Early Childhood Centres Preliminary Analysis of Options

As building certifiers we accept the need for life safety protections in buildings, especially buildings containing vulnerable members of society.

The National Quality Framework in conjunction with relevant state legislation, however, has confused what occupancies this proposed change is meant to cover. Children of 13 years of age are school age who are not provided the same level of protection in a school setting for example. There has been recent issues with the DTS wording in the BCA apparently not meeting the intent of the BCA with the claim that certifiers are placing creative interpretations on the wording leading to dangerous situations. This is not true, the wording must reflect the intent otherwise it is simply not going to be achieved. While not part of the problem statement, the mention of specific age in the overview becomes part of the background document to the implementation of the DTS requirements. Clarity of what is trying to be covered is paramount.

We would dispute the anecdotal evidence that many ECCs are approved using Performance Solutions with the perception that these were to address the facility being located in above ground storey's of buildings. The majority of performance solutions we have been involved with would stand as required in a ground floor situation e.g. travel distances, disabled access, etc. It must be universally evident by now the issue Private Certifiers have with obtaining PI Insurance due to risk and any perception that certifiers would entertain performance solutions relating to alternatives to the proposed DTS sprinkler/detection requirements are just not relevant.

Whilst the analysis of options document establishes the number of ECCs in multi-storey buildings it does not appear to differentiate between new and existing buildings. Our experience is that the ECCs we have dealt with in multi-storey buildings involve existing buildings that were never designed to cater for any class 9b use let alone the proposed DTS requirements for ECCs in those buildings. There is a real risk that these facilities will not be located in multi-storey buildings as a result meaning that some existing high density areas will be deprived of new facilities.

A concerning issue is the use of the terms highrise and multi-storey with there being no clear definition of highrise in the BCA. Currently a number of insurers in the PI insurance market for private certifiers are not offering insurance for highrise buildings, which they indicate are buildings more than 3 storeys. It appears this relates to recent BCA DTS changes to require sprinklers in buildings of 4 or more storeys containing class 2 or 3 parts with these buildings now being considered more complex.

The proposed DTS provisions for ECCs runs the risk of multistorey buildings being excluded by insurers. The thought that certifiers would entertain performance solutions to adapt DTS deficiencies in ECCs in a multi-storey building, e.g. where one is being proposed in a existing building, would not be supported in practise. It is extremely unlikely that the owner of an existing building will be willing to incur the cost and disruption to other existing tenants to retrofit the requirements to meet DTS in order to accommodate a ECC on a upper storey.

No

The terms of highrise, multi-storey and ground level need to be given clear context in the BCA DTS provisions. Basically preferred option 2 will require the DTS special requirements to any storey in a multi-storey building under 25m effective height where that storey where that storey does not discharge directly to ground, is the use of the term highrise necessary at all.

The other issue is that a ECC could be located on a second storey of a building that by virtue of site terrain may discharge directly to the street at ground. There would still be a storey below and one assumes the protections to the ECC would still apply, or would they?? Lets not have a situation where down the track certifiers are again being accused of creative interpretations as to the reason behind dangerous situations.

No

Option 2 with the clarifications noted previously.