i've seen an infinity pool built on the third floor of a private home in Sydney with the fence built below the line of sight around an extra ledge built all around the pool but i wasn't allowed a different profile steel roof cladding in a Heritage suburb although our neighbour was able to convince the local Council to approve shiny zincaluum ...sometimes it depends on how much you want something and how hard you're prepared to argue to vary the application to suit both you and the regulations...i prefer rules as it provides a framework of basic expectations

That could have been easily secured with a glass fence immediately outside and up against the glass doors, a bit like a Juliet balcony, looks great too, Pool safety has priority over everything else.

Depends upon what exactly the issue is. But no, actually there needs to be higher and tighter regulation, particular in the area of design, as ultimately poor design overall results in low value high cost outcomes for the country and community.........volume housing/urban sprawl - horrible/poor results and wasteful expensive unsustainable solutions that are false economy but short term are appealing to the masses..... there's actually way too much design and planning freedom in this country when we factor in the real long term costs involved.......there are however issues with the regulations and policies over the various layers of planning and building not being consistent more aligned on various levels which ultimately results in confusion/ambiguity and frustration leading to cheap and poor outcomes, so it's not over-regulation that is the issue, it's an alignment, consistency and efficiency issue. I could go on for days highlighting specific downfalls in the systems however the long and the short of it is that regulation are usually established for good reason.....it's usually when people are ignorant to the reasoning that they become questioned. As I said before also, the system also allows for standards & policy to be varied if deemed reasonable in that circumstance.

eg passive solar design built into land subdivison, energy and water conservation, fire safety etc, etc Those with money can find methods to overcome regulations but the average home owner has been lured into over spending on the "wow" factor instead of quality design and construction

Just to be sure I'm not misinterpreted, when I say "too much freedom in design and planning", I mean there is not enough policy to uphold design and solution quality/standards to a certain level. You do however see it occasionally embedded in "design guidelines" say if you're building in certain more exclusive/privately developed estates, however it's additional conditions and not government policy.

When you find a better safer solution please share with us. But from experience, some years ago a friend built a stunning house with a pool and after council inspection removed the fence because they didn't like the look of it breaking up the seamless appearance between it and the house. They had a 3yr old and a new baby, during a disagreement each thinking the other was looking after the 3yr old, they found her in that pool.

We have to have the same set of regulations for everyone as it is there a are a lot out there that consider these only apply to OP

what a terrible waste for the sake of a fence

I haven't seen the show but I'm sure with some perhaps minor re-working any of these houses could be constructed in Australia.

Too many Australians have the 'big is better' vision and also see their home as a cash cow. Certainly Sydney is an example of that. So many wonderful older dwellings here have been 'modernised' (bastardised) for a quick buck. Launceston has some wonderful dwelling's majority untouched as the quick cashout isn't there.

Its too much about resale value, maybe pushed by realestate agents and bank valuations? A smaller well designed and constructed dwelling can be valued significantly less than a large 4 bedroom dwelling from a volume builder of dubious quality.

This is one significant reason why these dwellings wouldn't be constructed here, cost quite a bit for a small footprint and many couldn't see the value in good design and styling.

Actually I think Australian Design and Architects are superior to many others, they design and build to our climate and way of life.

As mentioned previously, the balustrade and safety barrier regulations exist for good reason, ultimately to prevent accidental loss of life. No equal counter argument, period. Are they overly restrictive? Not necessarily. Are they tighter than other countries? Definitely. Can we vary them? Sometimes, if you can prove compliance to the deemed to satisfy provisions. Can we achieve the same aesthetically clean "no barrier" designs in Australia as simply and to the same degree as in other countries? No. But these more restrictive conditions don't necessarily equate to more restrictive architecture. Arguably we have to work harder and be more creative within constraints to get what I'd describe as quality and clever architectural solutions, but you know what? Too bad. And this is what separates "the men from the boys" so to speak (no gender inequality meant at all) I thrive on the creative opportunity within the constraint and it challenges our professional to go deeper creatively using the breadth of of skills to achieve results in arguably more challenging conditions. Its an easy cop out just to whinge about safety barriers or whatever the particular restriction is based on predominantly aesthetic/visual/spatial goals. Design solutions will ultimately reflect/respond to the contextual conditions. Yes outside of Australia there is less regulation around matters of safety that can be exploited by design solutions to sometimes achieve visually and spatially breathtaking results, such as in the images shown on this post. Like in all situations it's about balance and priorities and when practicing design and architecture in this country issues around safety are managed more robustly by regulation, which in turn naturally requires design solutions to work within the limits, which in many cases, due to the particular project priority stack and/or capacity of the people involved, results in less "integrated" solutions. At the end of the day, quality architecture is important and there's not enough of it here IMO, but that aside, safety barriers won't and don't prevent great or interesting architecture, but they do reduce/minimise loss of life, particularly young life, and that there I think for any project regardless should be the absolute highest priority, above and beyond any potential aesthetic or spatial outcome.

Paul we're starting to wonder if you have a job as you always have time for long comments full of info

Ha! Absolutely yes, and I suppose this is a bit of me "giving back", paying it forward or whatever.......part of what I do in conjunction with design is a lot of writing/communicating/articulating in great depth....... that's just how I roll ;)