Many buildings have fire protection defects
An academic study of Passive Fire Protection (PFP) systems has made eight recommendations, including establishment of a national database, after finding many buildings in Victoria are defective and this is likely to be an Australia-wide problem.
It is calling for a “united and concerted effort to overcome the multitude of problems associated”.
PFP systems use construction elements within a building designed to prevent the spread of fire and facilitate safe evacuation, enable emergency services to safely undertake activities, and limit the spread of fire to other properties.
“There is evidence to suggest that a large number of Class 2 buildings in Victoria are likely to have Passive Fire Protection defects,” the research paper from academic Nicole Johnston, which was supported by the Victorian Building Authority in association with Deakin University, said.
“Most of these defects are likely to relate to fire walls and penetrations.”
Ms Johnston recommends ensuring all builders have the requisite knowledge, capabilities and competencies required to work on Class 2 buildings, or restricting registration categories based on class and construction type, as well as inclusion in the registration requirements for CPD, professional indemnity insurance, financial and other reporting requirements, and a code of conduct.
She also suggests examining the feasibility of a national database.
“Given the complexity of PFP, the number of practitioners and suppliers involved, the proliferation of defects, and the devastating consequences that could result from a major fire incident, a more collaborative and nationally consistent approach to all aspects of PFP should be undertaken,” the report said.
It is essential that PFP defects are identified and remedied during the design and construction stages as detection and rectification afterwards is difficult and can be prohibitively expensive, particularly if access is hindered by walls.
“Complex installation manuals can inevitably deter compliance if they are too difficult to understand. Mandatory inspections of PFP systems are limited and building surveyors do not necessarily have the requisite skills to identify all passive fire non-compliance,” the study said.
“Building documentation and information transfer from the developer to the owners corporation is poorly undertaken.
“Builders, developers and service contractors are engaging unregulated passive fire practitioners to identify PFP defects, monitor defect rectification and install PFP elements and systems. This highlights a need in the marketplace for skilled practitioners to be included in practitioner registration schemes and for an education and training pathway to be provided.”
The study also found owners corporations appear reluctant to rectify costlier PFP defects until ordered by a local government authority as “”the probability of a fire seems low so rectification is not prioritised”.
“Investigating PFP defects in residential buildings in Victoria (and perhaps elsewhere) is indeed a complex and onerous task. This research does not capture every aspect of PFP defects but provides a solid starting point for further exploration,” it said.
Some interviewees said a disproportionate share of responsibility and liability was on the shoulders of building surveyors.
“There’s now a real understanding of the consequences of not getting it right and the liability and insurance consequences around those decisions,” the State Building Surveyor said.
“The system has unfairly evolved to rely on the building surveyor as the gatekeeper.
“They’ve shed liability and heaped that onto the building surveyor more and more. For a successful system, it really needs that shared liability and accountability for the individuals or the parties that are actually responsible for delivery of the particular components of the building.”
See the study here.
