Marlborough Express - Weekend Express
Pool owners make splash over cover call
Fences might be expensive and ugly, but pool owners must make ‘‘sacrifices’’ to keep children safe, the Government says, banning covered pools without a fence for the second time.
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is being dragged into court after ruling pool covers cannot replace pool fences, standing by a determination it made two years ago.
Debate fired up after a word change in the Building Act from ‘fencing’ to ‘physical barriers’ allowed councils in New Zealand to issue waivers for pool owners with covers instead of fences.
The Marlborough District Council, responsible for the most waivers since the change, issuing 23 of New Zealand’s 25, asked the ministry to clarify whether pool covers were barriers.
The ministry ruled covers were barriers, but told pool owners to bring their pools up to building standard with a fence, which was disputed by the Marlborough Pool Covers Action Group.
The group, representing the 200-or-so pool owners in Marlborough affected by the ruling, requested a new determination last year with support from the council.
Both parties believed pool covers fit in with the building code.
The council showed over a 32-month period, between January 2017 and September 2019, pools with fences failed more compliance checks in Marlborough than pools with covers.
One in two fenced pools failed their first compliance test over the period, compared to one in 10 pools with covers alone.
But ministry determinations manager Katie Gordon ruled in a new determination, released in October, that pool covers as a barrier did not comply with the building code, even if alarmed.
‘‘I acknowledge that homeowners often do not want to instal a fence around a pool for various reasons; because it negatively impacts the view, or will increase building costs,’’ Gordon said.
But ‘‘sacrifices [were] required’’ when building a hazard.
Marlborough Pool Covers Action Group member and retired lawyer Bernie Rowe, whose swimming pool was the focus of the determination, said the group had made an appeal to court.
‘‘We consider they’re wrong,’’ he said this week.
‘‘We’re requesting a complete review of the whole decision, so we need to ... ask for them to agree with us, putting it simply.’’
The case had not yet been heard in the Blenheim District Court.
A council spokesman said staff could not comment on the ministry’s latest determination or its implications until the court decision was issued, as it was party to the appeal.
The council approved two requests to build a pool in November – one with a fence – and another request to build a pool fence.
Marlborough had a total of 1320 pools as of October.
Speaking after the determination was issued, Gordon said councils were not required to legally abide by determinations made by the ministry, but could use them for guidance.
The ministry had previously stated that Christchurch City Council and ThamesCoromandel District Council had also issued exemptions allowing owners to ditch pool fences.
A Thames-Coromandel District Council spokeswoman said last week it had issued a waiver, but not for pool covers.
‘‘[The ministry’s] decision reinforces that pool covers are not a compliant means of restricting access to residential pools.’’
Christchurch City Council head of regulatory compliance Tracey Weston said the council allowed a pool owner to use a cover instead of a fence in 2002, under old fencing regulations.
The exemption was still valid and not affected by the decision.
‘‘The [Christchurch City] Council watches any new determinations with interest, and we do take them into account when and if any similar circumstances arise in our district.’’