Pool barrier decision reversed 

A proposed swimming pool barrier comprising a 1,800mm-high timber boundary fence and its junctions with 1,200mm-high internal glass fencing has been determined to comply with Building Code Clause F9 – Means of restricting access to residential pools after the local authority initially found the consent application did not demonstrate compliance with Clause F9.3.3 

In December 2025, the owners applied to Selwyn District Council (SDC) for a building consent for a residential swimming pool. The application proposed a barrier consisting of 1,200mm-high glass fencing on three sides and a 1,800mm-high timber boundary fence on the fourth.  

The boundary fence has palings on the pool side, with posts and horizontal rails on the outside spaced 830mm apart. 

On 23 December 2025, SDC issued a request for further information after deciding the proposed barrier did not comply with Clause F9 because of the junctions between the boundary fence and the internal glass fencing. The owners’ response was to apply for a determination. 

Non-compliance with F9 

“SDC maintained its view that the proposed pool barrier, where the internal fencing and boundary fence intersected, did not comply with Clause F9.3.3 in relation to access from the adjacent property and the top of the internal fence being a projection that would assist a child negotiating the barrier,” the determination states. 

“As 900mm between the top of the boundary fence and the top of the middle rail is not achieved, a fillet will be fixed to the middle rail to eliminate any potential toe or finger hold,” the owners said.  

In response, the owners argued the junctions between the 1,800mm-high boundary fence and the 1,200mm-high internal fencing should be assessed as an Alternative Solution.  

Performance Requirement F9.3.3 requires barriers surrounding a residential pool to be free of permanent objects or projections on the outside that could assist children in climbing over them. 

SDC accepted the boundary fence formed part of the pool barrier but argued the property owner had no control over objects or conditions on the neighbouring property. It said a 900mm non-climbable zone was therefore required to prevent a child climbing down into the pool area. Because the gap between the boundary fence and the internal pool fence was only 600mm, SDC considered the internal fence could assist a child in gaining access. 

Alternative solution accepted 

MBIE Lead Determinations Specialist Peta Hird found the proposed barrier did not comply with F9/AS1 paragraph 2.2.1(d), specifically the requirement for a non-climbable zone set out in paragraph 2.1.7. 

However, Hird concluded the barrier met the performance requirements of Clause F9 as an alternative solution. 

When considering whether the boundary fence could assist a child in gaining access, Hird found there were no additional handholds or footholds on the inside face of the boundary fence or near the junction with the internal glass fence that would assist a child in 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. 

“Given the construction, in combination with the height of the boundary fence and the lack of hand or foot holds on its inside surface, I am of the view the proposed barrier will restrict children from climbing down into the pool area. 

“I am satisfied the proposed barrier will restrict access to the pool area by unsupervised young children and meets performance requirements F9.3.1 and F9.3.3 as an Alternative Solution.” 

Decision 

Hird determined that the proposed barrier, comprising the 1,800mm-high timber boundary fence and its junctions with the 1,200mm-high internal glass fencing, complies with Clause F9 as an alternative solution. As a result, SDC’s request for further information was no longer required. 

---

Image used for editorial purposes only. It does not depict the pool involved in this dispute.