News & Press: SACAP News - General

SACAP Council Policies : CPD and IDoW (Public Participation Process)

Wednesday, 12 August 2015   (15 Comments)
Posted by: Jacquie Cullis
Share |

Dear Registered Person,

We hereby take this opportunity to thank you for your valued comments that SACAP received regarding the DRAFT Board Notices (BN's) that were published on 08 June 2015 on the SACAP website under the title "SACAP Council Policies - Request for Comments" in relation to the following:


The 4th Term Council took cognisance of the numerous points of view expressed in the comments received. We would like to take the opportunity of assuring you that this is only the FIRST STEP in a rigorous consultative process that we are embarking on to ensure that your concerns are addressed.

Please click on the following hyperlink DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION to access the steps that SACAP will be following in the consultative process. You will note that there will be extensive engagement with you, the Registered Professionals (RP’s), and the public in this process. 

We look forward to your continuous participation in this important process.

Please consult the SACAP website: for ongoing communication.


Leanne B. Kipling says...
Posted Monday, 07 March 2016
Further to my previous comment - do all members registered with SACAP realise that the board is heavily weighted with Architects ? There are 5 PARches; 2 PSATs; 1 PAT; 1 PAD and Councillors. Personally I feel that this is not a balanced board that favours the levels of professionals equally. Can SACAP please comment on this and also give us the proposed IDOW matrix that will show us exactly what the proposed IDOW policy will allow us to work on. I personally am going to be out of a job should this policy be implemented and I am a single mother supporting a daughter at University. That is two lives whose futures will be derailed by one piece of paper. Please rethink this - it is not offering free and fair competition within our profession. We all are members of SACAP so that we are protected in our profession, and it is SACAP themselves that seem to want to take our livelihood away. I just can't fathom the thinking behind it.
Leanne B. Kipling says...
Posted Monday, 07 March 2016
I am totally against the proposed IDOW policy. It will restrict Draughtsmen to such an extent that we will no longer be able to support ourselves and our families. From my limited understanding, it is also against the Competitions Act of South Africa as it does not allow for free and competitive practice within our industry. This seems to be a board of people who are not going to be affected by the policy adversely, making decisions that will take away peoples livelihoods and I object in the strongest terms to it.
Petrus J. Du Toit says...
Posted Thursday, 14 January 2016
Piet du Toit Ek is 63 jaar oud en teken as boutekenaar vir die afgelope 35 jaar. Vanweë my ouderdom en ondervinding en die feit dat ek 'n hartaanval gehad het, is dit nie vir my moontlik om kursusse by te woon om CPD-punte te verdien nie. Bowendien teken ek per hand en kursusse waarna ek verneem het, doen dit slegs met rekenaarprogramme. Toe SACAP my registrasie goedgekeur het was daar nie krediete wat ek moes behaal nie. 'n Plaaslike argitek op my dorp verwys mense na my, omdat dit nie vir hom lonend is om braaikaggels, motorhuise en HOP-huis-aanbouings (bv. 'n slaapkamer of afdak) en ander kleiner bouwerke se planne te teken nie. Op Vanrhynsdorp, Nuwerus, Klawer,Vredendal, Bitterfontein en Nieuwoudtville, waar ek my dienste aanbied, is daar nie veel indien enige boutekenaars wat in die publiek se aanvraag vir planne kan voorsien nie. Ek weet van verskeie persone wat hul dienste moes beëindig a.g.v. die CPD-vereistes. Op die platteland is daar nie so baie boutekenaars nie.
Nicola A. Pollard says...
Posted Wednesday, 09 September 2015
Everything has gone quiet I presume this is going to take another 12 years.
Carl B. Oelofse says...
Posted Monday, 24 August 2015
Apologies, I meant: However, this recommendation does NOT mean I approve the IDOW as I am still totally against it.
Carl B. Oelofse says...
Posted Monday, 24 August 2015
I strongly disagree to the new IDOW since it was not well brainstormed by the person who came up with this idea. If a draughtsman is further restricted by only doing single stories and stables then how are supposed to train Technicon students by doing lousy stables and not to mention only single stories amongst other. If so, then the students must be forced to do their training through us first before walking through the Architect's door and the Architects must provide us work from their tables by means of a tendering process but also respecting us by applying the SACAP architectural fee guide lines. However, this recommendation does mean I approve the IDOW as I am still totally against it. The new IDOW is totally contradictive. Rather ask us on how to improve the Architectural structure in SACAP than to apply further restrictions to the IDOW. We are all wanting to practice in a professional manner and we as SACAP reg' professionals ask to respect our concern.
Christian Smith says...
Posted Monday, 24 August 2015
The proposed new CPD requirements should also be taken under consideration. To obtain a professional qualification and to register with SACAP is an expensive and lengthy process and not to include such a high attendance of CPD courses in fact only states that professionals have in fact not obtained qualifications that are good enough for them to practice and remain in practice. The industry are rapidly shrinking and this will only contribute to professionals practicing without being registered and will certainly not contribute to a more professional industry.
