Archive | Pool safety

Published 27 November 2006

Standards NZ issued its new standard on safety barriers & fences around swimming pools, spas & hot tubs on Friday, NZS 8500:2006.

Standards NZ said the new pool barrier standard “assists people to avoid a swimming pool-related drowning by presenting various options designed to deny, delay or detect unsupervised entry to the swimming-pool area. Options for the location of effective safety barriers that will restrict the access of young children to swimming pools are provided, and requirements for the design, construction & performance of fences, gates, retaining walls & door sets intended to form a barrier to restrict access of young children to swimming pools are specified.

“This standard is intended to become a compliance document under the Building Code for new pools and to be used by territorial authorities in developing safe solutions for existing pools.”

Website: Standards NZ

Want to comment? Click on The new BD Central Forum or email [email protected].

Attribution: Standards NZ release, story written by Bob Dey for this website.

Published 20 June 2006

Standards New Zealand has issued the new standard on swimming pool fencing for public comment. The submissions period opened on 19 June and closes on Friday 11 August.

“The intention in developing the standard is that Parliament will be able to consider using it as a replacement for the schedule in the Fencing of Swimming Pool Act 1987, by way of an amendment to the act,” Standards development chairman Ian Godfrey said. Mr Godfrey is also a senior building advisor at Manukau City Council.

“The standard will provide clear guidance for the design & construction of safety barriers to restrict young children’s access to swimming pools. The fencing of swimming pools is addressed in both the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act and the Building Code. While both documents are well intentioned, industry is seeking clearer directions on the obligations which need to be met by territorial authorities & pool owners for ongoing compliance,” Mr Godfrey said.

North Shore City Council’s environmental protection team leader, Warwick Robertson, said a single unambiguous set of rules for pool fencing was long overdue: “We’ve all been struggling with an unworkable situation for many years.”

Waitakere City Council asked the High Court for a declaratory judgment on the correct interpretation of the act and got an adverse decision from Justice Tony Randerson QC on 1 October 2004.

The Waitakere council set up a swimming pool exemption committee, applied a $250 fee for applications and prosecuted pool owners whose pools were deemed by the council to be non-compliant. One opponent of the council’s course, Gary Osborne, set up the Pool Owners Action Group and wrote a book, Sitting on the fence. He & his wife were convicted in February for failing to fence their backyard pool to the minimum standard required by the act and were fined $3200 this month.

The new draft standard has been developed by a committee of representatives from a cross-section of organisations, including water safety & child safety organisations, Plunket, pool & spa manufacturers, councils, architects, designers, Branz Ltd (the Building Research Association of NZ) and the Department of Building & Housing.

Mr Godfrey said the committee sought to address the lack of clarity and other outstanding issues in the act,  which didn’t give clear guidelines on compliance issues or how a pool beside a house can use modern safety designs that are available.

Mr Robertson said current rules & conditions in the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act conflicted with those in the Building Act, making enforcement extremely difficult for local bodies. Enforcement policies & practices consequently varied from council to council.

He said the North Shore council put pool inspections on hold, but resumed them last year when the Department of Internal Affairs published its own interim guidelines. He said the new standard would provide a permanent solution.

Mr Robertson said the new standard was realistic, workable & fair and largely reflected the position already being taken by the Shore council. “Not a lot will change for North Shore City pool owners,” he said.

Website: Standards NZ

Draft standard

Want to comment? Click on The new BD Central Forum or email [email protected].

Attribution: Standards & North Shore City Council releases, Osborne files & report on proceedings, story written by Bob Dey for this website.

Published 8 December 2005

Waitakere campaigner Gary Osborne could have spent his morning more usefully yesterday lounging around his pool or tending to the new requirements the city council wants him to make good around it.

Instead, he, his wife & a band of supporters went to the Henderson District Court to defend a council prosecution for failing to meet pool fencing requirements. Witnesses took the day off work to appear.

Unfortunately the court couldn’t supply a judge. And it took an hour deciding that, then arranging for the case to be adjourned (to Friday 3 February 2006).

The court clerk said the judge who was supposed to be hearing the case had had to go elsewhere, it seemed unexpectedly, and the court couldn’t supply another judge.

The council has threatened scores of its citizens with prosecution over pool fencing in the wake of Justice Tony Randerson’s failure to give the council the interpretation of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act it wanted in a judicial review in 2004.

The council set up a swimming pool exemption committee, decided to lobby the Government to reform or repeal the act, and decided to chair a regional working party to get a regional approach to interpreting & implementing the current act.

Mr Osborne wouldn’t take up the exemption option, has questioned what the council has been trying to do, set up the Pool Owners Action Group and wrote a book, Sitting on the fence, a brief history of the pool-fencing law and the saga as it has been played out in Waitakere.

