management of domestic swimming pools and compliance levels · management of domestic swimming...

Management of domestic swimming pools and compliance levels

A comparison of approaches in three local government areas

NSW Water Safety Taskforce

Report for NSW Water Safety TaskforceSeptember 2003

Prepared by:Katherine van Weerdenburg1, Rebecca Mitchell2, Frank Wallner3

1 Injury Prevention Project Officer, Illawarra Safe Communities Program, Healthy Cities Illawarra Inc.2 Senior Policy Analyst, Injury Prevention and Policy Branch, NSW Centre for Health Promotion3 Manager, Healthy Cities Illawarra Inc.

Acknowledgements:We are grateful to Tracee Taylor, Office Manager, Healthy Cities Illawarra Inc.; Karen Jones,Administrative Assistant, Healthy Cities Illawarra Inc.; and Judy Grant, Volunteer, Masters GraduateHealth Sciences for database construction and data entry.

We are also grateful to the project steering committee Council A representative; Council Brepresentative; Council C representative; Ian Kennerley, The Royal Life Saving Society, SouthernRegion NSW; Frank Wallner, Healthy Cities Illawarra Inc.; and Katherine van Weerdenburg, HealthyCities Illawarra Inc. for direction and feedback.

Images: The Royal Life Saving Society Australia (NSW)NSW Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation

Further information about the NSW Water Safety Taskforce is available from:

Executive OfficerNSW Water Safety TaskforceLocked Bag 1422Silverwater NSW 2128

Telephone: 61 2 9006 3700Email: [email protected]: www.safewaters.nsw.gov.au


Management of domestic swimming pools and compliance levels[ii]

Management of domestic swimming pools and compliance levels [iii]

Contents

Executive summary 1.1 Management processes and compliance levels v1.2 Council A v1.3 Council B vi1.4 Council C vi1.5 Pool owner survey vii1.6 Outsourced inspections vii1.7 Essential elements for best practice viii

Introduction 1

Study aims 3

Methods 4

Results 5.1 COUNCIL A – Swimming pool management process 75.2 COUNCIL A – Compliance data 105.3 COUNCIL A – Pool owner survey 14

5.3.1 Characteristics of respondents 145.3.2 Children aged less than five years 165.3.3 Resuscitation course 165.3.4 Backyard swimming pool and pool fencing 175.3.5 Backyard swimming pool inspections and safety information 18

5.4 COUNCIL B – Swimming pool management process 195.5 COUNCIL B – Compliance data 225.6 COUNCIL C – Swimming pool management process 245.7 COUNCIL C – Compliance data 275.8 Stakeholder interviews 29

5.8.1 Council A 295.8.2 Royal Life Saving Society – Outsourced inspection program 315.8.3 Council B 355.8.4 Council C 38

Discussion 426.1 Model of best practice elements 49

References 50

Management of domestic swimming pools and compliance levels[iv]

Appendices Appendix 1 – Stakeholder interview questions 51

Appendix 2 – Inspection notification letter 52

Appendix 3 – Pool owner safety checklist 53

Appendix 4 – Inspection checklist 54

Appendix 5 – Pool owner survey 55

Tables Table 1: First inspection results and faults found – Council A 11

Table 2: Compliance status of pools – Council B 22

Table 3: Types and percentage of faults found in non-compliant pools – Council B 23

Table 4: Summary of inspection results – Council C 27

Figures Figure 1: Percentage and types of fence-related faults recorded at the first inspection 12

Figure 2: Percentage and types of gate-related faults recorded at the first inspection 12

Figure 3: Percentage of other types of faults recorded at the first inspection 13

Figure 4: Age group and sex of respondents 14

Figure 5: Highest level of education of respondents 15

Figure 6: Years since completed a resuscitation course 16

Figure 7: Types and percentage of faults at first inspection 28

List of appendices, tables andfigures

Management of domestic swimming pools and compliance levels [v]

Three local councils in regional NSWparticipated in this study which compared theirapproaches to managing domestic swimmingpools and the levels of compliance achieved inrelation to the current NSW Swimming PoolsAct (1992). The three councils (referred to asCouncils A, B and C) represented a small,medium and large local government area basedon their residential populations.

1.1 Management processes andcompliance levels

The management processes implementedwithin each of the three councils variedsignificantly, however a number of keyprocesses presented as significant to theefficient management of domestic swimmingpools and the resultant levels of compliance.

The current NSW Swimming Pools Act (1992)was a major influence on the way in which eachcouncil interpreted their responsibilities andmanaged the inspection of domestic swimmingpools. Quality information systems and theexistence of a working pool register wereimportant to the effective monitoring of poolsand the coordination of inspection programs.Clear lines of managerial responsibility wereimportant to ensure that priority was given todomestic swimming pool compliance programsand sufficient program resources wereallocated for this purpose. Efficient enforcementprotocols were important to the management ofinspection program costs and to facilitate the

achievement of compliance. Regular contactwith pool owners during inspections wasidentified as important for developing apractical understanding of the requirements ofthe Act and receiving advice about adequatemaintenance of their pool fences.

1.2 Council A

Council A had not conducted inspections onexisting pools for at least three years, and as aresult, there had been negligible enforcementaction or pool owner contact during that time.Council A’s general property managementdatabase enabled identification of propertieswith approved swimming pool applications,however, no register or database of swimmingpools existed, and the total number andcompliance status of pools in Council A’s areawas unknown. Internal departmentalrestructuring had resulted in the lines ofresponsibility and priority given to themanagement of domestic pools not beingclearly designated or defined.

Council A participated in the trial of anoutsourced inspection program where a sampleof 1003 pools were inspected by Royal LifeSaving Society trained inspectors. At the firstinspection, baseline compliance levels were48.6% compliant and 51.4% non-compliant.There was a 55.5% conversion rate tocompliant in the sample of non-compliant poolswhere a second inspection was completed.

Executive summary

1.3 Council B

Council B had a long term, ongoing inspectionprogram in place, complemented by an annual‘blitz’ period. There were clear lines ofmanagerial responsibility for the coordinationand implementation of the inspection program,and sufficient annual allocation of human andfinancial resources. There was a comprehensivepool register linked to the general propertymanagement system and processes forensuring pool owner contact at inspections.There was also an efficient enforcementprotocol in place which included the use offines. Files on properties with non-compliantpools remained active for reinspection andenforcement until compliance was achieved.

Of the 1262 pools on Council B’s register,31.6% had ‘unknown’ status, meaninginspections were pending, leaving a remaining66.2% pools compliant, and 2.2% non-compliant. However, when considering only thepools with ‘known’ status (863), 96.8% werecompliant and only 3.2% were non-compliant.

1.4 Council C

After establishing a swimming pool register inthe early 1990s, Council C had only conductedinspections irregularly from year to year, due tofluctuating priority and resources allocated forinspections. However, in 2000 Council Ccommitted to a three year program to ensure alldomestic swimming pools in its area would beinspected. ‘Blitz’ type inspection programs wereconducted in 2000 and 2001, followed by anextensive inspection program involving the rest ofthe pools in their area during 2002 – 2003.

Responsibility for the ongoing management ofdomestic swimming pools, particularlyinspections, is designated to the Building andDevelopment Services section. AlthoughCouncil C had an electronic register ordatabase of swimming pools in place for manyyears prior to 2000, this was not up to date inrelation to the compliance status of the pools inits area. An enforcement process was in place,however, there was a preference for achievingvoluntary compliance via pool owner educationstrategies including pool owner contact duringinspections and targeted information mail–outs.

At the first inspection, 45.7% of the pools werecompliant and 54.3% were non-compliant.

[vi] Management of domestic swimming pools and compliance levels

1.5 Pool owner survey

205 pool owners (20.5%) responded to awritten survey undertaken in Council A andalmost all (98.5%) were owner/occupiers of theproperty. Only 16% of respondents hadchildren under the age of five years living at theresidence, however 66% of respondents statedthat children under the age of five years hadvisited in the previous six months. 77% ofrespondents had completed a resuscitationcourse. Whilst 44% had completed it in theprevious 1–3 years, 34% had completed acourse more than 10 years ago.

95.6% of respondents reported having a fencesurrounding their pool and 95.6% believed thatfencing should be required by law. 95.6% ofrespondents also supported Council Ainspecting pools and the most commonlysuggested timeframes were 1–2 years (40%)and every five years (23%). 60% ofrespondents stated that Council A providedinformation on pool fencing safety.

1.6 Outsourced inspections

Inspections in Council A’s area were conductedby The Royal Life Saving Society Australia(RLSSA) trained inspectors. The trial programyielded both positive and negative outcomes asan inspection management option for thiscouncil. Outsourced inspections have beenimplemented effectively by RLSSA in WesternAustralia and by private contractors in theNoosa Shire in Queensland. This study doesnot draw any conclusions about the overallvalue of outsourced inspection programs butrather that individual councils must consider ifthis is an appropriate, workable option giventheir individual situation.

[vii]Management of domestic swimming pools and compliance levels

1.7 Essential elements for best practice

Experienced local government inspectors andmanagers repeatedly identified the significantweaknesses and limitations of the current NSWSwimming Pools Act (1992) in ensuring thesafety of domestic swimming pools andrecommended its immediate review. A numberof other key processes relevant to a bestpractice model for the management ofdomestic swimming pool inspections andcompliance by local government authoritieswere also identified in the study:

• Recognised priority for a domesticswimming pool compliance program

• Clear lines of responsibility across andwithin relevant divisions of council

• Project management and allocation ofappropriate human, financial and IT resources

• Electronic swimming pool register ordatabase linked to a generalproperty–management system

• Efficient enforcement protocol, including theuse of fines, fully endorsed by council

• Comprehensive training of inspectors onthe requirements and enforcement of theAct

• Annual quota of inspections to becompleted

• Maximum 3–5 year inspection cycle

• Inspections conducted throughout the yearand/or during a ‘blitz’ period

• Inspection fee implemented to assist withprogram costs

• Pool owners to be present duringinspections

• Strategies including booked appointmentsto deal with property access andpool–owner awareness issues

• Use of inspection time for simplepool–owner education

• Complementary local media campaign toraise community awareness of domesticswimming pool safety and drowningprevention measures

• Direct communication with pool owners asa group via mail–outs, etc.

[viii] Management of domestic swimming pools and compliance levels

There is a long term and ever-growing body ofevidence supporting the role of pool fencing inthe prevention of drowning in children underthe age of five years (1,2).

A Cochrane Collaboration review of theavailable scientific evidence regarding poolfencing concluded that it significantly reducesthe risk of drowning in children, and the risk ofdrowning in an unfenced pool is four timesgreater than in a fenced pool. Further, isolationfencing which encloses the pool only, has asignificantly more protective effect thanperimeter fencing which encloses the propertyand pool, and allows access from the house tothe pool (1).

Swimming pool fencing in various forms hasbeen a legal requirement in most Australianstates and territories for at least the past tenyears, however the compliance of domesticswimming pools with the requirements of thislegislation remains an ongoing problem.Following the introduction of mandatory fencinglaws across Australia, studies have consistentlydocumented baseline swimming pool fencingcompliance levels of 50% or less (3,4,5,6).

There is a clear relationship between domesticswimming pool compliance levels and the abilityof pool fencing to prevent drownings. AQueensland study found that from1992–1997,87% of the pools where a drowning occurreddid not comply with current state legislation (2).A recent NSW study of drowning in children

replicated previous findings that ‘compliancewith gate closure is a major limiting factor in theeffectiveness of gates to prevent drownings.’ (7).

In the first two years after the introduction oflegislation requiring isolation fencing inQueensland, the child–drowning rate droppedfrom an average of 12 per year (over theprevious 9 years) to an average of only 2 peryear. However, it was of great concern that inthe following three years the rate climbed backto 11 per year (2).

One study suggested that, as well as anincrease of around 70% in the number ofdomestic swimming pools in Queensland from1990–1997, the increased drowning rate wasrelated to the low level of swimming poolcompliance (approximately 30–50%) assurveyed at that time. The study also concludedthat inspection and re-inspection of new andexisting pools offered the greatest potential toreduce toddler drowning (5).

A clear link exists between inspections andcompliance levels, with studies demonstratingsignificant improvements in baselinecompliance rates with each inspection, andsubsequent re-inspection, undertaken (4,10).

