The new grill fits. Does the ventilation still suit the line?

The chargrill fits where the griddle stood. The canopy still covers the line. The equipment quote changes, but the ventilation drawing does not. That is the moment to reopen the system brief—not wait for the first busy service to find out what was missed.

Specify commercial kitchen ventilation around the complete cooking task, air supply, exhaust route and building—not canopy width alone. Give the mechanical designer the current appliance schedule and operating conditions, then obtain a coordinated proposal and evidence for the agreed handover checks.

This guide uses a fictional cooking-line change to build that brief. It shows which questions need to travel together without prescribing airflow, duct dimensions, clearances or a design approval.

Follow the air through the complete system

Think beyond the visible canopy: the brief needs to connect the cooking source, capture arrangement, filters, duct route, fan and discharge with the source and movement of replacement air. Ask how that arrangement interacts with the occupied kitchen, nearby preparation, doors and other building systems.

FSANZ's Safe Food Australia ventilation guidance treats fresh-air provision and exhaust together. It identifies the food operation, system condition, intake location, equipment position and surrounding air movement as relevant to effectiveness. Its food-safety purpose includes removing fumes, smoke, steam and vapours. It is not a complete mechanical design or a current building-approval specification.

For a gas installation, air is also an appliance-safety question. Energy Safe Victoria's GIS 58 distinguishes air quality, adequate supply and adverse effects of air movement on Type A gas appliances. Give that interface to the appropriately qualified gas practitioner and mechanical designer. This Victorian guidance is not a national kitchen-sizing rule or a test procedure for venue staff.

“Exhaust-only for small kitchens, make-up air for large ones” is an inadequate selection method. Ask where the replacement air comes from in the actual proposal and how its movement is assessed. Do not assume opening a door, increasing fan speed or adding an air outlet solves a system problem.

Worked change: the footprint stays, the cooking task changes

Fictional proposal, not a manufacturer comparison or an approved installation. Venue V1 has a range R1 and griddle G1 under canopy H1. It proposes replacing G1 with chargrill C1 in the same nominated position. The range stays. The new menu calls for range and chargrill use together during dinner service.

The offered drawing shows that C1 occupies the allocated appliance space. No emissions, heat-load, capture or airflow performance has been established. The existing fan label and a photograph of H1 are the only ventilation information attached to the quote.

Scroll the table sideways to see every column.

All seven review rows remain open. That does not predict seven construction changes. An assessment may confirm some existing elements or identify a different appliance, cooking arrangement or system scope. The immediate decision is to stop treating the unchanged footprint as evidence that the unchanged ventilation is suitable.

Do not turn this into a claim that chargrills always need a particular fan increase or that the existing system has failed. The example supplies no measured performance. The designer needs the actual task and site evidence to answer those questions.

Send the designer a line schedule and a building route

Give each appliance a stable ID. Attach the exact model and fuel configuration, applicable installation documents, proposed position and intended cooking duty. State what operates together, including the busiest menu combination and any planned future change. Keep a future appliance as an explicit option to assess, rather than an unpriced promise of “spare capacity”.

Then supply the existing drawings, reports and identification records you actually have. Mark missing information as unknown. A fan's nameplate is not a measurement of the installed system. A previous tenant's handover record may describe a different cooking line or arrangement; retain its date and scope.

Ask the building team to establish the proposed intake and discharge locations, duct route, roof or wall interfaces, access and landlord constraints. Record who resolves structure, fire, noise, odour, planning and other applicable requirements. These are coordinated project questions, not items a canopy supplier should silently be assumed to have included.

For V1, the brief should show the changed appliance location and the building path on the same revision. If the route or available space makes the proposal impractical, ask for alternatives before ordering around it. A cheaper canopy cannot solve a route that has not been agreed.

Describe the room conditions that a quiet demonstration misses

Tell the designer how the kitchen actually works: normal door and window positions, nearby air outlets, adjacent rooms and other equipment running during service. Include observations such as steam escaping at a particular point or deposits appearing on a nearby surface. Give the time and operating conditions, not a guessed cause.

For the V1 review, suppose staff report that the rear delivery door is frequently open while dinner preparation is underway. That is a fictional operating fact to assess, not an instruction to leave it open. The designer should decide how the proposed ventilation is assessed under relevant conditions and what operating limitations need to be documented.

Keep heat comfort, food contamination and gas-appliance safety questions visible as different outcomes. A room feeling cooler does not establish capture performance or the safety of a gas installation. Equally, a supplied airflow number should be tied to its method, location and system state rather than used as a blanket pass.

Do not carry out smoke, combustion, electrical or gas tests from a blog. Do not bypass controls or alter fan settings to make an observation look better. Give faults and unsafe conditions to the relevant responsible people under the venue's procedures.

Agree the handover evidence before accepting a system quote

Ask the designer and contractor to define the checks, conditions and acceptance responsibilities for the actual project. The brief should identify the cooking arrangement being assessed, relevant system settings, applicable measurements, observations, controls checks, operating instructions and any unresolved conditions.

Scroll the table sideways to see every column.

Include the complete supply and installation scope in the quote comparison. Identify responsibilities for canopy and filtration, ductwork, fans, replacement-air provisions, controls, relevant services, building work, access equipment, checks and documentation. Separate an exclusion with a named owner from an omission nobody has priced.

Queensland Health's design and fit-out guidance connects ventilation with the broader premises requirements and cleanability of installed equipment. Its Queensland context is useful background, not approval of V1 or a replacement for the requirements applying at your location.

For the other services affected by an equipment substitution, use the equipment services coordination guide. Keep this ventilation brief focused on the connected air system and its handover evidence.

Make upkeep possible in the installed arrangement

A task list needs a permitted method, access, an owner and completion evidence. Ask the provider to distinguish venue operator tasks from work for competent service or cleaning contractors. Identify which components and access points each instructed task covers; a clean visible filter is not a report on the whole duct route.

Set the maintenance plan from the installed system's instructions and appropriate professional assessment. This article supplies no universal filter, duct-cleaning or inspection interval. If access cannot be achieved as planned, retain the issue and resolve the method rather than recording work that was not done.

Keep subsequent appliance and layout changes with the system history. If V1 later changes the menu or adds equipment, return to the current design assumptions. The original acceptance evidence should remain available, with the new question clearly identified.

Prepare the full-system change brief

For your own supplier brief, record equipment and site revisions, system dependencies, known evidence, responsible providers and release checkpoints. Replace the fictional inputs with actual evidence and leave unresolved decisions visible.

Please assess this exact cooking-line revision as a complete ventilation system. Identify the capture, exhaust, replacement-air and building interfaces; explain the evidence and checks required; and name the owner of every excluded or unresolved item.

Send the appliance schedule, existing records and marked route through Atlantic Equipment enquiries or discuss the broader project through design and fitouts. Ask for a coordinated scope before comparing hardware prices.

Sources and example boundaries

Primary references checked 18 October 2026: FSANZ Safe Food Australia, fourth edition, Standard 3.2.3 ventilation guidance; Energy Safe Victoria GIS 58, reviewed 6 January 2025; and Queensland Health Design and fit-out. The state guidance retains its jurisdiction and stated purpose. No archived sizing example, numerical standard threshold or gas-test method is transferred into this brief.

V1, R1, G1, C1, H1 and their operating observations are fictional. No emissions, installed airflow, equipment suitability, fire-risk reduction, energy saving, approval or customer outcome is established. Obtain site-specific design and the current applicable requirements and equipment documents.