Safer Fences for Children on Farms Effective safe play area fencing options for rural properties

A report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation by Laurie Stiller, University of Sydney and Wayne Baker, Monash University February 2005 RIRDC Publication No 05/008 RIRDC Project No US-126A

ii

© 2005 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved. ISBN 1 74151 107 0 ISSN 1440-6845 Fencing for Children on Farms Publication No. 05/008 Project No. US-126A The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable industries. The information should not be relied upon for the purpose of a particular matter. Specialist and/or appropriate legal advice should be obtained before any action or decision is taken on the basis of any material in this document. The Commonwealth of Australia, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, the authors or contributors do not assume liability of any kind whatsoever resulting from any person's use or reliance upon the content of this document. This publication is copyright. However, RIRDC encourages wide dissemination of its research, providing the Corporation is clearly acknowledged. For any other enquiries concerning reproduction, contact the Publications Manager on phone 02 6272 3186. Researcher Contact Details Laurie Stiller School of Rural Health, Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety PO Box 256 Moree NSW 2400 Phone: 02 6752 8218 Fax: 02 6752 6639 Email:

Wayne Baker Accident Research Centre Monash University

In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to RIRDC publishing this material in its edited form. RIRDC Contact Details Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 1, AMA House 42 Macquarie Street BARTON ACT 2600 PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604 Phone: 02 6272 4819 Fax: 02 6272 5877 Email: rirdc@rirdc.gov.au. Website: http://www.rirdc.gov.au Published in Februray 2005 Printed on environmentally friendly paper by Canprint

iii

Foreword More than half of the 30 deaths per year that occur on Australian farms occur to children under 4 years of age and drowning accounts for around one third of all deaths. Securely fenced safe play areas on farms are a key intervention for the prevention of child death and injury on farms due to drowning and contact with farm vehicles and machinery. Most farms and rural properties already have a house yard which could form the basis for an effective safe play area, however in many cases the purpose of the fence is to keep stock and native animals from getting into the home and garden area. With the increasing recognition of the risks to children on farms and rural properties, fences are now more commonly being used to perform a dual role of keeping animals out and young children in. While there is a lot of practical experience and technology behind the design of fencing for animals, there is much less information about fences on farms which target children. For this reason the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation provided core funding for a research project to identify and assess the effectiveness of house yard fence designs which are in use to assist with child safety on farms and rural properties. The key outcome of the project is a resource for farmers and graziers with children who live on or visit their property providing practical advice on adapting an existing fence or building a new fence to help keep young children away from farm hazards and perhaps also keep animals out of the garden/house area. This report is an addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 1,200 research publications and forms part of our Human Capital, Communications and Information Systems R&D program, which aims to enhance human capital and facilitate innovation in rural industries and communities. The Joint Research Venture for Farm Health and Safety forms part of this program and this publication contributes to the incentives aimed at reducing the risk of serious injury and death to children on Australian farms Most of our publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through our website: • downloads at www.rirdc.gov.au/fullreports/index.html • purchases at www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop Tony Byrne Acting Managing Director Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

iv

Acknowledgments The willingness of the following farmers and fencing contractors to contribute their ideas and assist with the project generally is greatly appreciated: Contributing Farmers: Renee Burke (NSW) Kylie Douglas (QLD) Beverley Norman (NSW) Noeline Walsh (NSW) Geoff and Lisa Boughton (NSW) Alan Kearney (VIC) Angela Donaldson (QLD) Rosalyn Lanyon (VIC) Bill and Tracey Radford (WA) Thelma Hutchison (VIC) Leanne Lancey (VIC)

Child Care Services: Beverley Newcomen – Remote Family Services Uniting Care (VIC) Contractors: Dallas Rumbel [02]49921847 Fence Craft and Farm Services NSW Tony Lavette (02)43247144 www.profence.com.au

Our thanks also to people who participated in the expert working group (see Attachment 1 for details). Expert Fence Review Panel 1. Maureen Fegan – Kids and Traffic 2. Lyn Fragar – Aust Centre for Ag Health and Safety 3. Trish Malins – NSW Commission for Children & Young People 4. Lesley Day – Monash University Accident Research Centre 5. Richard Franklin – Royal Lifesaving 6. Matt Condon- OneSteel 7. David Phillips – Farmsafe Victoria 8. Ros Lanyon VIC - Farmer 9. Gary Lang WA – Farmer 10. Sue Patterson QLD - Farmer 11. Lesley Young TAS - Farmer 12. Ian Forsyth NSW – Farmer

v

Contents Foreword ............................................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................. iv Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. vi Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1

Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Current Fencing Arrangements ........................................................................................................... 2 Scope – Fence design .......................................................................................................................... 2 Existing resources – Summary of pool fence requirements ................................................................ 3 Objectives............................................................................................................................................ 4

Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Key Outcomes ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Promotion of Project ........................................................................................................................... 5 Fencing Criteria................................................................................................................................... 6

Findings .................................................................................................................................................. 7 Discussion of Results ............................................................................................................................. 8

Implications ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 8

References ............................................................................................................................................ 18

vi

Executive Summary More than half of the 30 deaths per year that occur on Australian farms occur to children under 4 years of age and drowning accounts for around one third of all deaths. Securely fenced safe play areas are key intervention for the prevention of child death and injury on farms due to drowning and contact with farm vehicles and machinery. . Most farms and rural properties already have a house yard which could form the basis for an effective safe play area, however in many cases the primary purpose of the fence is to keep stock and native animals from getting into the home and garden area. With the increasing recognition of the risks to children on farms and rural properties, fences are now more commonly being used to perform a dual role of keeping animals out and young children in. While there is a lot of practical experience and technology behind the design of fencing for animals, there is much less information about fences on farms which target children. For this reason this research project was conducted with two phases:

• the identification and documentation of house yard fence designs • assessment of the effectiveness of those designs from the perspective of child safety and the

needs of farms and rural properties. The project has identified eight generic fence designs ranging in price from $16-65 per metre (materials only) and also ranging in effectiveness as a child barrier from unacceptable to very high (ie., pool fencing standard). Importantly the project has established a clear set of criteria for assessing fences in rural areas and provides a basis for further improvement in rural fence design for this purpose and more widespread adoption of the safe play area concept. The project has also focussed rural fencing contractors on this issue with several new designs being developed and promoted through the process.

