Section 212 — Building Act 2004: Territorial authority must act as building consent authority for its district
Text of the provision Official document
212 Territorial authority must act as building consent authority for its district (1) A territorial authority must perform the functions of a building consent authority within its district, and for any coastal marine area (within the meaning of the Resource Management Act 1991 ) adjacent to its district that is not within the district of another territorial authority, in relation to— (a) any application for a building consent made to the territorial authority; and (b) any building consent granted under that application. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in the case of dams. (3) A territorial authority must, in performing its functions as a building consent authority,— (a) issue a project information memorandum before granting a building consent; and (b) provide to the New Zealand Fire Service Commission a copy of every application for a building consent of a kind specified by notice under section 46 . (4) Subsection (1) — (a) is subject to the territorial authority's power to transfer, under section 233 , any or all of its functions, duties, or powers under this Act to another territorial authority; and (b) does not apply to any function so transferred by the territorial authority. The heading to section 212 was amended, as from 14 April 2005, by section 17(1) Building Amendment Act 2005 (2005 No 31) by substituting the word “ for ” for the word “ within ” . Subsection (1) was amended, as from 14 April 2005, by section 17(2) Building Amendment Act 2005 (2005 No 31) by inserting the words “ , and for any coastal marine area (within the meaning of the Resource Management Act 1991) adjacent to its district that is not within the district of another territorial authority, ” after the word “ district ” .
Official source: legislation.govt.nz
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from New Zealand courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →