(a) Naming the Fire Resue Commissioner as an Interested Party to the Proceeding;

(b) Requiring the Applicant to file with the BAB and serve on the Interested Party his Statement of Contentions by 11 July 2025;

(c) Requiring the Interested Party to file and serve his Statement of Contentions (if any) in support of or in opposition to the Applicant's application by 25 July 2025; and

(d) Listing the proceeding for hearing on 12 August 2025.

1. The Applicant has since filed the following documents -

(a) Consultant's Advice Notice dated 15 April 2025;

(b) Gincat Fire Engineering Report dated 15 April 2025 (FER 1.2);

(c) Email from the Applicant to the BAB dated 5 June 2025 stating that -

I am seeking a Determination that under the Building Act Section 160A(1) Part (1) that -

• (A) the Subject Class 3 building with a rise in storeys of 3 will meet the Deemed to Satisfy Provision without sprinkler protection given it -

(1) does not fall within the defined usage as residential care; and

(2) Does not fall within the defined usage as shared accommodation; and

• (B) The Subsequent referenced Fire Engineering Report by GinCat (which does not mention the deletion of the sprinklers as DtS (Deemed to Satisfy variation) but has considered other DtS variations, can be determined by the Board to meet the Relevant Performance Requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

(d) GinCat Fire Engineering Report dated 27 June 2025 (FER 1.3);

(e) Email from Applicant to the BAB dated 18 July 2025 listing Matters Seeking a Determination from the Building Appeals Board.

Building Code of Australia 2019, Volume One (BCA)

THE APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF CONTENTIONS (IN SUMMARY)

1. The Applicant relies on the FER 1.3 in support of his Application, which concludes that with regard to the DtS provisions identified, the relevant Performance Requirements CP2, CP8, DP2(b), DP4, DP5, DP6 and EP2.2 are satisfied to the degree necessary.
2. The Applicant also relied on a table prepared by him entitled "Matters Seeking a Determination from the Building Appeals Board" and dated 2 July 2025, in which he addresses -

(a) each Performance Requirement with respect to the relevant DtS Provision, Variations from DtS Provisions, the BCA A2.2 Assessment Method and his Comments;

(b) the design measures required by FER 1.3;

(c) the Type of Protection Prescribed for Openings in External Walls
(d) Definition of Type of Protection Method; and

(e) Description of the building(s) per BCA 2019 Volume 1 Amendment 1.

THE INTERESTED PARTY'S STATEMENT OF CONTENTIONS (IN SUMMARY)

(a) The design group should consider if sprinkler protection is an appropriate response to the occupants of a Class 3 building;

(b) Whether the proposed controls of placarding and management of the site to limit the number of unrelated persons in the building are appropriate, or if further controls are required, should be considered;

(c) Hydrant coverage drawn directly from three external hydrants located around the ground floor of the building may be non-compliant;

(d) No booster assembly is shown on the drawings provided;

(e) With no booster assembly installed, the hydrants are classified as feed hydrants and coverage can only be drawn from an appliance within 20 metres, which may not provide sufficient coverage to the rear building;

(f) The hydrant in front of the rear building is a ground ball hydrant and is only appropriate as a feed hydrant within 20 metres of a hardstand; not an attack hydrant;

(g) The change of use requires the building to be assessed against the appropriate standard referenced by NCC 2019 Amendment 1, AS2419.1:2005, and any non-compliance identified made known to the Commissioner; and

(h) Given how recent the architectural drawings and PBDB/FER were produced, it may be more appropriate to assess the change of use against NCC2022 and the hydrant system against AS2419.1:2021.

THE APPLICANT'S REPLY TO THE INTERESTED PARTY'S STATEMENT OF CONTENTIONS (IN SUMMARY)

(a) There are no more external hydrants as part of the new internal hydrant design system;

(b) Hydrant coverage assessment based on the new system design is shown in RC Fire Consulting Fire Hydrant System Design Drenchers and Booster Details Drawing No. LH02(2);

(c) New booster assembly is added to the new design as shown in Drawing No. LH01(4);

(d) All original hydrant system equipment and pipework will not be part of the new system to NCC2019 Amendment 1 and AS2419.1-2005 and;

(e) The change to NCC2022 and AS2419.1-2021 will not affect the new design presented.

1. The Management Plan appears to be inconsistent with the submissions at the hearing and the fire engineering report (FER), for example, the management plan refers to a Live-in-Manager, however, at the hearing the applicants submitted that no Live-in-Manager would be present.
2. The Management Plan is an endorsed document by Council's Planning Department and therefore we presume a requirement of the Planning Permit. It is curious that the developer appears to not be familiar with the contents of the Plan noting they will be in charge of the facility on an ongoing basis.
3. The provisions in the Management Plan and FER 1.3 are light on regarding the vetting / checking / review of the occupants that are to reside in this space.
4. The Management Plan indicates up to 35 residents. However, the buildings in total appear to have only 23 bedrooms. This, coupled with the requirement around "unrelated" persons, raises the question whether the building is actually a "shared accommodation" building, contrary to the Applicant's determination.
5. We are not convinced that the facility will not, on issue of an Occupancy Permit, be used as a shared accommodation building. This, as the fire engineering design solutions are so common and simple in nature that any relevant building surveyor should have the expertise, knowledge and understanding to assess and make a determination whether the design solutions comply with the Performance Requirements.
6. As such, it appears to us that the underlying reason for submitting this Application to the BAB is to safeguard the Applicant, design team, client and others, of any future issues that may arise, as if the BAB has "permitted" or condoned the use of the building as a shared accommodation building.
7. Notwithstanding the above, we are not convinced that submitted FER 1.3 sufficiently demonstrates compliance with the mandatory compliance level of the BCA as currently documented due to insufficient information and details, regardless of whether the building is or is not a shared accommodation building. However, we concede that with some works, as per the comments and queries raised at the hearing, the report could be revised to demonstrate compliance with the Performance Requirements for the design solutions noted in the report, provided it is convincing and clear that the building is not a shared accommodation building.
8. We will not accept a revised report unless there is sufficiently clear evidence that this building will not be used as a shared accommodation building, or the Applicant concedes that it is in fact a shared accommodation building and provides a performance-based design solution report addressing the use of the building and the occupant characteristics accordingly as a shared accommodation building.