Questions on peg out for new house build

Rwbuild has given a good, clear explanation of the process, but it still goes wrong sometimes. My Physiotherapist is currently having a granny flat built at the rear of his practice. It has a steel frame floor built on steel piles set in concrete. It has a ramp from the practice to the granny flat. Last week, in the wee small hours of the morning, his wife said "They've got the floor level wrong. We need to go up there and check." They did, and she was correct, so when the builder arrived she fronted him, and he behaved as per Beardy's description. When she insisted he check, he was just a bit red faced. They'd excavated 1m too much, and the floor levels were 1m too low. When I arrived, they were cutting lengths of steel for pile extensions. On Tuesday, it looked like the eaves of the two buildings were going to intersect. Tomorrow, I shall no doubt hear the story.

There may well be two types of surveyor at work. Establishing the boundaries may be done by, or under the immediate supervision of, a licensed surveyor, depending on a few things. The set-out for the building may be done by a technician surveyor. As a hydrographer, I always envied my terrestrial surveyor colleagues, who had the luxury of putting in pegs to hold the ground still while they measured it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexS

....... I always envied my terrestrial surveyor colleagues, who had the luxury of putting in pegs to hold the ground still while they measured it.

---

I haven't had that problem since I stopped drinking with engineering students. :drunk22:

Try surveying in an underground mine..........

Having been one of those surveyors (now retired but previously a registered surveyor with engineering endorsement) who enjoyed the "luxury of putting in pegs to hold the ground still while they measured it" all I can say is that times, and practices are changing very rapidly in the surveying world. As is the legislative and procedural requirements for compliance with surveying, planning and building legislation, regulations and codes.

In all states "cadastral surveyors" (marking property boundaries) must be "registered" and certain other survey specialists (engineering, mining, hydrographic etc) may be required to be firstly "registered as a surveyor" under the survey legislation. Their fitness to maintain "registration" and their "competence" to hold various "endorsements" is assessed annually under a "competency assessment framework." A "registered surveyor" is able to hold multiple "endorsements" i.e. "cadastral", "engineering", "mining" and "consulting". Under the legislation in most states a surveyor (or another person) must not perform say a "cadastral survey" for the general public or a builder etc (i.e. consult) unless they are currently a "registered surveyor" who holds both "consulting" and "cadastral" "endorsements".

So in this instance a "cadastral surveyor" performs a "cadastral survey" to "mark new corners" or to "identify the existing corners" of a lot to confirm the ownership and location of the "lot". The same individual may also place "engineering marks" i.e. building offset pegs, or as often the case another "registered surveyor", from the same firm or perhaps another firm, who holds an "engineering endorsement" will place the offset pegs. That situation varies between states, as some states do not require "engineering surveyors" to be "registered" or to hold the "engineering" or "consulting" "endorsements." Some of those tasks may be delegated to a "surveying associate" or "graduate surveyor" working under the supervision of a "registered surveyor" who holds the appropriate endorsements.

The survey legislation and regulations also impose obligations upon "registered cadastral surveyors" to prepare plans of "cadastral surveys" which must be lodged with the registering authority within a specified time frame after completion of the "cadastral survey."

"Registered engineering surveyors" though not compelled by legislation or regulations will also supply a "plan of marks placed" clearly and unambiguously showing the offset (if any) to the building or works being set out to their client. They will usually liase with the client on their preferred marking of offset pegs, i.e. 2m offset to front / rear building corners and in line with said face; some request 4 pegs placed at corners of 2m offset lines to all faces so that profiles can be installed on those 2m offsets. More technically advanced builders may request a "data file" to upload into their own survey total stations, or to set out earthworks and to control automated machine guided concrete screeds where no "offset pegs" are actually placed, only a "control mark network."

Prudent builders and owners will insist on an "identification survey" of the "lot" before commencing any ground works, and should insist on the "building works" or any controlled "development works" be set out by a "registered surveyor."

