|
Post by Brent George on Oct 23, 2015 20:27:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Brent George on Oct 29, 2015 19:02:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Brent George on Nov 3, 2015 19:16:50 GMT
Legislation to reflect Canterbury property owners’ reality - Scoop Independent News - Parliament 3-Nov-2015
An update: The First Reading of the Bill was completed late yesterday afternoon in Parliament.
It was introduced by the Hon. Nick Smith, and was followed by 8 x10min speeches and 4 x5min speeches by various Members including many MP's from Christchurch Electorates. In general, the Bill has cross party support, although there were very clear concerns that: - the Bill should not be rushed through;
- it has taken too long to get to this point;
- the blanket indemnity for Government and Surveyors needs to be scrutinised;
- there needs to be consideration for the rights of the landowner - especially when/if they are negatively impacted by a definition
The Bill therefore passed it's First Reading and will be forwarded to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee for review, whom will hear submissions. No dates have been stated for this stage.
It is noted that the Canterbury MP's on that select committee are: Megan Woods (L); Nuk Korako (N); Matt Doocey (N); Joanne Hayes (N); and Eugenie Sage (G).
|
|
|
Post by Brent George on Nov 4, 2015 1:39:14 GMT
For your edification -
A video stream of the speeches for the First Reading of the Bill yesterday (03-Nov-2015). Pour a cup of tea, sit back, and listen to the commentary and concerns of a cross section of party members.....
IN Parliament TV
|
|
|
Post by Reece Gardner on Nov 4, 2015 1:46:41 GMT
Thanks Brent. Appreciated the link to the video. I couldn't locate the audio/podcast.
|
|
|
Post by Brent George on Nov 4, 2015 23:03:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Brent George on Nov 4, 2015 23:06:52 GMT
Submission and Report Dates
I trust that there is a typo for the "submissions due" date. Obviously 11-Jan-2015 has passed.... I expect the correct date would be 11-Jan-2016 and this will be amended in due course.
|
|
|
Post by Brent George on Nov 5, 2015 23:03:15 GMT
Submission Information
The submission closing date has been confirmed as 15 January 2016. The above link describes the submission process requirements.
The Hearing Date(s) will be in February 2016.
|
|
|
Post by Alex Liggett on Nov 8, 2015 19:15:32 GMT
The Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill may also be of interest, particularly Sections 44 & 45. Spoiler alert: The Chief Executive of LINZ can approve a CSD under Section 9(a) of the CSA 2002 or direct the SG to approve a plan under Sec 69(3) of the CSA 2002, "...even if a cadastral survey dataset does not comply with standards set under section 49 of the Cadastral Survey Act 2002" and "...even if the survey plan does not comply with standards for survey that the Surveyor-General would otherwise apply under the enactment that refers to the survey plan." "A cadastral surveyor carrying out work for a cadastral survey dataset or survey plan to which subsection (1) applies is not liable for any non-compliance with standards referred to in subsection (2) or (3)."
|
|
|
Post by Brent George on Nov 8, 2015 20:06:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Brent George on Nov 8, 2015 20:11:40 GMT
Spoiler alert: The Chief Executive of LINZ can approve a CSD under Section 9(a) of the CSA 2002 or direct the SG to approve a plan under Sec 69(3) of the CSA 2002, "...even if a cadastral survey dataset does not comply with standards set under section 49 of the Cadastral Survey Act 2002" and "...even if the survey plan does not comply with standards for survey that the Surveyor-General would otherwise apply under the enactment that refers to the survey plan." "A cadastral surveyor carrying out work for a cadastral survey dataset or survey plan to which subsection (1) applies is not liable for any non-compliance with standards referred to in subsection (2) or (3)." Could a response to this be: "This is Surveying, Jim, but not as we know it....."
(To borrow a phrase I have heard from somewhere else.....)
|
|
|
Post by Alex Liggett on Nov 9, 2015 3:12:10 GMT
Good to hear ICS member and newly-minted forumite Reece Gardner interviewed. Slightly concerned by the factual errors in the piece though - 300 surveys conducted under LINZ' problematic guidelines? More like 300 surveys carried out in the absence of strong guidance.
|
|
|
Post by Brent George on Nov 13, 2015 0:28:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alex Liggett on Nov 16, 2015 19:02:09 GMT
The Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill may also be of interest, particularly Sections 44 & 45. Spoiler alert: The Chief Executive of LINZ can approve a CSD under Section 9(a) of the CSA 2002 or direct the SG to approve a plan under Sec 69(3) of the CSA 2002, "...even if a cadastral survey dataset does not comply with standards set under section 49 of the Cadastral Survey Act 2002" and "...even if the survey plan does not comply with standards for survey that the Surveyor-General would otherwise apply under the enactment that refers to the survey plan." "A cadastral surveyor carrying out work for a cadastral survey dataset or survey plan to which subsection (1) applies is not liable for any non-compliance with standards referred to in subsection (2) or (3)." Further to this, at last night's NZIS meeting on the subject the SG explained that these provisions were carried over from the earlier CERA 2011 Act, and were there to allow the Crown scope to carry out lower grade surveys of its own land in the Residential Red Zone. I evinced surprise that the SG considered his power to grant dispensations from RCS 2010 insufficient, to which he responded that in fact these provisions had not been used up until now, and that the provision is there just in case. Conundrum: Can the SG create a rule so binding that even he cannot grant dispensation from it?
|
|
|
Post by Alex Liggett on Nov 23, 2015 0:15:53 GMT
After listening to the SG's presentation, and talking to a few people, the question I have now is:
The only guidance contained in the Bill points rather lamely at Section 81 of the LT Act 1952(it also points to s172, which relates to malfeasance on the part of the registrar and can thus be discounted). which is as follows:
Given that the Bill steers away from any reference to an error, in it's haste to get surveyors, LINZ, and anyone else bar the poor old landowner off the hook, the only relevant text in s.81 of the LT Act is that shown in bold above. A solicitor of my acquaintance who is a far wiser head than mine tells me that given everything else in s.81 is related to errors, it is unlikely that the bold text could be considered in isolation. If this is correct, there is no mechanism for the RGL to call in an adjoining title to address the issue, unless the adjoining owner is a willing participant.
Discuss?
|
|