1

Introduction Background This background information is drawn from Fragar L, Gibson C, Henderson A, Franklin R. Farmsafe Farms for Kids: Evidence Based Solutions for Child Safety on Australian Farms. Moree: Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety, 2003. Injuries and traumatic deaths to children on farms is an internationally acknowledged public health problem, with a number of countries adopting specific strategic approaches (National Committee for Childhood Agricultural Injury Prevention, 1996; Doyle and Conroy, 1989). Similarly, child farm safety in Australia has received increasing attention, and Farmsafe Australia has moved to define a national strategy for child injury prevention (Farmsafe Australia, 1999). Agricultural enterprises in Australia are generally not only a place of work, but also incorporate the family home. The potential for injury is heightened as a result of this blurring of home and work domains and the rapid cognitive and motor skill development that children are passing through (Ozanne-Smith, 1992). Qualitative data from studies involving farming families indicates that parents believe the farm is an ideal environment in which to raise children, as it emphasises the “healthy outdoors” and allows for a wide variety of challenges (Hartigan and Clarke, 1994). Consequently, in developing intervention strategies it is imperative to ensure child safety is achieved in the context of a stimulating learning environment. There are numerous reports on child farm injuries that highlight the extent of the problem (for example, National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, 1998; Rivara, 1997). Despite this body of evidence, there is little published data on the efficacy of interventions to address the causal factors underpinning these injuries. The creation of a safe place to play is the most frequently mentioned intervention to prevent child injury on farms (Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety Guidance Note 7, 1997), although there is no literature that provides evidence for the effectiveness of this solution for drowning prevention. This specific intervention was first described by an expert Working Group examining the evidence for effective solutions to child deaths on New South Wales farms for Farmsafe New South Wales in 1993 (Child Safety on Farms Working Group, 1993). In the case of drowning, it would need to be considered that a safe place to play is most likely to be adopted by residents with a special interest (eg parents with young children). The potential risk for visitors may still remain in many cases. During the 1989-92 period, 30.4% of all children fatally injured on farms were visitors, 37.3% of all drowning fatalities (all ages) were visitors to the farm (Franklin et al, 2000). Thus it would seem vital that education and awareness campaigns aimed at all rural people are conducted which is the intent of the RLSSA (Giles, 1995). Similar recommendations in regard to fencing have been made by the RLSSA and SLA in their 1995 project “Towards a National Water Safety Strategy”. Based on the guidelines used in the pool fence legislation restricting access to outdoor private swimming pools, it is recommended that a child resistant fence to create a safe place to play should be 1.2 metres high with a self-closing, self-latching gate, structures such as horizontal supports that could provide footholds should be located on the ‘outside’ to prevent climbing the barrier, and the most suitable material would be a pool safety fence (Giles, 1995).

2

Other studies that could be considered as relevant relate to protection of children from non-traffic/ driveway vehicle run over, where fencing of the driveway from the area where children play or have access has been proposed. A case control study reported by Roberts et al found that the absence of a physical separation of the driveway from the children’s play area was associated with a three and a half times increase in the risk of driveway related injury (Roberts et al, 1995; and also reviewed in Neeman et al, 2002). Current Fencing Arrangements Many farms in Australia already have a fenced house yard. A survey of 208 people who live or work on a farm conducted at AgQuip Gunnedah in 2003 showed that some 80% have a fenced house yard. However less than 40% of that sample rated their fence as “almost impossible” or “difficult” for a child under four to leave without the assistance of an adult. There was little difference in this ratio whether or not there were children living on the farm. This perhaps highlights that traditionally, fences have been constructed primarily to keep stock and native animals from getting into the house and garden area on a farm. However farm parents have always had to deal with the mobility of young children and their potential to gain access to dams, waterways, machinery, sheds and other hazards – so that often the fence has served a dual purpose of keeping children “in” as well as animals “out.” This project therefore sought to identify examples of fences that were currently in use and for which at least part of the reason for having the fence was to constrain children from entering the farm workplace unsupervised. At the moment limited resourced are available for the purpose of providing information regarding effective play are fencing for young children. Existing publications (eg. Giles, 1995) have recommendations based on swimming pool fencing standards. Information regarding existing fencing options, will be provided to farmers wishing to either improve their existing house yard fence, or to construct a new safe play area. Pool fencing will not be appropriate in all cases, (particularly given the high cost) so other practical designs drawing on commonly available fencing options in rural areas need to be provided to farmers. Scope – Fence design The project focussed on the following aspects of fence design:

• Fence structure and dimensions • Gate design, operation, orientation • Gate return and latching mechanism • Surfaces under fence and gate • Potentially harmful aspects to children:

- Barbed Wire - Electric Fence - Finger Entrapment Regions

• Modification of existing fence designs to improve child resistance

3

Existing resources – Summary of pool fence requirements Australian Standard AS 1926.1-1993 outlines requirements for pool fences, the provisions of which are “intended to be child resistant but not child proof”. The standard requires that the fence be 1.2m high, and have a lower clearance of no greater than 100mm above a finished surface. The highest lower horizontal support must be 100mm from the ground, and the lowest higher horizontal support, 1000mm from the ground. The fence must consist of either:

• flat solid material with indentation or projections less than 10mm. • mesh with aperture size no greater than 13mm. • vertical planks or equivalent, with gaps in between no greater than 10mm. • vertical members displaced no greater than 100mm, as shown in Figure 1

Figure 1: Pool fence dimensions recommended by AS1926.1-1993 (Scale diagram)

Gate mechanisms must be self - closing and self - locking from any position, including adjacent to the latch mechanism. The pool fencing Australian Standard is not enforced uniformly across Australia, with each state attributing different regulatory requirements. This project is not limited to the requirements of the standard. Farmsafe Australia is mindful of different necessities in rural regions for practical, cost effective fencing that, in many cases is much longer than a suburban pool fence, and often must double as a stock fence. However the Pool Fencing Standard provides a benchmark for determining the quality of “child resistance.”

4

Objectives This project is based on a recognition that:

• the construction of safe play areas on farms (usually a securely fenced house yard) is an effective measure to contribute to preventing the unsupervised access of children to the farm workplace and associated hazards (particularly water, farm vehicles and farm machinery) (Fragar et al 2003)

• many farms have fenced house yards but most of these are fenced for keeping animals out and not fenced in a way that would allow them to be used as effective safe play areas without modification (survey conducted by Stiller et al – in progress)

• pool fencing is the only standard currently available when advising farmers – a wider set of options more appropriate for the farm environment would make the process of adopting a safe play area simpler and more cost effective for farmers

• it is likely that some farmers/graziers and rural fencing suppliers have developed practical solutions that could be useful for others in the industry.

The aim of the research is therefore to:

• identify currently available fencing options (including gates, closing mechanisms and latches) which farmers/graziers/farm managers may use to establish a safe play area

• evaluate fencing options in terms of the extent to which fencing options provide an effective, reliable barrier to children considering maintainability, practicability and ease of construction, aesthetics and social acceptability

• publish the results in a form readily accessible by farmers who wish to implement a safe play area.

