1. On 21 January 2021, FRV granted its consent pursuant to reg 129 of the Regulations for, inter alia, the hydrant system provided it achieved a pressure and flow of 20 l/s @ 50kPa.
2. On 5 February 2025, the Applicant applied for FRV's consent to an occupancy permit application for the Building. On 20 February 2025, FRV refused consent, reasoning that:

a) Towns mains test failed to achieve 20l/s @50kPa. Independent Certifier recorded 0 kPa at pump inlet during pump appliance test. > > b) Sprinkler flow test did not pass duty demands. > > c) Insufficient clearance at front of Fire Indicator Panel.

3. On 5 March 2025, the Applicant appealed FRV's decision to refuse its consent (the Appeal) under s 144(1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 (Building Act) to the Building Appeals Board (BAB).
4. The Applicant submits, in essence, that the causes of the reduced water pressure are out of its control, and that the Subject Land cannot now accommodate the installation of pumps and tanks to provide the water pressure necessary for the sprinklers and hydrant. FRV submits that the pressure shortfall on the Subject Land fails to provide a satisfactory degree of fire safety.
5. By Directions and Orders dated 4 April 2025, we sought from the Applicant, inter alia:

confirmation from a suitably qualified expert as to whether the sprinkler system complies in all aspects if the fire hydrant demand on the water supply is ignored.

1. In response to the Directions and Orders dated 4 April 2025, the Applicant stated, inter alia:

Based on the system requirements and the pressure and flow data (physical testing) obtained during commissioning, there is suitable flow for the townhouse sprinkler system however insufficient pressure and flow for the carpark system.

1. Given this statement by the Applicant, by directions and orders dated 24 April 2025 we noted that the Applicant must establish that there is a satisfactory degree of fire safety in the Building notwithstanding the reduced water pressure observed at the Subject Land. We also stated that our preliminary view was:

(a) it may be permissible to omit the fire hydrant water supply demand required in accordance with the BCA and/or requirements of FRV from the calculation and testing of the water supply characteristics which determine the hydraulic performance of the fire sprinkler systems served directly from the town mains; and

(b) it may be possible to re-design the hydraulic performance of the fire sprinkler system serving the carpark to comply with AS 2118.4-2012, Clause 4.3.4 in lieu of compliance with AS 2118.1 Ordinary Hazard 2 for the carpark area as currently proposed in the FER.

1. In response to the directions and orders made on 24 April 2025, the Applicant has filed Revision 9 of the Fire Engineering Report for 257 Riversdale Road, Hawthorn East prepared by Dobbs Doherty (Revision 9 FER).

1. The Revision 9 FER considers a sprinkler system throughout the Building, including the car park, provided in accordance with AS2118.4-2012 (AS 2118.4).
2. Pursuant to s 148(2) of the Act, we may consider matters not raised before the FRV when it considered whether to grant its consent pursuant to reg 187 of the Regulations. As such, we may consider the Revision 9 FER.
3. The Revision 9 FER establishes compliance of the sprinkler system with AS 2118.4 throughout the building, and it also considers the effect of the car park sprinkler system complying with AS 2118.4 while excluding fire hydrant water supply demand when determining hydraulic performance of the fire sprinkler system. The Revision 9 FER has assessed the effect of these changes on the BCA performance solutions approved as part of the design of the Building and accepts that the performance solutions are still appropriate and compliant with the BCA. The Revision 9 FER also requires that there is fire separation between the car park and the residential areas of the Building, and we understand that the Building has been constructed with such a fire separation.
4. The Second Interested Party (RBS) has provided an email dated 5 May 2025, in which he states, inter alia, that he is satisfied that 'the current design provides a satisfactory degree of fire safety through the incorporation of both passive and active fire protection systems'.
5. As a result of the Revision 9 FER, we are satisfied that there is a satisfactory degree of fire safety in the Building, and therefore that the decision of the FRV to refuse consent to an occupancy permit should be set aside pursuant to s 149(1)(d) of the Act, and that we should substitute our own decision to grant consent.
6. We also refer to the comments we made in 'Other Matters' of the directions and orders dated 24 April 2025 concerning the need to ensure that the fire sprinkler documentation and ongoing baseline maintenance criteria reflect the as-constructed Building.