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

3. Appellant’s Case

Up one level

3.1 In his written appeal, the Appellant stated that in undertaking design work he confines himself to small scale renovations and additions to dwellings which he will construct himself as builder. He also stated that he does not undertake design work beyond his level of competence. His design work and drawings have been accepted by the local authorities, in whose territorial districts he works, as sufficient for the issue of a building consent.

3.2 The Appellant stated in his submission that the design work which he undertakes arises from his clients seeking to engage his services as a builder for small additions and alterations, mainly to dwellings, and he is able to prepare concept plans for discussion, working drawings and obtain the consent for the work he will undertake. He indicated that he does not charge for this service which is incidental to this building work.

3.3 The Appellant submitted that the service he provides is important in the small community within which he works and that without it his clients would incur the additional expense of engaging an architect or architectural designer. He was concerned that, if this was to occur, he might suffer a reduction in his building work, because he would be “out of the loop”. He also doubted that there would be much interest in the small scale of work his clients required.

3.4 The Appellant submitted that the Board should approve the issue of a License of a Design 1 License Class, having regard to the nature of the work which he undertook and the limited geographic area of his operations.

3.5 The Appellant tabled his complete files of documents for 3 projects for examination by the Board.

3.6 In response to questions from the Board, the Appellant advised as follows:

(a) That he understood that the Design 1 License would allow him to design a Category 1 building, but he intended to confine the scope of his work to what he was currently undertaking;

(b) He does not undertake design work for others to build;

(c) He considered that the level of detail required on the drawings for alteration and/or additions, was the same as for a new building.

(d) That as a sole practitioner he has not documented all his procedures and that there was no need for that as he builds his own designs, but that he did have a health and safety policy;

(e) That he subscribes to some technical publications to keep himself up to date and attends information sessions by merchants and local authorities; and

(f) He does not produce full contract documents because he is the builder of what he designs.

(g) He was unaware of the provisions of the Construction Contracts Act.

 

Last updated 11 May 2015