Map Updates - Plans Considerations
- Editor9
Why do we update the OS basemap that underlies the cadastral map?
|  |
Firstly, the Keeper is under a statutory obligation to do so. Section 11 (7) of the Land Registration, etc (Scotland) 2012 states:
"On the base map being updated, the Keeper must make any changes to the register which are necessary in consequence of the updating".
Secondly, it adds sustainability to the land register for the future. By staying in step with real world changes, the cadastral map remains relevant and useful. It makes it easier for RoS to share data with, and accept data from, customers.
Thirdly, by keeping up to date with changes in the real world, it means RoS can adapt to improvements and innovations in how that world is modelled.
What is a Map Update (MU)?
A Map Update (MU) is an application created by RoS to update a registered title when the underlying OS basemap detail is changed or updated. It is created only on the mapping systems, not the LRS, and is created by the Mapbase Maintenance (MBM) team.
An MU can be used when the basemap has been updated due to a refinement of the representation of an existing feature on the map, or when a survey is made of a new feature on the ground. The OS mapping in Scotland is continually evolving, and stems from maps which may have originally been surveyed as far back as 150 years ago. Since then, there have been many revisions based on site visits, aerial photography and now more modern gps surveys. On average, the OS supplies approximately 2,000 map feature updates each day to RoS, although luckily not all of these will require an MU over a registered title!
Why do plans officers need to consider changes to the basemap?
The volume of map feature updates received from the OS has led to a backlog of potential MUs that is currently more than MBM can get through. Whilst work is ongoing to find other solutions to clearing the backlog, for now it means that plans officers in registration need to be aware of this and need to consider if an MU is appropriate in certain circumstances.
New deed plans may be submitted that are based on the latest version of the OS map, but the last authorised/approved title extent for your title or an adjoining title may have been created on an older version - at first glance this could look like a competing title but may just be due to map versions. It is possible in such scenarios that the existing authorised/approved extent is one that is still awaiting consideration for updating to the newest map version by way of an MU.
What do plans officers need to consider?
- The scale and tolerances of the OS base map
- Is the feature on the latest OS map version the same feature on the original authorised/approved map version?
- Has the physical feature changed on the ground, or is it a new depiction of the same physical feature? Check aerial photography? If it is a different feature then the legal boundary should not be moved.
- What was the intention of the original deed plan, or bounding description? Is the latest OS map version more representative of the original extent in the deed plan/bounding description?
- Was the physical feature defined on the previous OS map version? If not, then has the physical boundary been build in the same place as the legal boundary or in an other (incorrect?) position?
- Be cautious with double features on the OS map versions and on the deed plan(s). Was it always shown as a double feature, or was it previously generalised to a single feature?
- Remember to consider all affected applications and titles. Deed plans from different dates can provide useful information on how a site or area was developed over time.
- Is it movement of a Natural Water Boundary? If it is, refer to a Plans HEO.
- Check the Basemap Investigation Layer.
MUs and restricted extent tenement steading cadastral units
In addition to changes as a result of updates to the OS base map, MUs can also be used to update the extent of a restricted extent tenement steading cadastral unit when ground is being added to it. Further guidance on these tenement scenarios can be found on the page - Tenement Steading Extent - Guidance for Referral Officers.
Remember, an MU should not be used to correct an inaccuracy in a registered title extent - MUs are for updating a title extent as a result of an update to the OS base map - they are not to be used as a "quick fix" for issues caused by conveyancing inconsistencies or mapping errors. Inaccuracies in registered titles can only be resolved through corrective conveyancing and/or the rectification process with the use of Rectification of the Register (RR) applications.
