Search this website
| Options Options
Search Type
Document Actions

3. Appellant’s Case

Up one level

3.1 The Appellant presented written submissions to the Board supported by other exhibits and spoke to his submissions.

He was critical of the Assessor’s questions, which he said were not “open” and contained inherent assumptions. He challenged a number of matters in the assessment in relation to their appropriateness, accuracy and rigour.

The Appellant provided an update of his standard specification and spoke to a number of exhibits contained in the documentation of his appeal.

3.2 The Board members sought clarification of a number of matters contained in the appeal documentation and the written and oral submissions including:

(a) Appropriate risk management for underground utility services shown on construction drawings;

(b) The statutory requirements applicable to Code Compliance Certificates under the Building Act 2004;

(c) Definition of different categories of buildings and application of the licensing regime to those;

(d) Use of specialist secondary designers such as structural or geotechnical engineers;

(e) Allocation of building risks, potential liability and management of that;

(f) Aspects of the NZ Building Code, NZS 3604, Acceptable Solutions and Alternative Solutions and other design and building standard documents;

(g) Contract documents and contract administration, including Construction Contracts Act 2002;

(h) References and details in his design drawings.

3.3 In response to a question from the Chair, the Appellant confirmed that the decision he sought from the Board was the issue of a Design 2 License.4



4 On 3 March 2009, the Appellant advised the Board Secretary that he had not intended that this response mean that he would not consider the offer of a Design 1 License if it was offered.

Last updated 11 May 2015