Christian Smith says...
Posted Monday, 24 August 2015
The new IDOW is unconstitutional. How can previous works that were allowed now be changed to include work of a lesser nature? The qualifications of Architectural Draughtspersons have remained the same, or in fact have improved to include more scope for learning, yet the works that Architectural Draughtspersons can perform are being reduced. This cannot and should not be allowed!
Jacobus C. Lombard says...
Posted Friday, 21 August 2015
I, strongly object against the proposed CPD and IDoW Policies. Please guys go back to the drawing board and consider all the consequences before making council decisions. I, believe in this complexity everything including buildings are getting more complex as well, but keep in mind we live in a word where information is freely available. Any one whom can reed and have access to the web today will be able to compile extensive research on basically any thing including complex buildings, there design and function. Any person seriously practicing ARCHITECTURE today with a qualification and experience should know he's or her limits when it comes to so called complex buildings. Reservation of work is not the answer. No single architectural practitioner can design a complex building without the help of many other professionals within and out of the building industry. Be a bit more open minded please?
Colleen A. Van Der Merwe says...
Posted Friday, 21 August 2015
So ridiculous. I have been practicing since 2007 as a PAD for a construction company and now I can lose my job because of these proposed restrictions?!! Why must we regress all the time? Can't SACAP find a way for us to study part time and improve our skills whilst earning a living ? (for those that want to)
Ricardo Ludick says...
Posted Friday, 21 August 2015
SACAP ......This new IDOW is going to kill the industry.
Carl B. Oelofse says...
Posted Thursday, 20 August 2015
What is it going to take for SACAP to get the message. Leave the IDOW as it is. To implement your proposals will lead to the public no longer acquiring draughtsmans, technologists or senior technologists. To abide to the new IDOW means that we are then forced to charge full SACAP fees to the public who simply can not afford it. Us lower registered professionals are literally filling in the smaller gaps which Architects are not having time for. By doing this it will simply put us in a unemployed status. If this is implemented then us professionals will then have to take action against SACAP which is against our will. SACAP will just simply cripple the industry such as unemployment which the Government is trying to overcome. I can see SACAP has just a bunch of staff who do nothing in the day and think of ways to make our life even more miserable. one person is at fault then why must every one else suffer. Jesus died on the cross for our sins and not the other way around.
Adele Joubert says...
Posted Tuesday, 18 August 2015
I am AGAINST the renewal of the Board Notice 30 of 2009, the BN xx of 2015 that where published for renewal. There is no way that I would be able to obtain the General CPD Requirements. For eg. "4. General CPD Requirements 4.1 During each one year cycle, every RP must obtain a minimum of 12 credits in order to qualify for renewal of his registration; 4.2 The RP must obtain at least 4 credits per annum out of each of the 3 categories of activities referred to in Annexure A. 4.3 Credits may not be accumulated and transferred to the following year cycle, except Category 1 credits accumulated before the transition to the new system." I really hope that i am not the only one scared to lose registration for the ridiculous requirements for the CPDS! BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
Werner G. Senekal says...
Posted Monday, 17 August 2015
I agree with Mr. Indhul, design is not limited to Architects. I am a draughtsman, was too late to study Architecture, though I studied graphic design, art studies, sculpture, perceptual studies and the human figure, some that architect students do not do. Mr Indhul, most of the best architectural designs in history was done by artist / designers in other fields. We will enter an era of limited creative design, because not all architects can design and not all designer can be architects. If it is safe and healthy and according to the NBR, it should be approved. What I would hammer on is that the council should force architectural professionals to charge full or near full fees. This will eventually even out this matter, cause why would you pay good money for bad design, then the cream would come to the top!
Suren Indhul says...
Posted Friday, 14 August 2015
I am a Senior Professional Architectural Technologist. I am practicing for 40years. I am over 60years old. I have received an Award for Architecture from KZNIA. One other award in a JV. Due to my senior position and knowledge acquired over the years I was also invited by UKZN Campus to sit as Mock judge for Students doing their Masters. My practice has a Senior architect. I recently did some design works for a project out of my IDOW category. Not submission of detail drawings , just design. For this I had to plead guilty to SACAP or face the Tribunal. So, sadly I am of no use in this Industry. I agree with SACAP that their must be control put in place, but surely not for a design. Design concept can come form anybody, does not need to be necessarily an Architect. Most of the iconic design concept did not only come from Architect. I hope , at my age I can still pass my skills. I am tired and very sad.