CADASTRAL ENDORSEMENT COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT
Explanatory Notes
(v3.0 Effective from 18 April 2024)
Overview
In 2022, the Board introduced changes to the assessment of Cadastral Endorsement Competency.
The previous arrangements involving either the submission of CERs and a PAP or an oral presentation have been phased out and been replaced by a new process involving formal face to face interviews.
The assessment process will involve two interviews conducted on consecutive days on a weekend. There will be three (3) Board appointed assessors conducting the interviews. The assessors will be registered cadastral surveyors of at least five (5) years standing. At least one of the assessors will be a Board Member.
The Board will schedule assessment weekends throughout each year that will assess the competency of three (3) candidates on each weekend.
Interview Details | Interview Focus | Comments |
Stage 1 (Day 1) Cadastral Survey Portfolio Allocated Time: 2 Hours | Competency Framework Cadastral Endorsement Document Id: SBQ-CF-0106 Elements C.3, C.4, C.5, C.6 & C.7 | Each candidate will be asked to provide a portfolio of 30 cadastral plans and answer questions in relation to measurement techniques, field observations and checks. Assessors may question the candidate on any element in relation to the conduct of the surveys and the framework elements. |
Stage 2 (Day 2) Oral Exam Allocated Time: 2 Hours | Competency Framework Cadastral Endorsement Document Id: SBQ-CF-0106 Elements C.2, C.8 & C.9 | The assessors may question the candidate on any element in relation to Cadastral Framework Elements C.2, C.8 and C.9. Questions may relate to the following topics: · The operation of the titling system · Encroachment, improvement under mistake in title and relief · The definition of land and its vertical extents · Crown actions · Subdivision and material change of use · Lot design |
Stage 1: Cadastral Survey Portfolio – Information Sheet
Submission Prior to Assessment | The candidate is asked to provide a portfolio of 30 cadastral plans at least four (4) weeks before the assessment. At least 50% of these cadastral plans will have the reinstated dimensions different from the subject plan. In the portfolio there needs to be:
o Rural plans o Plans relying on evidence of occupation o Plans for which s18 notices have been issued o Building Format Plans o Volumetric Format Plans o Lease Sketch Plan o Plans with ambulatory boundaries
|
Material to be made Available on the Day | Candidates are invited to start the assessment with a 10-minute introductory presentation about their surveying experience. Candidates are required to bring sufficient field records to answer any queries the assessors may have in relation to measurement techniques, field observations and checks. |
Assessment Process | Assessors are free to question the candidate on any element in relation to the conduct of the surveys. As part of the of the questioning they may ask the candidate to at least respond to:
o Interpretation of historical plans o Sources of documentary evidence o Indefeasible Titles
o Significance and legal weight o Description of original and degraded marks o Evidence of Occupation
o Marking choices or options o Plan presentation matters o Sheet 2 material Each assessor rates the applicant on the below rubric. To be granted a pass to Stage 1 the applicant must rate Level 3 or above for the majority of the assessors on all criteria. |
Stage 1: Cadastral Survey Portfolio – Assessment Rubric
Criterion | Level 0 | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 |
Portfolio Breadth | Did not submit sufficient plans or they lacked all required variety. | Portfolio displays some plans that meet the minimum requirements or plans but it is not complete in scale or breadth. | Portfolio displays plans that meet the minimum requirement but are too simple to demonstrate achievement of registration expectations. | Portfolio displays plans that meet the minimum requirement and demonstrate examples of challenging cadastral tasks. | Portfolio displays plans that meet the minimum requirement and consistently demonstrate challenging cadastral tasks. |
Questions relating to reinstatement choices or options | Did not give coherent or credible answers to any questions posed. | Gave some relevant responses but required consistent prompting or oven gave confused or contradictory answers. | Gave mostly coherent and credible answers but needed to be prompted often and displayed significant gaps or misunderstandings. | Gave coherent and credible answers to the majority of questions posed. Needed to be prompted occasionally but did not display significant gaps or misunderstandings. | Gave coherent and credible answers to all questions posed. |
Questions in relation to documentary evidence | Did not give coherent or credible answers to any questions posed. | Gave some relevant responses to one area but required consistent prompting or oven gave confused or contradictory answers. | Gave mostly coherent and credible answers but needed to be prompted often and displayed significant gaps or misunderstandings. | Gave coherent and credible answers to the majority of questions posed. Needed to be prompted occasionally but did not display significant gaps or misunderstandings. | Gave coherent and credible answers to all questions posed in all three areas. |
