September 2016 Residential Property Measurement Practice · 2018-07-11 · specialist measurement...

Research

GLOB

AL/S

EPTE

MBE

R 20

16/D

ML/

2163

1/RE

SEAR

CH

September 2016

Residential Property Measurement Practice Evidence from World Regions

rics.org/research

http://rics.org/research

2 © RICS Research 2016

Residential Property Measurement Practice Evidence from World Regions

rics.org/research

3© RICS Research 2016

RICS Research teamDr. Clare Eriksson FRICSDirector of Global Research & [email protected]

Amanprit ArnoldGlobal Research and Policy Manager [email protected] Published by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)RICS, Parliament Square, London SW1P 3AD

www.rics.org

The views expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of RICS nor any body connected with RICS. Neither the authors, nor RICS accept any liability arising from the use of this publication.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Copyright RICS 2016

Report for Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

Report written by:Dr Lesley Hemphill Ulster University, Built Environment Research Institute [email protected]

Dr Jasmine Lay Cheng LimUlster University, Built Environment Research Institute [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]


http://www.rics.org


Residential Property Measurement Practice – Evidence from World Regions

ContentsExecutive Summary ............................................................................................... 6

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Contextual Background ...................................................................... 7

1.2 Research Objectives and Methodology ........................................... 8

2.0 Respondents Background, Regulations and Common Measurement Practice ............................................................................. 9

2.1 Respondents Profile ........................................................................... 9

2.2 Property Measurement Regulatory Environment .....................10

2.3 Common Measurement Practice ....................................................11

2.3.1 Inclusion of Floor plans .....................................................................12

2.3.2 Inclusion of Total Floor Area/Property Size .................................14

2.3.3 Typical Measurement Content of Marketing Materials .............15

3.0 Measurement Tools, Units, Approach, and Accuracy ...........20

3.1 Measurement Tools ...........................................................................20

3.2 Measurement Units ...........................................................................22

3.3 Measurement Approach ...................................................................22

3.4 Measurement Accuracy ....................................................................24

4.0 Measurement Variation .........................................................................28

4.1 Measurement Inclusions and Exclusions......................................28

4.2 Respondent Views on Local Measurement Problems ................35

4.2.1 Market Inconsistencies and Need for Standardised Approach ..35

4.2.2 Reliance on 3rd Party Measurements ...........................................35

4.2.3 Confusing Local Practice on Percentage Inclusions .................35

4.3 Respondent Recommendations on Measurement Improvements ..........................................................36

4.3.1 Harmonisation of Existing Measurement Standards ................36

4.3.2 Mandating of Measurement Standards ........................................36

4.3.3 Adoption of Measurement Standards by Key Stakeholders .....37

4.3.4 Better Communication of Standards ............................................37

4.3.5 More Physical Measurement ...........................................................37

5.0 Key Findings ..................................................................................................38

6.0 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................40

rics.org/research



List of Tables Table 1.1 Respondents Countries and World Regions ......................................... 8

Table 2.1 Questionnaire Respondents by World Region ..................................... 9

Table 2.2 National Property Measurement Standards in Surveyed Countries .................................................................................10

Table 2.3 Indicative Floorplan Information across Survey Countries ...........12

Table 2.4 Inclusion of Floor plans for Different Purposes [Total Sample] .......13

Table 2.5 Inclusion of Floor plans for Different Purposes [By World Region] .13

Table 2.6 Inclusion of Total Floor Area [Total Sample] ......................................14

Table 2.7 Alternative Size Measurements ...........................................................14

Table 2.8 Inclusion of Dimensions and Individual Room Areas – Apartment [Total Sample] ..................................................................15

Table 2.9 Inclusion of Dimensions and Individual Room Areas – Single Dwellings [Total Sample] ........................................................16

Table 2.10 Inclusion of Dimensions by World Region – Apartment...................16

Table 2.11 Inclusion of Dimensions by World Region – Single Dwelling ...........17

Table 2.12 Inclusion of Individual Room Area by World Region – Apartment ....18

Table 2.13 Inclusion of Individual Room Area by World Region – Single Dwelling ......................................................................................19

Table 3.1 Ranking of Most Common Measurement Tool [Total Sample] ..........................................................................................21

Table 3.2 Ranking of Most Common Measurement Tool [World Regions] ........................................................................................21

Table 3.3 Most Common Unit of Measurement [Total Sample n=41] ............22

Table 3.4 Most Common Unit of Measurement [World Regions] ....................22

Table 3.5 Measurement Approach – Apartment/Single Dwelling [Total Sample n=41] ................................................................................22

Table 3.6 Measurement Approach – Apartment/Single Dwelling [World Regions] ........................................................................................23

Table 3.7 Internal Measurement Approach – Apartment/Single Dwelling [Total Sample n=41] ................................................................................23

Table 3.8 Internal Measurement Approach – Apartment/Single Dwelling [World Regions] ........................................................................................23

