Panel upgrade - Is a building permit required?
Submitted by rporteous on May 14, 2008 - 21:15
I have a customer who has a fire panel that needs to be replaced. The existing fire panel is considered obsolete and replacement parts are no longer available.
Added to this, the panel is very unstable and is likely to fail catastrophically at any moment.
If I was to replace this fire panel and detectors with a new unit, keeping all of the existing infrastructure, i.e mechanical plant controls, bells, shut downs, etc. Do I need a building permit for the replacement?
Thanks.
Russ
Russ,
Practice Note 2008-32 has been provided to assist the industry apply the relevant legislative requirements on this issue by the Building Commission. They have changed with each issue of the Building Regulations (1994, 2006, 2006) and re-issue of the relevant Practice Note. (2006-32, 2008-32) The Fire Panel would have been an interesting case study for the Practice Note.
The following Statement appears in Schedule 8 of the Building Regulations 2006 (in the context of what is exempt):
The use of the word “and” indicates that both requirements must be satisfied for the exemption to apply. It is unclear how work can both; not be in relation to, and not affect, adversely or otherwise, an essential safety measure. The evaluation of “will not adversely affect” remains unclear. A possibly analogous explanation is provided in Practice Note 2008-32 with respect to structural alterations:
The replacement of the panel is "work in relation to" an essential safety measure. From the Commission's advice in the practice note, as an aid to interpretation of the regulations, we can now only form the view that a permit must be required for replacement of a fire panel.
Perhaps it was anticipated that by running an old and new panel side by side before you changed them over this was not work in relation to and not adversely affecting the Essential Safety Measure?! The replacement panel if installed to a newer standard ie. AS1670.1-2004, would require any existing installation standard for the ESM "Fire detection and alarm system" to be amended. The most logical "trigger" for this is issue of a building permit to enable issue of a subsequent certificate of final inspection and listing of the amended installation standard. It is not considered in this situation there is a legislative basis to permit amendment of an existing occupancy permit condition or maintenance determination by the Municipal Building Surveyor. A building permit would be required.
Building permits remain an issue for discussion, now I have come across a new issue being;
While this problem sounds simple enough, what is the answer?
Added to this, here are a few other questions, similar in nature;
By way of a background on this matter, here is an extract of the Building Regulations 2006 that addresses when exemptions Part 18 and Scedule 8 from permits are available;;
According to a building surveyor I spoke to the key phrase "adversely affect" from Item 3 (e) of Schedule 8. As a result (contary to Practice Note 2008:32) is that a permit is not required when we change a smoke detector to a heat detector or when we change the operating temperature of s sprinkler head or even when we change a Fire Alarm or EWIS panel over..
There may be a 'got-ya' in respect to the changing of a Class A (usually Air-Water) extinguisher over to a Dry Chemical (Class B(E) or AB(E)] as Class A is specifically defined in the Building Code of Australia (BCA), in Table E1.6, Item (d).
I would live to hear your comments if your a Municipal Building Surveyor or Private Building Surveyor and have an opinion on this matter.
Regards,
Russ
Ok, Thanks for that Russell,
The discussion below is a necessarily long winded and detailed regulatory analysis. The summary of this is:
Summary
In applying the exemptions in the Table to Schedule 8 of the Building Regulations 2006 to essential safety measures:
I will keep you posted on our efforts to get some clarity on the application of the term "do not adversely affect..."
Here is the detail.
Section 16 (1) of the Building Act 1993 (the Act) is our starting point it says:
"(1) A person must not carry out building work unless a building permit in respect of the work has been issued and is in force under this Act and the work is carried out in accordance with this Act, the building regulations and the permit.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to building work exempted by or under this Act or the regulations."
The key term here is "building work." What is "building work"? Section 3 of the Act also defines building work- "means work for or in connection with the construction, demolition or removal of a building."
