Pool Barrier Ruling Offers Lessons for Landscapers

A recent MBIE determination highlights what landscapers need to consider when boundary fencing forms part of a residential pool barrier

A proposed residential pool barrier has been determined to comply with the Building Code after Selwyn District Council (SDC) initially found the consent application did not demonstrate compliance.

The case involved 1,200mm-high glass fencing on three sides of a pool and a 1,800mm-high timber boundary fence on the fourth.

The issue was not simply the height of either fence but the junction where the internal glass fencing met the higher boundary fence. For landscapers designing and constructing pool areas, the determination highlights the importance of considering how different fencing and landscape elements work together as a complete barrier.

Watch the Junctions

Building Code Performance Requirement F9.3.3 requires residential pool barriers to be free of permanent objects or projections on the outside that could assist young children in negotiating the barrier.

SDC accepted the boundary fence could form part of the pool barrier but considered a 900mm non-climbable zone was required to prevent a child climbing down into the pool area.

There was only 600mm between the top of the 1,200mm glass fence and the top of the 1,800mm boundary fence. SDC considered the internal fence could therefore potentially assist a child in gaining access.

The owners subsequently applied to MBIE for a determination, arguing the junction should be assessed as an Alternative Solution.

Alternative Solution Accepted

MBIE Lead Determinations Specialist Peta Hird found the proposed barrier did not comply with the relevant non-climbable-zone requirement of F9/AS1.

However, Hird concluded the barrier still met the performance requirements of Clause F9 as an Alternative Solution.

There were no additional handholds or footholds on the inside face of the boundary fence or near its junction with the glass fence that could assist a child climbing down.

“In my opinion, it would be very difficult for a child to use the top surface of the glass fence as the only hand or foot hold to climb down into the immediate pool area,” Hird said.

Hird determined that the height and construction of the boundary fence, combined with the lack of handholds or footholds, would restrict young children from climbing into the pool area.

MBIE therefore determined that the proposed barrier complied with Clause F9 as an Alternative Solution.

For landscapers, the case is a useful reminder to consider pool barrier requirements early in the design process, particularly when boundary fences form part of the barrier or different fence types intersect.