Search this website
| Options Options
Search Type
Home > The LBP scheme > Getting licensed > Past appeal decisions > Appeals > BPB Appeal No. A1004 > 7. Board’s Consideration and Findings
Document Actions

7. Board’s Consideration and 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 The Board considered that there were matters of significance in this appeal which related to the interpretation of the Competency requirements and Performance Indicators in the Rules used by the Registrar and Assessors.

7.2 The Board considered that it was important to distinguish between the processes of “design” and “drafting”. It noted that Competency 4 for the Design 3 Licence requires that a Practitioner “Develop design and produce construction drawings and documentation”.

The relevant Performance Indicators included:

“ 4.1 Apply design standards and identify and produce design solutions.

4.2 Apply comprehensive knowledge of building science, technology and building performance.

4.3 Coordinate and integrate specialist design inputs as required.

4.4 Prepare developed design drawings and specifications.

. . . .”

An applicant may demonstrate he/she has the relevant competency by meeting some or all of the performance indicators.

7.3 The Board considers that in the interpretation of the term “design” a focus on the drafting of drawings, particularly architectural drawings, would be too narrow. “Design” involves a range of processes comprising the analysis of needs, service requirements and operating conditions, and the synthesis of elements, materials and systems to achieve the desired objectives. The Board also recognized the various stages of design (preliminary, developed, contract documentation) and the different requirements of these especially in terms of detail. In interpreting the competences and performance indicators for the Design 3 Licence the Board found it helpful to consider the approaches of the design professions (architecture and engineering) to the definition of design work.

The “Competency Standards for Professional Engineers” (IPENZ) state:

“Competency 4: Design or develop solution to complex engineering problems in accordance with good practice for professional engineering:

• Identifies needs, requirements, constraints and performance criteria;
• Develops concepts and recommendations that were tested against engineering principles;
• Consults with stakeholders;
• Evaluates options and selects solutions that best matched needs, requirements and criteria;
• Plans and implements effective, efficient and practical systems or solutions;
• Evaluates outcomes.”

The Board considered that similar attributes could be applied to architectural design, with the addition of the consideration of human use, cultural and community values, aesthetics, and urban design.

7.4 The Board considers that for the assessment of the Design 3 Licence that the production of “architectural” drawings is not essential, although it is one indicator of competency. At the Design 3 level it is to be accepted that the “designer” may not necessarily undertake drafting, but may produce sketches or other documents for a draftsperson to work from. He/she will nevertheless review the drawings produced by the draftsperson to ensure they achieve the designer’s objectives and communicate these clearly. Regard must also be had for designers in disciplines other than architecture, such as structural or fire engineering, and for multiple designers to work on specific elements of a building. The expectation that there would be a single designer or draftsperson for a Category 3 building should not be considered as the norm, hence the importance of coordinating and integrating the inputs of several persons. Because the work may be in the nature of changes to an existing building, consideration of a practitioner’s competency must also provide for alterations and remediation on equal terms with the design of new buildings.

7.5 In respect of the Assessor’s concern that the applicant had not submitted evidence of work on Category 3 buildings, the Board considered the performance indicators set out in Competency 1:

“1.2 Comprehend and apply knowledge ….. relevant to Category 1, 2 and 3 buildings.

1.3 Explain the relevance of building-related legislation to the design of Category 1, 2 and 3 buildings.”

The Board considered that in evaluating the competency of an applicant for a Design 2 or 3 Licence, that an established record of work for that category of building was not essential, although it is an important indicator. If an applicant is able to demonstrate his/her capability to work at the appropriate level this should be a consideration in assessing his/her competency. The Board recognized that without a “track record” the assessment of competency was more difficult and that, in such circumstances that there was a burden of proof on the applicant to demonstrate his/her competency to the Assessor.

7.6 Having regard for the Appellant’s submissions, the Registrar’s report, the provisions of the Rules and the matters referred to in paragraphs 7.2 to 7.5 (inclusive), the Board concluded that:

(a) The work produced by the Appellant demonstrated his capability of working at the level expected of a Design 3 Licensed Building Practitioner, although he had not presented a record of specific projects for Category 3 buildings.

(b) The Appellant’s work demonstrated many of the elements of “design” and that he met sufficient of the performance indicators of Competency 4 for the Design 3 Licence.

The Board also noted the comment of the Peer Reviewer who stated “I don’t doubt [the Appellant’s] capability to do Design 3 work, as he is well qualified to do it, it’s just that he didn’t present any Design 3 projects”.

Accordingly, the Board decided, by majority, to uphold the Appellant’s appeal.

Last updated 11 May 2015