Background
LINZ developed and implemented a new risk-based acceptance framework in 2008.
This framework underpins a cadastral survey validation process that supports a wider initiative based on a first time compliance model that aligns with our goals of Optimal Regulation – 'As little as possible, as much as necessary' and e-Delivery excellence.
Current assurance environment
The survey system as a whole functions within a regulatory controlled environment that provides assurance of compliance at several levels. Within the end-to-end process, there is duplication of compliance effort by both surveyors and LINZ in assessing the quality of every cadastral survey dataset (CSD) and determining compliance before integration into the cadastre. Therefore, given this duplication, past levels of LINZ validation effort have not accurately and appropriately reflected the risks associated with each lodged dataset. Nor has the validation process always consistently reflected the gains and advantages available from a world class automated e-survey processing system, especially with 100% e-lodgement.
Objective of the framework
The objective is for LINZ to achieve consistency, effectiveness and greater efficiency by better utilising the automated Landonline tools when processing CSDs. The new process will make better use of resources by aligning LINZ's validation analysis to the risk profile of each dataset.
Risk-based acceptance framework
The framework is based on an assessment matrix comprising two primary elements – the surveyor's profile and the dataset's complexity. Together, these two profiles define the dataset risk profile.
The desired LINZ validation effort, to apply to each dataset being processed, is codified against this dataset risk profile. The following diagram and profile descriptions summarise the framework.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parameters used in calculating the Surveyor Profile
- Number of CSDs submitted: <10, >24, other
- Number of both significant and critical requisitions per CSD: >1, <0.15, other
- Number of critical requisitions per CSD: >0.04, = 0, other
Criteria to be used in calculating the Dataset Complexity Profile
The following is the current criteria to guide surveyors in determining the complexity profile of each dataset lodged.
| Profile | Dataset Complexity Criteria – to determine Dataset Complexity Profile |
|---|---|
| Low | Parent parcels are defined by survey that have previously been captured into Landonline |
| > 50% marks have SDC status (approximate) | |
| No conflicts with underlying data | |
| Compiled and Computed surveys (unless subject to SG Approval) | |
| Record Purposes | |
| Survey Information | |
| Flats/Cross Lease | |
| Medium | < 50% marks have SDC status (approximate) |
| Complex easements | |
| Standard unit developments | |
| High | Parent parcel boundaries being redefined as different from current cadastral record |
| Staged Unit Developments | |
| Unit Re-Developments | |
| Strata | |
| Complex natural boundary (not adopted); accretion/erosion and MHWS/MHWM | |
| Land being brought under the Land Transfer Act | |
| Multiple Pt lots with same lot number | |
| Titles limited as to parcels or interim titles | |
| Parent parcel includes Diagrams on Transfer | |
| Other conflicts in the cadastre | |
| Unexplained discrepancies between survey definition and occupation | |
| Known areas of ground movement (eg Edgecumbe and Moeraki, Bisley Av Nelson) | |
| Very old surveys (pre 1930) supporting guaranteed titles – where the record is poor | |
| Datasets that require the statutory approval of the Surveyor-General, in addition to the LINZ Chief Executive’s determination of compliance |
Quality assurance of the new framework and validation process
LINZ will analyse a percentage of validated datasets to ensure the new acceptance process is robust and the surveyor and dataset complexity profiles are correct. The results of this analysis will also provide an opportunity for LINZ to routinely assess and refine the framework and validation process.