Stage Two focusses on consultation with stakeholders on proposals for changes to the Rules for Cadastral Survey.
After considering the ideas in the Issues and Opportunities paper (PDF 513KB) and the feedback from surveyors the development of proposed changes to the rules was split into two parts.
Feedback on the Stage 2 – Part 2 Consultation on proposed changes (PDF 1MB) to the Rules for Cadastral Survey closed on 7 March 2019. We received 23 submissions from the Survey and Spatial NZ Cadastral Stream, Survey and Spatial NZ Hawkes Bay & Taranaki branches, Institute of Cadastral Surveying and licensed surveyors.
The following is a summary of the feedback:
Connection to a horizontal control mark or official vertical datum (revised)
The majority of feedback was either fully supportive or partially supportive of the proposals. There remains a smaller number of surveyors who are opposed to the revised proposals arguing there would be little or no benefit to the subdividing landowner.
Defining by survey and adopting
All feedback was in support. Surveyors noted that the proposal will simplify the existing requirements and it aligns with surveyors’ traditional understanding of the terminology and their application of the current rules.
Horizontal and vertical accuracy standards
The majority of feedback was supportive of the proposal noting it will simplify the existing requirements and make compliance easier. Feedback was variable when it came to the actual tolerances with some submitters concerned that the proposed tolerances for non-boundary marks were too tight. Some also wanted to see a reduction in witnessing tolerances for Class B and C boundary points, noting that modern technology should easily achieve accuracies half that proposed.
Water and irregular boundary accuracy standards
There was strong support for the removal of an accuracy class for water and irregular boundaries.
Water and irregular boundaries
Overall most submitters were supportive of the proposal to reorganise existing Rule 6.7 and provide focused guidance material.
The wet cadastre
Overall most submitters thought the proposal seemed reasonable. Two submissions against the proposal were concerned that the requirements would add unnecessary complexity to the Rules and only benefit the Crown.
Repackaging CSD Plan information
We received the most feedback on this proposal with 20 submissions. Most submitters (15) were strongly against the proposal as there is currently no working prototype to demonstrate how visualisation could be achieved. Many were concerned that there wouldn’t be the ability to print a Record of Survey for use in the field or when undertaking QA.
Note: It was not intended that implementation of alternative tools for visualisation would happen without the concept being rigorously tested and meet the needs of users (refer paragraph 77 and 78 of the consultation doc).
Recording surrendered easements
Overall most submitters were supportive of the proposal. Where submitters were partially supportive or against the proposal, they wanted to have a reporting requirement in the survey report.
Recording marks not found
The majority of feedback was either fully supportive or partially supportive of the proposals. Some submitters commented they:
- would also like to see the current reporting requirement in 8.2(a)(vii) (information about old marks not located) retained.
- were unsure what would be required where a mark was not recorded in the digital cadastre of Landonline.
- had concerns about how thoroughly some surveyors search for an old mark before making the statement it was not found.
Appellations for strata parcels and units
All submissions were fully supportive of both proposals. Three submissions noted a preference to move the ‘strata’ description to after the parcel type and identifier i.e. Lot 1 (strata) DP 600000 as opposed to Strata Lot 1 DP 600000.
All feedback was in support of the proposal to simplify and bring together the current reinstatement requirements. Many submissions noted that the reduced requirements will allow for quicker and easier compliance.
A number of submissions were against the proposal where it was proposed to allow the continuance of a boundary reinstatement survey in the case of boundary conflict.
Defining source of adoptions
Most submissions were unsupportive of the proposal, the key theme being the risk of ambiguity with surveyors not following a consistent practice. Almost all submitters thought the rules should confirm the source of adoptions as the CSD that recorded the measured or calculated vector value or the placement of a mark.
The submissions in support agreed with the principle that the exact source of information is not as important as the correctness of that information.
Good survey practice
We received 14 submissions with 6 in support, 7 against and 1 partially in support. Those in support believe that it is not something that can be measured and would be hard to enforce. Those against the proposal believe a GSP rule is required to ensure a high standard of survey.
Hierarchy of evidence
All feedback received was in support of not referencing the hierarchy of evidence in the rules.
There was strong support for the retention of arc boundaries.
Right lining irregular boundaries
Feedback was generally in support of retaining the existing requirements for right lining irregular boundaries. Two submissions questioned whether it was appropriate to right line these fixed boundaries.
All submissions were in support of adding a ‘no occupation’ note to confirm no occupation exists.
Boundaries of large parcels
All submissions were in support of retaining the provisions to accept large rural parcel boundaries.
Water body centreline boundaries
All proposals support the retention of existing irregular boundaries that follow the centre-line of a water body. There were some concerns around creating new boundaries of this form with legal uncertainty as to whether they are fixed in position or ambulatory.
Generally, submissions were in agreement with retaining the existing requirements relating to marginal strips.
All submissions were in support of retaining the current rule 13 certification.
From July to September 2018, feedback on a first set proposals was sought from surveyors, land tenure managers and other interested parties. The proposals were set out in the document ‘Stage 2 – Part 1Consultation on the proposed changes (PDF 1MB) ’. We received 20 submissions from the Cadastral Surveyors Licensing Board, Survey and Spatial NZ Cadastral Stream, Hawkes Bay & Taranaki branches, Institute of Cadastral Surveying (ICS) and licensed surveyors.
The following is a summary of the feedback:
Layout of the rules
There was general support for the proposed layout changes, however most have reserved their judgement until a final set of draft rules is produced. Feedback on the inclusion of definitions within rules was evenly split with some wanting to retain a full set of definitions which link to the relevant rules.
All submitters were in favour of moving to a single reference mark type including the removal of the 50 year requirement. We received strong feedback on whether four reference marks are necessary on simple rural surveys.
Connection to a horizontal control mark
There was strong feedback against the proposal to extend the connection distances out to 5km for class B and C boundaries. Many submitters noted the data provided showed the number of connections to a cadastral survey network mark was increasing every year and the current requirement is working adequately. Others were concerned this requirement would add costs and create difficulties where Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) is not available or not suitable due to terrain or satellite visibility.
Reduced levels and NZVD2016
There was general confusion about the proposed requirements for reduced levels and official vertical datums. The proposal is to add NZVD 2016 to the current list of official vertical datums - not that it would become the only official datum. This proposed approach would allow cadastral survey datasets to record reduced levels in terms of a local vertical datum where this is required by the local Council or client. Where the proposal was fully understood, submitters were in support of adding NZVD2016 as an official vertical datum.
There was some contention around the requirement to reference a non-boundary mark with an official NZVD2016 level out to 5km. All submitters thought this requirement would add significant cost and make it extremely difficult to measure accurately over large distances using GNSS technology.
Accuracy of non-primary boundaries
Overall feedback was in support, as it will simplify the existing requirements and make compliance easier.
Unique identifiers for boundary points
There was unanimous support for this proposal, with some even suggesting the proposal should also apply to adopted boundary points. Most submitters noted there was little point in the proposal unless the unique identifiers were displayed on the diagram of survey.
Date of survey
Five of the seven submissions were in full support of the proposal. The two other submissions suggested the issue could be resolved through the mandatory lodgement of field notes.