business.govt.nz"
Search this website
| Options Options
Search Type
Document Actions
 

3. Appellant’s Case

Up one level

 3.1 The Appellant presented written submissions to the Board and spoke to these.

3.2 In respect of the Assessor’s comments that the documentation submitted by The Appellant was “minimal”, the Appellant submitted that:

(a) Building consents had been granted by the [location redacted] District Council, [location redacted] City Council and [location redacted] District Council, based on his design documentation and this constituted proof of the sufficiency of his documentation.

(b) As his designs were based on NZS 3604 : 1999 and this was an implied document together with the NZ Building Code, additional detailed information was unnecessary.

3.3 In respect of the Assessor’s comment that “I have concerns about his ability to consistently provide the competencies required of Design 1 level”, the Appellant again argued that his designs had been accepted by three different territorial authorities for building consent and that the quality of his work would not decrease over time and would improve.

The Appellant tabled additional drawings for the Board’s examination, which differed in quality and style from those previously submitted, in that they were computer generated and not hand drawn, as were the original documents.

3.4 The Appellant referred to the Assessor’s comments that he was “ ‘self-taught’ as a draughtsman with limited experience” and that he had no peer group affiliation. The Appellant submitted that formal training was not a requirement for a Design 1 level license and that involvement with the construction contract was similarly unnecessary. He submitted that he had gained sufficient experience from 2003 to demonstrate his competence. With reference to peer group affiliation, the Appellant submitted he utilised different tradesmen and contractors and sought to be independent of any commercial alliances.

3.5 The Appellant’s written submissions also contained a schedule which indicated that over the last 5 years he had designed 5 building projects and he was owner of two of these.

3.6 In response to questions from the Board, the Appellant responded that:

(a) His latest (computer drafted) plans had not been seen by the Assessor;

(b) That he would seek the advice of an Engineer if a client wanted a design which was outside of the scope of NZS 3604;

(c) He seeks advice on occasions from an Architect in [location redacted];

(d) That he relies on the local authority’s building consents and compliance unit to provide him with technical advice on critical technical matters;

(e) With private clients he seeks to understand the Client’s objectives and requirements, size of the building and rooms and the indicative budget;

(f) Other than the Building Code and NZS 3604, he did not refer to any specific documents relating to weathertightness, other than reproducing manufacturers’/suppliers’ information.

Last updated 11 May 2015