Methodology The methodology was based around the need to complete the task in a very short period of time (commencement of project proper late February – completion mid May) and broadly consisted of promoting the “search” for good fencing options through the media and key stakeholder groups so that people with good designs would contact the Project Investigators. Initially it was considered that “applicants” from within the farming industry would be encouraged to submit a design by offering a “prize” for the best design submitted, however this style of “competition” was ruled out by the Ethics Committee. This meant more intensive follow up by the researchers was required. The key aspects of the methodology were: 1. Letters seeking indications from stakeholders about their preparedness to help disseminate information about the project and encourage participation 2. Obtain ethical approval from University of Sydney Ethics Committee 3. Identify fencing options by advertising and promoting the project including a contact address and phone number through:

• Rural Press Friday Magazine • General media coverage (press release) • State Farmers and other industry organisations newsletters/member communications • Direct contact with fencing manufacturers, suppliers and contractors

5

4. Those identifying themselves as having good fences were sent a kit containing information on the information sought by the project and including an “applicant consent form”. This was followed up by the researchers. 5. Conduct field research by visiting identified farms (time constraints limited visits to NSW and Victoria) and documenting identified solutions 6. Develop assessment criteria, establish “expert panel” to review solutions against agreed criteria. This process included:

• initial contact with potential panel members including providing draft criteria • sending out designs for review including a proforma to allow for documentation of

comments against key criteria • teleconference to agree on key positive and negative features of each design • post teleconference review of final document wording

7. Format, publish and promote solutions (including getting input to final design from farmers on the expert panel).

Key Outcomes Promotion of Project Letters seeking indicative support for promoting the project were sent to the following organisations in November 2003:

• Members of the National Farmers Federation • Executive Officers of State Farmsafe Organisations • Country Women’s Association (National and State) • Secretary of the Isolated Children and Parents Association

Promotion in the general media included:

• An advertisement in Rural Press Friday Magazine • A general media release on the project issued on 25 February 2004 to radio and press outlets

(this release was also sent to media managers of the National Farmers Federation Members.) This promotional process resulted in contacts by 15 farmers and 2 contractors offering designs. Some of these did not contribute complete information and further farmers were directly contacted. In the end designs were contributed and reviewed by 11 farmers, 1 child care centre and 2 contractors. The field trip covered 13 sites and overall 36 designs were collected. In addition to that 5 designs were submitted by mail and did not receive a visit. Due to duplication a total of 10 designs were documented and submitted to the expert committee.

6

Fencing Criteria The following detailed fencing criteria were initially adopted (drawing extensively on the Pool Fencing Standard) to guide both the collection of information oin the field and the deliberations fo the expert panel: Essential Criteria:

• Effectiveness of structure as a child resistant barrier. - Fence/gate suitable height - Fence/gate suitable distance from ground - Fence/gate geometry inhibits children climbing - Surface under fence/gate; subject to wear/erosion/variability - Gate latches child resistant/inaccessible - Gate closing mechanisms prevent inadvertently leaving the gate open - Fence/adjoining landscaping prevents use of stackable objects - Other positive design aspects (eg number of exits/entrances)

• Potential to injure or harm a child attempting to scale - Entrapment - Other injury potential

• Robustness (capable of withstanding forces) Limiting Criteria:

• Fence function – is it also required to keep cattle, sheep, feral or native animals out? • Is the design concept suitable for modifying an existing fence? • Cost of the fence ($/m)

- Materials cost - Installation cost

Other Criteria:

• Time required to install • Ease of installation (DIY) • Availability of materials for on-farm application • Control zone around fence • Maintenance requirements/durability/life • Aesthetics

7

Findings In addition to documenting the fence designs the following observations were made in relation to house yard fencing from the field trip:

• Rarely was one type of fencing used on the entire yard - it was not unusual to find a combination of very secure child resistant fencing and very low child resistance fencing in the one yard

• The “look” of the front fence was a high priority • Unless a pool style fencing was installed the gates and latching tended to be manually

operated (and therefore subject to being left open) • Most fences served a dual purpose (ie for animals and children)

The outcomes of the expert review panel are summarised in the booklet containing 8 key designs prepared for farmers. Some of the decisions of the panel in forming their assessment were:

• While recognising the role played by barbed wire and electric tape in managing animals the panel did not support their use as a means of increasing child resistance – particularly as there were other options available; where fences had a dual purpose and a barb or electric tape were to be included then these should be placed well out of reach of children

• While the pool fencing standards supports taller fencing as a means of increasing the child

resistance of more “climbable” wire configurations (eg., chain wire), the panel felt the risk of the child falling from height while attempting to climb these higher fences rendered this option inappropriate

• Designs that were deemed to be very low on the child resistance scale were left in the final

publication as a means of raising awareness of the limits of these configurations

8

Discussion of Results

This project has identified 8 designs including two designs commonly used (designs # 2 & 5 Appendix 1) but which would be inadequate for as a child resistant fencing arrangement on a rural property and six designs ranging from moderate to very good levels of child resistance. One design (design #6 Appendix 1) was specifically engineered as a result of this project. It offers a level of child resistance very close to that offered by a standard pool fence but at half the price. This design needs further testing in the field but has significant potential as a child resistant fence on rural properties. Another relatively new design (#3 Appendix 1), a very moderately priced fence made from bird netting and post and rail, also offers considerable potential as a child resistant fence in rural settings. This has been constructed in urban settings but has yet to be tested to be confirmed as compliant with the Pool Fencing Standard. Also, the potential to use rabbit wire/chicken wire to retrofit existing, less child resistant fencing has been noted. Implications The publication of these results will further alert farmers and graziers to the need for and benefits of securely fenced safe play areas in preventing child death and injury, illustrates some practical options and importantly provides a basis for further improvements in fencing design for these purposes. The establishment of the expert panel and specification of criteria also mean that should further designs be identified, the advice of the panel can be sought and additional designs added. This can be kept and updated on the child safety website (www.farmsafe.org.au) to provide ongoing access. In addition it is anticipated that fencing contractors and manufacturers will assist in promoting both the concept of safe play areas and designs outlined as a means of extending business opportunities. Recommendations

• The fence designs should be printed and made available as soon as possible as a stand alone document and included on the Farmsafe Australia and RIRDC websites. Additional designs should be added if identified. The cost of printing could be offset by advertisements from fencing manufacturers and contractors if necessary

• A media launch should be conducted to raise awareness of and promote the fence designs

• The fence designs should be incorporated into the existing Farmsafe publication “Safe Play

Areas on Farms – A Resource Guide” when this is due for reprinting

• Copies of the booklet should be sent to fencing contractors and manufacturers.

App

endi

x 1

– Fe

nce

Des

igns

9

In a

res

earc

h pr

ojec

t fu

nded

by

the

Rura

l Ind

ustr

ies

Rese

arch

and

D

evel

opm

ent

Corp

orat

ion

(RIR

DC)

, fe

nce

desi

gns

wer

e co

llect

ed

from

far

mer

s, f

enci

ng m

anuf

actu

rers

and

con

trac

tors

. A

n ex

pert

pa

nel (

see

oppo

site

) as

sess

ed t

he d

esig

ns a

gain

st t

he f

ollo

win

g cr

iter

ia t

o pr

ovid

e gu

idan

ce o

n th

e pr

os a

nd c

ons

on e

ach

desi

gn:

•

Effe

ctiv

enes

s of

str

uctu

re a

s a

“chi

ld r

esis

tant

” ba

rrie

r (t

he

Pool

Fen

cing

Sta

ndar

d(AS

192

6:19

93)

was

use

d as

a g

uide

).

