3D Cadastre in Australian and New Zealand Jurisdictions: Similarities and Differences

Abstract

Many research studies have been recently conducted in Australia and New Zealand to explore a range of technical, legal, and institutional aspects related to modernisation of 3D cadastre. Most of these studies focus on a particular jurisdiction. This stems from the fact that each jurisdiction is responsible for their own cadastral system. Therefore, the requirements, guidelines, and procedures for implementing 3D digital cadastre are also specific for each jurisdiction. However, the Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping (ICSM) develops national frameworks and data models, e.g. ePlan, for cadastral systems in Australia and New Zealand. Therefore, understanding the differences and similarities between existing cadastral systems is critically important to support 3D cadastre at a national level. In the current literature, comparisons of 3D cadastre for some civil law jurisdictions as well as standards have been conducted. Nevertheless, the common law jurisdictions, including Australia and New Zealand, have not been compared in terms of 3D cadastre. Thus, this research aims to develop an overarching framework comprising differences and similarities in current practices pertaining to subdividing ownership of vertically stratified properties to support 3D cadastre in all jurisdictions of Australia and New Zealand. The study scope is limited to technical aspects of 3D cadastre in these jurisdictions. A survey based on a questionnaire has been conducted to identify the important data elements used in current 3D cadastre practices in Australian and New Zealand jurisdictions. The survey outcomes indicated that there are some similarities in terms of managing 3D cadastral data. One main similarity is that 3D legal boundaries are typically delineated by either referencing physical structures or fixed survey measurements. The differences mainly refer to various types of primary land parcels and secondary interests in each jurisdiction. In addition, similar ownership concepts are named differently in each jurisdiction. For instance, the “Lot” primary parcel, which defines the ownership space of a private property, in Victoria is the same as “Unit” parcel in Northern Territory. Each jurisdiction uses its own representation of 3D cadastral data. For instance, cross section diagrams are used in Victoria while isometric views are used in Queensland. These research outcomes could help with developing a framework for multi-jurisdictional 3D cadastre in Australia and New Zealand.