Search this website
| Options Options
Search Type
Document Actions

2. Background

Up one level

2.1 On 28 April 2008, the Appellant submitted his applications to be licensed in the classes of Design 2 and Site 2. The application for Design 2 class (which is the subject of this appeal) was treated as complete on 23 May 2008 and the application proceeded to assessment (under Rule 11).

2.2 The assessment, which included an interview by the Assessor, was completed on 30 May 2008 and a peer review was conducted on 1 July 2008.

2.3 In his report to the Registrar, the Assessor noted that the Appellant met the requirements of Competencies 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Design 2 License requirements, but there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that he met the requirements of Competency 4 – “Develop, design and produce construction drawings and documentation”. The Assessor recommended that the application be declined.

2.4 The Assessor did not recommend that the Registrar issue the Appellant with a license for the Design 1 class, because he considered “that the drawing and specification deficiencies observed in the applicant’s project records would also be apparent if the applicant was designing category 1 buildings”.

2.5 After taking into account the recommendation of the Assessor and the requirements of s.286 of the Act, the Registrar decided to decline Appellant’s application (under Rule 12), and did not offer the lower class of design license.

2.6 On 28 August 2008, the Registrar formally advised the Appellant of the decision to decline the application for a Design 2 license and his right of appeal to the Board under Rule 13(3).
2.7 On 14 October 20083, the Appellant appealed to the Board against the Registrar’s decision and set out the grounds of appeal.



3 Although this was beyond the 20 working days in which an appeal should be lodged, the Board agreed to consider it.

Last updated 11 May 2015