Search this website
| Options Options
Search Type
Document Actions

3. Appellant's Case

Up one level

3.1 In the documents which he presented for consideration of the Board, the Appellant submitted two sets of drawings:

He also submitted an unsigned “Short Form Agreement for Consultant Engagement” apparently for the first of these projects.

3.2 In his oral submissions to the Board, the Appellant stated that these new plans were submitted in an attempt to address the deficiencies, particularly in relation to requirements of E2/AS1 for weathertightness, which had been referred to in the Assessor’s report.

3.3 He submitted that the original designs4 he submitted had been approved by [location redacted] District Council for building consent purposes before the Council had obtained accreditation as a building consent authority and implemented more rigorous processes. The Appellant highlighted a number of features of the drawings.

3.4 In response to questions from the Board, the Appellant stated as follows:

(a) His understanding of the differences between Categories 1, 2 and 3 buildings;
(b) He explained detailing (and lack of) in his drawings and specification matters;
(c) His design “process”;
(d) Matters of drafting conventions in relation to the presentation of design features on his drawings.

The Appellant asked the Board to “narrow its consideration to the points lacking in the original documents”.


4 The plans submitted with the original application for the License were not submitted to the Board for review.

Last updated 11 May 2015