Council side-steps pool-fence issue

Press, 10 March 1982, Page 6

Council side-steps pool-fence issue

The Heathcote County Council yesterday sidestepped the issue of compulsory fencing of private swimming pools to protect unattended children. A draft by-law requiring a fence or cover .for all pools in the coifnty was “received” by the town-planning committee — which means that no further action will be taken on its contents. The draft, prepared by Crs Margaret Buchanan and T. P. Wills, met the same fate as a controversial draft bylaw prepared earlier by the committee’s chairman, Cr 0. T. Alpers, which suggested fencing in children rather than the pools. The committee voted against adopting the fencing by-law and also voted against a suggestion that the council draft a by-law requiring fences-on all new pools which had to get a building permit. The County Chairman, Mr W. M. Hindmarsh, and Cr M. J. Taylor objected to compulsory and retrospective fencing of swimming pools because of the great cost of inspecting all properties and enforcing the by-law. “If we are talking about costs, the cost we are talking about here is a life,” said Cr Buchanan. t "

“I don’t want to legislate against ratepayers before the county does something about the dangers posed by the Heathcote River,” said Cr Hindmarsh. He said that a long-forgot-ten county by-law em- ' powered the council to order a ratepayer to fence a property and the Town and Country Planning Act allowed a council to use its discretion to remove any danger to life in the county.

Cr Taylor said .-that existing legislation provided for preventive measures to protect young children from j drowning in swimming pools. < The council should make use • of that when needed and if • the scope of the legislation i was insufficient, the Minister j should be told about it. '• The council decided to’ continue to consider various i provisions for protecting children from the dangers of swimming pools.