Old Terrace - Survey / Boundary Questions

Discussion in 'Renovation & Home Improvement' started by aroe, 29th Jun, 2020.

Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community
  1. aroe

    aroe Active Member

    Joined:
    29th Nov, 2016
    Posts:
    28
    Location:
    Sydney
    We commenced a small (hahaha) reno on our pre-1900s terrace in Sydney several weeks back.

    The block is a funny shape - rectangular, but ~3.5m at the front and ~4m at the rear.

    We are the end terrace on a row, with the neighbor on the 'open' end being Council. There is a dead space, and then a fence, between us and the councils usable land.

    Unfortunately, during demolition, the main side wall of the terrace was found to be structurally unsound, so after another round of approvals, we have demolished most of it, and built a new wall, simply with a string line from the retained section of wall at the front, to the original footing at the rear - both points 'within' our lot.

    Given that the original wall was completely on the **** (banana + 100mm (avg) lean), and that this wall was our boundary - what happens in the event our "new" wall is perfectly straight and therefore over the original boundary ? - if that makes sense?

    As we never intended for the wall to come down, and only a relatively small section of the 'boundary' was affected, we overlooked getting a survey peg done, given the fact 'its just a straight line'.

    I'm a little stressed that although the line of the wall is the same, we may have a (very) minor encroachment come Identification Survey and Occupation Cert time.

    I have taken measurements from the CAD file provided by the initial survey, and it seems fine to me with a measure tape. Are measurements between boundary lines in CAD as accurate as it gets?

    Cheers!!
     
  2. bmc

    bmc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Oct, 2015
    Posts:
    479
    Location:
    Sydney
    you are only guessing at best.

    were the points you measured from depicted precisely (noted) on the survey plan / cad dwg.

    was a boundary definition undertaken or was it just a level and detail survey.

    in regards to the survey you mentioned did it say in the "Notes". anything like below ?
    • RELATIONSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS TO BOUNDARIES IS DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. WHERE OFFSETS ARE CRITICAL THEY SHOULD BE CONFIRMED BY FURTHER SURVEY.
    • EXCEPT WHERE SHOWN BY DIMENSION, LOCATION OF DETAIL WITH RESPECT TO BOUNDARIES IS INDICATIVE ONLY.
    worse case scenario is if you have encroached upon another property, council or private, the certifier may require an easement created over the structure.

    only the final survey (if requested) will tell
     
    willair likes this.
  3. aroe

    aroe Active Member

    Joined:
    29th Nov, 2016
    Posts:
    28
    Location:
    Sydney
    Thanks bmc

    It was a boundary definition survey - no notes like the ones you've mentioned. Only services and trees are called out as approximates.

    As for taking measurements, I am simply using the measure tool in Autodesk between boundary lines running between two points - i.e. ridge, end of parapet walls.
     
  4. bmc

    bmc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Oct, 2015
    Posts:
    479
    Location:
    Sydney
    ok that's the correct type of survey.

    usually the point located will be shown in the cad with a Pt-cross, tagged with a level or code, but sometimes for clarity the location is exaggerated and not to scale.
    you will sometimes see a disclaimer saying, "only use noted dimensions - do not scale from this drawing"

    see my example showing the adjoining wall along an irregular boundary. if it was drawn to scale you would not see the departures at 1:100, so the line-work is exaggerated and a measurement noted.

    i would suggest talking with the surveyor, explain to him what you have done.
    he will know which specific points on the wall he located, (leaning, top, bottom, rough, dressed etc) - to what degree of accuracy the plan is drawn, and if your method is sound.
     

    Attached Files:

    Scott No Mates likes this.
  5. aroe

    aroe Active Member

    Joined:
    29th Nov, 2016
    Posts:
    28
    Location:
    Sydney
    Thanks. That is helpful.

    Our survey shows the boundary as a perfectly straight line, however the wall was absolutely not straight, it banana'd and zig zagged INTO the property, with a lean towards OUTSIDE the boundary.

    I'll chat to the surveyor next week.

    If we are say, worst case, briefly 10-20mm out, what typically happens in this case - does this prevent us from getting Occupancy Cert? I would imagine encroachments of this size are fairly common, but just more noticeable on smaller lots?
     
  6. bmc

    bmc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Oct, 2015
    Posts:
    479
    Location:
    Sydney
    its up to the certifier (and they're a little nervous at the moment)

    this is from the certifier regarding a new build i did recently at Newtown.

    • Without the surveyor confirming that the new walls are contained wholly within the boundaries of the site then an Occupation Certificate cannot be issued because condition No.’s (2(a) and (20) have not been satisfied.
     
  7. aroe

    aroe Active Member

    Joined:
    29th Nov, 2016
    Posts:
    28
    Location:
    Sydney
    Ah yikes. Fair enough.

    Thanks!
     
  8. Anthony416

    Anthony416 Town Planner & Project Manager Business Member

    Joined:
    14th Dec, 2015
    Posts:
    407
    Location:
    Sydney
    I recall my surveyor having a similar situation where he went back and took spot readings along the wall for the client, say at a height of 1m, and then averaged them to show it was "within" the boundary. The wall probably had variations in the range of 20-40 mm from memory with some points encroaching across the boundary.
     
  9. aroe

    aroe Active Member

    Joined:
    29th Nov, 2016
    Posts:
    28
    Location:
    Sydney
    Thanks Anthony - good to know that there are options!