Examples of MUs
Example 1
| The original OS base map showed no defined features at the rear of the property. |
 | When the initial application to register no 14 was received, the plans officer had to plot the rear boundaries (pink), the right in common (blue) and the servitude right of access (brown). |
 | A new version of the OS base map is now available that shows mapped features at the rear of the property. The mapped features on the OS map are very close to the plotted extents on the registered title but do not fully coincide. The mapping of the registered title should be re-considered by comparing the original deed plan with the latest OS map version to see if it is appropriate to update the title. |
 | In this example, a Map Update (MU) is appropriate. Had the title been registered today on the latest OS version, the mapped features on the OS basemap would have been accepted as being an accurate representation of the same boundaries and paths shown on the deed plan, within the tolerances of the base map scale. The plans officer would be helped in making their decision by considering the deed plan, the tolerance of the basemap, the size of the update needed, the deed plans for any other affected tites, and possibly aerial photography. In this instance, there are no double features that need additional consideration. An MU request should be sent to MBM for all affected titles. |
Example 2
| In this example, the subjects to be registered comprise a sasine area under exception of several registered titles. A new deed plan has been submitted with the application as well as referring to the sasine description. The new deed plan extent shows some the boundaries of the subjects sitting slightly off the features shown on the current OS base map version, but adjoining the registered title extents. |
 | It can be seen from the title history that the adjoining registered titles were mapped on previous version(s) of the OS base map when some of the features were not defined. |
 | There is therefore now a need to reconsider the existing registered title extents as no MU has been done on them before the new deed plan had been prepared. The mapped features on the OS map are close to the plotted extents on the registered titles but do not fully coincide. The mapping of the registered titles should be re-considered by comparing the original deed plan with the latest OS map version to see if it is appropriate to update the titles. |
 | Had the titles been registered today on the latest OS version, the mapped features on the OS basemap would have been accepted as being an accurate representation of the same boundaries, etc shown on the deed plan, within the tolerances of the base map scale. The plans officer would be helped in making their decision by considering the deed plan, the tolerance of the basemap, the size of the update needed, the deed plans for any other affected tites, and possibly aerial photography. In this example, Map Updates (MUs) over the existing registered titles are appropriate. By updating or refining the extents, no change is being made to the legal title, only how they are represented on the cadastral map, and the extents will more accurately reflect how they were originally conveyed. An MU request should be sent to MBM for all affected titles. Once the MUs are complete, the current application for registration can proceed with the cadastral unit extent adjoining the updated neighbouring titles as this will more accurately reflect the sasine titles for the property. |
Example 3
| In this example, the subjects to be registered include a non-exclusive servitude right of access over a track. There is already another nearby registered title that also has a non-exclusive servitude right of access over the same track and this is tinted yellow in that title. The existing reference for the track can be seen to be sitting off the features shown on the current OS base map version. |
 | It is evident from the map version history that there is only one track, and that it's depiction has been refined on the latest version of the OS base map. In this example, a Map Update (MU) over the existing registered title is appropriate. There is no change being made to the servitude right of access, only an update to more accurately reflect its extent following an improvement of the level of detail shown on the OS base map. An MU request should be sent to MBM for the affected title. Once the MU is complete, the current application for registration can proceed using the updated extent for the servitude right of access. |
Example 4
| In this example, the subjects to be registered are located next door to and to the south of an existing registered title which can be seen to be sitting off the features shown on the current OS base map version. The deeds for the current application suggest that the intention was for two properties to adjoin, i.e. there is no gap between them. |
 | It is evident from the map version history that there has been a change to the OS base map over time, and that the registered title was originally registered to follow the features on an earlier version. |
 | It can be seen from the original sasine deed plan for the registered title that the legal extent of the property has more of an angle and that it closely follows what is now shown on the current OS base map. The original mapping decision must have been taken to accept the features shown on the OS map at that time, but the more recent update to the base map has refined the depiction of the features. |
 | In this example, a Map Update (MU) over the existing registered title is appropriate. There is no change being made to the legal extent of the title, only an update to more accurately reflect its extent following an improvement in the detail shown on the OS base map. An MU request should be sent to MBM for the affected title. Once the MU is complete, the application for registration of the neighbouring property can proceed with the titles adjoining on the current version of the OS base map. |
When MUs are not appropriate
It must be remembered that map updates (MUs) are not always appropriate when you see a registered title that does not follow OS features or does not adjoin your pending registration.
- An MU should not be used to correct an inaccuracy in a registered title extent - MUs are for updating a title extent as a result of an update to the OS base map. If there is an inaccuracy in the mapping of a title, this can only be resolved through corrective or additional conveyancing, or through the rectification process with the use of Rectification of the Register (RR) applications.
