Reporting on contaminated land: a comparison of Australian and British practice standards

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.