1 Senior Commissioner : This is an appeal against the Fire Safety Order issued by Sydney City Council on 17 April 2007 pursuant to s121B-6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) in respect of premises at 80 Bayswater Road, Rushcutters Bay.
2 The apartment building at 80 Bayswater Road was built during the 1920s and upgraded for fire safety in 1980 following an Order under the Local Government Act 1919 . It contains ten apartments under strata ownership. It is common ground that the building does not reach contemporary standards of fire safety. It has timber floors, an open timber stair and non fire-rated ceilings and spandrels. It is also common ground that parts of the Order should be complied with, though the applicant argues that not all.
3 The Order has the following sections:
1.01 Single hand action on exit doors;
1.02 Balustrades to stairs;
1.03 Fire safety measures audit;
2.01 Solid core doors to be provided;
2.02 Removal of security screens;
2.03 Floor penetrations (general);
2.04 Lining of ceilings (non-combustible);
2.05 Storage cupboard under exit stair (cease use);
2.06 Residential sprinkler system (installation).
4 At the first hearing on 16 October 2007 the council's expert was Ms Alison Brown, a building surveyor in the council's Fire Safety Department. The applicant's expert was Mr Stephen Fischer, a consulting building surveyor. The experts had reached agreement on all parts of the order with the exception of section 2.06, the installation of sprinklers. Mr Fisher advocates a different approach, namely the fire rating of ceilings in all kitchens and public areas, the provision of fire blankets in kitchens and an alarm system that connects to the fire brigade and identifies the location of the fire. Ms Brown argues that this solution does not deal with fires that originate in bedrooms and living rooms, nor with the spread of fire from kitchens.
5 It is common ground between the parties that the installation of sprinklers throughout the building would provide a higher level of fire safety than the solution recommended by Mr Fischer. The applicant (which comprises the owners of the ten apartments, most or all of which are owner-occupied) argues, that Mr Fischer's solution would provide adequate fire safety. Adequate is the term used in the Act describing s121B-6 Orders. The applicant does not want the installation of sprinklers partly because sprinklers are more expensive and partly because the applicant believes that the installation requires the occupants to leave the apartments while the system is being installed.
6 It is common sense that, if there were no concern with costs and convenience, then sprinklers should be installed since the parties agree that they provide a higher level of safety. It is therefore important that the Court has reliable information on both costs and convenience.
7 The evidence given at the first hearing by Ms Brown and Mr Fischer relevant to cost and convenience was confusing, with the result that it was not possible for me, on the basis of that evidence, to reach a decision. Mr Fischer estimated the cost of installing sprinklers to be $175,000 and the cost of his recommendation (to the extent that they replaced the need for sprinklers) to be $114,000. The difference between these two figures is $61,000. However, Mr Fischer estimated the difference between the cost of the Order as he proposed to amend it and the cost of the Order as issued, to be $89,000. This is illogical, since the two figures should be equal.
8 Ms Brown, on the other hand, suggested that the cost of installing the sprinklers would be only $61,000. Her figure is based on a telephone conversation between her superior officer and an installer of sprinklers, in which the installer was given some information about the building. Clearly, Ms Brown's figures are also unreliable. However, for Mr Fischer's estimate to be correct, Ms Brown's would have to be not just wrong, but disastrously wrong. If Ms Brown is correct, the cost of installing sprinklers is a great deal less than the supposedly cheaper solution advocated by Mr Fisher. The difference between the two estimates is too great for me to have confidence in either of them.
9 As regards the inconvenience that the installation of sprinklers would cause to the occupants of the apartments, the Court had no evidence whatever. Would the occupants have to leave their apartments, and, if yes, for how long? A day or two, or a month or two? At the first hearing, these questions were not even asked, let alone answered.
10 To reach a decision based on more reliable information, I directed the parties to appoint a joint expert. At the hearing on 8 January 2008 Ms Debbie Fisher, an engineer with long experience in the installation of sprinklers, told the Court that the cost of installing sprinklers would be about $125,000. The additional cost of installing sprinklers over the safety measures advocated by Mr Fischer is in the order of $25,000, or $2,500 for each apartment. This is not a sum that would justify a second best solution, even if it were found to be adequate . However, in Ms Fisher's opinion, the solution advocated by Mr Fischer is not adequate, since it involves the fire rating of ceilings only in kitchens. She would accept the alternative solution as adequate only if all the ceilings in the building were fire-rated. If this were done, the cost would be far in excess of the sprinklers solution.
11 As concerns convenience, Ms Fisher said that installing sprinklers in an apartment would take three days. The occupants would be inconvenienced during that time, but they would not have to leave the apartment. There is therefore no substance to the applicant's claim that the installation of sprinklers would cause serious inconvenience.
12 A further dispute between the parties relates to the time for compliance. The council's Order specifies two months for some of the simple requirements (referred to as Stage 1) and six months for the more elaborate work such as the installation of sprinklers (referred to as Stage 2). The applicant wants six months for Stage 1 and a year for Stage 2. I do not accept that the Stage 1 works need more than two months to complete. According to Ms Fisher, the installation of sprinklers would take two months for the whole building. Even with keeping the council's deadline, the applicant would have four months to prepare for the works. I see no reason to change the compliance period specified in the council's Order.
13 On the basis of Ms Fisher's evidence the Court has no reason to amend the council's order, other than for amendments on which the parties have agreed. The orders below give effect to this conclusion.