• Po

tent

ial t

o in

jure

or

harm

a c

hild

att

empt

ing

to c

limb

the

fenc

e •

Robu

stne

ss/d

urab

ility

/cap

abili

ty t

o w

iths

tand

typ

ical

fo

rces

/cor

rosi

on a

nd w

ear

resi

stan

ce

• M

ater

ials

cos

t an

d av

aila

bilit

y •

Ease

of

inst

alla

tion

, m

aint

enan

ce r

equi

rem

ents

•

Aest

heti

cs a

nd p

oten

tial

to

cust

omis

e Th

e fe

nce

desi

gns

on t

he f

ollo

win

g pa

ges

incl

ude

an a

ppro

xim

ate

mat

eria

ls o

nly

“cos

t in

dica

tor”

and

a “

child

res

ista

nce”

indi

cato

r:

Impr

ovin

g “C

hild

Res

ista

nce”

Expe

rt F

ence

Rev

iew

Pan

el

1.

Mau

reen

Feg

an –

Kid

s an

d Tr

affi

c 2.

Ly

n Fr

agar

– A

ust

Cent

re f

or A

g H

ealt

h an

d Sa

fety

3.

Tr

ish

Mal

ins

– N

SW C

omm

issi

on f

or C

hild

ren

& Y

oung

Peo

ple

4.

Lesl

ey D

ay –

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity

Acci

dent

Res

earc

h Ce

ntre

5.

Ri

char

d Fr

ankl

in –

Roy

al L

ifes

avin

g 6.

M

att

Cond

on-

One

Stee

l 7.

D

avid

Phi

llips

– F

arm

safe

Vic

tori

a 8.

Ro

s La

nyon

VIC

- F

arm

er

9.

Gar

y La

ng W

A –

Farm

er

10. S

ue P

atte

rson

QLD

- F

arm

er

11. L

esle

y Yo

ung

TAS

- Fa

rmer

12

. Ian

For

syth

NSW

- F

arm

er

Co

ntri

buti

ng F

arm

ers:

Re

nee

Bur

ke (

NSW

)

Kylie

Dou

glas

(Q

LD)

Beve

rley

Nor

man

(N

SW)

N

oelin

e W

alsh

(N

SW)

G

eoff

and

Lis

a Bo

ught

on

(NSW

)

Alan

Kea

rney

(VI

C)

Ange

la D

onal

dson

(Q

LD)

Ro

saly

n La

nyon

(VI

C)

Bill

and

Trac

ey R

adfo

rd (

WA)

Th

elm

a H

utch

ison

(VI

C)

Lean

ne L

ance

y (V

IC)

Child

Car

e Se

rvic

es:

Beve

rley

New

com

en –

Rem

ote

Fam

ily S

ervi

ces

Uni

ting

Car

e (V

IC)

Cont

ract

ors:

D

alla

s Ru

mbe

l [02

]499

2184

7 F

ence

Cr

aft

and

Farm

Ser

vice

s N

SW

Tony

Lav

ette

(02

)432

4714

4 w

ww

.pro

fenc

e.co

m.a

u

App

endi

x 1

– D

esig

n #2

Wire

Net

ting

10

Cos

t In

dica

tor

• Th

e fe

nce

is m

ade

with

rabb

it or

chi

cken

wire

, with

a 2

5-40

mm

ape

rture

& w

ire th

ickn

ess

of a

t lea

st 1

.4m

m.

•

Hor

izon

tal (

selv

edge

) wire

s su

ppor

t the

net

ting.

The

y ar

e lo

cate

d on

the

outs

ide

of th

e fe

nce

to a

void

pro

vidi

ng a

fo

otho

ld a

nd th

e bo

ttom

wire

is p

inne

d or

bur

ied

to

prev

ent c

hild

ren

from

slid

ing

unde

rnea

th.

• A

sta

ndar

d 10

50m

m w

idth

roll

of n

ettin

g ca

n be

co

mbi

ned

with

a ro

ll of

300

mm

wid

e ne

tting

( at

the

botto

m) t

o m

ake

the

fenc

e at

leas

t 1.2

m h

igh.

•

It is

com

mon

to ru

n a

barb

or e

lect

ric w

ire o

n th

is ty

pe o

f fe

nce

for p

addo

cks.

Com

men

ts o

n D

esig

n ag

ains

t Key

Crit

eria

1 E

ffect

iven

ess

as a

chi

ld

resi

stan

t ba

rrier

• W

hile

this

fenc

e do

es n

ot m

eet p

ool s

tand

ards

, it h

as b

een

sugg

este

d th

at th

e w

ire is

not

com

forta

ble

for t

oddl

er’s

fing

ers

and

toes

if th

ey tr

y to

cl

imb

it; th

e ap

ertu

re s

ize

of u

nder

40m

m, i

s to

o sm

all f

or to

ddle

r’s

shoe

s. T

his

may

not

det

er s

ome

olde

r/big

ger p

re-s

choo

l age

d ch

ildre

n.

• A

pertu

res

grea

ter t

han

40m

m re

duce

bar

rier e

ffect

iven

ess

by m

akin

g it

easi

er to

clim

b.

• B

arb

or e

lect

ric w

ire in

crea

ses

effe

ctiv

enes

s as

a c

hild

resi

stan

t bar

rier.

2

Pot

entia

l to

inju

re a

chi

ld

atte

mpt

ing

to

scal

e th

e fe

nce

• Th

e us

e of

bar

b or

ele

ctric

wire

incr

ease

s th

e ris

k of

inju

ry to

a c

hild

sh

ould

they

atte

mpt

to c

limb

the

fenc

e.

•

All

wire

s sh

ould

be

tied

off n

eatly

to a

void

sha

rp e

nds,

whi

ch m

ay c

ause

in

jury

.

3 R

obus

tnes

s,

corro

sion

and

w

ear

resi

stan

ce

• W

ire th

ickn

esse

s le

ss th

an 1

.4m

m a

re p

rone

to b

reak

age

durin

g no

rmal

w

ear a

nd te

ar.

4 M

ater

ial c

ost

and

avai

labi

lity.

•

Rab

bit w

ire is

read

ily a

vaila

ble

at ru

ral f

enci

ng s

uppl

iers

.

5 E

ase

of

inst

alla

tion,

m

aint

enan

ce

requ

irem

ents

.

• In

stal

latio

n is

stra

ight

forw

ard.

Reg

ular

mon

itorin

g of

the

fenc

e,

parti

cula

rly w

here

sto

ck a

nd fa

rm d

ogs

etc.

hav

e ac

cess

. •

Usi

ng 3

00m

m n

ettin

g at

the

botto

m o

f the

fenc

e ca

n ex

tend

life

of t

he

fenc

e as

this

nar

row

er p

iece

can

be

repl

aced

whe

n ne

cess

ary

• If

the

wire

is b

urie

d, it

may

requ

ire re

plac

emen

t afte

r a ti

me

due

to ru

st.