The National Injury Prevention Advisory Council(1999) suggested that further reductions in therate of child drowning could be gained byincreasing the compliance of swimming poolfencing with legislative requirements, and also

Introduction

[1]Management of domestic swimming pools and compliance levels

local councils (11). In Queensland, poolinspection programs were recently describedas ‘variable and inconsistent’ (12).

The lack of commitment and action by localgovernment authorities in the area of poolinspections is a major concern, given theestablished link between inspection programs,increased compliance rates and theeffectiveness of pool fencing in the preventionof drownings.

Before local government authorities canbecome more proactive in improving thecompliance levels of domestic swimming pools,it is essential that more is known about existingmanagement practices and the barriers whichclearly impact on their capacity and motivationto implement inspection programs. This is thecontext from which the purpose of this studywas identified.

This study documents the approaches taken tothe management of domestic swimming poolcompliance in a small, medium and large localgovernment area on the south coast of NSW. Itdocuments the existing compliance levels ofswimming pools in each local government areaand considers the relationship between thetype of management program and the resultantcompliance levels.

Barriers to the effective management ofdomestic swimming pools by local governmentauthorities are identified, based on theexperience and views of key council staff. Theexperience of implementing an ‘outsourced’community-based pool inspection program isdocumented, as are the views of the inspectorsinvolved. Pool–owner attitudes to pool fencingand inspections are also surveyed in the study.

identified that ‘gaining the co–operation of localgovernment in enforcing compliance with thelegislation is an important component of effortsin this area.’ (8, p. 23)

Although the specific requirements vary fromstate to state, local government authorities havegenerally been expected to monitor and enforcethe compliance of domestic swimming poolswith the respective state legislation. However,in the years since pool fencing legislation hasbeen introduced, local government authoritieshave demonstrated a poor track record in theinitiation and maintenance of ongoing poolinspection programs.

Local government authorities across NSWcontinue to be inconsistent in their approach toensuring compliance of domestic swimmingpools with the current NSW Swimming PoolsAct 1992. Although little research has beenundertaken, it would appear that councils inNSW range in their level of activity onswimming pool fencing compliance from someform of inspection program to no action at all.

In summarising the current status of legislationin NSW, Scott (2002) observes ‘inspections,compliance and on-going checks are controlledby local authorities and in practice, areextremely variable’ (9). A 1998 survey of NSWcouncils concluded that many were unaware oftheir responsibilities under the Swimming PoolsAct 1992, and reported generally low rates ofpool inspection (10).

An inconsistent approach to swimming poolinspections is common to local governmentauthorities in other states as well. In Victoria, asurvey of local councils found a wide variationin enforcement of pool fencing regulations by

[2] Management of domestic swimming pools and compliance levels


• To document and compare swimming poolinspection programs and compliancemanagement practices in a small, mediumand large local government area on thesouth coast of NSW.

• To compare swimming pool compliancelevels across the three local governmentareas where different types of inspectionprograms are in place.

• To identify barriers and issues faced bylocal government authorities in the effectivemanagement of domestic swimming poolcompliance.

• To trial an independent, non-council runinspection program in one council area,incorporating the provision of water safetyeducation materials to pool owners, andassess its impact and viability.

• To survey the attitudes of pool owners inone local government area regardingfencing and inspections, and to gauge theexposure of children under five years tothese pools.

• To identify models of best practiceregarding the management of domesticswimming pools and the improvement ofbaseline compliance levels.

Study aims

[3]

Three geographically adjacent local councils agreed to participate in the study.Throughout the report they are referred to asCouncil A, B and C. Coincidentally, theyrepresent a large, medium-sized and small local government area respectively, based ontheir residential populations.

A local project steering committee wasestablished consisting of representatives fromeach of the partner organisations. The committeeconsisted of a representative from each of thecouncils involved, The Royal Life Saving Society,Healthy Cities Illawarra and the project officer.The role of this committee was to provideprofessional advice and input both prior to thecommencement and throughout the course ofthe study, as well as provide a feedback loop tothe partner organisations on the progress andfindings of the study.

Data collected in the study was bothquantitative and qualitative.

Key personnel within each council, typicallymanagers and/or senior staff from Health,Building, Planning and/or Environment divisions,with direct experience and responsibilities inthe area of management of domestic swimmingpools (inspection and compliance procedures),participated in individual semi-structuredinterviews on a range of issues.

From the information provided, specificmanagement procedures implemented by eachcouncil in relation to domestic swimming poolswere documented. Interviewees’ opinionsregarding the issues and barriers faced by localgovernment authorities in managing domesticswimming pool compliance were alsodocumented. A list of interview questions isincluded in Appendix 1.

Council C conducted a domestic swimming poolinspection program in the six months fromJanuary–June 2002. The compliance data arisingfrom this program was utilised in this report.

Council B has an ongoing inspection programand swimming pool register which is regularlyupdated. A summary of the compliance status ofpools in its area was compiled after thecompletion of its annual inspection ‘blitz’undertaken in November 2002. This compliancedata has been incorporated into this report.

Council A’s inspection program had notoperated for at least three years, so no currentcompliance data was available.

An independent non-council run swimming poolinspection program was trialed in Council A’sarea as a means of attaining the requiredcompliance data from Council A for comparisonwith the other two local government areas. Theother purpose of this was to assess the viabilityof out-sourcing swimming pool inspections toan external organisation as another

Methods


management option for local governmentauthorities in NSW.

The Royal Life Saving Society Australia(RLSSA), in its role as an independent,community–based water safety organisation,was contracted to conduct 1000 firstinspections on a random selection of swimmingpools in Council A’s local area. Secondinspections were to be conducted on any poolswhich were non-compliant at the first inspection.The sample size selected was based on aprojected 45% first inspection compliance rate.

The 1000 pools to be inspected were randomlyselected from Council A’s database ofproperties with past approved swimming pooldevelopment applications. The sample includedonly pools installed from 1991 onwards. Thiswas done to simplify inspection procedures andmaintain an homogenous sample, considering

the vastly different requirements in the NSWSwimming Pools Act (1992) in relation to poolsinstalled before, versus after, 1 August 1990.

Owners/occupiers of properties with poolsselected were notified by a letter co-signed bythe General Manager of Council A and theRLSSA Inspection Program Co-ordinator(Appendix 2). This letter notified them of theintention to inspect and informed them that theycould book a time for an inspection if theywished. It also notified that if they chose not tomake an inspection appointment, their poolwould still be inspected. Accompanying theletter was a swimming pool safety checklist toassist pool owners to identify and address anypotential problems prior to the officialinspection (Appendix 3).

Inspections commenced in Councils A’s area inAugust 2002 and were completed in March


2003. Just prior to commencement, Council Aplaced a notice regarding the inspectionprogram in its community information page in alocal newspaper, as well as on its website.

Once the inspection program began, propertieswere excluded from the original sample andreplaced if the pool had been removed, theinspection notice letter was returned or theproperty could not be entered due to accessissues including locked gates, dangerous dogs,owner refusal, etc. (9.9%, 118 of 1191).

Owner/occupiers of inaccessible properties wereleft a note requesting that they contact RLSSA tomake arrangements to allow entry to the property.Any pools which were inaccessible for a first orsecond inspection were referred back to CouncilA for future follow-up (35.8%, 426 of 1191).

The inspection checklist was developed byHealthy Cities Illawarra, with input from RLSSAand the project steering committee, for use bythe RLSSA inspectors (Appendix 4). Thechecklist was based on the requirements of thecurrent NSW Swimming Pools Act (1992),Regulations and relevant Australian Standards.

The inspectors recruited by RLSSA undertooka two–day training course developed byRLSSA prior to the commencement of theinspection program, to orientate them to thechecklist, the current NSW Swimming PoolsAct (1992), Regulations and the relevantAustralian Standards, as well as to theinspection procedures.

RLSSA inspectors were officially granted‘delegated authority’ under the Act, asrepresentatives of Council A, to enterproperties for the purpose of inspectingswimming pools. Official identification wasissued by Council A and inspectors woreofficial RLSSA shirts during the inspections.

A copy of the inspection checklist was left with the owner/occupier if present during theinspection. Any faults found, and the changes required to achieve compliance, were also explained at this time. RLSSA water safety literature was distributed alongwith a pool–owner survey (Appendix 5) andreply paid envelope.

This short survey was developed by theEvidence Sub-committee of the NSW WaterSafety Taskforce and reviewed by the EthicsCommittee of the University of Wollongong. Itincluded questions that aimed to determine thenumber of residents with a swimming pool whohad children less than five years of age or whohad children of this age group visit theirproperty. Questions were also included todetermine the residents’ opinions of swimmingpool fencing and swimming pool inspections.

If pool owners were not present for theinspection, a copy of the completed inspectionchecklist, which included a description of anyfaults found, RLSSA literature and a survey,was left in the letterbox for the owner/occupier.Inspectors’ names and RLSSA contact detailswere included on the checklist so that ownerscould make contact with inspectors if theyneeded clarification or any further informationabout the inspection/s.

Any pools found to have faults at the firstinspection were re-inspected within a six weekperiod. Any pools considered to pose asignificant and immediate danger were notifiedto Council A immediately for follow-up action.

At the conclusion of the inspection program theexperiences and views of the RLSSAinspectors regarding the program werecompiled via a group interview.


5.1 COUNCIL A – Swimming poolmanagement process

At the time Council A was approached toparticipate in this study, there were a number ofsignificant issues affecting their management ofdomestic swimming pools.

Routine inspections of existing domestic swimmingpools had all but lapsed. Council A confirmedthere had been no systematic swimming poolinspection program in operation for at least threeyears, apart from inspections conducted on newlyinstalled pools. These inspections occur only

when Council is nominated by the applicant as the Principal Certifying Authority.

Council A reported that several one-off, ‘blitz’type inspection programs were completed inpast years, however details of how or whenthese programs were conducted were vague,with little evidence to suggest that inspectionshave been conducted regularly or have been arecognised priority for Council A in terms ofdedicated human, financial and IT resources.

The recording of information on domesticswimming pools in their local area presented as a significant weakness in Council A’smanagement of domestic swimming pools. No register of swimming pools existed and little more than an estimate of the total numberof pools in the area was known.

Council A’s current property managementdatabase could generate a list of properties with approved swimming pool developmentapplications, which may or may not include afinal inspection date. Dates and results ofinspections conducted in the years followinginstallation, or a pool’s current compliance statuswas not available. Individual hard copy files mustbe accessed to source this information.

The lapse in active management of domestic swimming pool safety in Council Awas largely attributed to the significantrestructuring of Council’s divisions in recentyears and the consequent redefinition of roles and responsibilities.

Results


Despite this, Council A’s past record ofmanagement of domestic swimming pools isunclear, with little evidence to suggest that thishas been an ongoing priority or adequatelyresourced program within Council A. It appearsthat to date, the priority given to themanagement of domestic swimming pools, andthe human, financial and IT resources allocated,has been inconsistent.

On initial contact it was difficult to establishwhich department/s within Council A tookresponsibility for managing domestic swimmingpool safety. Prior to the commencement of thisstudy, discussions were held with threedifferent divisions within Council A to clarify thelines of responsibility on this issue.

In the past, the Health and Building Divisionwas responsible for the approval and ongoingmanagement of domestic swimming poolcompliance. Recreation Services were reportedto have provided staff to assist with swimmingpool inspections on occasion.

Following the restructure period, a Planning andDevelopment Division was created, which hasresponsibility for new swimming pooldevelopment approvals and initial inspections.The Environment and Health Division hasresponsibility for the ongoing compliance of

swimming pools with safety requirements, and isalso responsible for community education andenforcement related to the NSW SwimmingPools Act. The Recreation and NaturalResources Division may also play a future role inproviding staff for inspection programs.

Council A agreed to participate in this studywhere trained inspectors from the Royal LifeSaving Society would conduct 1000 poolinspections in their area. This would generatedata for the study as well as provide Council Awith a snapshot of current compliance levels of asample of domestic swimming pools in their area.

Whilst participating in this study, Council A’sEnvironment and Health Division has developeda plan to re-establish an ongoing inspectionprogram and implement a more effectivesystem for managing domestic swimming poolsafety. The inspection program is scheduled tocommence in winter 2003.