Questions in relation to existing marks | Did not give coherent or credible answers to any questions posed. | Gave some relevant responses to one area but required consistent prompting or oven gave confused or contradictory answers. | Gave mostly coherent and credible answers but needed to be prompted often and displayed significant gaps or misunderstandings. | Gave coherent and credible answers to the majority of questions posed. Needed to be prompted occasionally but did not display significant gaps or misunderstandings. | Gave coherent and credible answers to all questions posed in all three areas. |
Questions in relation to Cadastral Standards | Did not give coherent or credible answers to any questions posed. | Gave some relevant responses to one area but required consistent prompting or oven gave confused or contradictory answers. | Gave mostly coherent and credible answers but needed to be prompted often and displayed significant gaps or misunderstandings. | Gave coherent and credible answers to the majority of questions posed. Needed to be prompted occasionally but did not display significant gaps or misunderstandings. | Gave coherent and credible answers to all questions posed in all three areas. |
Stage 2: Oral Exam – Information Sheet
Assessment Process | Assessors are free to question the candidate on any element in relation to Framework Elements C.2, C.8 and C.9. As part of the of the questioning they may ask the candidate to at least respond to:
o Indefeasibility & exceptions o Secondary interests and their properties o Co-ownership o Common Property & statutory easements
o Fixtures v Chattels o SMIR notice o Dividing Fences
o Resumption process o Alienation process & Crown Reservations o Road closure / Re-alignment
o The development assessment process and types of assessment o Negotiations and appeals o Compliance and operational works
o Services requirements o Lot shapes Each assessor rates the applicant on the following rubric. To be granted a pass to Stage 2 the applicant must rate Level 3 or above for the majority of the assessors on all criteria. If an applicant is not successful, they are given the chance to receive verbal feedback and ideas for improvement in addition to the rubric. They will receive a decision notice with written feedback as soon as possible after the interview. If the applicant is successful in passing both Stages 1 & 2 then will be invited to apply for the registration endorsement. |
Stage 2: Oral Exam – Assessment Rubric
Criterion | Level 0 | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 |
Questions in relation to the operation of the titling system | Did not give coherent or credible answers to any questions posed. | Gave some relevant responses but required consistent prompting or oven gave confused or contradictory answers. | Gave mostly coherent and credible answers but needed to be prompted often and displayed significant gaps or misunderstandings. | Gave coherent and credible answers to the majority of questions posed. Needed to be prompted occasionally but did not display significant gaps or misunderstandings. | Gave coherent and credible answers to almost all of questions posed. Needed to be prompted occasionally. |
Questions in relation to encroachment, improvement under mistake in title and relief | Did not give coherent or credible answers to any questions posed. | Gave some relevant responses but required consistent prompting or oven gave confused or contradictory answers. | Gave mostly coherent and credible answers but needed to be prompted often and displayed significant gaps or misunderstandings. | Gave coherent and credible answers to the majority of questions posed. Needed to be prompted occasionally but did not display significant gaps or misunderstandings. | Gave coherent and credible answers to almost all of questions posed. Needed to be prompted occasionally. |
Questions in relation to the definition of land and its vertical extents | Did not give coherent or credible answers to any questions posed. | Gave some relevant responses but required consistent prompting or oven gave confused or contradictory answers. | Gave mostly coherent and credible answers but needed to be prompted often and displayed significant gaps or misunderstandings. | Gave coherent and credible answers to the majority of questions posed. Needed to be prompted occasionally but did not display significant gaps or misunderstandings. | Gave coherent and credible answers to almost all of questions posed. Needed to be prompted occasionally. |
Questions in relation to Crown actions | Did not give coherent or credible answers to any questions posed. | Gave some relevant responses to one area but required consistent prompting or oven gave confused or contradictory answers. | Gave mostly coherent and credible answers but needed to be prompted often and displayed significant gaps or misunderstandings. | Gave coherent and credible answers to the majority of questions posed. Needed to be prompted occasionally but did not display significant gaps or misunderstandings. | Gave coherent and credible answers to almost all of questions posed. Needed to be prompted occasionally. |
Questions in relation to subdivision and material change of use | Did not give coherent or credible answers to any questions posed. | Gave some relevant responses to one area but required consistent prompting or oven gave confused or contradictory answers. | Gave mostly coherent and credible answers but needed to be prompted often and displayed significant gaps or misunderstandings. | Gave coherent and credible answers to the majority of questions posed. Needed to be prompted occasionally but did not display significant gaps or misunderstandings. | Gave coherent and credible answers to almost all of questions posed. Needed to be prompted occasionally. |
