Search this website
| Options Options
Search Type
Document Actions

4. Registrar’s Report

Up one level

 4.1 A written report was received from Nigel Bickle, the Registrar, which was read by Mr Scully on the Registrar’s behalf. The report covered the following:

4.2 In order to become licensed, the Appellant was required to satisfy the Registrar that he met the applicable minimum standards for licensing (under
s. 286 of the Act).

4.3 The minimum standards are set out in Schedule 1 to the Rules, and take the form of “competencies” which must all be satisfied as follows:

  • Competency 1: Comprehend and apply knowledge of the regulatory environment of the building construction industry.
  • Competency 2: Manage the building design process.
  • Competency 3: Establish design briefs and scope of work and prepare preliminary design.
  • Competency 4: Develop design and produce construction drawings and documentation.

4.4 These competencies may be demonstrated by meeting some or all of the performance indicators that are also set out in Schedule 1 (Design 1 competencies) of the Rules. In carrying out an assessment, the Assessor must use methods prescribed by the Registrar (see Rule 11(1)).

4.5 The competencies address a broad range of skills and knowledge a design practitioner should be able to demonstrate. These address the skills and knowledge necessary for a designer to be able to satisfactorily demonstrate compliance with the New Zealand Building Code. However, the competencies also address other skills that a competent designer is expected to demonstrate, for example managing the design process or establishing a design brief.

4.6 The Registrar must take into consideration the Assessor’s recommendation before making a decision (under Rule 12(2)).

In the Registrar’s view, the Assessor:

(a) is a reputable and experienced practitioner,
(b) has been selected as a person appropriate to be an Assessor and has been trained in assessment,
(c) has met the Appellant and reviewed his design work first hand.

4.7 Reliance on the Assessor does not mean that the Registrar cannot reach a different view about an applicant from the view reached by the Assessor. The Registrar is required to maintain an independent view. However, in the normal course of events the Registrar will accept a recommendation of the Assessor, unless there are strong reasons for not doing so.

4.8 In making the recommendation to decline the application, the following reasons were recorded by the Assessor:

(a) The Assessor’s view was that the Appellant’s documentation was minimal,
(b) The Assessor did not consider that the Appellant would consistently meet the required competencies,
(c) The Assessor was concerned that the Appellant was self-taught, lacked experience, and was without peer group affiliations,
(d) The Assessor considered that Competencies 1 and 4 were only marginally met,
(e) The Assessor noted that the Appellant needed more experience and better evidence before he could become licensed.

The Assessor acknowledged that the Appellant’s design documentation would “probably” result in building consents being granted and projects being able to be built from that documentation.

However, the Assessor’s recommendation to decline the application due to insufficient evidence reflected the requirements in the Rules that a broader set of competences must be satisfied.

4.9 The Registrar had based his decision on the Assessor’s recommendation, as there was insufficient reason to depart from that.

4.10 In response to questions from the Board, Mr Scully stated:

(a) That the issue of a building consent was not sufficient to demonstrate that the required competencies for a Design 1 License had been demonstrated;

(b) That the Assessor’s report did state that Competencies 1-4 had all been met, although 1 and 4 were considered to be “marginally met”;

(c) The decision to decline the application was based on the Assessor’s recommendation.


Last updated 11 May 2015