Table 3.9 Measurement Margin of Error/Tolerance [Total Sample] ...............24

Table 3.10 Measurement Margin of Error/Tolerance [World Regions] .............24

Table 3.11 Timing of Measurement Rounding [Total Sample n=41] ................24

Table 3.12 Timing of Measurement Rounding [World Regions] ........................25

Table 3.13 Rounding of Metric Measurements [Total Sample] ..........................25

Table 3.14 Rounding of Metric Measurements [World Regions] .......................26

Table 3.15 Rounding of Imperial Measurements [World Regions] ....................26

Table 3.16 Examples of Legal Measurement Disclaimers ...................................27

Table 4.1 Apartment Inclusions against IPMS Standards ................................29

Table 4.2 Single Dwelling Inclusions against IPMS Standards ........................30

Table 4.3 Apartment Inclusions by World Region ...............................................31

Table 4.4 Single Dwelling Inclusions by World Region .......................................32

Table 4.5 Floor Area Variation for Apartments by World Region .....................33

Table 4.6 Floor Area Variation for Single Dwellings by World Region .............34

Table 4.7 Indicative Percentage Included of Outdoor Apartment Space ......36

Table 4.8 Indicative Percentage Included of Outdoor Single Dwelling Space .........................................................................................36




Executive SummaryThis report has investigated the local measurement practice across a number of world regions and attempted to quantify the measurement choices made locally to determine how this would vary compared to the proposed new IPMS residential standards. The results drew upon questionnaire survey responses from the Americas (Brazil, Canada, USA), Asia/Middle East (China/Hong Kong, India, UAE), mainland Europe (France, Germany), Europe UK (Glasgow, Edinburgh, London) and Oceania (Australia). The respondents were asked to reflect their own local practice in relation to both apartments and single dwellings to differentiate the localised measurement approaches.

Local measurement practice in the apartment sector returned a negative variance of up to a maximum of 27.17%, influenced by the exclusion of balconies, roof terraces and/or loggias/covered galleries in some markets. In contrast, local measurement practice in the single dwelling sector returned a positive variance of up to a maximum of 10.22%, influenced by some regions including patios, carports, gardens and/or outdoor swimming pools. The level of measurement consistency across world regions was much higher in the apartment sector with the recorded variation between regions only 14.88%, whereas in the single dwelling sector this variation increased to 58.21%. This high level of inconsistency in the single dwelling local measurement practice was influenced by the presence of both positive and negative variance and confusion on the inclusion/exclusion of elements such as chimneys, internal staircases, storage with restricted height, internal walls and external space such as patios, carports, gardens and swimming pools. Furthermore, the percentage inclusion of these external elements differed greatly not only across markets but also within markets with different cities adopting different percentages adding to the overall inconsistencies and supporting the need for an international measurement standard.

Overall, there was strong support for the proposed new IPMS residential standards to avoid current confusion between standards, local practices, legal cases and to eliminate any market inconsistencies. There was also support for more physical measurement of buildings and for the markets that currently rely on either 3rd party measurements or developer plans to at least incorporate check measurements. Finally, there was recognition that for the new IPMS standards to have any market traction they needed to be mandated, capable of providing the clarity on inclusions and exclusions and be accepted by all stakeholders including banks, investors and corporate space occupiers.

rics.org/research



1.1 Contextual BackgroundProperty measurement has always been an essential aspect of the property industry but how this process has been undertaken and what has been included across countries has often differed. Limited research has been conducted to determine the impact of any cross country variance in measurement practice or how it is reported, hence the true extent of the differences that may exist are relatively unknown. Similarly, the specialists that undertake building measurement differs across countries with some countries relying on the Valuation/Appraisal surveyor or the developers floor plans while others have specialist measurement professionals who are employed solely for this measurement purpose. Such differences in the physical measurement approach and the influence of the individuals conducting the surveys needs to be more transparent to protect the interests of third parties and the global public interest. Furthermore, the national standards used to regulate the measurement of buildings within countries often have fundamental differences in the approach to what should be measured and included in the area calculations. These inconsistencies contribute to a lack of transparency and act as one of many obstacles to external investment within national residential property markets and highlight the need for international standardisation in the measurement approach to provide greater transparency, reduce risk and protect the global public interest.

The launch of the International Property Measurement Standard (IPMS) for Office Buildings in November 2014 heralded the first international initiative designed to create transparency and harmonisation of how office buildings are measured. This standard had the core purpose of attempting to develop greater consistency in how property measurement was undertaken and recorded. The IPMS Coalition (IPMSC) of over 80 professional and non-profit organisations was developed to help unravel the inconsistencies across countries and promote the implementation of the new standards. Since the IPMS Office Buildings was introduced the Coalition and Standards Setting Committee turned its attention to consulting on similar standards for other real estate sectors, notably the IPMS for Residential Buildings due to be launched in September 2016.

For the purposes of this research the following definitions taken from the IPMS residential buildings exposure draft (February 2016) are used to denote the differences between the IPMS standards –

• IPMS 1 (External) – used for measuring the area of a building including the external walls. This includes all areas and walls, columns, and enclosed walkways or passages between separate buildings available for direct and indirect use. Balconies and verandas are included but stated separately.

