Экзамен зачет учебный год 2023 / Stoter, 3D Cadastre

Chapter 3

Current practice of 3D registration: case studies1

In chapter 2, 3D aspects of the current Dutch cadastral registration were described. To illustrate the way 3D situations are currently registered in the Dutch cadastral registration, six case studies in the Netherlands were selected. The aim of the case studies is to show if current registration possibilities are su cient in the case of stratified property or if improvements are needed. 3D situations are still relatively rare and mainly occur in urban areas. However some 3D situations are particularly for rural areas, e.g. a pipeline crossing several parcels owned by private persons. The case studies were selected in such a way that they form a representation of the types of 3D situations that currently occur in practice. Another criterion in the selection process was that the cases should be simple in order to illustrate as clearly as possible the constraints of current registration. The case studies are divided into building complexes (section 3.1) and subsurface infrastructure objects (section 3.2). Building complexes mostly occur in urban areas and interact with other types of land use. In those cases mostly private parties are involved. Subsurface infrastructure objects are mainly constructions meant to serve the public. Other cases (e.g. soil pollution, archaeological sites and monuments) are not studied because it is the intention of these case studies to get a picture of the complexity of cadastral registration of 3D situations in general, rather than to analyse all possible cadastral recordings with a 3D component, which are numerous and all have their specific characteristics. Therefore the most common and basic types of cadastral registration have been selected. It can be expected that types of cadastral registration that are not dealt with in these case studies, would show similar basic complications. The chapter will end with conclusions.

Future cadastral registration of the selected case studies will be shown in chapter 12, where the prototypes developed as part of this research are applied to the case studies introduced in this chapter.

1This chapter is based on [200] and [201].

45

Chapter 3. Current practice of 3D registration: case studies

3.1Building complexes

The main characteristics of property units in building complexes are that two or more parties are involved in the ownership of the building and that di erent property units, often with di erent functions, are located within one building complex, concentrated on one or several ground parcel(s). The demand that private persons have concerning the cadastre is that their properties are registered properly. Cadastral query must provide su cient insight into what persons own, and the location of the property boundaries. Since real estate has significantly gained value during the last decades, it has become more important to register property clearly and unambiguously. Building complexes are therefore relevant objects to study current registration possibilities of 3D situations. How are property units in building complexes registered at the moment? In what way does the cadastral registration provide insight into the property units in building complexes? Does the cadastral registration provide insight into the location of boundaries of the property units, also in the third dimension? To answer these questions, three case studies are described: an arch (building above a road), a multi-functional building complex and an apartment complex.

3.1.1Case study 1: Building complex in The Hague

Figure 3.1: Building over a road

Figure 3.1 shows an example of a 3D situation: a building over a highway in The Hague. The right of property of the building has been established by establishing rights on the three intersecting parcels (figure 3.2). On the cadastral map (figure 3.2) you can see the outlines of the building (on surface level) and the surface parcels. The arrow indicates the view position of the camera in figure 3.1. The firm ‘Ing Vastgoed Belegging BV’ is holder of the whole building. The rights and restrictions established on the intersecting parcels are as follows. The municipality holds a restricted right of ownership on parcels 1719 and 1720. ‘Ing Vastgoed Belegging BV’ possesses an unrestricted right of ownership on parcel 1718, a right of superficies on parcel 1719

46

3.1. Building complexes

and a right of long lease on parcel 1720. In this example there is one building with one owner (’holder’). However three parcels are used to establish the legal status of the whole building.

Figure 3.2: Cadastral map of the building in figure 3.1. The arrow indicates the position of the camera.

3.1.2Case study 2: The Hague Central Station

The Hague Central Station is a building complex in the city centre of The Hague. It is a combination of a multilevel public transport interchange (bus/tram station and railway station), an o ce centre and shops (see figure 3.3 (a)). All parts of this complex are owned by di erent governmental and commercial organisations. This is achieved by dividing the high building (o ce and railway station) into apartment rights, and the establishment of a right of superficies for the bus/tram station.

The use of apartment rights will be discussed in more detail in the next case. Here we take a closer look at the right of superficies. A right of superficies is a limited real right that entitles its holder to build and have a building (or an other type of construction) in, on or above the land owned by another. As a limited real right it restricts the landowner in his use: he has to tolerate the existence of (a part of) the building on his parcel. On the other hand, the holder of the right of superficies is the full owner of the erected building. In the case of The Hague Central Station, the holder of the right of superficies is entitled to build and own the tram/bus station on

47

Chapter 3. Current practice of 3D registration: case studies

top of the railway platforms. The cadastral map of this complex is shown in figure 3.3

(b). The arrow indicates the position of the camera in figure 3.3 (a). The bus/tram station on top of the railway platform is erected on parcel ‘13295’, the business center is on top of the railway station on parcel ‘12131’.