- An MU should not be used to correct an inaccuracy in the prior (sasine) conveyancing. Where the conveyancing was wrong or contradictory, perhaps creating a competing title in the sasine register, the correct course of action is for the issue to be resolved through corrective or additional conveyancing, or through the rectification process with the use of Rectification of the Register (RR) applications.
- An MU should not be used to make the legal and occupational extents agree - where the physical boundaries are built in or are moved to a position that doesn't agree with the legal boundaries in the prior deeds or registered title, the correct course of action is for the issue to be resolved through corrective or additional conveyancing, or perhaps even by a movement of the physical boundary.
- An MU shouldn't be used in the scenarios above even when an agent or owner has agreed in writing to a suggested change to a registered title - in that situation, it should instead be considered as a request for rectification.
- An Mu shouldn't be used to make large changes to titles, such as movements to boundaries that are not within the tolerances of the OS base map.
- An MU shouldn't be used to alter a title in such a way that it affects the warranty given to a registered owner by the Keeper. In other words, by altering a title to effectively remove land from it.
In other words, an MU should not be used to simply "tidy up" mapping problems, as the change made through an MU must be supported by the conveyancing, and must only be as a result of an update to the OS base map after the title was originally registered.
Example 1
 | In this example, the subjects to be registered are the neighbouring house and garden lying to the north and east of a registered title. The sasine extent deed for the subjects in the live application agree with the OS map features along the mutual boundary. The registered title does not follow the OS features for the full length of the mutual boundary; for instance, lying off the garage wall, and running at a different angle. |
 | Consideration by the plans officer should include checking the title and map version history, as well as the original deed plan for the registered title. The previous versions show that the title was originally registered on a version of the OS base map where there were no features along the mutual boundary. Instead, the title was fully plotted, and was done so correctly based on the sasine deed plan. In this scenario, two key points to note are:
MUs should only be used to update title extents as a result of an update to the OS base map. They must not be used to correct inconsistencies in conveyancing, or when legal and occupied extents differ. Instead, the affected parties must resolve the matter with corrective or additional conveyancing, or via the rectification route, depending on the particular circumstances. Therefore, an MU is not appropriate in this scenario. As we must not create a competing title in the land register, the live application should be considered for rejection. |
Example 2
| In this example, the subjects to be registered (no 22) are the neighbouring house and garden lying to the north and west of a registered title (no 20). The current application for number 22 includes a new deed plan that agrees with the OS base map, and therefore overlaps with the neighbouring registered title for number 22. Consideration by the plans officer should include checking the title and map version history, as well as the original deed plan for the registered title. |
 | The previous versions show that number 20's title was originally registered on a version of the OS base map where there were no features along the mutual boundary. Instead, the title was fully plotted. By then checking the original sasine deed plan, it can also be seen that the registered extent was correctly mapped based on that deed plan. Checking the original sasine deed plan for the pending application for number 22 shows that it agrees with number 20s deed plan, and therefore does not support the extent shown on the new deed plan. Instead, the new deed plan appears to have been drawn up to reflect the occupied extent of the property. In this scenario, three key points to note are:
MUs should only be used to update title extents as a result of an update to the OS base map. They must not be used to correct inconsistencies in conveyancing, or when legal and occupied extents differ. Instead, the affected parties must resolve the matter with corrective or additional conveyancing, or via the rectification route, depending on the particular circumstances. Therefore, an MU is not appropriate in this scenario. As we must not create a competing title in the land register, the live application for number 22 should be considered for rejection. |
How to get an MU created and completed
When an MU is needed and appropriate, the applications are created by the Mapbase Maintenance team. Full details on how to request an MU, and the authorisation needed for it can be found at How to Request an MU.
If there is already a pending application over the registered title, whenever possible, this should be used to make the necessary update instead of creating an MU.
Registers of Scotland (RoS) seeks to ensure that the information published in the 2012 Act Registration Manual is up to date and accurate but it may be amended from time to time.
The Manual is an internal document intended for RoS staff only. The information in the Manual does not constitute legal or professional advice and RoS cannot accept any liability for actions arising from its use.
Using this website requires you to accept cookies. More information on cookies.
Feedback