More Than a Headline, A Reckoning
The Loafers Lodge fire wasn't just a tragedy; it was a professional wake-up call for every fire engineer, architect, and building owner in New Zealand. When five people die in a building fire, the question “Was it compliant?” is rapidly superseded by the far more important one: “Was it safe?” The answer, devastatingly, was no. And it exposes a dangerous paradox at the heart of our building regulations for older structures.
The Gap: Compliant vs. Safe
How can a building accommodating dozens of people not have a fire sprinkler system? The answer lies in the layers of our building code. A building is often assessed against the code that was in effect at the time of its construction or last major alteration. This means we have a significant stock of older residential buildings across Aotearoa that, while technically compliant, offer a level of fire protection that is decades behind modern standards like NZBC C/AS2.
Loafers Lodge was a grim illustration of this gap. Without an active suppression system, the fire, once started, could spread rapidly. Escape routes become compromised by smoke, temperatures escalate, and the time available for occupants to escape is drastically reduced. It’s a scenario where the fire alarm system, however well-maintained, is merely announcing a disaster that is already unfolding.
The Sprinkler Intervention: What Would Have Changed?
Let's be technically precise about what a retrofit sprinkler system, designed to NZS 4541, would have achieved. Upon detecting the heat from the fire, only the sprinkler head directly above the fire would have activated. This single head would have discharged water to control, and likely extinguish, the fire in its incipient stage.
The benefits are threefold and immediate:
- Heat Reduction: It prevents the fire from growing and causing a flashover event, where the entire room ignites.
- Smoke Control: By controlling the fire's size, it drastically limits the production of deadly smoke, which is the primary cause of fatalities.
- Time: It protects escape routes and gives occupants the most valuable commodity in a fire – time to get out safely.
Our Professional Mandate Beyond the Code
As fire protection engineers, our duty cannot end at signing off on minimum compliance. Our role is to be trusted advisors on risk. When we see an older residential building without sprinklers, we have a professional and ethical obligation to articulate the immense value and life-safety benefit of a retrofit to the building owner. We must be prepared to explain that meeting a 1970s standard in 2024 is not an acceptable safety outcome. The technology exists, the standards are clear, and the cost of inaction, as we have been so tragically reminded, is simply too high.