Print Page   |   Contact Us   |   Sign In   |   Register
News & Press: Announcements

SACAP Council Policies : Request for Comments (Closing date : 06 July 2015)

08 June 2015   (22 Comments)
Posted by: Jacquie Cullis
Share |

SACAP REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON COUNCIL POLICIES 

Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL), Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
and 
Identification of Work (IDoW).

Please note that SACAP Council resolved to approve the draft documents of the
Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL), Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and Identification of Work (IDoW).


We hereby invite the submission of the comments on the following proposed drafts before they are gazetted:
 

·        Continuing Professional Development (CPD)

·        Identification of Work (IDoW)

·        IDoW Risks involved in work done by other categories

·        Alignment of SANS Occupancies and Complexity Ratings

·        RPL Assessment: Guidelines for Applicants

·        RPL Assessment: Guidelines for Assessment Panels

Please forward your submissions to the attention of the Registrar via the following email address: comments@sacapsa.com.

The submissions should reach us on or before Monday, 6 July 2015.

Kindly note that late submissions will not be accepted.

Please click on the following documents to access and download:

Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Policy :  04062015
Identification of Work (IDoW) Policy :  04062015
Identification of Work (IDoW) Risks involved in work done by other categories : 04062015
Identification of Work (IDoW) Alignment of SANS 10400 Occupancies and Complexity ratings : 04062015
Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) Assessment guidelines for Applications: 04062015
Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) Assessment guidelines for Assessment Panels: 04062015


Comments...

