Viewing Deed Plans and Digital Data at an Appropriate Scale

The practice of enlarging on-screen images of new deed plans to many times greater than the original image size, or relying on digital data to plot the extent of subjects where the plan is at too small scale to clearly identify the extent, puts the Keeper at risk if the extent of a registered title based on such actions was challenged. The Keeper must rely on the information contained in the original document for registration purposes and not an enhanced image/data file.

Requirements of the 2012 Act

There are different requirements for different application types set out in the 2012 Act. For an application to be acceptable, the following requirements must be met.

In FR applications, "the deed so describes the plot as to enable the Keeper to delineate its boundaries on the cadastral map" [s23(1)(c) & s25(1)(b)].
In TP & DW applications, "the deed, in so far as it relates to part only of land or of the subjects of a lease, so describes the part as to enable the Keeper to delineate on the cadastral map the boundaries of the part" [s26(1)(d)].
In VR applications, "there is submitted with the application a plan or description of the plot sufficient to enable the Keeper to delineate the plot's boundaries on the cadastral map" [s28(1)(a)]

Useful Links

Acceptable deed plan

SEA mapping requirements

VRs and digital data

New deed plans

It is important to remember that although deeds are now examined as on-screen images, under the 2012 Act there still requires to be a hard copy deed prepared by the agent, with a plan annexed thereto if appropriate, and signed by the relevant parties. In effect the image that is submitted with the application for registration is just a copy of the physical paper deed held by the agent. Notwithstanding the digital submission of the deed to RoS, the hard copy deed remains the legal document on which the transaction is based and therefore it must meet the requirements of the Act.

In respect of new deed plans, unless the application relates to a VR (see separate guidance page) or a title in the county of SEA (see separate guidance page), any new deed plans must be of sufficient scale and clarity to enable you to plot the extent on to the cadastral map based on the original size and scale of the image, i.e. based on the paper plan annexed to the hard copy deed.

When examining new deed plans, plans officers must adopt a consistent approach when deciding if plans are suitable for registration. To ensure that plans are examined in the same way as if you were looking at the original hard copy attached to a paper deed, the on-screen deed plan images should not be enlarged excessively to try and identify the extent to be plotted. If it is necessary to enlarge the image multiple times to identify the extent, then the plan does not meet the requirements of the Act and should be rejected.

For deed plans it is recommended that you do not increase the image size to greater than 125-175% of the original image size, but this will be dependent on the quality of the individual image and the nature of the subjects themselves. For example, the practical limits are likely to be different for plans drawn at 1:5,000 or 1:10,000 scales than for plans at 1:1250 or 1:2500 scales. In very limited circumstances, it may be appropriate to go to 200% as an upper limit. If it is not possible to identify and plot the extent within these limits then a replacement plan at a larger scale, or a revised plan with enlargements of specific areas, should be considered by the applicant.

Note 1:5,000 and 1:10,000 plans are likely to be over large areas of ground. Therefore, particular care should be taken regarding identifying multiple OS features in close proximity to one another and the thickness of the plotted lines. In those circumstances the lower scaling limits may be more appropriate.

Images of deed plans should not require to be enlarged multiple times from the original size in order to identify the extent. Increasing the image size should only be the equivalent of using a lightbox or magnifying glass on a paper plan to check the extent.

New deed plans should each be assessed on their own merits and the vast majority will create no issues, but in the first instance check the stated scale of any new plan submitted and the print size and bear this in mind when viewing the plan on screen. This information can usually be found in the legend box on the plan and will typically narrate, Scale 1:1250 @ A4, Scale 1:10,000 @ A0, etc.

If you need to enlarge the image to identify the extent, check to see what the percentage view is and then ask yourself the question “If I was looking at the original sized/scale image, could I clearly determine the extent?" If the answer is no, or I’m not sure, then the plan is not suitable for registration purposes and should be rejected. As always, if you are unsure of what to do, refer for guidance.

Digital data

If an agent has submitted digital data, unless the application is specifically identified as being a Voluntary Registration (VR) or relates to an application that falls wholly within the county of SEA, the digital data is provided merely to assist with the mapping of the title. It can be used to speed up the mapping process and avoid the need to reproduce large amounts of mapping information, but it does not supersede the requirement for a registration compliant plan to be submitted.

Digital data can only be used as the primary means of identifying the title extent where the application is a Voluntary Registration or relates to registration of a SEA title, this includes seabed, salmon fishings, minerals, etc. In those circumstances a plan still requires to be submitted with the digital data to provide a visual identification of the extent and references, but this does not require to be at a registration compliant scale.

In all other situations the deed plan is the primary means of identifying the title and must be acceptable for registration. The digital data cannot be more accurate than the information on the plan. If the plan image is too small to plot the extent from, or to identify the references, the digital data cannot be used as an alternative means of identifying the title. The plan should be rejected as not suitable for registration.

Examples of inappropriate plans/digital data to look out for are where the agent has submitted a small-scale plan for a large area and also submitted digital data to attempt to improve on the accuracy of the plotting where this cannot be identified from the plan. In effect the plan is being used as a location plan and the digital data as the more accurate mapping information. This is not suitable for registration purposes.

Please note that in respect of Open Casework applications, the above noted information should be considered in line with the Keeper’s published policy on Open Casework.