Initial plans are for an inspection program whichwill run on a three–year cycle, depending onthe total number of pools in the area and theinspection resources allocated. An annualquota of inspections are likely to be conducted,predominantly during the winter months as aprecursor to the summer swimming season. Aproject manager will oversee the program


which will utilise existing staff as well aslifeguards employed by Council’s Recreationand Natural Resources division, who areavailable during the winter months in the ‘daylabour’ program.

Council plans to run an annual media campaignto inform the community about the inspectionprogram and raise awareness of swimming poolsafety requirements and drowning prevention.

At this stage, the option of imposing aninspection fee on pool owners is not beingconsidered. Initially, Council plans to run theprogram through a three–year cycle and thenanalyse the costs involved, also looking at howthe number of reinspections required for non-compliant pools possibly relates to the types offaults and how best to manage these to reducethe number of inspections required.

Preliminary discussions have been conductedregarding a relatively new opportunity to utilisethis council’s Geographic Information System(GIS) to scan all available aerial maps for blueshapes, thus identifying all outdoor pools in thearea. This strategy will be implemented toestablish a database or ‘register’ of pools,including the illegal pools installed withoutcouncil permission.

The resultant list of properties with pools canthen be crosschecked against council recordsof properties which have approved swimmingpool development applications (DAs).

Council’s current property management system is known as ‘Genesis’ and has been inplace for many years. Over the next eightmonths, the existing ‘Genesis’ system will berun into a new system known as a ‘LandInformation System’ (LIS).

The change from the Genesis system to theLIS, combined with the GIS analysis to beundertaken and the addition of the sample ofinspection data gathered by this study, willprovide the foundations for a comprehensiveswimming pool ‘register’ in this localgovernment area.

The introduction and use of these newmanagement systems will enable access to acomplete list of properties with a swimmingpool in Council A, as well as information abouteach pool’s compliance status and otherrelevant information, such as when the poolwas last inspected, what was wrong, and whataction was taken.

A management process for non-compliantpools is already in place and currently involvesup to three inspections. If safety faults are notrectified after the second inspection, fines areissued or the work is done by Council and theowner is billed for the costs.

This enforcement protocol has been endorsedby Council, however, its impact and efficacy willbe reviewed after the initial three–yearinspection cycle.


5.2 COUNCIL A – Compliance data

The following is a summary of the data arisingfrom the inspection of a random sample of1003 pools in Council A by RLSSA inspectors.

At the first inspection, 1003 pools wereinspected:

• 48.6% (487) were fully compliant withcurrent safety requirements

• 51.4% (516) were not compliant.

A second inspection was completed on 227(44%) of the 516 non-compliant pools, with thefollowing results:

• 125 compliant (24.2 %)

• 1 removed (pool modified into fish pond)(0.2%)

• 101 non-compliant (19.6 %).

Of the remaining 289 non-compliant pools:

• 59 (11.4 %) could not be reinspected dueto property access issues

• 230 (44.6%) not reinspected.

The total number of compliant pools in thesample increased from 487 after the firstinspection, to 613 after the second inspection.Based on the total sample of 1003 pools, therewas a net improvement in compliance of 12.4%from the first to the second inspection, with afinal compliance level in the sample of 61%.

Of the 227 non-compliant pools that werereinspected, 126 became compliant. Thisrepresents a conversion rate of 55.5% in non-compliant pools following reinspection.


Management of domestic swimming pools and compliance levels [11]

Inspection results (n = 1003 pools) Frequency Percentage

Complaint 487 48.6

Non-Complaint 516 51.4

Faults (n = 516 pools)

Fence–related faultsNot isolation fence 27 5.2Height less than 1200 mm 36 7.0Defective condition 15 2.9Incorrect vertical spacing 25 4.8Incorrect horizontal spacing 24 4.7Excess space under fence 94 18.2Climbable objects too close 132 25.6

Gate–related faultsHeight less than 1200 mm 13 2.5Not opening outwards 36 7.0Not self-closing 163 31.6Not self-latching 234 45.3Latch not minimum 1500 mm (externally) 53 10.3Latch not minimum 1200 mm (internally) 25 4.8No latch shield 33 6.4

Other faultsDoor access to pool area 44 8.5Window access to pool area 30 5.8No/inadequate signage 169 32.8

TABLE 1: First inspection results and faults found – Council A


Faults were categorised into fence–related (Figure 1), gate–related (Figure 2) and other types of faults(Figure 3). In descending order, the most common type of faults found in non-compliant pools at thefirst inspection were gates not self-latching (45.3%); inadequate safety signage (32.8%); gates notself-closing (31.6%); climbable objects within 1.2m of the fence (25.6%); and greater than 100mmspace under fence (18.2%) (Table 1).

FIGURE 1: Percentage and types of fence–related faults recorded at the first inspection (n = 516)

FIGURE 2: Percentage and types of gate–related faults recorded at the first inspection (n = 516)

50

40

30

20

10

0

Gate-related faults

Per

cent

age

Fault type

3

Height1.2m

Openaway

Selfclosing

Selflatching

Latch1.5m

Latch1.2m

Latchshield

7

32

45

105 6

Height 1.2mOpen awaySelf closingSelf latchingLatch 1.5mLatch 1.2mLatch shield

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Fence-related faults

Per

cent

age

Fault type

57

35 5

18

26

Isolationfence

Height1.2m

Good condition

Vertical spacing

Horizontalspacing

Space under

Climbable

Isolation fenceHeight 1.2mGood conditionVertical spacingHorizontal spacingSpace underClimbable

[12]


FIGURE 3: Percentage of other types of faults recorded at the first inspection (n = 516)

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Other faults

Per

cent

age

Fault type

9

Door access

6

Window access

33

Sign

Door accessWindow accessSign

[13]


5.3 COUNCIL A – Pool owner survey

Of the 1,000 residents in Council A who had their swimming pool inspected, 205 (20.5%) respondedto the swimming pool inspection survey.

5.3.1 Characteristics of respondents

Equal number of males and females responded to the survey (49.3% each), with gender missing forthree survey respondents (1.5%). Both males and females in the 36–45 year age group were themost common group of participants who responded to the survey (Figure 4).

FIGURE 4: Age group and sex of respondents

50

40

30

20

10

0

Characteristics of respondents

Freq

uenc

y

Age group 21 – 25 26 – 35 36 – 45 46 – 55 56 – 65 66+

MalesFemales

[14]


A university degree or other tertiary institution qualification (29.3%) and a TAFE certificate or diploma(28.3%) were the most common highest levels of education reached by survey respondents (Figure 5).

FIGURE 5: Highest level of education of respondents

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Education level

Per

cent

age

University degree or

other

TAFE certificates

or d l

Completed year 10

(4th form)

Completed year 12

(6th form)

Primary school

Other Not known

[15]


The majority of survey respondents were owner/occupiers (98.5%), with one individual renting and oneother housing arrangement (1.0%). Information was missing for one respondent.

5.3.2 Children aged less than five years

A relatively small percentage of survey respondents (15.6%) had children less than five years of ageresiding in the home with an average age of 2.5 years. However, around two-thirds of respondents(65.9%) had children aged less than five years visit their home in the previous six months.

Of those respondents who had children less than five years of age, just over half of the children(56.4%) had attended swimming lessons or water familiarisation classes.

5.3.3 Resuscitation course

Around three-quarters of respondents (77.1%) had completed a resuscitation course. Of therespondents who had completed a resuscitation course, just over 40% (44.4%) had completed thiscourse in the last one to three years and around one-third (34.4%) had completed this course over tenyears ago (Figure 6).

FIGURE 6: Years since completed a resuscitation course

50

40

30

20

10

0

Timeframe

Per

cent

age

< 6 months 1 – 3 years 4 – 9 years 10+ years

[16]


5.3.4 Backyard swimming pool and poolfencing

The majority of survey respondents (76.6%)had their backyard swimming pool installedpost 1990. Twenty-three respondents (11.2%)had their swimming pool installed during 1990and seven respondents (3.4%) had theirswimming pool installed pre 1990. Informationregarding the year the swimming pool wasinstalled was not known for 8.8% of pools.

Nearly all of the survey respondents (95.6%)reported that they had a fence that surroundedthe swimming pool.

Nearly all of the survey respondents (95.6%)believed that swimming pool fencing should be required by law. Only 2.9% believed thatpool fencing should not be required, oneperson (0.5%) was uncertain whether or notswimming pool fencing should be required bylaw and for two respondents (1.0%) thisinformation was missing.

[17]

The reasons indicated by survey respondentsas to why backyard swimming pools should notbe fenced were:

You shouldn’t need a pool fence if yourproperty is fenced (4.9%)

Pool fencing should not be required if yousupervise your children (1.5%)

Pool fencing should not be required whenchildren can swim (1.0%)

Pool fencing is too expensive (1.0%)

Pool fencing destroys the design of the poolarea (1.0%)

Pool fencing should not be required for peoplewho don’t have children (0.5%)

Pool fencing is an invasion of privacy (0.5%).

5.3.5 Backyard swimming poolinspections and safety information

Around 60% of survey respondents (60.5%)stated that Council A provides information onpool fencing safety.

Almost all of the survey respondents (95.6%)supported Council A checking that backyardswimming pools met specified safetyrequirements. When respondents were askedhow often Council A should check thatbackyard swimming pools met specified safetyrequirements, the responses varied. The mostcommon timeframes suggested were every oneto two years (40.0%), every five years (23.0%)and every three to four years (10.7%).

A sample of the comments received in thesurvey from respondents included:

I think that it is about time that all pool owners had their pools fenced. Why weren'tthe unfenced pools part of this crackdown?My pool has always been regulation. Sydney councils have made it happen so why not here?

Why check pools only that were installed after1990? Don't kids drown in these pools? Allpools in backyards should be checked.

My gate goes inside pool. Council nevercomplain, now everything in concrete and nowhave to dig everything up.

I think that it is a great idea that everyone hastheir pool inspected, it should be law.

Although I believe pool fencing is a good idea,probably should be mandatory, especially forfamilies with young children under 8 yearshowever continuous inspections are aninvasion of privacy – too many laws/rules.

I believe that it is a great idea as a fresh set ofeyes looking at my pool area and findinganything or nothing could save a life.

People might say their children can swim orfencing is expensive and ugly, I say what aboutfriend, children and if you can afford the poolyou can afford the fencing.

The resuscitation signs should be providedfree to low income families and replace whenthey fade in the sun or provided by inspectorswhen they check compliance.

I know of some people with above groundpools that have been sunken into the groundthat haven't had council approval to installthem and no fencing around them, do thesepeople get surveyed? How does council keepa check on backyard pools that have beeninstalled without council approval?

High cost of pool fencing is a factor in poolowners not fencing pools.

I think that it is a great idea to come aroundand check the pool area. Being a first–timemother, they answered all my questions.

Overall, the majority of respondents whocommented in the survey were supportive ofthe inspection program.


5.4 COUNCIL B – Swimming poolmanagement process

Council B’s area has undergone rapid growthin recent years due to an extended residentialproperty boom. With the proliferation of newhousing estates in this area, there has alsobeen a substantial increase in the number ofdomestic swimming pools being managed bythis council.

After a swimming pool development applicationhas been approved, a construction certificate isissued, and Council officers conduct theinspections required if they are the nominatedprincipal certifying authority (PCA). Details of thepool and any inspections conducted are enteredon a swimming pool database or ‘register’.

This swimming pool register is currently linkedto the ‘Authority’ property-based record keepingsystem implemented in this council in 2000.The ‘Authority’ system maintains a completerecord of all applications made and approvedfor each property listed. Currently, anyproperties that have an approved swimmingpool development application are entered onthe Authority system and then have to beentered separately on the register. Thisduplication will be overcome in the near future,when the property details will be entered on theswimming pool register automatically.

Taking into account the number of illegal, non-approved pools installed since the register wasestablished, there are an estimated 1500–1800swimming pools in the area, with 1268 currently


listed on the register. It is envisaged that in twoto three years the register will be complete andall pools on the register will have a satisfactorystatus. The council will then decide how oftenthe pools will be reinspected which, given thecurrent allocation of resources, is likely to beonce every five years.