6 A

esth

etic

s an

d po

tent

ial

to c

usto

mis

e.

• A

woo

den

post

and

top

rail

is o

ften

used

to im

prov

e th

e ap

pear

ance

of

this

kin

d of

fenc

e.

• Th

is f

ence

has

the

adv

anta

ge o

f be

ing

very

che

ap,

mad

e of

fam

iliar

and

rea

dily

av

aila

ble

mat

eria

ls, a

nd is

eas

y to

con

stru

ct to

var

ious

sup

port

fram

es.

•

In th

e sp

ecifi

ed d

imen

sion

s it

prov

ides

a m

oder

ate

leve

l of c

hild

resi

stan

ce fo

r tod

dler

s.

• A

box

type

sta

y is

pre

ferr

ed to

a d

iago

nal s

tay

to p

reve

nt c

hild

ren

clim

bing

them

•

The

expe

rt pa

nel

felt

that

inc

orpo

ratin

g ba

rb o

r el

ectri

c w

ire,

intro

duce

s th

e ris

k of

in

jury

and

har

m to

chi

ldre

n, a

nd th

at a

ltern

ativ

e fe

nce

desi

gns

are

pref

erab

le.

If a

barb

or

ele

ctric

wire

is e

ssen

tial f

or li

vest

ock

purp

oses

take

chi

ld s

afet

y ne

eds

into

acc

ount

, an

d m

ake

sure

that

they

are

wel

l out

of r

each

of y

oung

chi

ldre

n an

d th

at a

chi

ld c

ould

no

t be

trapp

ed b

y th

e w

ires.

Chi

ld

Res

ista

nce

Indi

cato

r

$4-$

15/m

etre

App

endi

x 1

– D

esig

n #2

Fab

ricat

ed W

ire

11

Cos

t In

dica

tor

• P

refa

bric

ated

fenc

es s

uch

as “r

ingl

ock”

“sto

cklo

ck” o

r “h

inge

djoi

nt” a

re c

omm

only

use

d on

a p

addo

ck s

ide

of th

e fa

rm y

ard.

The

bot

tom

wire

is p

inne

d to

the

grou

nd to

pr

even

t chi

ldre

n fro

m g

oing

und

er.

• O

nly

conf

igur

atio

ns w

ith m

ax 1

5cm

ver

tical

pic

ket s

paci

ngs

are

likel

y to

pre

vent

a c

hild

clim

bing

thro

ugh.

•

The

pict

ured

exa

mpl

e sh

ows

ringl

ock

for m

ost o

f the

fenc

e,

topp

ed w

ith b

arbe

d w

ire, a

nd a

n el

ectri

c w

ire ru

nnin

g 75

0mm

ab

ove

grou

nd, d

ispl

aced

250

mm

from

the

fenc

e on

the

padd

ock

side

.

Com

men

ts o

n D

esig

n ag

ains

t Key

Crit

eria

1 E

ffect

iven

ess

as a

chi

ld

resi

stan

t bar

rier

• Th

is fe

nce

is n

ot e

ffect

ive

as a

chi

ld re

sist

ant b

arrie

r, as

it is

eas

ily

clim

babl

e. C

hild

ren

may

als

o st

retc

h th

e w

ire s

ectio

n (d

epen

ding

on

size

) to

go u

nder

. •

The

use

of b

arb

or e

lect

ric w

ire in

crea

ses

the

effe

ctiv

enes

s as

a c

hild

re

sist

ant b

arrie

r.

2 P

oten

tial t

o in

jure

a c

hild

at

tem

ptin

g to

sc

ale

the

fenc

e

• Th

e us

e of

bar

b or

ele

ctric

wire

incr

ease

s th

e ris

k of

inju

ry to

a c

hild

sh

ould

they

atte

mpt

to c

limb

the

fenc

e.

•

Dep

endi

ng o

n th

e ap

ertu

re s

ize,

ther

e is

a ri

sk o

f hea

d en

trapm

ent i

f th

e ch

ild a

ttem

pts

to c

raw

l thr

ough

the

fenc

e.

• A

ll w

ires

shou

ld b

e tie

d of

f nea

tly to

avo

id s

harp

end

s w

hich

may

ca

use

inju

ry.

3 R

obus

tnes

s,

corro

sion

and

w

ear r

esis

tanc

e •

This

is a

robu

st a

nd lo

ng la

stin

g fe

nce.

4 M

ater

ial c

ost

and

avai

labi

lity.

• R

ingl

ock,

Sto

cklo

ck, o

r Hin

gedj

oint

is re

adily

ava

ilabl

e at

rura

l fen

cing

su

pplie

rs.

If pu

rcha

sing

mat

eria

ls, e

nsur

e th

at y

ou o

rder

the

1150

mm

w

idth

roll,

and

not

the

mor

e co

mm

on 9

00m

m w

idth

roll.

5 E

ase

of

inst

alla

tion,

m

aint

enan

ce

requ

irem

ents

.

• In

stal

latio

n is

stra

ight

forw

ard.

Reg

ular

mon

itorin

g of

the

fenc

e,

parti

cula

rly w

here

sto

ck a

nd fa

rm d

ogs

etc.

hav

e ac

cess

, is

nece

ssar

y to

ens

ure

its in

tegr

ity.

6 A

esth

etic

s an

d po

tent

ial t

o cu

stom

ise.

• A

woo

den

post

and

top

rail

is o

ften

used

to im

prov

e th

e ap

pear

ance

of

this

kin

d of

fenc

e.

• Th

is f

ence

is c

heap

, m

ade

of f

amili

ar a

nd r

eadi

ly a

vaila

ble

mat

eria

ls, a

nd is

eas

y to

co

nstru

ct to

var

ious

sup

port

fram

es.

•

Pre

fabr

icat

ed t

ype

fenc

ing

prov

ides

a p

oor

leve

l of

chi

ld r

esis

tanc

e, c

ompa

red

with

ot

her d

esig

ns a

s ch

ildre

n ca

n re

adily

clim

b ov

er o

r und

er th

e w

ires.

•

The

expe

rt pa

nel

felt

that

inc

orpo

ratin

g ba

rb o

r el

ectri

c w

ire,

intro

duce

s th

e ris

k of

in

jury

and

har

m to

chi

ldre

n, a

nd th

at a

ltern

ativ

e fe

nce

desi

gns

are

pref

erab

le.

• Th

e le

vel o

f chi

ld re

sist

ance

may

be

impr

oved

by

the

addi

tion

of a

laye

r of n

ettin

g (s

ee

desi

gn 3

).

Chi

ld

Res

ista

nce

Indi

cato

r

$4-$

15/m

etre

App

endi

x 1

– D

esig

n #3

12.

5mm

Mes

h

12

Cos

t In

dica

tor

• Th

e us

e of

a 1

200x

12.5

x1.3

wel

ded

mes

h ov

er a

new

or

exis

ting

fenc

e. A

spec

ts o

f thi

s fe

nce

desi

gn:

(1)

The

mes

h m

ust b

e pr

otec

ted

by a

top

rail,

suc

h tim

ber

or

ste

el.

