building, leading it to be completed and ready for use. The determination did not view the fitout as an alteration to the building. It was noted that as the fitout was new building work, the Department would be unable to waive the access provisions of the Building Code by virtue of sections 67 and 69 of the Building Act.
The determination noted that it should have been clear to the owner at the time the building work was designed, and when the building consent for stage 1 was sought, that a lift was required to be installed.
It was concluded that a lift was required to make the building compliant with the Building Act and the Building Code.
The decision
The determination confirmed the building consent authority's decision to issue a notice to fix requiring the owner to apply for a building consent to install a lift to the unit.
These are summaries only. The full determinations (along with all other determinations issued) can be viewed on our website: www.dbh.govt.nz/determinations