Emissions
30 The issue of emission from the Warringah Freeway is also adequately addressed through the applicant's expert reports and found to be acceptable. Again, the council provided no expert evidence to refute the conclusions in these reports.
Children's play area
31 Ms Treena Allen, the councils Children's Services Manager, provided evidence for the council. The issue relating to the adequacy of the children's play area relates to amendments to increase the head height in the basement car park level. This change had the consequential effect of raising a strip of the play area by 400 mm above the remainder of the play area. The use of this landscaped area remains unchanged.
32 The argument put by Ms Allen on behalf of the council was that this area should not be included in the calculations for the children's play area and as such the limit on the number of children should be reduced from 72 to 69. Mr Boston disagreed and stated that the area remained largely unchanged and was still suitable for a children's play area despite the small change in level.
33 The requirement that relates the amount of play area to the number of children comes from the Children Services Regulation 2004 and it is a matter that needs to be considered in the granting of a licence for the childcare centre. In practical terms there seems to be some merit in Mr Boston's assessment and I do not propose to alter the number of children, however, if Ms Allen's concerns are realised then the number of children will be limited to 69 through the licensing procedure.
Resident concerns
34 I am satisfied that those additional matters raised by the local residents are adequately addressed through the expert reports provided by the applicant for noise and air pollution, the potential damage to dwellings at the construction stage can be addressed through appropriate conditions and the matters of privacy and general loss of amenity are not that significant that would warrant the refusal or amendment of the application given the comments in the previous paragraphs.
35 Given that there are no other reasons, including any inconsistency with the plan objectives or the specific zone objectives, that would support the refusal of the application, and also given the importance of a proper emergency evacuation procedures, I accepted the submission of Mr McEwen SC that additional time be granted for the parties to further consider the issue of the emergency evacuation.
Emergency evacuation
36 The issue of the emergency evacuation was addressed at the hearing originally through the expert reports of Ms Allen and Mr Stephen Day, a fire and emergency expert, for the applicant. Mr Day prepared an Emergency Response Plan for the childcare centre that provided for an evacuation route with an evacuation assembly area in Donnelly Road then north along Brook Street to an existing childcare centre in Merrenburn Avenue. Ms Allen and Mr Day initially prepared a joint report that concluded with the agreement that the contentions raised by the council in relation to the evacuation route could be addressed on the condition that an Emergency Services Pre-incident Plan is developed and documented and which covers five specific areas. These being
the Emergency Services Incident Commander will assess the situation and assign personnel to assist with the completion of the evacuation, if not completed beforehand,
if needed, the Emergency Services Incident Commander will assign personnel to assist with the relocation of evacuees from the evacuation assembly area in Donnelly Road (Assembly Area 1) along Brook Street to an existing childcare centre in Merrenburn Avenue,
the Emergency Services Incident Commander will ensure that appropriate traffic measures are in place,
Mr Day's company to coordinate with associated emergency services agencies to ensure the Pre-incident Plan meets the required objectives, and
the Emergency Response Plan will be amended to include the involvement of the attending emergency services in assisting the relocation of evacuees, if necessary.
37 Following the joint report of Ms Allen and Mr Day, Senior Constable Jewell provided correspondence that in part stated that "if it is the contention that the safe evacuation of all persons from the site is contingent only on the assistance of Emergency Services workers and I believe that this is an inappropriate site for the proposed development".
38 Ms Allen, Mr Day and Senior Constable Jewell provided a joint report. Notwithstanding her previous comments, Ms Day stated that the muster point 1 remains a concern in terms of the ability to safely contain children among emergency vehicular activity and then the possible movement of 72 young children from this area along Brook Street to Merrenburn Avenue. In her opinion that Plan does not meet the intent of parts b and d of G10 of the DCP.
39 Mr Day states that the Emergency Response Plan is based on the design of the building that minimises the risk of fire through the use of construction materials, sprinkler systems and fire rated furnishings and furniture. Also, the design consists of two separate structures and a fire rated safe haven thereby affording the opportunity to evacuate from one structure to another. The design also provides additional options for evacuation plans for both fire and other types of emergencies.
40 In his opinion, the evacuation Assembly Area 1 in the cul-de-sac of Donnelly Road is appropriate and a safe refuge for most expected incidents. The area satisfies a definition of "Assembly Area" as defined in Australian Standard A3745-2002 being a safe distance from the risk area and is sheltered by another structure. In the event that the evacuation Assembly Area 1 becomes untenable, the relocation of evacuees to Assembly Area 2 in Merrenburn Avenue would be made. In this situation, it is likely that the emergency services would have arrived and taken command of the site and given their first priority is the preservation of life, their assistance would be available. As no agreement was reached on this issue, the hearing was adjourned for further consideration by the parties.
41 The hearing recommenced on 21 January 2010 with a further joint report prepared by Ms Allen, Mr Day and Senior Constable Jewell and additional evidence from experts in the area of building regulation and fire safety by Mr Stephen Grubits for the applicant and Mr Allan Harriman for the council. They addressed a further proposal to provide two separate emergency evacuation routes. First, a grassed area on the southwest corner of Donnelly Road and Brook Street is to be used as one of the evacuation safety points and is to replace Assembly Point 1in the original Evacuation Plan. The ownership of a grassed area would need to be clarified and the use of the area would also is be subject to the maintenance by the operator of childcare centre. The evacuation from this area would proceed in a southerly direction along Brook Street under the Warringah Freeway overpass. Second, an egress path is to be developed to the rear of the property through the creation of a Rights of Footway over adjoining properties to provide access to Merrenburn Avenue.
42 There was agreement by all experts that the two emergency evacuation routes provided a satisfactory solution to the emergency evacuation and that some of the proposed features of the building, as such as the fire rated safe haven, could be reconsidered on the basis of the proposed evacuation routes.
43 At the reconvened hearing, Mr Staunton, for the applicant, submitted that while the two emergency evacuation routes addressed the outstanding issue, it was not the applicants preferred position. He submitted that the applicants preferred position was not to create Rights of Footway over adjoining properties to provide access to Merrenburn Avenue but to rely on the grassed area as the evacuation safety point and then evacuate the children along Brook Street under the Warringah Freeway. If the ownership of this area could not be clarified then an alternate assembly area on Brook Street could be used. He acknowledged that reliance on this route would require pedestrian safety fencing along Brook Street under the Warringah Freeway.
44 As the experts did not address this option in their joint report, a further report was prepared during the hearing, addressing the requirements in cl G.10 of the DCP.
45 Clause G.10 of the DCP states:
An Emergency Evacuation Plan must be submitted with Development Applications for all childcare centres. This Plan should consider:
a. The mobility of children and how this is to be accommodated during an evacuation (including the use of emergency evacuation cots where appropriate);
b. The location of a safe congregation area, away from the evacuated building, busy roads, other hazards and the evacuation points of other residents or tenants within the building or surrounding buildings;
c. Where are the childcare centre is part of a larger building or complex, that the Emergency Evacuation Plan is complimentary and consistent with other emergency evacuation plans in place; and
d. The supervision of children during the evacuation and at the safe congregation area with regard to the capacity of the childcare centre and the child to staff ratios.
46 The experts agreed that an alternate assembly area on Brook Street and through the fenced Warringah Freeway underpass is an acceptable alternate area should the grassed area not be available because of the uncertainty of its ownership.