Vo v Liverpool City Council

Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

1. COMMISSIONER: These proceedings are about an appeal of a fire safety order issued for the premises at 46 Riverside Road, Chipping Norton in relation to a warehouse (storage) with mezzanine office.

2. Mr Vo and Ms Doan (Applicants) have appealed pursuant to s 8.18 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act) against Liverpool City Council’s (Council) Development Control Order NO-646/2024 dated 19 December 2024 (Fire Safety Order), which was issued pursuant to ss 9.34 and 9.35 of the EPA Act.

3. With consideration of the evidence and submissions, I find that the works required by the Fire Safety Order should be retained as insufficient evidence was presented to remove aspects of the fire safety measures. I also find that the date from which the Fire Safety Order commences should be reset to the date that this judgment is delivered.

Background

4. The Applicants submit that they purchased the site in 2008 and believed that all fire safety measures were met at the time.

5. Council submits that it became aware in May 2023 that the subject building was not on Council’s Essential Services Register and that the level of fire safety compliance of the building was unknown. Council’s review of their records led them to believe that the fire safety measures of the building were inadequate.

6. On 21 April 2023, Council says in its Statement of Facts and Contentions (CSOFAC) (Ex 2) that it reviewed an email from one of the owners of the site, Mr Vo. Mr Vo advised that this was the first time they had received a notice for an Annual Fire Safety Statement (AFSS) (ES-1785).

7. From May 2023 to 27 July 2023, the owner and Council exchanged various correspondence about the use of the site and potential fire safety upgrades that may be required, including a fire hydrant system and/or a sprinkler system. The Applicants agreed to submit a Building Code of Australia (BCA) report.

8. Between 27 July 2023 and 11 September 2023, various versions of the requested report were provided to Council. Following inspections of the premises, Council requested two further updates to the report.

9. On 28 November 2023, the Applicants provided Council with the amended Building Code Australia Capability Report prepared by Lote Consulting dated 27 November 2023 (Fire Safety Report) (Ex 1).

10. On 4 November 2024, a Notice of Proposed Safety Order was issued to the Applicants (NOPO).

11. The Applicants did not respond to the NOPO.

12. On 19 December 2024, a Fire Safety Order was issued to the Applicants. This is the Fire Safety Order that is the subject of this appeal.

13. On 16 January 2025, the Applicants filed the subject appeal. The appeal was made within 28 days of the Fire Safety Order (s 8.18(3) of the EPA Act).

14. A new AFSS (ES-2103) with different fire safety measures was received by the Applicants in December 2024 (which excluded the automatic fire suppression system and fire hydrant system) and was submitted to Council on 1 February 2025.

15. The hearing was initially listed to commence on site on 23 June 2025. There was some confusion and instead, the hearing commenced in Court on the same day. Following the hearing, the Court enquired if either party wished for the site viewing to occur. Both parties advised on the 28 and 29 July 2025 that the site view was not required.

16. With leave of the Court, Mr James Vo represented the Applicants as an Agent.

Relevant provisions

17. The following provisions of the EPA Act are relevant to the appeal.

18. Section 8.18 of the EPA Act states:

8.18 Appeals concerning orders

(1) A person who is given a development control order may appeal to the Court against the order.

(2) However, a person may not appeal against a fire safety order given by an authorised fire officer (other than an order that prevents a person using or entering premises).

(3) The appeal may be made only—

(a) within 28 days after the development control order is given to the person, or

(b) if an order is given subsequently that forms part of the development control order, within 28 days after the subsequent order is given to the person.

(4) On hearing an appeal, the Court may—

(a) revoke the development control order, or

(b) modify the development control order, or

(c) substitute for the development control order any other order that the relevant enforcement authority who gave the order could have given, or

(d) find that the development control order is sufficiently complied with, or

(e) make such order with respect to compliance with the development control order as the Court thinks fit, or

(f) make such other order with respect to the development control order as the Court thinks fit.