Quite often a builder or owner may want to "save money" by not having the appropriate surveys performed. As the "waterfront case" above and numerous other very expensive and time consuming "stuff up's" attest to that is false economy, and always leads to the blame circle where everyone insists it was some one else's fault. Often the financial losses start at 10 to 20 times the cost and more of a survey.

Registered surveyors with consulting and cadastral endorsements must hold professional indemnity insurances etc and are experts in location accuracy. Many mortagee's insist on the completion of both cadastral and building setout (engineering) surveys as a condition within the mortgage documents.

Having been heavily involved in the surveying professional institutions and the provision of continuing professional development all I can say is that the surveying profession in general is quite well managed and very aware of the consequences of "getting it wrong." Its hair raising to see the financial losses incurred when it goes "pear shaped" and some of the claims and counter claims for damages made after a stuff up!

In the late 80's a group of houses were being built in Paraburdoo for the Channar mine project, I was involved in delivering the concrete for the slabs. One slab got poured back to front, wasn't discovered until it was time to erect the house. They eventually broke the slab up and redid it correctly. I wasn't privvey to all the finger pointing that would have gone on but have wondered ever since how it could happen when other slabs in the vicinity were laid correctly.
Cheers,
Geoff.

I know of one project home built on the wrong block. The negotiations with the block owner would of been interesting but didn’t hear the final outcome
I suspect it was a clerical error not a surveying one though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

I know of one project home built on the wrong block. The negotiations with the block owner would of been interesting but didn’t hear the final outcome
I suspect it was a clerical error not a surveying one though

---

Certainly not a rare event. One example used in QLD for cadastral reinstatement (remarking boundaries from previous surveys) education was of a Surveyor, lets just call him Bob for ease of communication, who accepted "evidence" of old "survey marks" as being from the original cadastral survey of an inner city suburb in Brisbane. Many surveyors followed on from Bob's survey reinstatement, until one surveyor (Fred) many decades later disputed Bob's "evidence." Fred's "evidence" was far more compelling and thorough, and proved that Bob may have made an error in accepting his evidence. The "error" effectively displaced lots a short distance sideways, with buildings over time having been built to the boundary of many of the affected lots.

Over time land in the suburb had become quite valuable, with single residences being replaced by multi unit complexes. Planning laws had also changed to permit development of lots using the area to calculate the number of units permitted (much simplified for explanation). Over the years several court cases have proceeded on the grounds that the erroneous re-survey had created "encroachments" with disaffected owners seeking compensation or attempting to resolve the "error" to correct their titles and to permit them to build more units on the lot. A chain reaction in effect, solve one owners problem then create two more problems for their adjoining owners.

Other example have included the first owner to build in a new subdivision, mistakenly building on the adjoining lot, then others simply saying my lot is next door, or 4 lots down etc. The status quo remained for decades until one lot was to be sold with the prospective purchaser insisting on an "identification survey." Only then was the error found, which effectively meant the owner of Lot 1 had built their house on lot 2 etc. That has been a nightmare to resolve due to the variance in quality and valuation of homes. Some owners were prepared to simply "swap" lots through a transfer of Title with others insisting they wanted "their" lot, with the more valuable house of course.

One could go on ...

There’s several houses down here on the river, built back in the days where people “just knocked something up in the Christmas holidays”, that are over the boundaries, one is so far out as to be half on a council reserve and half on their own block. When time came to sell it, it was an absolute nightmare, cost a lot of money to get sorted out.
I personally have had to chainsaw a back corner off a place at Bar Point that was encroaching on the neighbours land snd they insisted that it was rectified as they wanted to sell.
Surveyors are worth every dollar they charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by riverbuilder

Surveyors are worth every dollar they charge.

---

Very true! Reviews of survey legislation occurred post "Hilmer", remember that - 1993 National Competition Policy Review. "Hilmer" opened up some industries to competition but maintained dominant regulation in some areas in the "public interest." Cadastral Surveying and confidence in Titles to ownership of land was deemed to be one such area, however all states reviewed their survey legislation, and regulations.