Administration says...
Posted 13 July 2015
Dear Registered Person(s) Please note that all the comments received on the website are acknowledged. We will revert back to you once the relevant committees and the Council made a decision based on your submissions. Regards - Admin
Colleen Anne Van Der Merwe says...
Posted 09 July 2015
You have given us too little time to comment. I have been away and have not seen this mail. This is a ridiculous policy. I have been drawing double storey houses for years and now I suddenly can't anymore? As a PAD I have to now be restricted even more and lose even more work because of these ridiculous policies. Were any of the VA's notified? This is unconstitutional as SACAP is now interfering with my abilitie to earn a living!
Carl Bevan Oelofse says...
Posted 06 July 2015
I am completely against the new CPD and IDoW
Steven Basson says...
Posted 06 July 2015
Comments on CPD Policy: Was the document present to the SACAP VA's for comments? I'm of the opinion that it's imperative that the VA's should be consulted on the matter. Steven Basson ST0943
Steven Basson says...
Posted 06 July 2015
Comment on RPL: The document should not only focus on the Historically Disadvantaged, RPL Registration Upgrade should be accessible to all practitioners, the registered professional numbers have diminished from close to 13 000 to less than 8 000, this should be seen as a matter of great concern to the council. SACAP should promote the RPL registration upgrade to ALL qualifying practitioners irrespective of being of the Historically Disadvantaged Backgrounds or not. The profession is in dire need of qualified/compotent professional. Steven Basson ST0943
Steven Basson says...
Posted 06 July 2015
Comment on IDOW: Was the document presented to the Built Environment Voluntary Associations for their input/comments? It's vital for the professional serving the profession be consulted and opinions/input obtained through their respective VA's Steven Basson ST 0943
Desmond Mos says...
Posted 06 July 2015
With regards to Architectural Professional Registration Level and RPL , I see no reason for a Professional PAD,PAT,PSAT to register as a "Candidate" of a higher professional level based on work based experience and competence . The board should specify the requirements for the transition to the next professional level and its up to the Candidate to meet the requirements. Without having to attend a full time educational facility as money and time are major problems at play. Regards Desmond Mos
Carl Bevan Oelofse says...
Posted 04 July 2015
Once the new IDOW is implemented there will be much more illegal structures. Illegal electrical connections are already causing rising deaths on a daily basis, so Architecture will now encounter similar behavior. No resident/business owner is going to pay an Architect's fee rate for a small office/doctor's building. The existing IDOW is already shocking and now its getting worse. There will also be even more corruption amongst the draughtsmans since they now will have to find alternative ways and means to make a living. The Architects are already struggling to keep up with their current projects, so how will they cope with double story houses. Not notifying all professionals in appropriate way which is by all methods of communication is a contradiction of the by-laws. This will definitely go to court if this is implemented since no proper notification steps were followed and the various regulatory boards will have a field day with this unprofessional act. Many Arch's are not aware.
Carl Bevan Oelofse says...
Posted 04 July 2015
I would like to firstly congratulate John Andrew Littlefield for a well outlined review regards to the ridiculous idea of restricting Draughtsmans from earning a fair salary to the suffering economy. It is pretty clear that the person who came up with this idiotic idea never thought of all the risks that will now be intensified by the public. The public and developers of all types will now add more dangers and claims to the construction industry. Implementing this new IDOW will cause all the druaghtsmans to now start immigrating to other countries who will in turn be thanking SACAP for their stupid ideas and benefit by it. Furthermore, how will we be able to do in-house training or mentoring for SACAP registered Candidates and Students if we are going to be forced to be coherent to these new stupid restrictions. It is clearly people with no common sense that are insensitive to the draughtsmans who are wanting to be more professional within their field and take pride in Architecture.
Heinrich Thiart says...
Posted 03 July 2015
We pay SACAP annual fees so they can think of more regulations and policies which cost us more time and money? Now even more CPD courses etc. to attend. At least some people are making money. Don't agree with new CPD nor IDoW policies. HT
Kudakwashe G. Chirimba says...
Posted 02 July 2015
I think this is an insult to all architectural draughtsman .The annual fees are the same with Architects who design stadiums etc... now you are taking away everything from them. We use the same Structural engineers used by Architects when we design the double storeys. I am not in favour of the proposed IDoW policy at all. No one needs Stables in towns,
Kersaven Pillay says...
Posted 02 July 2015
How many stables do you think we draw per year in a city? . I'm not in favour of proposed IDoW policy !. I have a decent client base that I provide architectural services to, now I will have to give my work way !.
John Andrew Littlefield says...
Posted 01 July 2015
Dear all, Sincere apologies for the posting of the following 8 consecutive entries in reverse order. Kindly read from bottom up. Regards to all. John Littlefield Professional Architectural Draughtsman.
John Andrew Littlefield says...
Posted 01 July 2015
Finally, in conclusion, the proposed IDoW policy is unjust, unfair, extremely restrictive particularly to the category of Architectural Draughtsman and has no relationship to reality and basically, is simply academic to say the least. Also, there has been no proper communication nor consultative process and therefore the proposed IDoW policy should be totally rejected. Yours faithfully, John Littlefield. Professional Architectural Draughtsman.
John Andrew Littlefield says...
Posted 01 July 2015
