Search this website
| Options Options
Search Type
Document Actions

3. The Appellant's Submissions

Up one level

3.1 The Appellant presented a written statement to support his appeal, together with the following additional documentation which was examined by the Board:

1.0 Response package (summarising his case).

2.0 Case study 1; ASDAH, Food Technology & Textile upgrade - plans, specification, tender documents.

3.0 Case study 2: New church for [location redacted] - plans & specification.

4.0 Supporting documents:
4.1 [project redacted] - plans
4.2 [project redacted]- plans
4.3 [project redacted] - perspective only
4.4 [project redacted] - plans
4.5 [project redacted]- perspective only
4.6 [project redacted]- 3 storey commercial
4.7 [project redacted]auditorium
4.8 [project redacted]- residential dwelling

3.2 Some of the matters referred to in The Appellant's submissions are outlined below:

1. That there seemed to be a miss communication of the information presented to fully show my involvement in the design process across the presented designs.

2. That the information presented showing developed design and construction drawings did represent the level demanded to undertake construction of the appropriate level.

3. That one of the project designs presented was wrongly interpreted in terms of my involvement for site management within this project and, therefore, was seen in a very negative light rather than reviewing the working drawings as presented to demonstrate my management and coordination ability.

5. The recommendation from the Assessor that a Design 2 licence be granted and that this was subsequently downgraded by the Registrar to a Design 1 with minimal supporting evidence.

6. The perception that I had presented myself as an 'Architect' - when this was never the fact and that I understand the legal ramification of doing so. It seems to me that this point has been focused on by the Assessor and Registrar when undertaking my review. I expressed to the Assessor at the time that 'one day I would like to apply for registration as an Architect'.

On review for this appeal I now accept that there are only two projects that fully comply to the requirements of Design 3 class. This was an honest mistake while reading the documentation my mind read 'a building 10m or greater in height' where in reality it request a building that are at least 12m in height to fit the criteria.

It was noted that I lack any formal qualification. That is only partly true - as you will see from my attached letter from the Qualification Authority you will see that I completed 95% of my NZCAD back in 1986-1989 and then later went back to school to start a higher education in 1997 but again did not complete due to the birth of our first child.

Another point of note is that I am not affiliated to a professional body. For the record, I have been attending the ADNZ meeting since October 2009 and was ask to hold my application as they rewrote their application terms through 2010. I applied in late December 2010 but my application is now on hold awaiting this appeal with the Licensing board prior to approval being given. As a condition to membership you are required to be a Licensed Building Practitioner with the ADNZ.

Last updated 11 May 2015