Using the register, this council operates aninspection program throughout the year. When aswimming pool is inspected and a relativelyminor or easily fixed fault is discovered, theproblem, and how it should be rectified, isexplained to the owner, who is usually present atthe inspection. A copy of the inspection sheet isalso left with the pool owner. The inspectionsheet is then scanned into the computer systemand the advice given is also recorded. Thesepools do not require a follow-up inspection.

Initially, for non-compliant pools where moresignificant faults were found at the firstinspection, pool owners were advised of what was required to rectify the problem/s and a second follow-up inspection wasconducted in 7–28 days, depending on theseriousness of the fault/s. If the fault/s had notbeen rectified, a direction to do the work wasissued and a third and possibly subsequentinspections were required.

This management process was found to be toocostly and demanding on the council’s time andresources and was not achieving compliancequickly enough. Councillors then endorsed a morestreamlined system where a direction to comply isimmediately issued if any significant faults arefound at the first inspection. If the faults have notbeen rectified by the second inspection, an on-the-spot fine of $220 is issued. The owner is thengiven one week to comply and will continue beingfined until the pool is made compliant.

As well as conducting swimming pool inspectionsthroughout the year, this council conducts aninspection ‘blitz’ each November. During this ‘blitz’,inspections concentrate on any pools known to be‘defective’ until satisfactory or compliant status isachieved. The blitz period also follows up on poolson the register with ‘unknown’ status. These maybe newly installed pools or properties which wererecorded as having an approved swimming pooldevelopment application in the past, but have neverbeen recalled by the system for inspection.

The swimming pool register was predominantlycompiled through an analysis of aerial maps and aretrospective building application search undertakenin 1990, around the time of the introduction of theNSW Swimming Pools Act. This formed a baselinerecord of pools in the area, with most of the poolscurrently in the ‘unknown’ compliance status groupon the register, discovered through this process.

Aerial maps have not been utilised to update theregister since it was initially established, due tothe time and labour intensity of the task. Councilnow relies on the building certificate process(issued when properties are placed on themarket), as well as complaints received from localresidents, to pick up on illegal pools or thosemissed by the system.

A major benefit of the register is that at any timecouncil staff can call up all properties where thecompliance status of the pool is unknown or


defective. This system prevents duplication ofinspections on properties since the completeinspection history of any pool, including thenumber of inspections conducted and the typesof enforcement actions taken, is readilyaccessible and easily able to be monitored. Thesystem was described as ‘excellent’ by staff,making the management of domestic swimmingpools a relatively simple, straightforward process.

The register also allows the council tocommunicate directly with pool owners, forpromotional and educational initiatives. Anexample of this was when this councilparticipated in a collaborative Illawarra-widechild drowning prevention campaign over thesummer of 1999–2000, where pool safetychecklists and information about child drowningprevention was distributed directly to poolowners using data from the pools register.

The amount of work and cost involved in theestablishment of a system like this wasacknowledged: The expense is in getting thesystem up and running, you know, getting yourdatabase accurate. They’re the expensive things,but once you’ve got all that information, the actualprogram, over five years, is not that expensive. Forus, we’d be looking at maybe three hundredinspections per year, and you’ve hopefully gotthose satisfactory [already] so they’re going to bepretty straight forward inspections with a bit ofluck – maybe need a new resuscitation chart orthe gate needs oiling or something like that.

For the long term management of domesticswimming pool safety by local councils, thebenefits of a swimming pool register which is partof a computerised property management systemwere thought to be more than worthy of theresources required to establish it.



5.5 COUNCIL B – Compliance data

Information from the pool register has been integrated into the ‘Authority’ system since 2000. Thefollowing table summarises the compliance status of all pools currently on Council B’s swimming poolregister (Table 2). The column titled ‘Pools Registered’ refers to the number of pools entered into theAuthority system each year since its establishment.

Year Pools Registered Satisfactory Defective Unknown Removed

2000 449 282 5 162 (1)2001 459 272 3 184 (3)2002 354 281 20 53 (2)

Totals 1262 835 28 399 (6)

Percent 100% 66.2% 2.2% 31.6%

TABLE 2: Compliance status of pools – Council B

[22]

Of the 1262 pools on the register:

• 31.6% (399) have ‘unknown’ compliancestatus and are still to be inspected.

• 68.4 % (863) pools on the register have‘known’ compliance status.

Of the 863 pools with ‘known’ compliancestatus:

• 96.8% (835) are compliant

• 3.2% (28) are non-compliant.


Council B’s swimming pool register does not generate summary data on the types of faults found innon-compliant pools, as this information is recorded on individual inspection forms which are scannedinto the register after each inspection.

Inspectors can access all relevant information on the faults found and advice given, prior to conductingfollow-up inspections on known non-compliant pools. Council B also has a policy of following throughwith each non-compliant pool until it achieves compliance, hence property files remain active untilcompliance is achieved.

Currently, summary data on the breakdown of faults does not have a significant functional value toCouncil’s management of non-compliant pools. This information may, however, be of use for poolowner education relating to the types of faults most likely to arise.

Based on the experience of a senior Council officer, the following is an estimated breakdown of thetypes of faults commonly found in non-compliant pools (Table 3). Based on these observations, up to50% of faults fall into a ‘minor’ category, some requiring reinspection and others not.

Type of Fault Percentage

No fence 5%

Fence less than minimum 1.2 m high 5%

Windows onto pool area not protected 30%

Access from dwelling into pool area 10%

Minor defects – reinspection required (gates not self-closing, objects too close to fence, etc.) 40%

Minor defects – reinspection not required (CPR chart upgrade, gate needs oil, garden furniture near fence, etc.) 10%

TABLE 3: Types and percentage of faults found in non-compliant pools – Council B

[23]

5.6 COUNCIL C – Swimming poolmanagement process

Historically, Council C has recognised theimportance of domestic swimming pool safety.As early as the 1980s, this council had aDomestic Swimming Pool Fencing Policy thatrequired swimming pools located in urban andrural areas to be completely fenced inaccordance with the provisions of the relevantAustralian Standard (1926). At this time,Council C’s policy was stricter than thesubsequent NSW Swimming Pools Act (1992)and no exemptions were granted.

Council C’s current swimming pool approvalprocess requires the submission of a swimmingpool development application and, if approved,a construction certificate may be issued.Council officers conduct the inspectionsrequired if Council is the nominated principalcertifying authority. Details of the pool, and any

inspections conducted, are entered on aswimming pool register and on the separatehard copy registration system. Ongoingmanagement of each pool then becomes theresponsibility of Council’s Building andDevelopment Services Section.

In the past, Council C’s management systemrelied heavily on a hard copy record systemwith basic information also being recorded onCouncil’s property approval system. In the early1990s, to coincide with the introduction of theNSW Swimming Pools Act, a comprehensiveaudit was undertaken to identify the location ofall swimming pools in Council C’s area.

Following an analysis of aerial maps andapproved building applications, an electronicswimming pool register was developed tocomplement the separate hard copy recordsystem which contained the swimming poolplans, specifications and approval conditions.The hard copy and computerised systems nowoperate in tandem, and inspection details,including orders issued and reinspection andresubmit dates, are available.

Once the register of pools in the area wascomplete, Council C inspected them all.However, in the years following this initial audit,no set reinspection program for existing poolswas implemented.

In 2000, Council C committed to a 3-yearinitiative that will result in all of its knownswimming pools in urban and rural areas beinginspected by the end of 2003. This arose fromCouncil C’s participation in the Illawarra SafeCommunities Child Drowning PreventionCampaign implemented from September 1999– February 2000, which also involved Councils


A and B. The aim of this program was to raisecommunity awareness of drowning preventionstrategies including requirements for swimmingpool fencing, supervision, water familiarisation,CPR skills and key locations where potentialdrowning could occur, including pools, dams,creeks, baths, inflatable pools, nappy buckets,fish ponds, etc.

A pool owner checklist was developed for self-assessment of compliance with pool safetyrequirements. Council C utilised its swimmingpool register system to distribute this

information to properties that were known tohave pools. As part of this campaign, Council Calso undertook a random audit of around 90pools in their area, and wherever breacheswere detected, action was taken.

During the 2000–2001 summer period,Council C repeated the inspection initiative inits area with a further 17% sample of poolsrandomly inspected. Of these 102 pools, 61%complied, 32% failed and the remaining 7% ofpools had been removed.


The results of this program were reported toCouncil and the following recommendationswere adopted:

• All pool owners be notified by mail ofcurrent standards and provided withinformation on how to comply.

• Random audits continue over each summerperiod until the remaining 75% of poolshave been audited.

• Information be provided to local mediaoutlets during the year to reinforce safetystandards.

• All new pool owners be given informationon compliance with safety standards, andpools are inspected on completion.

• Link with and support other community poolsafety campaigns, e.g. Illawarra SafeCommunities water safety campaigns.

Council C also determined to take the furtherinitiative of undertaking a comprehensiveauditing program of pool fencing in its area,including both urban and rural areas. At thebeginning of 2002 it employed a Health andBuilding Surveyor to conduct an inspectionprogram over a six-month period.

At the time the audit commenced there were645 known residential swimming pools in thisLGA. By the end of June 2002, 464 (72%) ofthese pools had been inspected.

Swimming pools on rural properties were notinspected given the time and resourcesallocated to the first stage of the inspectionprogram. Some pools installed on ruralproperties since 1990 (particularly those over 2hectares), are subject to a range of exemptionsunder the NSW Swimming Pools Act, whilstothers installed prior to 1990 would have hadto comply with Council C’s policy at that time,which required these to be fully fenced. CouncilC commenced a program to inspect allswimming pools located on rural properties inOctober 2002, to be completed in conjunctionwith Council’s program of inspections of on-sitesewerage management systems.

When inspected, any pools with ‘minor’ oreasily rectified faults receive a copy of thewritten inspection report with advice on how tofix the problem. The pool is then reinspected,normally within 14 days. Where major faults arefound, an order is issued, taking intoconsideration the amount of time it shouldreasonably take to rectify the problem, before asecond inspection is conducted. These detailsare recorded on the computerised swimmingpool register and also on the hard copy file. Ifpools remain non-compliant after the secondinspection, infringement notices are issued andlegal action is commenced as a last resort.

This council allocates resources from within itsdepartmental budget for inspections and inprincipal all ratepayers contribute to the costs ofinspecting properties with domestic swimmingpools in the years following installation.



5.7 COUNCIL C – Compliance data

464 residential swimming pools were inspectedduring the 2002 inspection program representingapproximately 72% of the total number in thelocal area (n=645)

At the first inspection:

• 45.7% (212) were fully compliant withcurrent safety requirements

• 54.3% (252) were not compliant (Table 4).

[27]

Of the 252 non-compliant pools:

• 41.6% (105) had latch faults

• 30.9% (78) had gate faults

• 25.0% (63) had non-compliant fencing

• 32.5% (82) had inadequate safety signage(Figure 7).

Inspection results (n = 464) Frequency Percentage

Complaint 212 45.7

Non-Complaint 252 54.3

Faults (n = 252 pools)Defective gates 78 30.9

Fence faults 63 25.0

Defective latches 105 41.6

Inadequate signage 82 32.5

No/inadequate signage 169 32.8

TABLE 4: Summary of inspection results – Council C


FIGURE 7: Types and percentage of faults at first inspection (n = 252)

50

40

30

20

10

0

Council C – Inspection faults

Per

cent

age

Gate faults Fence faults Defective latches

No signageFault type

31

25

42

33

Gate faultsFence faultsDefective latchesNo signage

[28]

5.8 Stakeholder interviews

5.8.1 Council A

Currently there is only one officer in theEnvironment and Health Division responsible for swimming pool inspections, so an ongoinginspection program will be reliant on accessingthe ‘day labour’ program in the winter season,particularly any available lifeguards from theRecreation and Natural Resources division. The enthusiastic support offered for accessingthe day labour program from within theRecreation and Natural Resources division hasbeen very encouraging.

The option of outsourcing inspections toexternal agencies would be considered as anauditing or quality-control option, however, aspart of the ongoing management of domesticswimming pools, it was seen as easier to keepthe inspection function within council.

It’s also hoped that the use of trained lifeguardsin the inspection program will enhance thedrowning prevention education opportunitiesarising from the contact made with pool ownersduring the inspections. The importance of havingpool owners involved in the inspections was alsoacknowledged as very important when explainingfaults and encouraging people to rectify them.