19. Section 9.34 of the EPA Act provides when a development control order may be given, with the relevant provisions found in Pt 2 of Sch 5 of the EPA Act for fire safety orders. The relevant parts are highlighted:

| To do what? | In what circumstances? | To whom? | | To do or stop doing things for the purposes of ensuring or promoting adequate fire safety or fire safety awareness*.* | When provision for fire safety or fire safety awareness is inadequate to— • prevent fire, or • suppress fire, or • prevent the spread of fire. To ensure or promote the safety of persons in the event of fire. When lack of maintenance of the premises or the use of the premises constitutes a significant fire hazard. | The owner of the premises or, in the case of a place of shared accommodation, the owner or manager. | | To stop doing an activity on premises, including on premises used for the purposes of shared accommodation. | The activity is or is likely to be— • a life threatening hazard, or • a threat to public health or public safety, and the activity is not regulated or controlled under any other Act by a public authority. | Any person apparently engaged in promoting, conducting or carrying out the activity. | | To stop the use of premises or to evacuate premises, or not to enter the premises. | When an order under item 1 or 2 above has already been served and has not been complied with. | Any person. |

20. Schedule 5, Parts 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13 of the EPA Act apply in relation to the process of issuing a development control order (DCO), natural justice, the consideration of representations made by owners to the relevant authority and modification of DCO’s. There are no issues raised in relation to any of these provisions.

Key Issues

21. The Applicants’ contend in their Statement of Facts and Contentions (ASOFAC) (Ex B) that the Fire Safety Order should be revoked for the following reasons:

22. An incorrect AFSS had been issued by Council with the wrong address and incorrect measures not previously included on AFSS, that prompted a further inspection of the premises and issue of the Fire Safety Order.

23. The Applicants purchased the site in 2008 and understood that all fire safety schedules were met at the time of purchase.

24. There had been difficulties with previous fire safety consultants who undertook incorrect assessments, which were corrected by another consultant. These issues led to the final Fire Safety Report. The Fire Safety Report was not satisfactory to the Applicants, however, was submitted to Council under pressure.

25. Storage of items on site are a low fire hazard risk and include dinnerware, kitchenware, personal hygiene and toiletries.

26. The premises are not a high traffic space, with the office area accommodating 2-3 staff and storage areas 1-2 staff at any given time.

27. Neighbouring sites with similar storage spaces do not have up-to-date fire measures, such as automatic fire suppression systems.

28. The evolving standards of fire safety are becoming increasingly difficult for small businesses to maintain. There would be financial difficulties and an inability to continue operation if all the measures in the Fire Safety Order are maintained.

29. Mr Vo narrowed these contentions and sought an extended period of time to comply with the Fire Safety Order and for some parts of the Fire Safety Order to be removed. These are detailed at [28].

30. Council pressed that the Fire Safety Order should remain unchanged as set out in their CSOFAC (Ex 2):

31. In line with the Applicants’ Fire Safety Report and inspection of the building by Council, the level of fire safety within the building is inadequate.

32. The Fire Safety Report confirms that the provisions for fire safety or fire safety awareness are inadequate to prevent fire, suppress fire, prevent the spread of fire or promote the safety of persons in the event of a fire. The safety of occupants on site in the event of a fire is not satisfactory.

33. 18 months has been provided to undertake the work required by the Fire Safety Order.

Expert Evidence

24. Consistent with the Court’s orders, a single expert report was prepared by Ms Rosaline Jones (Ex 1), expert for Council. Oral evidence was adduced at the hearing.

Issue

25. The Applicants contend that parts of the Fire Safety Order should be removed as they are financially unviable, inconsistent with other buildings in the street and the result of a report given to Council under pressure.

26. Council contends that after a review of the premises, that the fire safety measures in the building are inadequate in accordance with the current BCA provisions and the Fire Safety Report. The Fire Safety Order requires the Applicants to complete the works within 18 months from the date of the Fire Safety Order.

27. Put simply, the issues before the Court are whether aspects of the Fire Safety Order can be removed and, as sought at the hearing, whether an extension of time to undertake these works can be accommodated.