Questions in relation to lot design | Did not give coherent or credible answers to any questions posed. | Gave some relevant responses but required consistent prompting or oven gave confused or contradictory answers. | Gave mostly coherent and credible answers but needed to be prompted often and displayed significant gaps or misunderstandings. | Gave coherent and credible answers to the majority of questions posed. Needed to be prompted occasionally but did not display significant gaps or misunderstandings. | Gave coherent and credible answers to almost all of questions posed. Needed to be prompted occasionally. |
Frequently Asked Questions
Webinar
| Do I need to continue developing and submitting my CERs? | ||
| No. The new assessment process replaces the previous assessment process that involved the submission of CERs, a PAP and final interview. | ||
| If I am unsuccessful in obtaining one of the assessment slots should I continue with developing my CERs? | ||
| No. Do not commence or continue work on CERs. The new assessment process replaces the previous assessment process that involved the submission of CERs, a PAP, and a final interview. Candidates will need to wait until additional assessment slots are announced by the Board. | ||
| Is the new Cadastral Endorsement Competency Assessment process the only way that I will be able to obtain a Cadastral Endorsement? | ||
| YES. | ||
| Can I be interviewed remotely via a Webinar? | ||
| No. The Board will only be conducting face to face interviews to assess the candidates understanding of the cadastral framework. | ||
| How long will each interview take? | ||
| Approximately 2 hours. | ||
| How do I apply for the Cadastral Endorsement Competency Assessment? | ||
| Registrants are asked to email the Board at admin@sbq.com.au and request that an application form be sent to them. | ||
| When can I apply to be assessed? | ||
| All registered surveyors are eligible to apply. The Board encourages applicants to only apply after they have compiled a portfolio of 30 surveys that meets the criteria set out by the Board. | ||
| How much does it cost? (Fees effective from 1 July 2023) | ||
| When an ‘Application for A Cadastral Endorsement Competency Assessment’ form is submitted the registrant will be required to pay fees totalling $1,220.27– consisting of an application fee of $198.43 and an assessment fee of $1,021.84. On successfully passing both stages of the assessment, the applicant will be asked to complete Form 04A – Application for Registration with An Endorsement. An application fee of $90.15 and annual registration fee of $36.04 will apply. | ||
| Will the interviews be conducted at the Board office? | ||
| No. The interviews will be conducted at various locations other than the Board office. This will be less intimidating for applicants. | ||
| How will the Board decide which candidates obtain interview slots? | ||
| Preference will be given to candidates who are already furthest along the path in the assessment process. E.g. First preference will likely be given to candidates who have already submitted all their CERs and have either started or are ready to start their PAP. | ||
| Is there a limit to how far back the portfolio plans can go? | ||
| No, all the plans are cadastral surveys. Legislation/standards do change over time, so the Board would prefer that depth and breadth be balanced with currency. | ||
| Can the portfolio plans include plans from other states? | ||
| While there may be some overlap in cadastral surveys and processes in other states, the framework is written in the context of the Queensland cadastral system. Limited work from other states may be included as a last resort. | ||
| Can I currently be considered for one of the slots that may be available later in the year or in the next year? | ||
| Yes. Please email the Board at admin@sbq.com.au to submit your interest for a future slot. | ||
| If I have already had my cadastral CERs assessed and approved by the Board can I be exempted from either of the two interviews? | ||
| No. There will be no exemptions provided to candidates for either of the two stages. | ||
| If I do not successfully pass Day 1 will I be invited to attend Day 2? | ||
| Yes. Typically, candidates will only be provided with feedback at the end of Day 2. | ||
| What happens if I am unsuccessful? | ||
| At the discretion of the assessment panel, you may be given the opportunity to sit a supplementary assessment. The timing, form and content of that assessment will be determined by the assessment panel. The supplementary assessment may be limited to specific framework elements. If you fail a supplementary assessment, no further assessments will be carried out and the matter will be closed. In due course, if you wish to submit another application then you must complete the same assessment process that involves two interviews addressing elements of the document SBQ-CF-0106: Competency Framework – Cadastral Endorsement. |
A ‘Cadastral Endorsement Competency Assessment’ webinar was hosted by Dr Glenn Campbell on Monday, 7 February 2022. The purpose of the webinar was to provide prospective candidates with more information about the new process. Please refer to the below link to view a video of the webinar.