(2)

A m

iddl

e an

d bo

ttom

hor

izon

tal (

selv

edge

) wire

on

the

ou

tsid

e su

ppor

ts th

e m

esh.

(3

) Th

e m

esh

is e

ffect

ivel

y “

tens

ione

d” b

y cl

ippi

ng it

to

th

e fe

ncin

g w

ires,

that

are

offs

et b

y be

ing

thre

aded

thro

ugh

woo

den

fenc

e po

sts.

Com

men

ts o

n D

esig

n ag

ains

t Key

Crit

eria

1 E

ffect

iven

ess

as a

chi

ld

resi

stan

t ba

rrier

• Th

is fe

nce

mak

es a

ver

y go

od b

arrie

r, an

d m

ay m

eet t

he p

ool s

tand

ards

. (A

S19

26:1

993

requ

ires

phys

ical

test

ing,

whi

ch is

yet

to b

e co

nduc

ted

for

this

des

ign)

.

2

Pot

entia

l to

inju

re a

chi

ld

atte

mpt

ing

to

scal

e th

e fe

nce

• Th

e ris

k of

inju

ry is

low

. •

A p

re-g

alva

nise

d m

esh

is p

refe

rred

to a

pos

t-gal

vani

sed

mes

h m

ay h

ave

shar

p ex

cess

pie

ces

of z

inc.

3 R

obus

tnes

s,

corro

sion

and

w

ear

resi

stan

ce

• Th

is is

a ro

bust

and

long

last

ing

fenc

e. T

he m

esh

is th

e w

eake

st a

spec

t, an

d m

onito

ring

will

be re

quire

d to

ens

ure

its in

tegr

ity.

4 M

ater

ial c

ost

and

avai

labi

lity.

• Th

is m

esh,

ofte

n re

ferre

d to

as

“bird

wire

”, is

read

ily a

vaila

ble

at ru

ral

fenc

ing

supp

liers

. If

purc

hasi

ng m

ater

ials

, ens

ure

that

you

ord

er th

e 12

00 m

m w

idth

roll,

and

not

the

mor

e co

mm

on 9

00m

m w

idth

roll.

Als

o en

sure

a w

ire th

ickn

ess

of 1

.3m

m o

r gre

ater

.

5 E

ase

of

inst

alla

tion,

m

aint

enan

ce

requ

irem

ents

.

• In

stal

latio

n is

stra

ight

forw

ard.

Reg

ular

mon

itorin

g of

the

fenc

e,

parti

cula

rly w

here

sto

ck a

nd fa

rm d

ogs

etc.

hav

e ac

cess

, is

nece

ssar

y to

en

sure

its

inte

grity

.

6 A

esth

etic

s,

and

pote

ntia

l to

cus

tom

ise.

• A

woo

den

top

rail

is o

ften

used

to im

prov

e th

e ap

pear

ance

of t

his

kind

of

fenc

e. T

he m

esh

can

be p

aint

ed d

ark

gree

n or

bla

ck (e

asie

st d

one

whi

le

still

in th

e ro

ll) to

redu

ce it

s vi

sual

impa

ct.

• Th

is fe

nce

has

the

adva

ntag

e of

bei

ng re

lativ

ely

chea

p, lo

oks

good

, and

can

be

mad

e us

ing

read

ily a

vaila

ble

mat

eria

ls a

nd fa

mili

ar m

etho

ds.

•

The

mes

h ca

n be

fitte

d to

an

exis

ting

fenc

e w

ith a

top

rail

(at a

rel

ativ

ely

low

cos

t to

impr

ove

the

child

resi

stan

t qua

lity.

•

This

fenc

e pr

ovid

es a

rela

tivel

y hi

gh le

vel o

f chi

ld re

sist

ance

. Th

is d

esig

n w

as c

ontri

bute

d by

fenc

ing

cont

ract

or D

alla

s R

umbe

l - F

ence

Cra

ft an

d Fa

rm S

ervi

ces.

Con

tact

det

ails

are

on

the

first

pag

e of

this

atta

chm

ent.

$16-

30/m

etre

Chi

ld

Res

ista

nce

Indi

cato

r

App

endi

x 1

– D

esig

n #4

Sol

id F

enci

ng

13

Cos

t In

dica

tor

• C

orru

gate

d iro

n, o

r col

orbo

nd s

teel

pan

els

(sho

wn)

or o

ther

so

lid m

ater

ials

(eg.

, use

d co

nvey

or b

eltin

g) p

rovi

de a

n at

tract

ive

child

resi

stan

t fen

ce.

Any

nec

essa

ry s

uppo

rting

ho

rizon

tal s

truct

ure

shou

ld b

e on

the

outs

ide

of th

e fe

nce.

• In

hig

h w

inds

gat

es m

ade

of s

olid

mat

eria

l may

sw

ing

open

un

der s

usta

ined

pre

ssur

e

Com

men

ts o

n D

esig

n ag

ains

t Key

Crit

eria

1 E

ffect

iven

ess

as a

chi

ld

resi

stan

t ba

rrier

• Th

is fe

nce

mak

es a

ver

y go

od b

arrie

r, an

d m

eets

the

pool

sta

ndar

ds a

t a

min

imum

hei

ght o

f 1.2

m.

•

In h

igh

win

d ga

tes

mad

e of

sol

id m

ater

ial m

ay s

win

g op

en if

latc

hes

are

not s

uita

bly

robu

st

2

Pot

entia

l to

inju

re a

chi

ld

atte

mpt

ing

to

scal

e th

e fe

nce

• Th

e ris

k of

inju

ry is

low

if to

p an

d bo

ttom

rails

are

use

d to

pro

tect

the

shar

p ed

ges

as s

how

n.

3 R

obus

tnes

s,

corro

sion

and

w

ear

resi

stan

ce

• Th

is is

a ro

bust

and

long

last

ing

fenc

e.

4 M

ater

ial c

ost

and

avai

labi

lity.

• C

olor

bond

com

es a

t a h

ighe

r cos

t tha

n co

rruga

ted

iron.

Bot

h m

ater

ials

ar

e re

adily

ava

ilabl

e.

5 E

ase

of

inst

alla

tion,

m

aint

enan

ce

requ

irem

ents

.

• In

stal

latio

n is

stra

ight

forw

ard.

6 A

esth

etic

s,

and

pote

ntia

l to

cus

tom

ise.

• C

anno

t see

thro

ugh

the

fenc

e - w

heth

er th

is is

see

n as

an

adva

ntag

e or

di

sadv

anta

ge w

ill de

pend

on

wha

t is

on th

e ot

her s

ide.

•

The

fenc

e m

ay b

e us

ed to

blo

ck n

oise

, win

d an

d du

st

• C

olor

bond

com

es in

a ra

nge

of c

olou

rs a

nd s

tyle

s.