28. The salient parts of the Fire Safety Order, and the aspects of the Fire Safety Order in dispute are as follows:

| Number | Requirement | Sought to be removed | | 1.01 | Complete the following works: Carry out the recommendations detailed in LoteConsulting Building Code Australia Capability Report Ref no. 390057-46RiversideRD-LoteBCAR-RevD dated 27 November 2023 prepared by Ali Mohammed of LoteConsulting Fire Safety Security and reviewed by Yahya Elhallak, further identified on pages 16 – 19, 46 – 60 and 62 – 66 (copies attached) except where superseded by the below: | In part. | | 1.01 a | Structural Engineer to be engaged to assess the external walls in accordance with Clause C2C2, C2C12 and Specification 5 and 8 of the BCA2002 and determine if the required FRLs have been met and where necessary, any required remedial works to achieve compliance. | Yes. | | 1.01 b | Structural Engineer to be engaged to assess the masonry wall between office and storage to be upgraded to achieve 120/120/120 FRL in accordance with Clause C3D8 and C3D9 of the BCA2022. | Yes. | | 1.01 c | A sprinkler is to be installed in accordance with BCA 2022 Clause E1D13 and AS2118.1-2017 throughout the Building B (Storage). | Yes. | | 1.01 d | All openings and doors in the wall between office and storage should upgrade in accordance with Clause C4D4, C4D5, C4D6 and Specification 12 of the BCA 2022 or alternatively addressed by a performance-based solution prepared by Certifier – Fire Safety. | No. | | 1.01 e | Passive Fire Consultant to be engaged to assess existing penetrations between office and storage and determine if penetrations require upgrades in accordance with C3D15 and Specification 13 of the BCA 2022. | No. | | 1.01 f | Each fire stopper and service penetration must be clearly labelled and marked with a label containing the information specified in Appendix B (B4) of AS4072.2005. When the works have been completed, an Accredited Practitioner (Fire Safety) must issue documentary evidence in the form of a numbered certificate and schedule as detailed in Appendix B of AS4072.1-2005 (with photo). A copy of the documentary evidence prepared by an Accredited Practitioner (Fire Safety) is to be submitted to Council. | No. | | 1.01 g | Provide an additional exit in the storage area in accordance with D2D3 of the BCA 2022 or alternatively addressed by a performance-based solution prepared by Certifier – Fire Safety. | No. | | 1.01 h | The travel distance in storage exceeds 40 m. It is required that: a. Upgrade works are undertaken to achieve compliance in accordance with Clause D2D5 the BCA 2022, or; b. Provide a performance-based solution prepared by Certifier – Fire Safety | No. | | 1.01 i | All lining materials (carpet) used within and leading to the exit shall be audited by an appropriately qualified testing facility or upgraded to achieve compliance with Clause C2D11 and Specification 7 of the BCA 2022 | Yes. | | 1.01 j | The existing spiral staircase in the Class 5 portion of the building is to be retained via performance solution. | No. | | 1.01 k | It is recommended that the thresholds at the exit door of Warehouse B be reviewed by a qualified Access Consultant, and any recommendations made should be implemented as part of a Performance Solution for the existing door thresholds | Yes. | | 1.01 l | It is recommended that a clear egress pathway with a width of minimum 1 m is provided in all aisles of both tenancies in accordance with Clause D2D8 of the BCA 2022. This can be achieved by maintaining the aisles free from any obstructions or storage items. | No. | | 1.01 m | Travel distance by non-fire isolated stairway exceeds the requirement s of Clause D2D14 of the BCA 2022. This is to be addressed by a performance-based solution prepared by Certifier – Fire Safety. | Yes. | | 1.01 n | All doors in required exits, forming part of a required exit or in path of travel to a required exit must be readily openable without a key from the side that faces a person seeking egress in accordance with Clause D3D26 of the BCA 2022. | No. | | 1.01 o | All stairways are to be provided with a slip resistance in accordance with Clause D3D14, D3D15 and Table D3D15 of the BCA 2022. | No. | | 1.01 p | A fire hydrant system must be installed in the building in accordance with Clause E1D2 of the NCC2022 and AS2419.1-2021. Alternatively, if the Fire & Rescue NSW ‘’Fire hydrant concessions for existing buildings (technical information document (D16/62522))’’ is applicable to the building, meet the requirements of this referenced document. Council is to be provided with a coverage diagram and pressure flows statement to confirm compliance. | Yes. | | 1.01 q | Emergency lighting must be installed throughout the building in accordance with Clause E4D2 - E4D4 of the BCA 2022 & AS/NZS 2293.1-2018. | No. | | 1.01 r | Exit signs must be installed throughout the building in accordance with Clause E4D5 NSW E4D6 & E4D8 of the BCA 2022 Vol 1 and AS/NZS 2293.1-2018. | No. | | 1.01 s | Portable fire extinguishers shall be provided throughout the building in accordance with Clause E1D14 of the NCC 2022 and AS2444-2001 | No. | | 1.01 t | Fire hose reels to be installed within the Building B in accordance with Clause E1D3 of the BCA 2022 and AS 2441:2005 and must be reviewed by a Fire Services Designer and rectified accordingly. | Yes. | | 1.01 u | All required exit doors must swing in the direction of egress in accordance with Clause D3D25 of the NCC 2022 or alternatively addressed by a performance-based solution prepared by Certifier – Fire Safety. | No. | | 1.01 v | A barrier in accordance with Clause D3D17, D3D18 and D3D19 of the BCA 2022 must be provided to all mezzanines and stairways. | No. | | 1.01 w | Handrails are to be provided to all stairways in accordance with D3D22. | No. | | 1.01 x | Provide clear and legible evacuation diagrams throughout the building in accordance with AS3745-2010. Evacuation diagrams shall be located in prominent locations throughout the building | No. | | 1.02 | Completion of works Upon completion of works, certification from a Building Surveyor - Unrestricted (formerly A1 Accredited Certifier) under the NSW Fair Trading Accreditation Scheme, shall be submitted to Council confirming works have been completed in accordance with Item 1.01 above and the attached Fire Safety Schedule. A Final Fire Safety Certificate complying with Part 11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (Development Certification and Fire Safety) Regulation 2021 shall accompany the certification. | No. | | | Maintain the existing fire safety measures during upgrading works Maintain the existing fire safety measures installed within the building to the degree necessary whilst the upgrading works are being carried out under the requirements of this order. An Annual Fire Safety Statement is required to be submitted to Council throughout the duration of the Fire Safety Order in accordance with Part 12 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (Development Certification and Fire Safety) Regulation 2021. | No. |

