• Login:
Welcome, Register Here
follow PropertyTalk on facebook follow PropertyTalk on twitter Newsletter follow PropertyTalk on LinkedIn follow PropertyTalk on facebook
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11

    Default

    If no upgrades were undertaken then no upgrade of fire safety would be required.

  2. #12

    Default

    Donna

    so you can buy or rent acommercial building as is and there is no requirement for upgrade unless consent is applied for for something or there is a change of use.

    The exception is residential tenancies that have to satisfy RTA all the time.

  3. #13

    Default

    Hi Donna,
    If you are the owner of the commercial building/space you have responsibility to ensure that the building is compliant and consent for the proposed use. As a tenant it would be the building owners responsibility to ensure the building is compliant.

    Kind Regards
    Luke

  4. #14

    Default

    Donna
    Luke says
    If you are the owner of the commercial building/space you have responsibility to ensure that the building is compliant and consent for the proposed use. As a tenant it would be the building owners responsibility to ensure the building is compliant.
    I disagree;
    there is no obligation for a building to be "compliant". In fact it is inevitable that a building designed before the code was written (or after further changes) will not be compliant. What the act says is that all buildings must be not 'dangerous or insanitary' (and not EQ prone and a few other exceptions) It is only when a building has an application for a consent that council can insist on upgrade and then only for means of escape from fire (which includes alarms incl smoke alarms for residential) and disabled access (if applicable).

    If there is a compliance schedule and BWOF then this must be up to date but this is still only ensuring the systems listed are performing as originally installed and they could still be "non-compliant" due to changes in regs since install?

    If you change the use there are more clauses that are applicable but a change of use is defined in regs not simply a different use from previous.

    Luke
    you need to be more accurate with your language ; yes the owner is 'responsible for compliance' but this doesn't mean that building has to be made compliant only maintained to the degree required (if compliance schedule applicable)

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    8,037

    Default

    I guess things might need to be upgraded if a tenant comes along and wants to do some sort of fitout which is comprehensive enough for them to need a building consent.
    Squadly dinky do!

  6. #16

    Default

    yes but fit-outs don't need a consent
    (exemption 10 schedule 1 interior alteration to non residential building (as long as non structural, does not modify specified system,not fire separation or a masonry wall))

    If you knew upgrade was onerous you might make sure a consent was not required or even make it a condition of consent. I know of at least 1 circa 1965 hotel that the owners have resisted any consents for this very reason.
    Last edited by John the builder; 06-11-2018 at 10:24 AM. Reason: typo

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    8,037

    Default

    (as long as non structural, does not modify specified system,not fire separation or a masonry wall))

    All you have to do is install partitioning to make an office and you've modified the air con situation and the fire separation right? And air con is on the compliance schedule, along with the fire system.

    So sensors for heat and smoke... might have to be installed/shifted wouldn't they?
    Squadly dinky do!

  8. #18

    Default

    fire separation is the walls that create a firecell. These could have fire doors in them and go from floor to floor/roof. (and protect escape routes), Creating an office would not affect fire separation. Modifying is in my view more than moving vents around (it is something that modifies the system and not just a change within or to it). You can also move a few detectors and parts of a specified system under other exemptions as long as it is not a substantial contribution to the system.

    I believe we should be able to use Schedule 1 permissively as parliament intended.


 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-05-2018, 11:22 PM
  2. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 24-06-2017, 09:12 AM
  3. Smoke alarms
    By Good Property Manager in forum Property Management
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 14-11-2015, 01:54 AM
  4. Smoke Alarms
    By Grundy in forum Property Improvements (NZ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 24-08-2015, 06:50 PM
  5. Smoke alarms.
    By Keys in forum Property Management
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 12-02-2013, 10:13 PM
  6. Smoke alarms in rentals
    By fullom in forum Tenant Stuff (NZ)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-02-2013, 08:22 PM
  7. Smoke Alarms
    By Gobbers in forum Welcome Newbies!
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 29-01-2013, 02:21 PM
  8. Smoke Alarms
    By fullom in forum Tenant Stuff (NZ)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-07-2011, 10:45 PM
  9. smoke alarms - who's responsibility?
    By baiba in forum Tenant Stuff (NZ)
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 16-12-2010, 09:51 PM
  10. Dinner with the Girlfriend's Parents
    By Marcus in forum Forum Funnies
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 27-06-2005, 09:49 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •