LINZ Presentation to NZIS Canty branch re earthquake - Don Grant

1,120 views
1,103 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,120
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

LINZ Presentation to NZIS Canty branch re earthquake - Don Grant

  1. 1. Darfield Earthquake Response Don Grant Surveyor-General Land Information New Zealand
  2. 7. Before
  3. 8. After – where is the boundary?
  4. 9. Ross Elliot asks what happens to property rights when land shifts in an earthquake (8 September). I can reassure the public that while the assets they own may have moved, in most cases the boundaries will have moved by a corresponding amount. While the small number of properties bisected by the fault trace may need more careful consideration by surveyors, the great majority of property boundaries are not materially affected. If a fence or wall was on the boundary before the earthquake, it is reasonable to assume that it is still on the boundary afterwards. Therefore wholesale re-survey of boundaries should not be required. Landowners rebuilding fences or buildings that are close to the boundary will often need to get a surveyor in to confirm the position of the boundary - but this is usually a good idea anyway. The positions of boundaries are based on physical evidence in the ground - mainly survey marks, including boundary pegs. Surveyors re-establishing boundaries also consider other evidence, where relevant, such as the relationship of fences and buildings to the boundary. As was found after the 1987 earthquake in Edgecumbe, the best solutions for re-establishing boundaries are based on evidence, common law and common-sense with little need for intervention by the Courts to resolve boundary issues. Don Grant Surveyor-General Land Information New Zealand Letters to Editor
  5. 10. Possible impacts on survey work? <ul><li>Immediate critical services repaired already </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Little or no time to survey these? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emergency works may have destroyed marks? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Unstable buildings demolished already </li></ul><ul><ul><li>May have destroyed boundary and other marks? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Future maintenance of services? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Need survey in relation to boundaries & other services? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Design and subsequent set-out of building works? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Need boundary reinstatement/re-establishment surveys? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Lowered short-term demand for subdivision? </li></ul>
  6. 11. Possible definition cases & issues <ul><li>Parcels well away from fault hardly affected </li></ul><ul><li>Parcels uniformly shifted (same size and shape) </li></ul><ul><li>Parcels with small uniform distortion </li></ul><ul><li>Parcels with random or severe distortion </li></ul><ul><li>Parcels split by the fault trace </li></ul><ul><li>Local surface slumping across boundaries </li></ul><ul><li>Boundaries out of terms with witness marks </li></ul><ul><li>Boundaries out of terms with geodetic control </li></ul><ul><li>Boundaries still moving </li></ul>
  7. 12. Rule 6.1 <ul><li>6.1 When defining a boundary by survey, a cadastral surveyor must: </li></ul><ul><li>gather all evidence relevant to the definition of the boundary and its boundary points, </li></ul><ul><li>Yes – that is necessary </li></ul><ul><li>interpret that evidence in accordance with all relevant enactments and rules of law, and </li></ul><ul><li>But there are no obviously relevant or suitable enactments or rules of law in this case </li></ul>
  8. 13. Except perhaps: <ul><li>Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>4 An Order in Council made under subsection (1) may grant an exemption from, or modify, or extend any provision of any enactment, including (but not limited to)— </li></ul><ul><li>(b) the Cadastral Survey Act 2002: </li></ul>
  9. 14. Possible options <ul><li>Define a zone within which special Rules apply? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Act provisions don’t go beyond 1 April 2012 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide for new limited titles if appropriate? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Consider a power to decide on disputed definitions? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Encode high level boundary definition principles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Decisions subject to High Court appeal </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Fast-track re-established boundaries in RMA? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not to be considered “subdivisions”? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>LINZ will raise this with MfE </li></ul></ul>
  10. 15. Possible Rules Issues? <ul><li>Witnessing </li></ul><ul><li>Geodetic orientation </li></ul><ul><li>Connections to geodetic control </li></ul><ul><li>Definition: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Defined by Survey </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Defined by Adoption </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accepted </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Marking boundaries in conflict </li></ul><ul><li>(what else?) </li></ul>
  11. 16. Definition decisions <ul><li>Collect evidence </li></ul><ul><li>If within limits (on local evidence)  complete the survey </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Otherwise </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Seek neighbour’s agreement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Otherwise </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Correct judgement based on evidence is clear </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Otherwise </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Seek definitive opinion (possible new temporary provision) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Otherwise </li></ul></ul><ul><li>High Court judgement </li></ul>
  12. 17. Fundamental priorities <ul><li>Actions now do not degrade long term confidence of property investment in North Canterbury </li></ul><ul><li>Landowners retain their rights & property </li></ul><ul><li>Agreement between affected parties if possible </li></ul><ul><li>Speedy action consistent with above principles </li></ul><ul><li>Lower priority </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Retain survey geometry (lines, distances, bearings) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Not a priority at all </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Retain absolute positions (coordinates) </li></ul></ul>
  13. 18. Possible definition principles? <ul><li>Land and assets (eg fences) on or within the boundaries before, remain so after re-establishment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Straight lines may bend, distances & angles may change </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>But surface slumping probably doesn’t change ownership </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Where there is no evidence, re-establishment should provide greatest equity to all affected parties </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mathematical adjustments (pro-rata) only as an absolute last resort (eg empty or cleared land) </li></ul></ul>
  14. 19. <ul><li>Now I want to listen to you </li></ul>

×