Many changes to how surveys were to be conducted, land registry authorities requirements etc occurred, particularly the introduction of the "competency assessment framework" and "endorsements" as well as mandatory actions registered surveyors must undertake when in the course of their surveys they discover matters that affect their client or the owners of adjoining lots. Building, and other controlled development "encroachments" were one such matter. Historically some "encroachments" were left in the "let sleeping dogs lie" basket, however that is no longer an option for registered cadastral surveyors in most states.

Some years ago when I was supervising for a project builder had a job that backed onto a reserve. House was peged, concreter starts and because there was a reasonable amount of fill at the back of the house after creating the platform for the slab it had to be piered. Concreter merrily drilling away , hits something hard, not unusual, probably a rock, puts rock auger on rig, punches down, then auger drops 1.0m instantly then hard again. He immediately what it was, sewer main, main truck line for that portion of the subdivision. MWSDB had already approved the plans and not in the zone of influence. Yeah, right, when they laid the main their own surveyor had stuffed up big time. It affected about 10 houses and it cost the MWSDB big $'s for those 10 houses when they were built, they opted to pier and bridge the main, was cheaper than doing a new main and they accepted all responsibility indefinitely.

Another case was a company I had just started with and it was 3 weeks before completion of a townhouse development at Blacktown that backed onto the main western rail line.
The works as executed final survey had been submitted to the railways and they said the drainage easement was in error, the invert at the boundary was 100mm lower than the discharge rail easement 300m away. I had to meet 2 of there engineering people on site to try and resolve the issue. I asked them for their copy of the RL's for their existing easement that was given to our engineer to do thee design for the development, yes, you guessed it, their surveyor had transposed the invert at each end of the rail easement, they had to redo their own easement.

How often did the old surveys get it wrong? Our current house is on a relatively old parcel for the Gold Coast. The house was build in the 70's on a subdivision of a subdivision. Not long after purchasing I discovered a couple of survey pegs for our fence line on the accessible parts of our block (the rear 1/3 was overgrown and on a 1 in 1 slope down into bushland). One peg is at the top of the start of the steep drop off, the other is 2m past our front fence on the nature strip. I've never wanted to open that potential can of worms although I've always wondered. I'm pretty certain it's a peg for our lot as nothing similar is visible in the street on neighbouring properties although there are RL screws at various points along the concrete kerbs. There's also a V chiseled into the kerb on the other side of the block that looks like it might be a matching mark for the opposite corner where a peg couldn't be put in. I've wondered if most of the nature strip might actually be on our land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwbuild

Some years ago when I was supervising for a project builder had a job that backed onto a reserve. House was peged, concreter starts and because there was a reasonable amount of fill at the back of the house after creating the platform for the slab it had to be piered. Concreter merrily drilling away , hits something hard, not unusual, probably a rock, puts rock auger on rig, punches down, then auger drops 1.0m instantly then hard again. He immediately what it was, sewer main, main truck line for that portion of the subdivision. MWSDB had already approved the plans and not in the zone of influence. Yeah, right, when they laid the main their own surveyor had stuffed up big time. It affected about 10 houses and it cost the MWSDB big $'s for those 10 houses when they were built, they opted to pier and bridge the main, was cheaper than doing a new main and they accepted all responsibility indefinitely.

---

The main sewer in our street runs along the top of the drop off into the reserve behind us. It runs through the rear portion of a lot of blocks. The area was sewered well after the houses were built in the 70's. When we renovated 19 years ago we requested all available old construction and drainage plans from the Council. Nothing showed the sewer and no easements are noted on any documentation we have seen or show up in title searches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuzzie

The main sewer in our street runs along the top of the drop off into the reserve behind us. It runs through the rear portion of a lot of blocks. The area was sewered well after the houses were built in the 70's. When we renovated 19 years ago we requested all available old construction and drainage plans from the Council. Nothing showed the sewer and no easements are noted on any documentation we have seen or show up in title searches.

