Section 363A — Building Act 2004: Public use of premises may be allowed before issue of code compliance certificate in some circumstances
Text of the provision Official document
363A Public use of premises may be allowed before issue of code compliance certificate in some circumstances (1) A person who owns, occupies, or controls premises to which section 362A applies may apply in the prescribed form to the territorial authority for a certificate for public use for the premises or a part of the premises if— (a) a building consent has been granted for building work affecting the premises or part; and (b) no code compliance certificate has been issued for the work. (2) The territorial authority may issue a certificate for public use for the premises or part if, and only if, satisfied on reasonable grounds that members of the public can use the premises or part (as the case may be) safely. (3) A certificate for public use— (a) must be in the prescribed form; and (b) may be issued subject to conditions. (4) The territorial authority must decide whether to issue the certificate— (a) within 20 working days after the authority receives an application for it; or (b) within any further period agreed between the applicant and the authority. (5) Within the period stated in subsection (4) , the territorial authority may require the applicant to give it further reasonable information in respect of the application;
and if it does so, the period is suspended until it receives the information. (6) Nothing in this section relieves the owner of a building from the obligation imposed by section 92(1) to apply to a building consent authority for a code compliance certificate after all building work to be carried out under a building consent granted to the owner is completed. Sections 363A to 363C were inserted, as from 14 April 2005, by section 22(1) Building Amendment Act 2005 (2005 No 31).
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 →