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

7. Board’s Findings

Up one level

 7.1 After due consideration of the evidence and submissions the Board found that:

(a) The Appellant had not demonstrated a sufficient knowledge of the regulatory environment of the building construction industry and relied heavily on the local authority’s building consents and compliance units;

(b) That he had not demonstrated to the Board’s satisfaction an ability to comprehend and apply the Building Code and Building Code compliance documents such as E2/AS1;

(c) That he had minimal understanding and experience of construction contracts;

(d) His understanding of the licensing scheme was limited;

(e) His understanding of roles and responsibilities of key parties in the design and building process had not been demonstrated to the Board’s satisfaction;

(f) His understanding of the need for specialist expertise was largely limited to the scope of NZS 3604.

The Appellant had not demonstrated to the Board’s satisfaction that he met sufficient of the performance indicators to meet the requirements of Competency 1.

7.2 The Board was satisfied that the Appellant met the requirements of Competencies 2 and 3.

7.3 In respect of the performance indicators for Competency 4, the Board decided that:

(a) Because the Appellant did not appear to be aware of the necessary design standards, he had not demonstrated he could consistently apply them;

(b) Because he relied heavily on local authorities for advice, he had not demonstrated to the Board’s satisfaction that he could consistently apply knowledge of principles of building technology;

(c) He had insufficient experience of how to coordinate and integrate specialist design inputs;

(d) His preparation of non-graphical documents for buildings, such as specifications, was minimal.

The Appellant had not demonstrated to the Board’s satisfaction that he met sufficient of the performance indicators to meet the requirements of Competency 4.

7.4 Rule 4(1) states:

“The minimum standard of competence for a class of license is meeting all of the competencies set out for that class of license in Schedule 1”.

7.5 The Board has considered the Appellant’s original application, the additional information provided at the hearing and his submissions. The Board has not been satisfied that the Appellant has demonstrated that he can meet sufficient of the performance indicators to meet the requirements of Competencies 1 and 4 for the Design 1 License Class.

7.6 The Board does not consider that the fact that a local authority accepts the designer’s documents as adequate for the purposes of issuing a building consent is a sufficient demonstration of the competencies required for a Design 1 License.

7.7 While the Board accepts that some of the indicators for Competency 4 may have been met, an applicant for a Design 1 License must demonstrate compliance with all competencies required by consistently meeting a sufficient number of the performance indicators.

Last updated 11 May 2015