If you want to comment on this story, write to the BD Central Discussion forum or send an email to [email protected].

Published: 7 March 2005

Longtime campaigner Gary Osborne has produced a 133-page book about his battle with Waitakere City Council over the fencing of his pool – and those of hundreds of others who have faced prosecution by the council.

Mr Osborne’s book, Sitting on the fence, runs a brief history of the pool-fencing law and the saga as it has been played out in Waitakere.

After a respite while Justice Randerson produced his declaratory judgment arising from a High Court hearing in August 2004 on the question of what is the immediate pool area, the Waitakere council has summonsed several hundred pool owners to district court appointments, although most of those callovers have been canned at the last minute.

Mr Osborne argues in his book that the council is trying to impose isolation pool fencing (with nothing else inside the fence), although the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act doesn’t require that.

Justice Randerson rejected the council view that an entertainment area couldn’t be situated inside the pool fence.

The council has set up a pool fencing exemption committee and has withdrawn many of its prosecutions. However, more court callovers are listed.

Websites: Pool Owners Action Group

Waitakere City Council

Thomas & Co website, Randerson judgment

If you want to comment on this story, write to the BD Central Discussion forum or send an email to [email protected].

Published: 2 February 2005

155 Waitakere pool owners will be back in court over the next 7 weeks for a brief callover appearance, so a date can be set for hearing the city council’s action against them over allegedly inadequate pool fencing.

The Waitakere District Court callover dates are 7 & 21 February & March, all Mondays.

The council asked the High Court for a declaratory judgment on the correct interpretation of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act and got a decision from Justice Tony Randerson QC on 1 October 2004.

In a report to the 24 November council meeting legal services manager Denis Sheard said Justice Randerson “refused to make the declarations which the council had sought in the proceedings but reserved leave to the council to apply for any formal declarations that it may require within 4 weeks of the decision. An application was filed with the court seeking further time until 31 January 2005 to clarify what declarations, if any, might be required.”

The council accepted Mr Sheard’s recommendation to set up a swimming pool exemption committee (the chairman & other members of the council’s hearings committee).

It also agreed to charge a $250 fee (including gst) for applications for exemption from the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act.

After discussing the judgment, the council decided to lobby the Government to reform or repeal the act, and to chair a regional working party to get a regional approach to interpreting & implementing the current act.

Meanwhile, the council is pursuing its action against recalcitrant pool owners.

Websites:

Waitakere City Council

Council pool regulations page

Council minute on pools update, 24 November 2004

Randerson judgment on Thomas & Co website

If you want to comment on this story, write to the BD Central Discussion forum or send an email to [email protected].

Delegates to the Local Government Association conference in Auckland this week supported a North Shore City Council proposal to get the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act rewritten.

The move comes just head of a High Court hearing on a controversial Waitakere case, from which a declaratory judgment is expected.

North Shore mayor George Wood said the 1987 act was confusing and clearer rules were needed to help pool owners, designers, builders, industry groups & local bodies.

“The legislation has proved controversial & difficult to enforce since its inception. Parts of it are unclear and its current association with the Building Act is confusing,” Mr Wood said.

Areas he wants clarified include:

the legitimacy of lockable spa pool covers
the definition of the immediate pool area
the situation where doors from the house directly enter the pool area, and
the interaction between this act, the Building Code & the Building Act.

“When the act was introduced, most councils believed its primary aim was preventing young children gaining access to the pool from outside the property,” Mr Wood said.

2 recent determinations from the Building Industry Authority have had a significant impact on pool fencing approvals & their interpretation. The determinations are binding decisions on technical matters of doubt or dispute about compliance with the Building Code.

The new interpretations mean lockable spa covers are no longer acceptable as an alternative to compliant pool fencing, and it’s no longer acceptable to have doors from the house entering the pool area unless it is a confined area and access is restricted.

“Due to the new BIA interpretations, local authorities are now left to decipher the existing legislation – and they are doing so in different ways. The intent of the changes is to keep young children safe, but creates confusion for people who previously complied and now find they don’t,” he said.

North Shore City has an estimated 5200 homes with pools, and a large proportion would no longer meet the new requirement as their situations might no longer meet the interpretation of the immediate pool area as outlined in the BIA determination.

“There are 2 Acts of Parliament that deal with pools: the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act and the Building Act. This has caused confusion & frustration for the local authorities who are required to enforce the rules and pool owners who need to follow them,” Mr Wood said.

A regional group of council officers has been working to seek clarity from the Government on pool fencing rules & regulations.

North Shore City Council would like responsibility for the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act move from the Internal Affairs Department to the proposed new Building & Housing Department.