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

3. Appellant’s Case

Up one level

3.1 The Appellant made a written submission to support his appeal which contained the following points:

(a) His concerns with the assessment process as outlined in his various communications with the Department of Building and Housing; and

(b) The extent of documentation which had been submitted with his original application.

It was also noted that the recording of the telephone interview conducted by the Assessor had been lost and that a complete transcript was not available. It was also noted that the Assessor was unavailable and could not attend the appeal hearing as a witness which was requested by the Appellant.

The Appellant brought a support person to the hearing.


3.2 The Appellant submitted extensive documentation to support his written submission consisted of the following:

3.3 In his oral submission to the Board, the Appellant stated, amongst other things that –
• The assessment process places too much weight on the categories of the projects submitted without regard for the complexity of the technical issues considered in design;
• “Design” is not confined to drafting and comprises a much wider range of skills;
• A thorough understanding of the various requirements of the Act underpinned the Competencies for Design 3;
• That his work was of a highly complex nature which required a comprehensive knowledge of building science, technology and performance;
• That his techniques of communicating design of remediation work on buildings involved multi-coloured drawings and sketches;
• That he had a clear understanding of the limits of his competence and knew when to seek specialist advice and where to source that from.

3.4 The Appellant submitted that the Assessor was focussed on the presentation of architectural drawings and did not give sufficient weight to design processes (which may not relate to architecture).

He submitted that the process of assessment should seek to focus on a Building Practitioner’s capability to undertake work of the class and category of building under consideration and not requiring a demonstrable record of having done such work.

That although a submitted project may be category 2, the complexity of the design work may be in excess of what might be expected for Category 3 building.

Last updated 11 May 2015