29. The reasons for the Fire Safety Order are stated as:

“You are the owner responsible of the abovementioned premises. The current:

• Provisions for fire safety or fire safety awareness are not adequate to prevent fire, suppress fire or prevent the spread of fire or ensure or promote the safety of persons in the event of fire.

• Maintenance or use of the premises constitutes a significant fire hazard

• The building is considered to be in an unsafe fire safety condition: lacking among other things proper provision for the detection, controlling and extinguishment of fire and adequate provision for escape in the event of a fire emergency.

• LoteConsulting Building Code Australia Capability Report Ref no. 390057-46RiversideRD-LoteBCAR-RevD dated 27 November 2023 prepared by Ali Mohammed of LoteConsulting Fire Safety Security and reviewed by Yahya Elhallak, advises that the provisions for fire safety or fire safety awareness are not adequate to prevent fire, suppress fire or prevent the spread of fire or ensure or promote the safety of persons in the event of fire.

Given the received report, Council is concerned about the safety of the occupants of the building in the event of fire.”

Evidence

30. Ms Jones, fire safety expert for Council, says that the first AFSS (ES-1785) reminder letter referring to both the site and site next door at 44 Riverside Road was an administrative error. The AFSS reminder letter contained information relating to the adjoining neighbour. Following the incorrect issue of the first AFSS, Ms Jones says that Council became aware that there were no records of an AFSS being submitted in the past for the 46 Riverside Road. Accordingly, there are no Council records that indicate the building was meeting the AFSS requirements at the time of purchase.

31. Ms Jones’ evidence is that the Fire Safety Report has considered the classification of the building and the fire safety requirements. The Fire Safety Report recommends the installation of a sprinkler system, hose reel and hydrants, all of which Ms Jones agrees with.

32. Ms Jones says that the Fire Safety Report has given consideration to the maximum allowable occupants in the office area of the building based on its size. The stated number of staff is within the size considered by the Fire Safety Report, as well as a staff member of one for the storage area. The 18 months permitted by the Fire Safety Order is a reasonable amount of time to complete the works with an acknowledgement of their costs.

33. Ms Jones’ evidence is that the upgrade works are required to prevent fire, suppress fire, prevent the spread of fire, ensure the safety of persons in the event of a fire or when the lack of maintenance constitutes a significant fire hazard in accordance with the requirements of the EPA Act.

34. Ms Jones recognises that there may be non-compliant buildings in the area, but this is not relevant to this building. Council’s resources through its three fire safety officers are not able to audit all buildings concurrently in the Liverpool Local Government Area.

The Fire Safety Report

35. The Fire Safety Report was subject to two amendments based on feedback from Council. The report was prepared by Mr Ali Mohammed, reviewed by Yahya Elhallak and authorised by Dr S A Magrabi (Fire and Risk Engineering BDC No. 0240), all nominated as fire safety engineers.

