Reporting on contaminated land: a comparison of Australian and British practice standards
| Pages | 445-454 |
| Published date | 01 October 2005 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14635780510616034 |
| Date | 01 October 2005 |
| Author | Alastair Adair,Nelson Chan |
| Subject Matter | Property management & built environment |
Reporting on contaminated land:
a comparison of Australian and
British practice standards
Alastair Adair
School of the Built Environment, Faculty of Engineering, University of Ulster,
Newtownabbey, Co Antrim, UK, and
Nelson Chan
School of Construction, Property and Planning, College of Law and Business,
University of Western Sydney, South Penrith, New South Wales, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The paper seeks to ascertain if there exists a uniform approach towards reporting on
contaminated land in practice standards employed in Australia and the UK. The UK is a highly
industrialised country and Australia is less so. The paper also tries to find out if the practice standard
in a less industrialised country is less stringent than the practice standard in a highly industrialised
country.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper compares the valuation practice standards in
Australia and the UK. In the former country, formal guidance on contaminated land valuation was
first published in 1994 by the Australian Institute of Valuers and Land Economists (now the
Australian Property Institute) in the Contaminated Land Practice Standard. This document was
subsequently downgraded from a practice standard to a guidance note, “Guidance Note 15 Reporting
on Contaminated Land” of Professional Practice 2002. In the UK practice standards are contained in
the RICS guidance note Contamination and Environmental Matters their Implications for Property
Professionals. (RICS, 2003a).
Findings – Both Australia and the UK have developed significant and detailed guidance notes
on contamination and environmental matters. The respective guidance notes reflect the varying
socio-economic backgrounds of the two countries in particular differing industrial legacies.
Despite a high degree of similarity in the approaches and procedures adopted there are
nonetheless significant differences across the two sets of standards. The extended guidance in the
UK highlights the increasing knowledge on contamination and environmental matters as it affects
all types of chartered surveyors rather than focussing solely on the valuation function. In
contrast the Australian guidance note appears to be more prescriptive concentrating on the
details of the valuation role.
Originality/value – Contaminated land is an environmental problem that causes great concerns
among the general public, landowners, occupiers, investors and financial institutions. Despite the
negative image of contaminated land, valuers are from time to time instructed to assess its market
value. In this regard, valuation institutions in most developed countries have prepared a practice
standard to help members report on contaminated land. Each country has its unique socio-economic
background. The various practice standards will no doubt reflect the respective conditions in their
country and the reporting standards will be different. Thus, it can be inferred that there is a
substantial difference in the reporting standards between highly industrialised countries and less
industrialised countries.
Keywords Land, Standards,Australia, United Kingdom, Contamination, Asset valuation
Paper type Research paper
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-578X.htm
Reporting on
contaminated
land
445
Received March 2005
Accepted May 2005
Journal of Property Investment &
Finance
Vol. 23 No. 5, 2005
pp. 445-454
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-578X
DOI 10.1108/14635780510616034
To continue reading
Request your trial