Figure 3.3: The Hague Central Station, combination of a business centre, a railway station and a bus/tram station.

According to the cadastral DBMS (AKR), the right of the concerning parcels are:

VE = full right of ownership

OS = right of superficies

EVOS = right of ownership, restricted by a right of superficies

48

3.1. Building complexes

Analysing these results, it is clear which persons have a right on the relevant parcels. For example for parcel 13295, AKR shows that “NS Railinfratrust BV” is owner of the land (with the railway platforms), and that the municipality of The Hague (in Dutch: gemeente Den Haag) is holder of the right of superficies (tram/bus station). However, neither these data nor the cadastral map give insight into how the rights are divided in the vertical dimension on every single parcel. There is also no indication in the cadastral registration that the municipality is the factual owner of the bus/tram station. A study in the Public Registers did not reveal much more information. Except for parcel 12131 (divided into apartment rights), the concerning deeds do not contain a spatial description or a (clear) drawing to clarify the division into 3D property units.

3.1.3Case study 3: Apartment complex

A typical form of multiple use of space, known in Dutch law since 1953, is apartment ownership (condominium ownership). For this case, we used a ‘simple’ apartment complex, consisting of one ground parcel and three apartments. One apartment is located on the ground floor, and the two other apartments are located on the second and third floor, next to each other, with an entrance on ground level (see figure 3.4).

Figure 3.4: Apartment complex used in case study.

The deed of division of this apartment complex (archived in the land registration) contains a drawing with a cross-section and the overview of every floor (see figure 3.5). The individual apartments are numbered. The rights at the location of the apartment complex according to the cadastral registration are as follows:

VE = full right of ownership

49

Chapter 3. Current practice of 3D registration: case studies

Figure 3.5: Drawing added to deed of division.

At first glance it seems that there are four owners, the “vereniging van eigenaren” (association of owners) and the holders of each of the three apartments. But this conclusion is incorrect. The parcel 5238 G0 refers to the ground parcel with the apartment complex erected on it. In practise the Kadaster names the “vereniging van eigenaren” (the association of owners) as owner. From a legal point of view this is not correct. The complex is co-owned by all the apartment owners, not by the association. In Dutch law the association of co-owners is merely a legal body entrusted with the day-to-day administration and management of the complex. All the co-owners of the complex are by definition members of this association, which is not explicitly registered in the cadastral registration.

Apart from the (co-owned) ground parcel, the individual apartments are each indicated by a unique number (6408 A1, 6408 A2, 6408 A3). The su x A shows that this number refers to an apartment right. The last digit is the same as the apartment number in the deed of division.

Importantly the individual apartments, the areas of exclusive use, cannot be found on the cadastral map (see figure 3.6). The land registration has to be queried to find the plan of division. Addition of (3D) spatial information on the individual apartments in the cadastral registration would enhance insight. Another disadvantage of current apartment registration is that the plans in the notarial deeds are only available on analogue (and in the future on scanned drawings) in a local coordinate system (in 2D

50

3.2. Subsurface infrastructure objects

layers). When spatial information on apartment units would be available in vector format in the national reference system, this information could be incorporated as part of the cadastral geographical data set or in other geo-data sets (e.g. topographic data) when requested.

Figure 3.6: The cadastral map of the apartment complex in figure 3.4. The parcel in question has been drawn with a thicker line-style. The front of the building is indicated with an arrow. Note that the parcel is larger than the footprint of the building, since the parcels also includes a garden (’tuin’ in drawing of deed of division).

3.2Subsurface infrastructure objects

Infrastructure objects are objects that are necessary to transport all kinds of things (cars, trains, electricity, water, communication). The main characteristics of infrastructure objects are their benefit to the public, their linear shape, and the fact that they cross parcel boundaries. From a cadastral point of view, it is important to register the property rights of infrastructure objects and to register public restrictions because of the infrastructure objects, not merely to secure the value of the real estate for the persons involved, but also to indicate who is responsible for the object (for example in case of damage). In addition, establishment of rights on infrastructure constructions provides a means to protect the construction against damage by specifying conditions in the accompanying deeds. A precise registration is also required, since the holder of the construction is usually obliged to pay the parcel owner a sum of money. Finally, information on the exact location of tunnels and pipelines is indispensable in risk management with regard to the increased attention on calamities in the past ten years (although it can be questioned if this is a specific cadastral task).

In this section three case studies of subsurface infrastructure objects are described (a railway tunnel in an urban area, a railway tunnel in a rural area, and two utility pipelines) to show the possibility to locate infrastructure objects in current cadastral registration.

51

Chapter 3. Current practice of 3D registration: case studies

3.2.1Case study 4: Railway tunnel and station in urban area

Figure 3.7: Rijswijk railway station (left) and kiosk (right).