It is also to be noted that this process has not been fair nor transparent in that representatives from the various voluntary associations were not invited onto the discussion panel with the effect that the proposal has not been impartial. Furthermore, whilst SACAP maintain that their aim is to protect the public, the actual aim of this proposed policy is very questionable to say the least, as there are so many ways in which the public are already protected and for which they may seek recourse, including, but not limited to the Consumer Protection Act etc. It should also be borne in mind that the publication of the proposed IDoW document could well encourage fraudulent activities to take place between professionals in different categories in respect of signing powers etc. which would be totally against what this policy transpires to subscribe to. continued... John Littlefield
John Andrew Littlefield says...
Posted 01 July 2015
Consequently, this document will mean that consumers will have to pay higher prices for building plans as they will have to appoint professionals in higher categories to prepare their plans resulting in considerable higher fees. This will have a direct effect on our present delicate economy. Such IDoW will also restrict the smaller architectural practices from having an equitable opportunity to participate in such economy. All such aspects are considered to be means of restricting business practices of which the Competition Commission is empowered to investigate, control and evaluate, as such matters are in direct conflict as to policies and intentions of such body. Therefore, I firmly believe that the proposed IDoW policy is acedemic and irrelevant and should therefore be scrapped in it's entirety. continued..... from John Littlefield
John Andrew Littlefield says...
Posted 01 July 2015
It is incomprehensible to think that after preparing and obtaining formal approval of architectural plans for complex double storey dwellings and domestic swimming pools etc.etc. for several years now, I could be prohibited from preparing a plan for a simple double storey dwelling or domestic swimming pool by the very Association to whom I belong and who should support me. This would put untold hardship on my ability to simply earn a living wage and therefore remove my right to a livelihood. This is obviously in conflict with with the South African Constitution. continued.... from John Littlefield
John Andrew Littlefield says...
Posted 01 July 2015
Presently, in terms of my registration, I am permitted to prepare architectural building plans for the following developments : (a) Shebeens; taverns; domestic swimming pools; single storey low risk commercial up to 500 sq. mts; individual exhibition stand within a major hall; single storey low risk industrial up to 500 sq. mts; private doctors consulting rooms; small or large shop interiors etc ; single storey individual office/studio up to 500 sq. mts; single/double storey dwelling up to 500 sq. mts; barns and sheds, and alterations to existing double storey dwellings. However, in terms of the proposed IDoW policy I will be restricted to prepare architectural building plans for only the following developments : (b) Barns and sheds; open car park; simple single storey dwelling unit. continued... from John Littlefield
John Andrew Littlefield says...
Posted 01 July 2015
Consequently, there has no communication nor transparency with regard to these proposals, and as such, the whole process is totally flawed. 4) It is clear that the content of the proposed IDoW policy has been geared exclusively to the advantage of the Professional Architects, with restrictions and limitations on the other three categories. This will obviously restrict the other three categories from having an equal opportunity to participate in the general economy. 5) For the purpose of these comments/complaints and also due to the fact that I am registered as a Professional Architectural Draughtsman, I will limit the following complaints to the comparison between the existing IDoW legislation and the proposed IDoW policy in order to identify just some of the inconsistencies. continued..... from John Littlefield
John Andrew Littlefield says...
Posted 01 July 2015
1) SACAP did not inform the relevant Voluntary Associations pertaining to the Architectural Professionals of this proposed IDoW Policy. Instead, it was observed simply by chance by some members who happened to go on the SACAP website for one reason or another. Consequently, many members who would be adversely effected by such proposals were not given an opportunity to voice comments or concerns in this respect. 2) SACAP made no effort to contact their respective members with regard to the proposed IDoW policy notwithstanding the fact that they have their members contact e-mail addresses. 3) To the best of my knowledge, I am also not aware of any such information that was provided to the media in order to inform Professionals nor the general public, as such proposals will indeed have a significant impact on the cost of building and also the economy in general. continued.... from John Littlefield
John Andrew Littlefield says...
Posted 01 July 2015
I hereby formally submit comments/complaints pertaining to the proposed Draft with regard to the Identification of Work Policy that the South African Council for Architectural Professionals controlling Body have advertised in a limited and unsatisfactory manner. The proposed Identification of Work ( referred to as IDoW hereafter ) appeared on the SACAP Home website on or about 8 June 2015 under the column titled "LATEST NEWS". On this website an invitation was offered for comments to be furnished by not later than 6 July 2015. The proposed policy is extremely flawed by both the content and the manner by which such legislation is sought. continued..... from John Littlefield,
Thomas Smith Nefdt says...
Posted 26 June 2015
I am a prof draughtsperson how does it work that we must pay the same yearly fee as a architect but we will soon be unable to draw anything. how many stables do you think we draw per year in a town? nothing how many single storey houses? maybe 3 or 4 a year. why don't sacap just say there is no place for draughtsmen in this profession. or is it a way for architects to get us to work for them so they can use our talents in their practice. there are a lot of buildings less complicated than houses, that we should be able to draw. I see this as nothing more than a "legal" way for higher qualified professionals to take work away from us. as if they do not make enough money with their government and big projects. I do not know how they think they can do all the work. I think council should rather have a look at how full of corruption the local counsils are and that any system they try to inforce is useless if they refuse to follow up on complaints.