36. The Fire Safety Report sets out that the purpose of the report is to identify the deemed to satisfy provisions of the BCA in relation to fire safety, identify major non-compliance and provide a list of proposed fire safety measures for the existing warehouse at 46 Riverside Road for storage and office use. These uses are BCA Class 5 (office) and 7B (storage), which require fire separation. The Fire Safety Report states that it proposes an ‘upgrade strategy which will outline areas where it is considered appropriate to upgrade the existing building to an adequate level of occupant fire and life safety … (and) will not always require a full upgrade in accordance with all relevant deemed-to satisfy provisions’ *(*p 6, tab 2, Ex 2) (emphasis added). The building is described as an area of excessive hazard due to the volume and height of the storage.

37. Section 4.0 of the Fire Safety Report details the overall fire safety strategy for the existing building, with a summary of BCA non-compliances and recommendations to achieve compliance at Table 4.1.

38. Sections 4 and 6 of the Fire Safety Report detail the assessment of the existing building, its compliance with the BCA and any notes/actions, including potential alternative solutions for investigation. A number of non-compliances and recommendations were identified, including fire sprinklers, hydrants, unobstructed walkways at 1 metre (m) wide, lighting, unobstructed and additional doorways, exit signage, additional fire extinguishers, removal of the roller door for Warehouse A, performance solution for the stairway and others. Warehouse B was considered to be the most disadvantaged being located more than 45m from a fire hose reel. No hydrants were observed by the authors on site. The fire hydrants and hose reels were recommended to be reviewed by a fire safety practitioner and accredited fire safety certifier to form part of a performance solution.

39. In relation to the sprinklers, the Fire Safety Report details that there are three aspects that trigger this requirement including the fire compartment being greater than 2,000m2 or 12,000m3 (16,150m3), the storage volume being greater than 1,000m3 (a figure was not provided but the Fire Safety Report considered the volume to be well in excess based on the heights of the storage racks reaching the ceiling) and the height of combustible goods being greater than 4m (observed by the Fire Safety Report author as close to reaching the roof, at 8.5m).

40. Section 8 of the Fire Safety Report details all of the major non-compliances with the BCA and recommendations.

41. The works stipulated in the Fire Safety Order are based on all of the recommendations in the Fire Safety Report.

Submissions

42. Mr Vo for the Applicants submitted that the Council had not followed the correct process and issued the Fire Safety Order after an incorrect AFSS to the wrong property and with incorrect safety measures.

43. A correct AFSS (ES-2103) with the correct fire safety measures was received by the Applicants in December 2024 (which excluded the automatic fire suppression system and fire hydrant system) and was submitted to Council on 1 February 2025.

44. Mr Vo submitted that the costs for the fire safety works would be financially difficult. In addition to the other costs of running the business, a quote from New Vision Fire Safety (Ex E) for the fire safety works was cost prohibitive, at $990,000. The most expensive aspects of the works are for the fire sprinkler system and fire extinguishers. Another quote from Majestic Fire and Safety Pty Ltd dated 20 June 2025 (Ex E) quoted the fire hydrant boosters as $109,780. The substantial cost of the fire safety works, in particular the fire sprinklers, would place the business in financial difficulty.

45. Mr Vo submitted that there were many other buildings in the street that did not provide the fire safety measures sought by Council. Due to the age of this building and as other nearby buildings have not been required to provide these fire safety measures, this site should not have to comply with today’s standards.

46. When asked by the Court, Mr Vo agreed that some works were at a low cost and had not been implemented at the date of the hearing. Mr Vo also submitted that an increased timeframe to comply with the Fire Safety Order should be considered, to September 2028 to accommodate the existing tenants of the premises, and was open to a staged scope of works. It was pressed that the fire sprinklers were so cost prohibitive that the property would need to be sold, and should therefore be removed from the Fire Safety Order.

47. Ms Burke for Council submitted that the Fire Safety Order was issued on the basis of the Fire Safety Report. On the Applicants’ evidence in the Fire Safety Report and the evidence of the single expert, the works should be retained in the Fire Safety Order to meet the fire safety measures required.

48. Ms Burke submitted that the three year timeframe was not appropriate. Council would consider a timeframe where a number of works were undertaken in the first 12 months, including financing and design, and a scope of works thereafter. The concern is that the works would not be undertaken until the end of the three years. The works detailed in the Fire Safety Order could not be left until the current tenants left due to the seriousness of the fire safety measures.