The lapse in the priority given to swimming pool inspections over the last three years could be explained by the significant

restructuring of divisions within council duringthat time, and the subsequent revision of eachdivision’s responsibilities.

Also, inadequate staffing levels to maintain anefficient inspection program and issues withprivate certifiers conducting final swimmingpool inspections have impacted on the qualityof management strategies for domesticswimming pools in this council to date.

It was reported that swimming pool compliancehas always been a high priority for this counciland Council’s motivation to get the systemback on track was high: [Its] priority isincredibly high. We haven’t had a death inrecent years, but, you know, it’s going to comeif we don’t do something about it. and You alsowant lack of fatalities to be from goodmanagement, not just from good luck.

The need for a complementary communityinformation program was also acknowledged:If you link the [inspection] program with aneducation program that runs every year, atleast you are making people aware, whetheryou have inspected their pool or not, andpeople will do stuff to make sure that theycomply. I think that we need a concertedcampaign that is continuous and that peopleexpect. You know, we send out a checklist justbefore summer to say, Have you checked yourlatch? Do you have your CPR chart?.



Working across sectors to promote swimmingpool safety and drowning prevention and gettingthe support of other community based agencieswas perceived as important: People get sick ofstuff coming from Council, so if it comes fromother agencies or other groups, then I think thatis important. I don’t think you can double uptoo much on this sort of issue. I think it’simportant that it’s not just a Council issue.

Concerns were raised regarding the currentNSW Swimming Pools Act, which was viewedas inadequate and in need of revision: Like otherlegislation, it needs massive improvements andthey seem to get submissions and never makeany changes. I definitely think it does [needrevision], one to broaden powers, and two, tomake certain areas quite specific. Some of it’sfairly generic and very difficult in terms of fining.I think there needs to be an in-depth review ofthe legislation.

The lack of retrospection in the legislation topre-1990 pools, regarding the requirement forisolation fencing, was described as ridiculous.It was also strongly felt that the legislationshould compel councils to inspect domesticswimming pools and that provision should alsobe made under the Act for councils to imposean inspection fee if they wish.

[30]

5.8.2 Royal Life Saving Society –Outsourced inspection program

This study included a trial of an independentswimming pool inspection program using non-council, Royal Life Saving Society Australia(RLSSA) trained inspectors. The regionalbranch, in its role as a community-baseddrowning prevention organisation, wascontracted to conduct 1000 first inspectionson a random selection of pools in Council A’sarea. Second inspections were also to beconducted on any pools which were non-compliant at the first inspection.

At the completion of the program, the RLSSAinspectors and the program co-ordinatorsparticipated in a semi-structured groupinterview regarding their experiences.

Administrative issues presented the majority ofdifficulties experienced in the trial of this program.

The accuracy of a council’s database ofswimming pools can significantly impact on theworkability of an inspection program conductedby an external agency. For example, Council A’ssample of pools was drawn from a database ofapproved swimming pool developmentapplications. Some of these pools had beenapproved but were never installed, however thiswas not recorded on Council A’s database,because there was no further contact orinspections undertaken once the pool wasapproved. Also, the inspection sample

requested from Council was supposed to bepost-1990 pools, however many pool ownersinsisted that their pools were installed pre-1990.

Notification letters were initially sent to poolowners in a block of 1000. The local RLSSAoffice was unexpectedly inundated with callsfrom people wanting to book an inspectiontime. This placed significant strain on RLSSAresources and created a negative impressionon many pool owners who tried repeatedly,some over 3–4 days, to get through by phoneand others who simply gave up.

It was suggested that an ongoing programshould have a staged mail-out, broken intopostcode groups with bookings available for setdays during a set period only (e.g. 2 weeks).RLSSA inspectors would nominate the days ofthe week they are available to do inspections andthose days would be filled with bookings first.Whilst in a certain area, inspectors could alsoconduct inspections on pools where no bookinghad been made. An ideally productive day forinspectors would include up to 10 bookedinspections and 10 non-booked inspections.

Access to pools was a major issue thatadversely affected the inspectors’ productivity.Once the booked inspections were completed,access issues prevented inspectors fromcompleting inspections on properties where theowner had not responded. Locked gates andvicious dogs were the main factors preventingaccess to properties. Inspectors often returned


several times if they were in the area, and leftnotes for owners requesting that they contactRLSSA to make arrangements, however the vastmajority of these pool owners did not respond.

Current privacy laws had a significant impacton the outsourced inspection program. Duringthe trial, privacy issues prevented inspectorsfrom contacting pool owners by phone.However, in the situation where pool ownersdid not book an inspection, and the pool couldnot be inspected due to access issues, theopportunity to phone the owner to discussoptions would have been beneficial.

Pool owners’ work commitments often made itdifficult to find a mutually convenient time forinspections. However, RLSSA inspectors wereavailable for appointments on Saturdays, andinspectors also found that 4–5 pm onweekdays was a convenient time for manyworking people. The ability of RLSSAinspectors to offer flexibility in accommodating

pool owners’ limited availability has significantadvantages over a council-run program whereinspectors would normally not be available latein the day or on Saturdays.

Pool owners’ reactions to the inspectionprogram varied, however the inspectors felt theywere generally well received. Pool owners whomade bookings were generally happy for theinspections to take place and were receptive tothe information and materials provided by theRLSSA inspectors. Others did not feel it wasworthwhile and the inspectors found them to beinitially quite defensive. One inspectorcommented that: Most people thought you werefrom Council and the barriers went up.

Inspectors were generally surprised by the levelof mistrust and animosity expressed towardsCouncil A. RLSSA inspectors often had to dealwith difficult, angry pool owners, however theyfound that people were generally happier to letthem in and were more receptive when theyrealised they were from RLSSA and were notCouncil officers. Even after explaining thepurpose and process of the study, one officercommented that many people: didn’t want abar of the inspections. A lot of people said, If you were from Council I wouldn’t cop this.

The RLSSA inspectors raised the issue ofperceived inconsistency in inspectionsundertaken by Council A officers. Theygenerally felt that perhaps Council A’sinspectors were required to be too generalist or‘multi-skilled’, with too many areas ofresponsibility and not enough in-depth trainingon the requirements of the current legislationwhich in this case applied to domesticswimming pools. One inspector commented:I can understand some people being ‘narky’


because I think Council and some buildinginspectors have a lot to answer for with someof the things I saw. I’m amazed at some ofthese pools that have been passed.

There was agreement that if councils choose torun their own inspection programs, they need todevote more resources to both the training oftheir inspectors and the regular inspection ofpools. The inspectors were satisfied with thetwo-day training course they undertook at thecommencement of the program and felt that theRLSSA training on the NSW Swimming PoolsAct, Regulations and Australian Standardsprepared them well for the inspections andqueries from pool owners.

They commented on the obvious lack ofknowledge of the requirements of the Actdemonstrated by pool owners in Council A’sarea. They found the most motivating part of the

inspection program was the opportunity tospend time with pool owners to help themunderstand what was required to make theirpools safe, as well as being able shareinformation about drowning prevention,particularly for young children. The inspectorsgenerally agreed that they found the worksatisfying and almost all said they wouldparticipate in an ongoing inspection program ifthe administrative challenges were addressed.

Throughout the program, RLSSA office staff,particularly the inspection program co-ordinator,had to deal with numerous daily phone callsfrom often aggressive pool owners, typicallywanting to challenge an inspection result or theinspectors’ right to enter their property. Thiswas a negative aspect of the program, as it wasextremely time consuming and demanding todeal with constant calls from angry and/ordefensive pool owners.



The inspectors were happy with the inspectionchecklists developed for the program, andfound them simple and easy to use.Suggestions for simple modifications includedreworking the choices for ‘gate releasemechanism’ and more gate tick boxes toaccommodate pool fences with more than onegate. Another suggestion was to modify ordelete the statement on the inspection formindicating that the information would be notifiedto council as this appeared to raise non-compliant pool owners’ concerns that theywould be fined if council was notified, triggeringmany agitated phone calls to RLSSA.

Generally, the inspectors believed there weresignificant advantages in having a non-counciland, in this case, RLSSA coordinated poolinspection program operating in the community.They expressed views that they are betterreceived and trusted by pool owners, (thancouncil officers), and that inspections shouldideally be conducted by people with a crediblebackground and professional training in watersafety and life saving. They felt that directcontact with pool owners was a powerful watersafety education opportunity better utilised byRLSSA inspectors. It also took the RLSSAmessage into more homes, which is beneficialto the community profile of the organisation.

[34]

5.8.3 Council B

This council has a long record of giving a highpriority to domestic swimming pool safety. Priorto the introduction of the NSW SwimmingPools Act in 1990, this council had its ownpolicy on domestic swimming pool safety whichwas described as ‘stricter’ than the Act whichwas eventually legislated. It was acknowledgedthat there weren’t always the systems andresources in place to adequately back up theimplementation of this policy, however, in recentyears this council has taken a very structuredapproach to inspections and record keeping.

The apparent high rate of compliance can hidethe fact that the compliance rates of poolstaken from the ‘unknown’ status category onthe register, (indicating that they have not beeninspected) is probably around the 50% mark atthe first inspection. The difference is that whenany pool inspected is known to be defective, itis then pursued until it becomes compliant,which can result in a number of inspections andenforcement actions.

A senior council officer interviewed felt that thelevel of commitment and action taken onswimming pool safety by any local governmentauthority in NSW was more dependent on thecombined commitment of a council’s electedrepresentatives and key departmentalmanagers, than on the existence of the currentSwimming Pools Act itself.

The support of councillors has a major influenceon the priority given to any program, including themanagement of domestic swimming pool safety,and the prioritisation and allocation of resourcesacross and within departments. In turn, thesupport of departmental managers is key to theestablishment of management systems and theallocation of resources specifically for inspectionsand enforcement of the Act.

It was felt that the inconsistent approach andcommitment to the management of domesticswimming pool safety observed within councilsacross NSW could be blamed directly on theNSW Swimming Pools Act itself, specifically itslack of clarity and directives regarding councils’responsibilities. It was felt that the Act shouldclearly direct and compel councils to develop aswimming pool register and to inspect domesticswimming pools on a regular basis, e.g. no lessthan once every five years. Inconsistenciesbetween the Act, the Regulations and the relatedAustralian Standards should also be clarified.

Compared to other pieces of legislationmanaged by local government authorities in theenvironmental health and building area, thecurrent NSW Swimming Pools Act is viewed asinconsistent and: unique in that theresponsibility of councils is very vague, veryopen-ended and very much open tointerpretation and that’s not normally the casewith local government legislation. There isusually a defined role, defined responsibility.


Where the current Act states that councils have aresponsibility to make pool owners ‘aware’ of therequirements of the Act, councils are generallyperceived to be inconsistent in their response:My experience is that most councils don’t do alot. I mean they may do a bit of an ad thing or amedia thing once a year. Most councils in myexperience don’t do a lot with swimming poolfencing at all and that’s quite obvious when I goto conferences. The building surveyors don’teven understand the legislation. They have noreal concept of what the requirements are.

This raises another issue regarding the lack ofany formal or recognised training courses onthe interpretation or implementation of theNSW Swimming Pools Act. It was stronglysuggested that a professional body such as theLocal Government Shires Association or theInstitute of Environmental Health shoulddevelop a short course of a few days durationto address this situation. One or more of thesebodies might then become proactive in initiatingdiscussions regarding much needed revisionsto the current Act, and become a feedbackpoint for council officers working in the field.

The current NSW Swimming Pools Act 1992 isnot considered adequate to ensure the safety ofdomestic swimming pools, with major concernsrelating to its fencing requirements and lack ofretrospection: They watered down thelegislation between 1990 and 1992. The 1990[legislation] at least required all pools to haveisolation fencing. They still allowed for boundaryfences but there were certain requirements onthe boundary fences. The 1992 legislation saidwe won’t make it retrospective, you can haveaccess from the house into the pool area priorto 1990, and boundary fences, well, we’ll givethem certain exemptions. There was a realwatering down [of the 1990 legislation] and Ibelieve that that really was for political reasons,which was extremely unfortunate.

