Homebuyers and tenants should be told about contaminated land, says report
Would-be housebuyers are being left in the dark about whether the home they plan to purchase is built on land that was once contaminated by industrial activity.
A study supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation finds that private builders are often reluctant to divulge information about former industrial sites, even when contamination problems have been successfully treated.
Commonly, no details are included by builders and estate agents in their sales particulars, nor in documents relating to a contract for sale. Information about past contamination is normally only supplied on request - usually in response to pre-contract enquiries by diligent solicitors.
For many people, the first time they find out about the history of the site on which their home is built may be after they have completed the purchase and moved in. Often owners only learn about previous contamination from locals who have lived in the neighbourhood for a long time.
The study finds that housing associations generally have even 'reater experience than private developers of building on 'brownfield' sites that include contaminated land. Yet they, too, do not normally provide their tenants with information on past site use or the treatment methods used to clear it.
The report by Dr. Paul Syms, ISVA Visiting Professor of Land and Property at Sheffield Hallam University, also points to confusion and a lack of consistency in the way that planning authorities handle applications for developing contaminated land. Lack of clarity in the relationship between planners, environmental health officers and central government's Environment Agency means that no single body is responsible for certifying that sites have been made safe for development.
A survey of public attitudes included in the research found that the vast majority of people wanted the government to take the lead in ensuring that contaminated land is properly treated. They also favoured grants and other publicly-funded incentives to encourage owners to clean up their sites.
Those interviewed placed land contamination in the middle range of environmental hazards, below the risks of drug abuse, smoking and vehicle emissions. Most were also clear that they would want to know if a house they were buying was built on previously contaminated land - preferably with a warranty from the developer accepting responsibility for any future remedial work.
Dr Syms said: "There is a clear mismatch between the public's desire for information about housing built on contaminated land and the reluctance of housing developers to provide it. This could lead to prospective housebuyers and tenants becoming indiscriminately suspicious about properties built on brownfield sites.
"Housebuilding trade associations and the professional associations representing valuers, surveyors, solicitors and planners can all help to allay public fears by encouraging their members to be more open. Contaminated land can be successfully redeveloped provided appropriate treatment procedures are observed and provided the level of communication between professionals and the public is improved."
Tim Balderston, President of the ISVA - the professional body for valuers and auctioneers which is publishing the full report - said: "This study shows there is a widespread belief among the public, financial institutions, developers and estate agents that the Government should take the lead in securing the re-use of contaminated land for much-needed new homes."
