#18157
1jasper
Flatchatter

    Jimmy

    I have a couple of queries in regards to this window topic relating to CHILD SAFETY. The proposals to instal devices to restrict the window opening may be in contradiction with the wording/requirements of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and stand to create confusion due to inconsistencies.

    Firstly, given the proposal for windows – one or more floors up to be fitted with locking devices to restrict the width of the window openings to less than 125mm to prevent children from falling through the window opening, how do they propose to get around the NCC/BCA requirement for natural ventilation of habitable rooms? NCC/BCA requires a minimum window openiing of 5% of the floor area of the room for natural ventilation as shown below;

    F4.6 Natural ventilation
    Natural ventilation provided in accordance with F4.5(a) must consist of permanent openings,
    windows, doors or other devices which can be opened—
    (a) with an aggregate opening or openable size not less than 5% of the floor area of the room required to be ventilated; and
    (b) open to—
    (i) suitably sized court, or space open to the sky; or
    (ii) an open verandah, carport, or the like; or
    (iii) an adjoining room in accordance with F4.7.

    To install such restriction devices on the existing windows limiting the opening width where the window opening was designed to meet the minimum ventilation requirement would be in contradiction of the requirements of the BCA.

     

    Secondly, the BCA (now NCC) has consistently, and for many years required that windows 4m above the ground or surface below have means by which falls are prevented- including for children: This is referenced in BCA volume 1 part D performance requirement DP3 which states;

    Where people could fall—

    (b) 4 m or more from a floor through an openable window, a barrier must be provided which must be—
    (c) continuous and extend for the full extent of the hazard; and
    (d) of a height to protect people from accidentally falling from the floor or roof or through the opening; and
    (e) constructed to prevent people from falling through the barrier; and
    (f) capable of restricting the passage of children; and
    (g) of strength and rigidity to withstand—
    (i) the foreseeable impact of people; and
    (ii) where appropriate, the static pressure of people pressing against it.

    The suggestion that the window opening restriction be limited to less than 125mm to stop kids getting through has been compared to the performance of swimming pool fences, and yet the gap in pool fences is restricted to less than 100mm, not the 125 now proposed for the windows. To my knowledge 100mm has been the limited width of any window opening  as for the pool fence facing onto a pool area for a long time. This new proposal seems to be inconsistent with children getting through the barrier as required for pool fences, and is more in line with the 125mm ball test requirement for balustrades. Why is there two different gap specifications when both relate to the same children?