A senior officer recalled numerous attempts toinfluence the development of the legislation morethan a decade ago, and expressed regret thatthese efforts were unsuccessful: We [have] putnumerous submissions to the [state] governmentwhen they were considering legislation sayingthat we wanted full isolation fencing, in 1990and 1992. Our professional body put in


submissions, asking for full isolation fencing andnot allowing boundary fences to be used…"

There was a strong preference expressed forthe current Act to be revised and made evenstronger than the original 1990 legislation.Specifically, full isolation fencing should berequired, regardless of the age of the pool, withboundary fences not allowed as pool fencing.This would prevent the difficulties experiencedby councils in applying current fencingrequirements in the Act to shared boundaryfences. For example, council has no controlover a non-pool-owning neighbour who maychoose to build a barbeque or plant trees, orplace other ‘climbable objects’ along aboundary wall which also constitutes part of aswimming pool fence on the other side.

The use of on-the-spot fines was not originally anoption for councils under the NSW SwimmingPools Act but was subsequently introduced in1998. This council has found the use of fines,combined with issuing orders to comply after thefirst inspection, to be a very effective process forgenerating compliance and has only ever hadone fine appealed in the courts.

A provision within the Act endorsing thevoluntary use of an inspection fee wasrecommended as it would greatly assistcouncils with the costs involved in managingswimming pool safety, and could directlycontribute towards the maintenance of arecord-keeping system and/or the costs of the

inspections themselves: I think it would bereasonable once every five years to get a billfor $30 or $40 for somebody to inspect yourpool and give you a certificate to say it wassatisfactory we do it with shops, food shopinspections, hairdresser inspections, skinpenetration, so why can’t we do it forswimming pools?

Councils contracting out pool inspections toexternal agencies was not viewed as aworkable option due to issues relating to thedelegation of authority as well as themanagement of non-complaint pools: Enteringsomebody’s property for the purposes ofenforcing an Act is a bit of a minefield andthey’re going to have to refer [non-compliantpools] back to council to take appropriateaction whether it be notices, orders, directionsor whatever, or fines. Preference wasexpressed for the model already in place wherecouncil uses its own trained staff to conductinspections and operates the record-keepingand enforcement systems as well.

Property access issues have been an ongoingissue for the management of this council’sinspection program. Council B prefers that anappointment is made with the pool owner beforeany inspections are conducted to avoid propertyaccess problems and to create an opportunityto explain any faults discovered directly to theowner. A Health and Environment Departmenttrainee now spends time each week specificallyorganising inspection appointments.


5.8.4 Council C

A number of issues relevant to Council C’smanagement of domestic swimming pool safety emerged.

Although this council established an electronicswimming pool register in the early 1990s, nosystematic process for reinspection wassubsequently implemented. As a result, prior to2000 Council C had little current data on thecompliance status of the pools in its area or thetypes and severity of safety faults occurring.During this time, pool reinspections wereconducted on an irregular basis as resourcespermitted, however, these were dependent onthe availability of both human and financialresources and reflected the fluctuating prioritygiven to domestic swimming pool inspectionsduring this time.

Since 2000, Council C has made significantefforts to update its pool register andsystematise its inspection process so that allpools in its area will have been inspected bythe end of 2003, and will be reinspected on aregular cycle after that. During the 2002inspection program, it was discovered thatmore than 100 pools, some installed as farback as the early 1970s, had not beenreinspected since being installed. Thisconfirmed the importance of systematicallyrandomising or staging the selection of poolsfor an annual inspection quota to ensure that allexisting pools are inspected on a regular cycle.

The issue of illegally installed pools was raised. There has been no updated aerial mapanalysis in relation to pools since thatundertaken in the early 1990s. Updatedanalysis of aerial maps would allow for anyillegally installed pools to be identified,inspected and added to the pool register.

In relation to managing non-compliant pools,where necessary, Council C has utilised theoption under the current NSW Swimming PoolsAct to fine pool owners who do not comply withan order, particularly for a major safety defect.However, Council C prefers to place a greateremphasis on the education of pool ownersregarding the requirements of the Act andencourage owners to rectify faults of their ownvolition in preference to the use of legalprosecution to gain compliance. Whilst this canlengthen the timeframe for achieving compliance,it was viewed as more consistent with the styleof this council in dealing with its local community.This approach is in contrast to other councilswho utilise fining, often at the second inspection,as a measure to induce quicker compliance andreduce the costs of repeat inspections. However,Council C does not believe that on-the-spot fineswill guarantee compliance.

An experienced inspector estimated that atleast 60-70% of safety faults found during theinspection program were minor maintenance-related issues including worn springs, rustyhinges and latches, etc. He believed thatproviding basic information to pool owners,particularly about simple maintenance issues,could positively impact baseline compliancerates, which are generally less than 50%.

It was also suggested that manufacturersshould be encouraged to improve the productperformance and lifespan of gates, latches,hinges, signs, etc. so that the need formaintenance and replacement is reduced.

There was strong objection to the exemptionsavailable to pool owners under the current NSWSwimming Pools Act, especially those applyingto very small, large, and waterfront properties, aswell as to all pools installed pre-1990: At themoment [the legislation] is unworkable becauseof these three exemptions.


There was a belief that the provision ofexemptions significantly hinders the effectiveenforcement of the Act and sends acontradictory message to pool owners regardingthe importance of isolation fencing. Further, theinclusion of exemptions under this Act wasviewed as inconsistent with the strictness ofother development controls and Acts enforcedby councils: [A resident] has asked for avariation [on a DA], now we wouldn’t eventhink about giving him that variation just for aview situation, but when we get to a hazardsituation, we will give people exemptions fromthe lifesaving of requirements of [AS] 1926.

The current Swimming Pools Act was viewedas ‘watered down’ to the point where it was noteffective in ensuring the safety of domesticswimming pools. The belief that all pools shouldhave isolation fencing only was expressed

numerous times: The only way to protect [achild from] a pool is to put an isolation barrieraround it. If you give an exemption on a barrier,you’re just asking for trouble.

It was reported that whilst exemption requestsfor swimming pools on very small residentialblocks of land were once relatively infrequent,current state government policy promotes urbanconsolidation which means that the demand forthese exemptions is likely to increasedramatically with the proliferation of significantlysmaller allotments in residential developments.

Another perceived major weakness of the Actwas in the description of the obligations a localauthority has concerning swimming pools, onebeing to merely ‘promote awareness, within itsarea, of the requirements of this Act in relationto swimming pools (13).



Concern was expressed that currently there isno statement in the Act which compels localgovernment authorities to inspect swimmingpools regularly: Change that primary clause inthe Swimming Pools Act which says thatcouncil must only make the community awareof their obligations, to ‘enforcing theregulations’. At the moment, it only applies tosending out a pamphlet, you know, every nowand again…That is meeting their obligation andmaking the community aware of theirobligations as far as providing an effectivebarrier to the swimming pool. So you’ve gotthe opening statement of the whole Act whichsets up a very wishy-washy, ‘do what youplease’ attitude for all councils.

Council C, along with most other councils, fundtheir inspection programs out of generalratepayer revenue. However, it was suggestedthat a fairer system would involve cost recoverydirectly from pool owners. This would also createopportunities for inspectors’ positions to bepart/fully self-funded and would reduce the need

to compete against other council services forrelatively scarce ratepayer funds to cover anongoing inspection program: The problem ofcouncils avoiding inspecting these pools isbecause it’s a cost that has to be [borne] by thewhole community for the few that have pools.

Given that the introduction of an inspection feewould be unpopular with local pool owners andwould place Council C under a great deal ofpolitical pressure, it was felt that permission forself-funded inspection programs should beincluded as an option under the Act. This wouldgive local government authorities permission toapply a fee for inspections: If there was anopportunity to at least get part of the costs backfrom your inspections, maybe more councilswould hire inspectors, if the position could beself-funding. To create a fee without approvalunder the Act, for a council to impose a fee orcharge just on their own bat would be politicalsuicide. I don’t think anyone would do that.

Similar precedents already exist, withinspections for onsite sewerage licences beingprovided by councils on a cost-recovery basis,as are health inspections for food outlets andother types of property inspections.

Scepticism was expressed about the efficiencyof outsourcing inspections to community-basedwater safety organisations or other externalcontractors, mainly because theseorganisations would not have the enforcementpowers of local government authorities.Therefore, councils would still have to managethe enforcement process for any non-compliantpools, which could be up to 50% of the totalnumber of pools in their area.

[40]


Council C’s own report on its 2002 inspectionprogram noted a generally low level ofawareness and understanding of therequirements of the Act amongst pool owners.It was felt that there was intrinsic value in poolowners having regular contact with councilofficers during inspections as a strategy tokeep pool owners in touch with current safetyrequirements. One officer described hisproactive efforts during the time spent with poolowners which involved providing them withbasic maintenance and safety check advice.

[41]

There was a preference expressed forinspections to be conducted on a two to threeyear cycle, since after two years safety faultsare relatively minor and usually rectified atinsignificant cost. In one officer’s experience,pools that had not been inspected within fiveyears were more consistently non-compliantand faults tended to become more serious overtime. Change of ownership of properties is alsocommon within this timeframe and new poolowners’ awareness of safety requirements isoften limited.

It would appear that after more than ten years,local government authorities in NSW are stillgrappling with issues related to fulfilling theirresponsibilities under the NSW SwimmingPools Act 1992. This study has demonstratedthat the management of domestic swimmingpool compliance presents a range of issues forlocal government authorities which includehuman, financial and IT resource issues,strategic priority, public perception and politicalfactors, risk exposure and their specificobligations, or lack of them, as specified in thecurrent NSW Swimming Pools Act.

Generally, councils appear to recognise theimportance of pool inspections, but in reality,struggle to give them priority and commitadequate resources. This is of no surpriseconsidering that inspection programs can beexpensive, unpopular with pool owners, andunder the current Act, councils are not actuallycompelled to conduct them at all.

In this study, the size of the council did notappear to be related to the inspection methodor resultant compliance rates. There did notappear to be any relationship between the sizeof the council and the effectiveness with whichthey managed the issue of pool safety.Although a larger council might be expected tohave more resources potentially available tomanage the issue, they would usually have alarger number of pools requiring inspection. Aspreviously discussed, whether or not a councilinspects is most likely to be determined byother issues such as personal and/or politicalcommitment of managers and councillors. It isalso unfortunate, but likely, that personal andpolitical commitment will be strengthened if adrowning has occurred in that LGA,heightening community awareness of the issueand council’s motivation to fulfill its role andresponsibility under the legislation.

Pool inspection programs must compete forlimited resources at a local government leveland there is pressure on departmentalmanagers to justify allocating priority andresources to these programs. The concept ofproactive child-drowning prevention measuresultimately struggles against the reality of thedollar costs to be borne by the local communityof ratepayers. It appears that the relevance andurgency of the national child-drowning problembecomes diluted at a local level, particularlywhere there may not have been a pooldrowning fatality in recent years. This feeds intolocal complacency regarding the need for poolsafety inspections and can undermine efforts tojustify the costs and resources associated withinspection programs.

Interestingly, in the combined geographic areacovered by this study, no child-drowningfatalities had occurred in the years from1997–2002 (RLSSA), however localemergency department statistics yielded 15cases of near drowning in children under theage of 5 years from 1995–2002, 11 of these indomestic swimming pools. At times whendecisions regarding priority and resourceallocation are being made, it would be rare formost senior council officers responsible for themanagement of domestic swimming pools tohave access to this kind of information.

There was a high level of consistency in thebarriers to the effective management ofdomestic swimming pools and compliancelevels identified by the three councils in thisstudy. The most significant of the barriersidentified were a general lack of resources andthe NSW Swimming Pools Act 1992.

In its current form, the NSW Swimming PoolsAct 1992 was not considered adequate toensure the safety of domestic swimming poolsand does not clearly define or direct councils in

Discussion


their responsibilities regarding domesticswimming pool safety and compliance. Whilst itwas not in the brief of this study to analyse thestrengths and weaknesses of the current Act,feedback from local government representativesconsistently identified weaknesses in the Actthat they believe negatively impact on themanagement of domestic swimming poolcompliance by local government authorities.