In S3 the Act defines construct as: "in relation to a building, includes—
(a) build, re-build, erect or re-erect the building; and
(b) repair the building; and
(c) make alterations to the building; and
(d) enlarge or extend the building; and
(e) place or relocate the building on land."
Regulation 105 of the Regulations defines alteration - "means construction in relation to an existing building".
OK, now we have identified when a permit is required (?!?), let's look at the exemptions. There appear to be two exemptions that are relevant to our discussions about ESM:
Alterations
Let's start with the easy one - "alteration". From our definition of alteration, it means construction, which is building works. We have established that a permit is required for building works, unless there is an exemption. Item 4 (e) is an exemption for an alteration that "is not work in relation to, and will not adversely affect, an essential safety measure within the meanings of Subdivisions 1 and 2 of Division 1 of Part 12." If work is not in relation to an ESM then why does it also need to not adversely affect an ESM? How can it affect an ESM if it is not work in relation to an ESM? The intent of satisfying both legs of the test here is by no means clear. The term will not adversely affect an essential safety measure is not defined. To avoid repeating our previous discussion please refer to the thread of the discussion above in previous posts for my previous comments on the wording of the exemption.
The other pre-conditions to be satisfied are:
(a) will not adversely affect the structural soundness of the building, and does not include—
(i) an increase or decrease in the floor area or height of the building; or
(ii) underpinning or replacement of footings; or
(iii) the removal or alteration of any element of the building that is contributing to the support of any other element
of the building; and
(b) will not project beyond the street alignment; and
(c) will not adversely affect the safety of the public or occupiers of the building; and
(d) is not work carried out on, or in connection with, a building included on the Heritage Register within the meaning of the Heritage Act 1995.
Again! We strike this adversely affect concept. There is no guidance in the Act or Regs. Practice Note 2008-32 provides guidance on the interpretation of this term, albeit using a "structure" example only. Simply it says, if you affect the structure during the construction you need a permit! Is this analogy relevant? It's all we have as guidance.
Repair, renewal or maintenance
The other exemption related to ESM is building works that are a repair, renewal or maintenance to an existing building. Repair is defined above in relation to construct. There may be a possible conflict here, in that "repair" and "make alteration" is part of the definition relating to "construct". Alteration is "construction in relation to an existing building." Let's look to the definition of renewal or maintenance... Neither of these terms is defined in the Act or the Regulations. For guidance let's look at the requirements that must be satisfied for the exemption to apply:
(a) will not adversely affect the structural soundness of the building, and does not include—
(i) an increase or decrease in the floor area or height of the building; or
(ii) underpinning or replacement of footings; or
(iii) the removal or alteration of any element of the building that is contributing to the support of any other element of the building; and
(b) is done using materials commonly used for the same purpose as the material being replaced; and
(c) will not adversely affect the safety of the public or occupiers of the building; and
(d) ********* (deleted)
(e) will not adversely affect an essential safety measure within the meanings of Subdivisions 1 and 2 of Division 1 of Part 12.
Requirement (b) provides us with a useful guide to what is intended. Using an example, if you replace a defective smoke detector with a new smoke detector this is considered "materials commonly used for the same purpose as the material being replaced". If you replace a smoke detector with a heat detector is this the same purpose? A heat detector and a smoke detector are not considered to have the same purpose. They are used for different applications.
Requirements (c) and (e) contain the terms "do not adversely affect". Again! We strike this adversely affect concept. There is no guidance in the Act or Regs. Practice Note 2008-32 provides guidance on the interpretation of this term, albeit using a "structure" example only. Simply it says, if you affect the structure during the construction you need a permit! Is this analogy relevant? It's all we have as guidance.
See http://www.buildingcommission.com.au/resources/documents/Practice_notes_...
Any further discussion of an interpretation of "do not adversely affect ...." is suitably detailed and complex to be outside the scope of this forum.
David Swinson
Fire Safety Consulting Pty Ltd
A Maintenance Essentials Partner
1300 791 602
solutions@fs.net.au