• Th

is fe

nce

is o

f mod

erat

e co

st, a

nd p

rovi

des

a hi

gh le

vel o

f chi

ld re

sist

ance

. P

art o

f th

e fe

nce

coul

d be

con

stru

cted

usi

ng th

ese

mat

eria

ls, p

artic

ular

ly to

scr

een

noi

se,

dust

, win

d, a

nd to

pro

vide

priv

acy.

$1

6-30

/met

re

Chi

ld

Res

ista

nce

Indi

cato

r

App

endi

x 1

– D

esig

n #5

Cha

in W

ire

14

• Th

e “c

hain

wire

” fen

ce is

pop

ular

, and

use

d in

var

ious

co

nfig

urat

ions

. It

ofte

n ac

com

pani

es a

roun

d ho

llow

sec

tion

stee

l fra

me,

or a

pos

t and

rail

arra

ngem

ent,

as s

how

n.

• Th

is m

ater

ial h

as b

een

used

at h

eigh

ts o

f 1.2

m a

nd 1

.8m

.

Com

men

ts o

n D

esig

n ag

ains

t Key

Crit

eria

1 E

ffect

iven

ess

as a

chi

ld

resi

stan

t bar

rier

• Th

is fe

nce

does

not

mee

t the

poo

l sta

ndar

ds, a

nd is

eas

ily c

limba

ble,

du

e to

the

larg

e ap

ertu

re s

izes

, and

the

stur

dy c

onst

ruct

ion.

•

At 1

.8m

, the

fenc

e pr

ovid

es a

hig

her d

egre

e of

chi

ld re

sist

ance

.

2 P

oten

tial t

o in

jure

a c

hild

at

tem

ptin

g to

sca

le th

e fe

nce

• A

t 1.8

m, t

here

is a

n in

crea

sed

risk

of c

hild

inju

ry if

they

fall

in a

n at

tem

pt

to c

limb

over

the

fenc

e.

3 R

obus

tnes

s, c

orro

sion

an

d w

ear r

esis

tanc

e •

Cha

in w

ire is

stu

rdie

r tha

n ch

icke

n w

ire, a

nd is

dur

able

and

with

a lo

ng

life.

4 M

ater

ial c

ost a

nd

avai

labi

lity.

• C

hain

wire

is o

f low

cos

t, an

d is

read

ily a

vaila

ble.

How

ever

, the

mos

t co

mm

on s

uppo

rting

stru

ctur

e is

roun

d ho

llow

sec

tion

galv

anis

ed p

ipe,

w

hich

is a

ppro

xim

atel

y $2

0 pe

r met

re fo

r mat

eria

ls o

nly.

•

This

cos

t is

natu

rally

hig

her f

or a

1.8

m fe

nce.

5 E

ase

of in

stal

latio

n,

mai

nten

ance

re

quire

men

ts.

• In

stal

latio

n is

stra

ight

forw

ard,

with

low

mai

nten

ance

requ

irem

ents

.

6 A

esth

etic

s, a

nd p

oten

tial

to c

usto

mis

e.

• A

woo

den

post

and

top

rail

is o

ften

used

to im

prov

e th

e ap

pear

ance

of

this

kin

d of

fenc

e.

• Th

is fe

nce

is e

asily

clim

babl

e. T

here

are

oth

er o

ptio

ns a

vaila

ble

that

are

equ

ally

attr

activ

e an

d du

rabl

e, b

ut p

rovi

de a

bet

ter b

arrie

r for

chi

ldre

n.

Cos

t In

dica

tor

$1

6-30

/met

re

Chi

ld

Res

ista

nce

Indi

cato

r

App

endi

x 1

– D

esig

n #6

5m

m W

ire P

anel

15

• Th

is fe

nce

is m

anuf

actu

red

in p

anel

s 3m

wid

e, b

y 1.

2m h

igh.

Th

e w

ire th

ickn

ess

is 5

mm

, and

is e

rect

ed b

y te

ch s

crew

ing

the

pane

ls to

RH

S p

osts

. •

The

dist

ance

bet

wee

n th

e fu

rthes

t apa

rt ho

rizon

tal s

uppo

rts

is 8

00m

m, w

hich

mak

es it

diff

icul

t for

a y

oung

chi

ld to

sca

le

this

fenc

e.

Com

men

ts o

n D

esig

n ag

ains

t Key

Crit

eria

1 E

ffect

iven

ess

as a

chi

ld

resi

stan

t ba

rrier

• Th

is d

esig

n ha

s be

en d

evel

oped

to ta

rget

the

rura

l far

mya

rd m

arke

t, an

d co

mes

clo

se to

, but

doe

s no

t qui

te m

eet t

he p

ool s

tand

ard.

2

Pot

entia

l to

inju

re a

chi

ld

atte

mpt

ing

to

scal

e th

e fe

nce

• Th

ere

may

be

a ris

k of

hea

d or

lim

b en

trapm

ent i

n th

e ve

rtica

l sec

tions

du

e to

the

flexi

bilit

y of

the

5mm

wire

.

3 R

obus

tnes

s,

corro

sion

and

w

ear

resi

stan

ce

• Th

is p

rodu

ct is

gal

vani

sed,

and

is th

eref

ore

long

last

ing.

4 M

ater

ial c

ost

and

avai

labi

lity.

• Th

e co

st is

app

roxi

mat

ely

half

of s

imila

rly d

esig

ned

pool

com

plia

nt

fenc

es.

5 E

ase

of

inst

alla

tion,

m

aint

enan

ce

requ

irem

ents

.

• In

stal

latio

n is

stra

ight

forw

ard,

with

low

mai

nten

ance

requ

irem

ents

.

6 A

esth

etic

s an

d po

tent

ial

to c

usto

mis

e.

• It

is p

ossi

ble

at a

dditi

onal

cos

t to

pain

t or p

owde

r coa

t thi

s pr

oduc

t to

impr

ove

the

appe

aran

ce.

Th

is d

esig

n of

fers

goo

d po

tent

ial t

o pr

ovid

e a

rela

tivel

y hi

gh c

hild

res

ista

nt fe

nce

– pa

rticu

larly

for y

oung

er c

hild

ren

- at m

oder

ate

cost

, for

rura

l set

tings

. •

Furth

er fi

eld

test

ing

is n

eces

sary

to fu

rther

ass

ess

desi

gn in

tegr

ity, s

afet

y an

d du

rabi

lity.

This

gat

e de

sign

was

con

tribu

ted

by fe

ncin

g m

anuf

actu

rer a

nd c

ontra

ctor

Ton

y La

vette

of P

rofe

nce.

Con

tact

det

ails

are

on

the

first

pag

e of

this

atta

chm

ent.

$16-

30/m

etre

Cos

t In

dica

tor

Chi

ld

Res

ista

nce

Indi

cato

r

App

endi

x 1

– D

esig

n #7

5m

m W

ire M

esh

16

• Th

is fe

nce

is m

anuf

actu

red

in p

anel

s 3m

wid

e, b

y 1.

