• Subjects
• Journals
• Books
• New for 2012

 

General Boundaries -v- Precise Cadastre

Recording (private property) Boundaries in England & Wales 

by David J Powell FRICS                       

                                         

Although the system of recording (private property) boundaries differs in nearly every country in the world, all these systems fall into one of two main camps. 

The first main camp is the “general boundaries” system which avoids defining boundaries precisely but provides the property owner with an approximate boundary position which suits most, if not all, of his needs.  The second main camp is the “precise cadastre” whereby each change of direction in a property’s boundary is recorded, usually, but not always, in the form of co-ordinates (Eastings and Northings), to a degree of accuracy that may range from +/-0.5m to +/-0.04m.

 

The recent implementation of GIS has sparked off a (sometimes heated) debate about which method is the most suitable for the developed and developing world.  The cadastre supporters point to the near-perfection achieved in Germany (+/-0.04m) as the ideal to which others should aspire; they explain how this makes GIS analysis far more accurate than the approximate general boundaries method.  The general boundary supporters, of which I am one, point to the fact that the general boundary system is good enough for all tasks although not for the solution of boundary disputes and maintain that the formation and maintenance of a precise cadastre is a waste of money in these financially strained times.

I would like to start by looking at the precision aspect.  During my travels in Europe I have noted that the precision of cadastres operated in most European countries varies from between +/-0.04m to +/-0.5m and that, in some countries in south-east Europe, even that lower level of precision cannot be guaranteed.  Let us assume for a moment that it would be possible to establish a German-style precise cadastre in any country that wanted one.  The cost would be massive.  It is my estimate that in England & Wales the start-up cost would be at least £1,000 per property (probably more when legal aspects are taken into account) and, using the LR (Land Registry) estimate of 21 million properties in England & Wales, that would mean a sum of money that would probably dwarf the NHS budget.  It would take a very brave politician indeed to stand up at the next election and say “Vote for me; I am going to raise your taxes but not for schools, hospitals, railways or roads… I am going to promise you a precise cadastre!”. Furthermore, what are the benefits?  The 40 millimetre precision quoted by German surveyors is less than the thickness of a wooden fence, less than the brickwork forming a wall and less than the width of most hedge trunks.  40 millimetres, when put into practical terms, is less than 2 inches.  I can see no argument to support the thesis that these 2 inches would make a blind bit of difference to a GIS system.

Furthermore there is the disruption to private property owners that would be caused by an army of land surveyors intruding in back gardens and knocking boundary markers into the flowerbeds.  It does not take much imagination to picture the scale of unpopularity that these land surveyors would encounter if ever a such a system was put into practice, not to mention the number of previously dormant boundary disputes that would be unnecessarily stirred up.

A precise cadastre would need constant maintenance and that would require a bureau of cadastral surveyors, presumably funded by the taxpayer.

On the subject of tax, one would think it goes without saying that the cost of a precise cadastre is borne by the taxpayer.  However, at a recent boundary conference in Norway, a senior representative from Germany countered this  by saying “the tax-payer would pay nothing; the government would pay”, a comment which I leave the readers to mull over.

Turning to general boundaries, the base plan for this system already exists in England & Wales, being OS (Ordnance Survey) mapping.  Most other countries have a similar national mapping system and those that haven’t could set up one for the fraction of the cost of installing a precise cadastre.  OS mapping has its limitations; features, when compared relatively with other features, can be misplotted by up to 2.2m in rural areas and by up to 1m in urban areas.  However, it is my experience that OS is generally more accurate than its own quoted limitations and, in any event, the feature depicted on the OS map can usually be identified on the ground with little difficulty.  For example, if one sees a solid line running across the Warwickshire countryside on an OS map and then, on the ground, one sees a hawthorn hedge in the general area of the mapped line then it is fair to assume that OS has mapped the hedge.  It does not need GPS or laser instruments to arrive at such a conclusion.  If the hedge is mapped a metre or so in the wrong place; so what?  The adjacent property owners know that the hedge is the boundary and they look on the OS map and, there it is, marked by a solid black line.

It is now possible, within the LRA (Land Registration Act 2003), to go further and have ones boundary fixed to a cadastre-style accuracy under the DB (Determined Boundary) procedure.  This requires one or both of the adjacent owners to instruct a land surveyor to make a precise map (usually 1:100 or 1:200 scale) of the area of interest and then describe the boundary by dimensions to fixed points (building corners etc) to 10mm accuracy such that, if the hedge (for example) is grubbed out, the boundary can be re-instated easily and accurately.  My own description of this procedure is “Cadastre-Lite” in that it is available to those who want to have and who wish to pay for it.

Under the general boundaries system, and without having a DB procedure (they are still very rare), one’s boundary is shown on LR Title Plans as a red line running around the entire parcel of land.  No dimensions are shown (except in very rare circumstances) and it is up to the owner to see (on the ground) where the boundary lies.  The precise cadastre supporters point out, correctly, that general boundary systems are of no help where there is a boundary dispute.  Whilst they are right, it should be said that one of the beauties of the general boundaries system is that only those who have boundary disputes pay the costs for any litigation etc that arises.  The tax-payer pays nothing.  Most property owners do not have disputes with their neighbours; those that do tend to feature in the daily newspapers but, when the nation’s 21 million property portfolio is considered, such disputes are few and far between.  I would add that, from accounts related to me by land surveyors in several European and Caribbean countries, boundary disputes occur within precise cadastre systems too… “my neighbour moved the boundary marker”… “the surveyor put the boundary marker in the wrong place”… are just two such frequently heard claims.

Finally, I would like to state my view that the precise cadastre system belongs back in the 20^th century; the 21^st century has thrown up new realities in that everything must be assessed not just by its theoretical/technical worth but by its financial implications and its benefit for society.  This new thinking combines financial and moral aspects and whilst many of my fellow land surveyors prefer the 20^th century precise cadastre (because it provides lots of work measuring people’s gardens) there is the more important moral aspect of spending trillions of pounds/euros/dollars that could be better spent elsewhere or not even spent at all.

 

David J Powell is a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, a Member of the Academy of Experts, a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society and also sits on Her Majesty’s Land Registration Rules Committee.  He qualified as a land surveyor in the British Army in 1967 and has run his own surveying firm, David J Powell Surveys Limited, in Ringwood, Hampshire, UK, since 1982.