---

Most councils / local authorities were pretty diligent in recording sewers installed, when we got rid of outback dunnies, by performing quite detailed engineering surveys for their design & construction and "as built surveys" after construction. The sewer invert, connection, jump up, locations & levels were recorded on those plans as offsets from boundaries and other improvements, which over time some of those "more permanent improvements" have gone.

Under the Land Act (leased lands) & Titles Acts (freehold lands) in most states at the time of construction of those sewers there was no legal requirement to envelope those sewers in "easements" though some were created for major trunk sewers, particularly those into sewerage treatment works. To this day in most states sewer lines in / through residential lots are not in "easements" because the economics of creating the easements are a burden that is passed onto consumers (land purchasers.)

Sewer Levels were referenced to councils (or their consultants) level datums & their own permanent survey mark (those brass discs you see in kerbs, footpaths & the like.) control networks which were pretty much unique to each council. Railways & Main Roads also had their independent level networks, so there were numerous "level datums" in existence and it was not a straight forward task to reconcile them.

In the early 1970's the Australian Height Datum (AHD) was introduced to resolve the confusion and to force all engineering, and control surveys onto the one homogeneous Australia wide level datum. That process was hugely successful but has had some "local anomalies" and more systemic errors as we are now discovering through advanced modelling and better measurement tools, precision GPS etc. So historically confusion between say railways and a local council were more the norm rather than an exception until the AHD evolved.

In fact the sewerage plans were mostly prepared by consultant engineering firms such as GH&D etc and are a very valuable record of "improvements" (sheds, buildings, houses etc, even chook runs) on lots at the time of survey. Some councils have realized their historical & technical worth and have preserved those engineering survey plans, some have destroyed them. Now with most councils using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) the transfer of survey data & information contained on those historical plans has not always been faithful or accurate with most systems permitting "source / quality identifiers" which gives an indication of the positional quality of the data. Imperfect but its the best we've got.

When the records are gone, or difficult to access, and the "old timers" who had a record in their memories / grey matter also moved on problems emerged as Fuzzie has mentioned, water mains, telco cables, sewers, drainage lines got "found" by not so ideal means, and not always immediately. :- I've had first hand experience several times when a builder's / telco's / road construction / drainage crews day has literally "gone to $hit." :oo: Nothing gets ones attention more so than a "fountain" or some "blind mullets" swimming by, as the colourful language flies. I've lost count of the number of times my schedule went to crap, after an unplanned discover was made by one of our construction crews, despite a rather diligent design process. Some were funny, others a bloody nightmare and very expensive to resolve. The locals tend to get a bit ancy :(( when a contractor takes out the telco network, phones, EFTPOS, data etc for the whole CBD of a major regional city, or a trunk water main in a significant CBD intersection.

Level and survey control networks are a dynamic entity, they are constantly evolving, particularly as computing resources became more sophisticated and permitted "network adjustments" over vast areas to improve the quality of the data and to resolve some of those "local anomalies." So historically the positional data (vertical level / height, & hz position & connections) on most if not all "permanent survey marks" have been revised / updated in those "network adjustments," and with the latest survey datums the positional data is actually dynamic (x,y,z + date & time.)

So land surveyors didn't always have it easy as Alex suggests. :p Plus we now know that the land / continents are drifting, through now measurable drift observable via precision GPS techniques. :wink:

I was so glad when AHD was introduced...or though t I would be. Unfortunately, there were so many other height data in use, that converting them to AHD was nigh impossible. One of my favourites was River Murray Lock Site Datum. After going through ancient documents and connecting to other known RMs, I came to the conclusion that it was created by the authorities deciding that at a particular time and date, the water level at any point on the Murray was (say) RL100.00' RMLSD.