2m h

igh.

Th

e w

ire th

ickn

ess

is 5

mm

, and

is e

rect

ed b

y te

ch s

crew

ing

the

pane

ls to

RH

S p

osts

. •

This

can

be

seen

as

an e

xam

ple

of a

ny m

esh

fenc

e, w

here

th

e ho

rizon

tal w

ire s

uppo

rts a

re c

lose

eno

ugh

toge

ther

to

prov

ide

a st

urdy

clim

bing

sup

port.

Com

men

ts o

n D

esig

n ag

ains

t Key

Crit

eria

1 E

ffect

iven

ess

as a

chi

ld

resi

stan

t ba

rrier

• Th

is fe

nce

is n

ot e

ffect

ive

as a

chi

ld re

sist

ant b

arrie

r, an

d is

eas

ily

clim

babl

e.

2

Pot

entia

l to

inju

re a

chi

ld

atte

mpt

ing

to

scal

e th

e fe

nce

• Th

e ris

k of

inju

ry is

low

.

3 R

obus

tnes

s,

corro

sion

and

w

ear

resi

stan

ce

• Th

is p

rodu

ct is

gal

vani

sed,

and

is th

eref

ore

long

last

ing.

4 M

ater

ial c

ost

and

avai

labi

lity.

• Th

e co

st is

less

than

sim

ilarly

des

igne

d po

ol c

ompl

iant

fenc

es.

•

Cur

rent

ly th

is p

rodu

ct is

wid

ely

dist

ribut

ed.

5 E

ase

of

inst

alla

tion,

m

aint

enan

ce

requ

irem

ents

.

• In

stal

latio

n is

stra

ight

forw

ard,

with

low

mai

nten

ance

requ

irem

ents

.

6 A

esth

etic

s,

and

pote

ntia

l to

cus

tom

ise.

• It

is p

ossi

ble

at a

dditi

onal

cos

t to

pain

t or p

owde

r coa

t thi

s pr

oduc

t to

impr

ove

the

appe

aran

ce.

• Th

is d

esig

n is

not

effe

ctiv

e as

a c

hild

resi

stan

t bar

rier,

and

is e

asily

clim

bed.

C

hild

R

esis

tanc

e In

dica

tor

$31

-45/

met

re

Cos

t In

dica

tor

App

endi

x 1

– D

esig

n #8

Poo

l Com

plia

nt F

enci

ng

17

Chi

ld

Res

ista

nce

Indi

cato

r

Th

e m

ost c

ost e

ffect

ive

pool

com

plia

nt fe

ncin

g of

this

type

co

nsis

ts o

f ver

tical

mem

bers

that

are

eith

er 8

mm

wire

, or

roun

d / r

ecta

ngle

hol

low

sec

tion

stee

l.

The

dist

ance

bet

wee

n ve

rtica

l mem

bers

is u

sual

ly 8

0 -

90m

m.

Th

e di

stan

ce b

etw

een

the

furth

est a

part

horiz

onta

l su

ppor

ts is

a m

inim

um o

f 900

mm

, whi

ch m

akes

it d

iffic

ult

for a

chi

ld to

sca

le th

is fe

nce.

C

omm

ents

Aga

inst

Key

Crit

eria

1 E

ffect

iven

ess

as a

chi

ld

resi

stan

t ba

rrier

• Th

ese

fenc

e de

sign

s ar

e po

ol fe

nce

com

plia

nt, a

nd a

re

ther

efor

e co

nsid

ered

to b

e hi

ghly

chi

ld re

sist

ant.

2

Pot

entia

l to

inju

re a

chi

ld

atte

mpt

ing

to

scal

e th

e fe

nce

• R

isk

of in

jury

is lo

w.

3

Rob

ustn

ess,

co

rrosi

on a

nd

wea

r re

sist

ance

• Th

is p

rodu

ct is

hot

dip

gal

vani

sed,

and

is th

eref

ore

long

la

stin

g.

4 M

ater

ial c

ost

and

avai

labi

lity.

• C

ost i

s ov

er $

60 p

er m

etre

for m

ater

ials

onl

y.

• Th

ese

are

stan

dard

poo

l fen

cing

des

igns

, whi

ch a

re w

idel

y av

aila

ble.

5 E

ase

of

inst

alla

tion,

m

aint

enan

ce

requ

irem

ents

.

• In

stal

latio

n is

stra

ight

forw

ard,

with

low

mai

nten

ance

re

quire

men

ts.

6 A

esth

etic

s,

and

pote

ntia

l to

cus

tom

ise.

• Th

is p

rodu

ct is

typi

cally

pow

der c

oate

d, w

ith a

rang

e of

col

ours

an

d de

cora

tive

uppe

r sty

les

avai

labl

e.

• Th

ese

desi

gns

offe

r a h

ighl

y ch

ild re

sist

ant f

ence

. •

If th

is ty

pe o

f fen

cing

is c

onsi

dere

d to

o ex

pens

ive

for

a la

rge

area

, a s

mal

ler

play

are

a co

uld

be c

onsi

dere

d

$46+

met

re

Cos

t In

dica

tor

18

References 1. Doyle Y, Conroy R. Childhood farm accidents: A continuing cause for concern. Journal of the

Society of Occupational Medicine 1989; 39(1): 35-37. 2. Farmsafe Australia. Child safety on farms: A framework for a national strategy. Moree:

Farmsafe Australia, 1999. 3. Fragar L, Gibson C, Henderson A, Franklin R. Farmsafe Farms for Kids: Evidence Based

Solutions for Child Safety on Australian Farms. Moree: Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety, 2003

4. Giles P. Towards a National Water Safety Strategy. A research project commissioned by the

Minister for the Environment, Sport and Territories and undertaken on his behalf by the Royal Life Saving Society Australia and Surf Life Saving Society Australia, 1995.

5. Hartigan CL, Clarke LJ. Farm injury in adolescents and young adults: Focus group report.

Moree: Australian Agricultural Health Unit, 1994. 6. National Committee for Childhood Agricultural Injury Prevention. Child and agriculture:

Opportunities for safety and health. Marshfield: Marshfield Clinic, 1996. 7. National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. Work-related traumatic fatalities in

Australia, 1989 to 1992 - agriculture fatalities. Sydney: National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, 1998.

8. Neeman T, Wylie J, Attewell R, Glase K, Wallace A. Driveway deaths: Fatalities of young

children in Australia as a result of low-speed motor vehicle impacts. Canberra. Australian Transport Safety Bureau. 2002

9. Ozanne-Smith J. Child injury by developmental stage. Australian Journal of Early Childhood

1992; 17(3): 39-48. 10. Rivara F. Fatal and non-fatal farm injuries to children and adolescents in the United States, 1990-93. Injury Prevention 1997; 3(3): 190-194. 11. Roberts I, Norton R, Jackson R. Driveway related child pedestrian injuries: a case-control study. Paediatrics 1995 3: 405-408