Search this website
| Options Options
Search Type
Document Actions

7. Board’s Findings

Up one level

 After due consideration of the Appellant’s submissions, evidence and the Registrar’s report, the Board found as follows:

7.1 That it concurred with the Assessor’s view that the Appellant demonstrated that he met sufficient of the performance indicators of Competencies 1 and 2 to demonstrate that –

(i) he could comprehend and apply knowledge of the regulatory environment of the building construction industry, and
(ii) he could manage the building design process.

7.2 That in respect of the performance indicators for Competence 3 (Establish design briefs and scope of work and prepare the preliminary design), that the Appellant could demonstrate that he could meet some of these, albeit that he did not have documented policies and operating procedures. In some cases he did not meet the indicator because his primary role was builder and not that of a designer. The Board considered that the Appellant could marginally meet the Competency 3 requirements.

7.3 In respect of the performance indicators for Competency 4 (Develop, design and produce construction drawings and documentation) the Board concluded that:

(a) The Appellant had not demonstrated that he could apply design standards and produce construction drawings and documentation;

(b) The documentation produced by the Appellant exhibited a basic understanding of the principles of building technology and performance but this was less than was expected by the competency requirements for the Design 1 License.

(c) He had demonstrated that he could coordinate and integrate the specialist design inputs of others, such as Engineers, when required.

(d) Because he carried out design works only for his own construction and did not produce contracts, he could not demonstrate that he met performance indicators 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7.

The Board, therefore, concluded that the Appellant had not demonstrated that he could meet sufficient of the performance indicators of Competency 4 for it to agree that he met the minimum requirement of Competency 4.

7.4 The Board noted that in order to meet the requirements of the Design 1 License Class, that 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 Competency 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.

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

7.7 The Board noted the Appellant’s submissions that he only undertakes design work of a limited scope which he constructs himself, and the geographic scope of his operations.

The Board does not, however, have any legal authority to grant the Appellant or any other applicant, a License based on a defined or limited scope of work and/or area of operations. Hence, while it understands the Appellant’s situation, if a License was issued to the Appellant its scope would be for the full extent of restricted work (yet to be defined) requiring such a License.

Last updated 11 May 2015