Under the current Act, councils’ responsibilitiesare ill-defined. Councils are not compelled toinspect domestic swimming pools, but may ifthey wish. Their only obligation under the Act isto make pool owners ‘aware’ of therequirements of the Act. This gives councils theoption of not having to inspect at all and, bylack of definition, is open to interpretation as towhat constitutes a minimum level and mosteffective means of promoting awareness of the

requirements of the Act. The question to beasked is whether ‘promotion of awareness’ isan appropriate substitute for ‘enforcement’ ofthe requirements of the Act.

Inspectors across each of the three councils inthis study observed that pool owners’ generalawareness of their responsibilities under theNSW Swimming Pools Act was poor.Compliance rates of consistently less than50%, as documented in this and other studies(3,4,5,6), would support this observation andsuggest that during the last ten years, localauthorities’ attempts to promote awarenesshave been limited or non-existent, and/or thatraising pool owners’ awareness of therequirements of the Act probably has littleimpact on or relationship to generatingcompliance. The authors of this study wouldsuggest that regular inspections, where pool



owners are present, is the most effectivestrategy for increasing pool owners’ awarenessof the requirements of the Act and generatingcompliance. This does not exclude thedevelopment of other complementarypromotional strategies for raising generalcommunity and pool owner awareness ofdomestic swimming pool safety.

Another problematic feature of the Act is that itis not fully retrospective, resulting in localgovernment authorities having to deal with twosignificantly different sets of requirements forpools installed before or after August 1990.Further issues arise because four-sidedisolation fencing is not required for all poolsregardless of their age, and the use ofboundary walls/fences as part of a pool fenceis allowed under the current Act. Inspectorsalso reported significant contradictionsbetween the Act, regulations and the relevantAustralian Standards, commonly resulting inconfusion and misinterpretation.

[44]

The fencing exemptions available under thecurrent Act for larger, very small and waterfrontproperties are also viewed as problematic andunjustified by local government authorities andcontradictory to the basic premise of the Act,which requires at least some form of fencing forall other pools. The indisputable fact is that thedrowning potential of a swimming pool is notreduced by being located on a large, very smallor waterfront allotment. These exemptions shouldbe removed from the Act.

Whilst the current Act was amended in 1998 tomake provision for fines, it does not yet include anoption for councils to charge an inspection fee.The political pressures of imposing new fees andcharges on local residents are always significant,however, it was felt that if this was endorsed underthe NSW Act, this pressure would be reduced. Inmost councils where inspections are conducted,all residents contribute to the costs of poolinspections and this inequity would be addressedif pool owners could be charged for inspections. Afee option would assist councils with part or fullcost recovery for their inspection programs. Itwould also provide more incentive and asustainable financial solution to help address thecurrent lack of commitment in many councils toongoing swimming pool inspections.

The presence or absence of an efficient electronicregister of swimming pools was identified as acritical factor in the effective management ofdomestic pools in the three councils in this study.However, it was also apparent that there is littlevalue in having a register if pools are not beinginspected regularly. In Council B, which alsodemonstrated the highest rates of compliance, theelectronic pool register is the cornerstone of itsmanagement system and represents a key factor inthis council streamlining its management processfor domestic swimming pools.

For many councils who have not conducted aninspection program for some time, the task ofestablishing a database of all the pools in theirarea, prior to implementing an inspectionprogram, would be a major task involvingsignificant cost, especially in larger councilareas where domestic swimming pools maynumber in the tens of thousands. In a climatewhere local government authorities are feelingincreasingly put upon to do more with littleextra funds, an important gesture of supportcould be shown via the establishment of agrants program to assist local governmentauthorities establish a comprehensive poolregister/database. These funds could assistcouncils with the costs of aerial mapping,retrospective development applicationsearches, or related IT requirements.

Where councils do not have an electronicproperty-management recording system inplace, which could support the development ofa linked swimming pools register, it would be asimple task to develop a generic spreadsheetbased on the inspection criteria arising from theAct, on which councils could record andmonitor the status of domestic swimming poolsin their local area, at least in the medium term.Such a database was developed for recordingpool inspection data for this study.

Currently there is no recognised training courseavailable in NSW for local government orprivate sector pool inspectors on theinterpretation and implementation of the current

Swimming Pools Act. Improved training optionsfor inspectors would help to addressinterpretation issues and the problem ofinconsistency in inspections. If such a trainingcourse was developed by a body such as theLocal Government Shires Association, or otherappropriate professional body, it would alsoprovide inspectors with a forum for feedback onthe Act and ongoing advice on difficultiesencountered, for example, legal or fining issues.

There does not appear to be a standardchecklist currently available to inspectors inlocal government for use during poolinspections. In the course of this study, two ofthe councils had checklists which variedsignificantly in quality and content, whilst one ofthese also included questions regarding waterquality. The development of a simple inspection


tool, based on the criteria stipulated in the Act,which could be distributed to local governmentauthorities for use by inspectors, would helpaddress issues of inconsistency in inspectionprocedures and interpretation of therequirements of the Act.

The experience of each of the councils in thestudy suggests that, for political reasons,councils need a clearly defined enforcementprotocol which has been officially endorsed bythe mayor and all councillors. Councils need tobe aware of the importance of managingenforcement for non-compliant pools, not just interms of community politics, but in terms of itsimpact on cost efficiency within inspectionprograms. A clearly defined enforcementprocess can help limit the costs of repeatinspections. For example, whilst compliantpools will only require one inspection, mostnon-compliant pools will require a secondinspection, effectively doubling the costsinvolved. If an order to comply is issued at thefirst inspection, a fine can be issued if the poolremains non-compliant at the secondinspection, effectively covering the cost of thesecond, as well as a return third inspection andencouraging quicker compliance from poolowners, as demonstrated in Council B.

In Council A, of the non-compliant pools thatreceived a second inspection, there was a 55.5%conversion rate from non-compliant to compliant,supporting the findings of other studies thatrepeat inspections result in significantimprovements in compliance (4,10). The levels ofimprovement in compliance observed in CouncilA may well have been even higher if owners wereaware that they would be fined at the secondinspection if the pool was not compliant.

Councils must also address the management ofproperty access issues which was identified byeach of the councils in the study as having asignificant impact on the efficiency of swimmingpool inspection programs. If the owner is notpresent and the property cannot be accessed, thepool cannot be inspected, the opportunity for poolowner education is not realised, and follow-upphone calls or letters and repeat visits are required.More effective strategies to overcome the issue ofproperty access are required, however, a practicalsolution developed by Council B is to allocate thetime of an environmental health trainee to contactpool owners to arrange suitable inspection times.Another possible solution arising from theinspection program run by RLSSA in Council A isto make inspection appointments available to poolowners after working hours and on weekends.


In relation to the outsourcing of inspections as amanagement option for local governmentauthorities, interest in the idea in the threecouncils in this study was minimal and whilst notcompletely opposed to the idea, there was astrong preference expressed in keeping theinspection function within council. Reasons forthis included complications presented by currentprivacy laws in NSW and delegation of dutyprocedures required before properties can legallybe accessed. The fact that outside contractorswould have no enforcement powers and all non-compliant pools would have to be followed up bycouncils anyway, was another disincentive. Finally,some councils’ negative experiences of privatecertifiers undertaking inspections on newlyinstalled pools may not work in favour of councilsin NSW considering outsourced inspections as adesirable option. Whilst outsourced inspectionshave been implemented effectively by RLSSA inWestern Australia and private contractors in theNoosa Shire in Queensland, each individualcouncil must decide if this is an appropriate,workable option given their individual situation.

Based on the experience of the outsourcedinspection program trialled in Council A, thisstudy does not draw any conclusions on theoverall value of outsourced inspection programsas a management option for local governmentauthorities but rather, can only report on theexperience generally.

The RLSSA inspectors appeared to be wellreceived by pool owners and were generally

perceived as non-threatening, possibly becauseowners were reassured that they did notpossess any punitive powers. Whilst the impactof the educational material left by theinspectors was not measured in this study,inspectors reported using the time availablewith pool owners for simple education on poolsafety and drowning prevention, which againwas reported as positively received. It seemsthere was a positive perception and credibilityfactor at play, where the inspectors were seento be representing a respected community-based water safety organisation, and this wasfurther enhanced by possessing professionalqualifications in water safety and life saving.

This factor should be considered by councilswho already employ professional lifeguards, asit may be advantageous to also utilise them forpool inspections. Any pools found to be non-compliant at the first inspection could bepassed on to the health and building inspectorsfor follow-up inspections and enforcementaction. This model is currently being consideredfor implementation in Council A.

The experience in Council A also revealed manypotential sources of administrative inefficiencyand extra costs in opting for an outsourcedinspection program. One example of this waswhere, in the total sample of pools in CouncilA, approximately half required reinspection. Ofthe group that were reinspected, half remainednon-compliant. This means that there werepools for which Council A had technically


already paid for two inspections, that remainednon-compliant and which would require at leasta third inspection before any complianceactions were taken. A more efficient system forconsideration may involve only first inspectionsbeing outsourced and councils only dealingwith the non-compliant pools arising from thefirst round of inspections.

In relation to pool-owner understanding of thebasic requirements of the NSW SwimmingPools Act, information arising from thecompliance data on the most common types offaults found in non-compliant pools suggestsareas where pool-owner education initiativesmight need to focus. The most common typesof faults found were gates not closing and/orlatching, inadequate safety/CPR signage,climbable objects placed too close to fencesand too much space under pool fences.

Inspectors observed that most of the gateclosing and latching faults arose from poolowners not understanding that simplemaintenance (oiling) and regular replacement ofsprings would avert this problem. Similarly, poormaintenance of safety signage and placementof objects too close to fences was also due toa lack of awareness. Avenues for betterdissemination of basic information to poolowners via councils, as well as pool industrysources, should be carefully considered.Increased regularity of inspections (no morethan 3–5 years apart) may be significant inpreventing deterioration in compliance,especially in relation to gate-closingmechanisms and the other common types offaults observed. A potential benefit of moreregular inspections and better pool-ownerknowledge in maintaining compliance, is thatmore pools would require only one inspection,hence reducing the overall inspection program costs.

Another potential model addressing inspectionsand pool owner education suggested by anexperienced inspector was the development ofa ‘self assessment’ process for pool owners.Councils could periodically run a compulsorytraining course for pool owners who opted forself-assessment. New owners would also berequired to do the course when a propertychanged hands. The course could includeorientation to the requirements of the Act, basicmaintenance and detection of defects, as wellas covering the basic principles of CPR. Similarinformation could also be included in a videofor distribution to all new pool applicants. Theviability of these options would of course bedependent on the resources and monitoringcapabilities of individual councils.

The number of returned responses from thepool owner survey in Council A were quite low.Only around 21% of surveys were returned,limiting the ability to generalise from the surveyresults. However, this low response rate is notunusual for a survey of this type.

One of the arguments provided in the past bypool owners who felt that pool fencing wasunnecessary for them was that they did not haveyoung children, so a fence around their poolshould not be required. Results from the current


survey of pool owners indicate that although only15.6% of pool owners who responded to thesurvey stated that they had young children lessthan 5 years of age (the population group with thehighest drowning and near-drowning rates),around two-thirds of pool owners stated that achild less than five years of age had visited theirproperty in the previous six months.

Overall, the majority of pool owners (95.6%) whocompleted the survey were supportive of CouncilA checking that their swimming pool met safetyrequirements and this acceptance was reflectedin the comments of one pool owner: I think thecouncil/lifesaving checks of residential pools isgreat. We bought our house with a pool alreadyin and didn't know if our pool complied withsafety standards or what those standards were!

Finally, this study has identified a number of keyelements contributing to a model of best practicefor the management of domestic swimming poolinspections and compliance by local governmentauthorities. Some or all of these elements werepresent in the three councils which participatedin this study.

6.1 Model of best practice elements

• Recognised priority for domestic swimmingpool compliance program

• Clear lines of responsibility across and withinrelevant divisions of council

• Project management and allocation ofappropriate human, financial and IT resources

• Electronic swimming pool register or databaselinked to a general property-managementsystem

• Efficient enforcement protocol, including theuse of fines, fully endorsed by council

• Comprehensive training of inspectors on therequirements and enforcement of the Act

• Annual quota of inspections to be completed

• Maximum 3–5 year inspection cycle

• Inspections conducted throughout the yearand/or during a ‘blitz’ period

• Inspection fee implemented to assist withprogram costs

• Pool owners to be present during inspections

• Strategies including booked appointments todeal with property access and pool-ownerawareness issues

• Use of inspection time for simple pool-ownereducation

• Complementary local media campaign to raise community awareness of domesticswimming pool safety and drowningprevention measures

• Direct communication with pool owners as agroup via mail-outs, etc.