Consideration and Findings

49. I firstly find that the errors of the first AFSS (ES-1785) are not relevant. As conceded by Council’s expert, the first AFSS was for the adjoining property and in error. This error triggered a review of the subject site where there were no records of any AFSS. The burden is on the owners of the building to ensure AFSS’s are submitted to Council. The purpose of the AFSS is to provide a list of all essential fire safety measures that are required by the BCA for the building, and certify that each of those fire safety measures has been assessed and found to be adequately working to the required standard by an accredited fire safety consultant. As there were no records of an AFSS on Council’s file, the chain of events that led to the Fire Safety Order unfolded. The first AFSS issued in error therefore does not void the lawfulness of the Fire Safety Order.

50. In relation to the fire safety measures for adjoining or nearby buildings, these are not relevant to the essential fire safety measures that are required for this building. Each building is required to comply with their own fire safety measures as assessed by an accredited fire consultant every 12 months and submit this information to Council. Council’s assist in this process by preparing reminder notices for AFSS.

51. The Applicants presented little evidence during the hearing. I accept Mr Vo’s submissions that some of the fire safety measures proposed in the Applicants’ Fire Safety Report and within the Fire Safety Order would likely cause financial difficulties to their business given that the costs are in order of over $1 million.

52. However, as the issues relates to the safety of the premises and potentially the adequacy of those measures to protect human life, the costs of the works themselves do not outweigh the public safety concerns in the event of a fire event.

53. The Applicants fairly concede that smaller, relatively inexpensive parts of the Fire Safety Order have not been implemented (at the time of the hearing). The schedule of works canvassed at the hearing, to be implemented over an 18 month period or perhaps slightly longer would likely have been accepted, had a definitive schedule been able to be provided during the hearing. However, a schedule and additional time would still not overcome the key issue about the cost of the upgrade works, as the key fire safety measures would still not be implemented.

54. The key issue then, is whether the more expensive fire safety measures, particularly the fire sprinkler system and fire hydrant booster and hose, can be removed from the Fire Safety Order.

55. In the absence of any alternative evidence, I must accept the evidence of Ms Jones, which is generally consistent with the Fire Safety Report. I accept that the recommendations to satisfy the relevant requirements in the Fire Safety Report that have been adopted into the Fire Safety Order have been made by suitably qualified consultants and are based on consideration of the requirements of the BCA for this building and its use.

56. The Applicants could have engaged the same or an alternate accredited fire safety consultant to investigate less cost prohibitive measures. The Fire Safety Report identifies some non-compliances where alternative solutions could have been investigated. It was open to the Applicants to investigate performance or alternative solutions for the fire sprinklers, booster and hose reels. Without sufficient evidence from the Applicants proposing alternative fire safety measures that can achieve the same or a similar outcome, I am not able to remove any aspects of the Fire Safety Order. Doing so would be contrary to the evidence before the Court, which consider that these measures are required to meet the required fire safety measures. Given that the Fire Safety Report identifies the existing building as a ‘special hazard’ due to the volume and height of the storage, it would be contrary to the safety of those who work in the building to remove these recommended measures without an alternate performance solution.

57. Whilst the Applicants may have been dissatisfied with the recommendations of their consultant or feedback from Council, it is their responsibility to ensure that their building meets the required fire safety measures. As previously discussed, there was no evidence presented by a different fire safety consultant on other measures that could be implemented to achieve the same or a similar outcome.

58. Finally, whilst it was raised that existing buildings may be subject to different requirements, no evidence was provided during the hearing about any exemptions or reduced measures that might apply.

59. Given that the Applicants have been awaiting the outcome of the appeal, I will amend the Fire Safety Order so that the Fire Safety Order commences from the date of the Court orders. The Applicants are encouraged to implement the majority of the fire safety measures, particularly the low cost measures, as soon as possible to ensure the safety of those on site and on adjoining properties.

Conclusion

60. There is insufficient evidence in front of the Court to remove any aspects of the Fire Safety Order. I will modify the date of the Fire Safety Order to provide 18 months from the date of the Courts orders.

61. I therefore conclude that the appeal is partially upheld to enable the date of the Fire Safety Order to be modified.

Orders

62. The Court orders that:

63. The appeal is upheld in part.

64. Pursuant to section 8.18 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), the terms of the Respondent’s order are modified to provide 18 months from the date of these orders as set out in Annexure A.

65. All exhibits are retained.

S Porter

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (312 KB, pdf)

**********