An interesting case of multiple use of space in the Netherlands can be found in the centre of Rijswijk, a suburb of The Hague. Some years ago the railway line running through this town was tunnelled. On top of this tunnel buildings were constructed. A small part of the tunnel area is shown in figure 3.7 and 3.8. In figure 3.9 the cadastral map of the situation is shown. According to AKR the following rights have been established on the parcels:

VE = full right of ownership; OS = right of superficies;

EVOS = right of ownership, restricted by a right of superficies

In this area there is:

•a railway station building, owned by NS Vastgoed BV (parcel 7856 whole parcel column; 7857 ground level)

•a railway tunnel, and platforms owned by NS Railinfratrust BV (parcel 7854, 7855, 7857, 7944, 7949 underground; 7945, 7946 whole parcel column)

•public space owned by Gemeente Rijswijk (7944, 7949 ground level)

•a kiosk, owned by NS Vastgoed BV (7855 and 7854 ground level)

52

3.2. Subsurface infrastructure objects

Figure 3.8: The location of parcels around the building of the railway station.

Figure 3.9: Fragmented pattern of parcels caused by the projection of 3D objects on the surface. The arrow indicates the position of the camera in figure 3.8.

In figure 3.7 the pyramid-shape object is the building of the railway station (parcels 7856 and 7857), the building on the right is a kiosk (parcels 7854 and 7855) and the railway tunnel is located beneath the buildings.

The cadastral map and the photo of figure 3.8 show that the station building, owned by NS Vastgoed, has been built for the major part above the tunnel (assuming that the tunnel is located below the surface parcel 7857) and for a relatively small part next to the tunnel (parcel 7856). For the first part NS Vastgoed holds a right of superficies on the parcel owned by NS Railinfratrust BV, for the second part NS Vastgoed has the full ownership of the parcel. This case also shows that the 3D spatial extent of rights is not available in the cadastral registration, although it is possible to see that more than one person is entitled to a parcel.

This example is a good illustration of how 3D physical objects below and above the ground control the parcel pattern in the cadastral map (e.g. 7856 and 7857 for the railway station building, also the tunnel is identifiable in the patterns of parcels). Moreover 3D physical objects are “divided” into parts according to the parcel boundaries on the surface. The cadastral map on this location reflects the basic principle of the current cadastre, i.e. registering rights on 2D parcels.

53

Chapter 3. Current practice of 3D registration: case studies

3.2.2Case study 5: Railway tunnel in rural area

In the Netherlands the Paris-Amsterdam High Speed Railway (figure 3.10) is currently under construction (planned to be finished in 2007). Since this railway is passing through una ected rural land, it was decided to drill a tunnel for this part of the railway. The project team of the tunnel provided us with 3D data for the tunnel, which we then imported as one spatial object (a linear object) into the cadastral DBMS. Therefore it was possible to query the legal status of the intersecting parcels. Normally this is not possible since physical objects are not maintained within the cadastral registration. The tunnel itself is about 15 metres in width and 8.5 kilometers long: 7,160 meters for the actual drilled tunnel and two entrance sections of 660 meters and 770 meters in length.

Figure 3.10: The railway tunnel in the “Green Heart” of the Netherlands.

In November 2001 the activities for this tunnel started. The drilling of the tunnel was completed in January 2004. We had access to three snapshots of the cadastral database: June 2000, June 2001 and September 2003. Between June 2000 and September 2003, most of the property rights needed by the Ministry of Transport and Public Works were obtained and registered. For this reason we were able to study the di erences in the legal status of the parcels that contain the tunnel between the di erent snapshots. The results of this investigation are shown in table 3.1.

As can be concluded from this table, at the location of the planned tunnel many changes have taken place between June 2000 and September 2003. Of the original 104 (complete) parcels that intersected with the tunnel in June 2000, 36 are not subdivided in September 2003 (and 50 were not subdivided in June 2001). The other 68 parcels (and 54 in June 2001) are subdivided (without being surveyed yet) because the tunnel has been built just below a part of these parcels. The subdivision of parcels avoids that part of parcels that do not intersect with the tunnel are encumbered with a right for the tunnel. Most of the subdivided parcels are divided into two parts. A minority of them are divided in three, or even four new parcels.

Of the 104 intersecting parcels, in June 2000 the Ministry of Transport and Public Works had a right on 12 intersecting parcels which are all ownership rights. In June 2001, the Ministry had a right on 80 intersecting parcels; 44 ownership rights and 36 rights of superficies. Finally in September 2003, the Ministry had a right on 99 intersecting parcels; 47 ownership rights and 52 rights of superficies. All intersecting parcels a ected with a right of superficies are also a ected with the legal notification ‘OB’ (underground construction), with the Ministry as subject. In the snapshot of

54