(1) Thompson DC and Rivara FP. Pool fencing forpreventing drowning in children. (CochraneReview) The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2002.Oxford: Update Software.

(2) Pitt RW and Balanda KP. Toddler drowning inQueensland since uniform fencing requirements.Med Journal Aust. 1998, pp. 169, 557–8.

(3) Sayer GP and Steele P. Swimming Pools Act1992: Regulation and Compliance in Newcastle,NSW Public Health Bulletin Vol 7, No 8, August1996, pp. 83–86.

(4) Stevenson MR, Rimajova M, Edgecombe D, andVickery K. Childhood Drowning: Barrierssurrounding private swimming pools. Pediatrics,Vol 111, No 2, February 2003(www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content.full/111/2/e115).

(5) Balanda KP, Pitt RW, Nixon J, Fisher KJ, Willis M,Freeman E. Preventing toddlers drowning indomestic pools in Queensland: Future directions.Report to Queensland Health Promotion Councilby: Centre for Health Promotion and CancerPrevention Research, UQ; Department of ChildHealth; and Queensland Injury Surveillance Unit.1997. Brisbane: UQ.

(6) Harris A, Warchivker I, de Klerk N. Isolation fencingand the prevention of toddler drownings inbackyard pools: an economic analysis. Economicsprogram, Murdoch University, Working Paper No.68, April 1992.

(7) Williamson A, Irvine P, and Sadural S. Analysis ofdrownings involving children aged five years andunder in NSW. Report to the NSW Water SafetyTaskforce, October 2002.

(8) Elkington J et al. Directions in Injury Prevention,Report 2: Injury Prevention Interventions – goodbuys for the next decade. Report to theCommonwealth Department of Health and AgedCare from the National Injury Prevention AdvisoryCouncil, April 1999.

(9) Scott I. Prevention of Drowning in Home Pools –Lessons from Australia. Prepared for the Handbookon Drowning. From the World Congress OnDrowning, Netherlands, 2002. Report from TaskForce Prevention and Innovations in Technology(www.drowning.nl) Downloaded February 2003.

(10) Sayer GP, Rissel C, Alperstein G, and Lonie C.Swimming Pools in NSW: Do we know howdangerous they are? NSW Public Health Bulletin,Vol 9, No 12, December 1998, pp. 139–142.

(11) Ashby K, Routley V, and Stathakis V. Enforcinglegislative and regulatory injury preventionstrategies. Hazard 34, March 1998. Victorian InjurySurveillance System, Monash University AccidentResearch Centre, Melbourne.

(12) Cunningham K, Hockey R, Pitt R, Miles E. Tenyears on: Toddler drowning in Qld. 1992–2001.Injury Bulletin No 75, November 2002.Queensland Injury Surveillance Unit, Brisbane.

References


Local government’s role

• In your opinion, what priority does your council currently give to domestic swimmingpool safety?

• Do you think councils should have soleresponsibility for implementing and policing the legislation?

• Could you walk me through the processyour council follows in respect to managingprivate swimming pools from the point ofthe development application onwards?

• Which department/council officer isresponsible for the overall management ofdomestic swimming pools?

• How often are pools inspected?

• How do you manage non-compliant pools?

• How often do you think domestic poolsshould be inspected?

• Do you think your council’s current systemfor managing domestic swimming pools iseffective (in regard to outcomes and cost?)

• In your opinion, what would be the idealsystem for managing domestic pool safety?

• How could this best be financed?

• What is your opinion of a pool-ownerfinanced inspection program?

• What is your opinion of outsourcinginspections to external water safetyagencies?

Databases/IT systems

• Could you describe the record keepingsystem that backs up the management ofdomestic swimming pools in your council?

• What database system does this counciluse?

• Is aerial mapping used?

• How are records kept up to date/transferred between departments?

Legislation

• Do you think the current legislation isadequate in ensuring the safety of domestic pools?

• What are the gaps or weaknesses in thecurrent legislation?

• What aspects of the legislation do you thinkneed to be changed?

AppendicesAppendix 1 – Stakeholder interview questions



Appendix 2 – Inspection notification letter

Council A Logo

(DATE)

THE OWNER/OCCUPIER(ADDRESS)

To the Owner/Occupier,

Mandatory Inspections of Private Swimming Pools

As part of a statewide initiative to reduce drownings, the Royal Life Saving Society has been contracted to carryout inspections of private swimming pools in the (Council A) local government area, over the next three months.

As part of this program, a Royal Life Saving Society inspector will conduct a safety inspection of your pool andprovide you with information regarding pool safety and drowning prevention. We will also seek your help tocomplete a written survey of pool owners’ attitudes and opinions.

Pool inspection results will be forwarded to (Council A) for their records. General information arising from thepool inspection program will be included in a report for the NSW Water Safety Taskforce.

The Royal Life Saving Society is offering a booking service to allow you to book-in for a preferred pool inspection time.

Please phone the Royal Life Saving Society as soon as possible on 4272 6131 to make an appointment. Weencourage you to use this service to make mutually convenient arrangements for the inspection.

If we do not hear from you within 7 days, we will assume you have NOT chosen the booking service, and yourswimming pool will be inspected in the near future between 9.00am and sunset, Monday to Saturday.

A checklist has been provided on the reverse side of this letter as a guide to help you prepare for your inspection.

The Society is looking forward to providing this service with (Council A), and ultimately aims to reduce theincidence of drowning in NSW.

For further information, please contact the Royal Life Saving Society on 4272 6131 or visit the (Council A) website at www.(council a).nsw.gov.au

Kind regards,

Inspection Coordinator General ManagerRoyal Life Saving Society Australia Council A


RESIDENTIAL SWIMMING POOL and SPA SAFETY CHECKLIST

Is your swimming pool/spa area safe?The majority of drownings and near-drownings in residential swimming pools and spas involve childrenunder five years old. Drowning kills more children under five years old than any other cause. Unsafefences, latches and gates combined with lapses in adult supervision are directly responsible for mostdrownings in this age group.

This checklist will help you check if your swimming pool or spa area (indoor or outdoor) meets councils’basic safety requirements. Council staff can help you with more technical information or advice toassist you to meet the legal requirements.

Pools installed AFTER 1 August 1990 Yes No

1) Is the pool surrounded by a fence which separates the pool from the house?

2) Is the fence in good condition and at least 1.2m high?

3) Are the gaps in the fence between the vertical sections 100mm wide or less?

4) Are the horizontal sections of the fence at least 900mm apart?

5) Is the gap between the bottom of the fence and the ground less than 100mm?

6) Is the fence free of obstructions such as large plants, outdoor furniture or anything else a child might use to climb the fence?

7) Are the gates at least 1.2m high and do they open away from the pool?

8) Are the gates self-closing and self-latching?

9) Is the gate release mechanism 1.5m above ground level or alternatively located insidethe gate at 1.2m and covered by an approved shield?

10) Is there an approved resuscitation chart prominently displayed within the pool area which also states ‘Young children should be supervised when using the swimming pool’?

NOTE: If you have answered "NO" to any of the questions above, your pool DOES NOTCOMPLY with the NSW Swimming Pools Act and Regulations. You should contact yourlocal council for further information and advice.

Appendix 3 – Pool owner safety checklist

[53]


Appendix 4 – Inspection checklist

[54]

Council A Logo

(DATE)

THE OWNER/OCCUPIER(ADDRESS)

To the Owner/Occupier

FIRST POOL INSPECTION REPORTAn authorised Royal Lifesaving Society Officer has carried out an inspection of your pool, details of which are as follows:

Your pool is compliant. (Council A) will be notified and no further follow-up is required.

Your pool is non compliant. The faults listed below must be rectified prior to a second inspection which will beconducted in approximately 6 weeks time.

The checklist below was used for the inspection and is based on the Australian Standard AS1926.1. It indicates whichaspects of your pool do/don’t comply with current safety requirements. The assessment is based on the assessor’sknowledge of the statutory requirements and Australian Standards, and is limited to the observations made at the dateand time of inspection.

If you require any more information about this assessment, please contact the Royal Lifesaving Officer named belowon 4272 6131.

Pool fence Yes NoIsolation pool fence

Fence height minimum 1.2m

Fence in good condition

Vertical members – gaps 100mm or less

Horizontal members spaced 900mm or more

Space under fence less than 100mm

1.2m outside fence clear of climable objects

No doors in any boundary walls and any windows meet criteria (AS1926.1)

Resuscitation chart Yes NoApproved resuscitation chart displayed within the pool area

Gates Yes NoGate height minimum 1.2m

Gate swings open away from pool

Gate self-closing

Gate self-latching

Gate release mechanism is 1.5m above ground level ORGate release mechanism is located inside gate at least 1.2m above ground level

Latch is shielded in accordance with AS1926.1

Sign

FAULTS

Inspection Date: ________________________________ Officer: ________________________________________(Print Name)

Time: __________________________________________ Signature: ______________________________________


Swimming pool owner survey

This survey is intended to ask you about your swimming pool and your opinions about pool fencing andpool fence inspections. Your answers to this survey will be compiled with the answers of other peopleand will be used to inform the NSW Water Safety Taskforce. All information provided by you will beconfidential. Please answer the following questions as accurately as possible.

Appendix 5 – Pool owner survey

[55]

1. Date: ______________________________

2. Is the pool owner an:

Owner/Occupier Renter

Other (please specify) ________________

3. Approximately, in what year was the swimming pool installed? ___________

4. Is there a fence that surrounds the

entire pool? (please tick) Yes No

5. Are there any children under five years of age living in this house? (please tick)

Yes (specify ages) __________________

No

6. Have any children under five years of agevisited your home in the last six months?

(Please tick) Yes No

7. If you have children under five years of age,have they attended swimming lessons orwater familiarisation classes? (please tick)

Yes

No Go to question 9

No child aged under five years Go to question 9

8. If yes, who conducted the child/ren’slessons or classes?___________________

____________________________________

9. Have you ever attended a resuscitation

course? (please tick) Yes No

10. If yes, approximately how many years ago? ________________

11. Do you believe that pool fencing should be

required by law? (please tick)

Yes Go to question 13

No

Uncertain

Management of domestic swimming pools and compliance levels[56]

12. What is the one main reason why you thinkswimming pools should NOT be fenced?(please tick one only)

Pool fencing should not be required forpeople who don’t have children

Pool fencing should not be requiredwhen children can swim

You shouldn’t need a fence if yourproperty is fenced

Pool fencing is too expensive

Pool fencing should not be required ifyou supervise your children

Pool fencing is an invasion of privacy

Pool fencing destroys the design of thepool area

Other (please specify) _______________

13. Do you support (Council A) checking thatpools meet specified safety requirements?(please tick)

Yes – How often?__________________

_____________________________________

No – Why not? ___________________

_____________________________________

14. Does (Council A) provide informationregarding pool fencing and safety?(please tick)

Yes No Uncertain

The final 3 questions will allow us toclassify your answers

15. Are you?: (please tick)

Female Male

16. What age group are you in? (please tick)

15-20yrs 46-55yrs

21-25yrs 56-65yrs

26-35yrs 66yrs +

36-45yrs

17. What is the highest level of education youhave completed? (please tick)

Primary school

Completed Year 10/Fourth form

Completed Year 12/Sixth form

TAFE certificate or diploma

University degree/Other tertiary institution

Other (please specify) ________________

18. Do you have other comments?

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

____________________________________

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!

Management of domestic swimming pools and compliance levels [57]

An initiative of the NSW Water Safety Taskforce 2003

Members of the NSW Water Safety Taskforce

Australian Professional Ocean Lifeguard Association

AUSTSWIM NSW

Community Relations Commission

Farmsafe NSW

NSW Department of Education and Training

NSW Department of Health

NSW Department of Local Government

NSW Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation

NSW Fisheries

NSW Local Government and Shires Association

Premier's Department

Surf Life Saving NSW

The Royal Life Saving Society Australia (NSW Branch)

United Services Union

Waterways Authority

management of domestic swimming pools and compliance levels · management of domestic swimming...

Documents