• IPMS 2 Residential (Internal) – used for measuring the interior area of a residential building. This includes all the sum if the areas of each floor level of a residential building measured to the internal dominant face including internal walls, columns and enclosed walkways or passages between separate buildings. Balconies and verandas are measured to their finished surface and stated separately.

• IPMS 3 Residential (Occupier) – used to measure the floor area available on an exclusive basis to an occupier.

– IPMS 3A – detached dwellings measured to the outer face of the external wall; attached dwellings to the outer face of the external wall and centre-line of shared walls between occupants; multi-unit dwellings to the outer face of the external wall, centre line of shared walls and finished surface of walls shared with common facilities.

– IPMS 3B – area in exclusive occupation including floor area occupied by internal walls and columns measured to the internal dominant face and the finished surface of internal perimeter walls.

– IPMS 3C – area in exclusive occupation excluding the floor area occupied by full height internal walls and columns, measured to the internal dominant face and the finished surface of all full height internal walls.

This report focuses specifically on the residential market in light of the forthcoming IPMS Residential standard. In particular, it focuses on the residential apartment market as this is where the majority of investment activity takes places, but where relevant parallels are drawn with residential single dwellings. It identifies the measurement practice in a selection of 10 countries which represent each of the main global regions (namely – Americas, Asia/Middle East, Europe – Mainland, Europe – UK and Oceania). The research initially provides a strategic overview to the current measurement standards used across the global regions. In particular, the research investigates how these standards are influencing local measurement practice and reporting within the global regions. Furthermore, an attempt is made to determine the extent of measurement variation within the local residential markets and how this differs depending on property type (e.g. detached dwelling or apartments).

1.0 Introduction




1.2 Research Objectives and MethodologyThe research fulfills three key objectives which are as follows –

• To investigate the regulatory environment governing the measurement of residential buildings across world regions;

• To identify and evaluate the divergence in residential measurement practice across world regions; and

• To quantify the extent of residential measurement variance and the typical inclusion/exclusion inconsistencies evident across world regions.

The core focus of the research is primarily on the process of measurement as guided by local measurement standards and local practice. It represents exploratory research designed to provide indicative evidence on the extent of deviation in calculated floor areas across world regions. This research is primarily based upon a scenario based questionnaire designed to elicit responses on local measurement practice and the underpinning standards used in each world region. The questionnaire findings were supplemented by discussions with the International Standard Setting Committee. Some additional secondary information was also sourced in terms of the local measurement standards and typical floorplan examples. The questionnaire was targeted at residential surveyors/estate agents across 12 separate countries, but no responses were returned from either South Africa or Spain within the survey timeframe (Table 1.1).

The questionnaire was split into 3 sections namely –

• Section A – Respondent Background. This section identified the job title, geographical location, professional membership, years’ of experience and the local measurement standards and practice used in that region.

• Section B – Residential Measurement Approach. This section focused on the tools of measurement, unit of measurement, accuracy and the basis of measuring residential buildings.

• Section C – Measurement Practice. This section concentrated on highlighting the inclusions/exclusions of new/resale detached dwellings and apartments based on the local standards and practice operated in their respective jurisdictions.

Responses from the questionnaire were analysed using SPSS and responses captured in a frequency or percentage basis to denote the differences between regions and the collective sample. Where distinct differences or nuances in local practice have been identified this information has been discussed at a city level in the main text. However, the overall sample size proved too small to undertake meaningful statistical significance tests especially at a city level, but overlaps in the findings have been drawn with the consultation returns of the IPMS residential exposure drafts. The overall design of the questionnaire utilized the floorplan drawings from the IPMS residential consultation draft to denote the building components and these floorplans formed the basis of the subsequent quantitative analysis on floor space calculations.

The broad structure of the report is based on the separate sections of the questionnaire. Section 2 outlines the sample size, respondent background information and the local measurement standards in operation and what constitutes common market practice within each country/region. Section 3 presents a summary of the physical measurement tools and units used as well as the wider accuracy measures utilised across regions. Section 4 represents the main analysis section of the research where direct comparisons are made between the inclusion and exclusion measurement criteria and how any measurement variation is quantified. Section 5 concludes the research and presents the key findings.

Respondents Countries and World RegionsTable 1.1

World Region Country

Americas Brazil

Canada

United States of America

Asia/Middle East China (inc Hong Kong)

India

United Arab Emirates

Europe – Mainland France

Germany

Europe – UK United Kingdom

Oceania Australia

rics.org/research



2.1 Respondents Profile The questionnaire was conducted using an online survey tool between April and August 2015. Responses were returned from across 10 countries representing the 5 world regions as summarised in Table 2.1. Respondents were targeted based on contacts sourced by the RICS as well as IPMS Coalition partners, however it proved difficult to gain widespread access to residential agents directly involved in the measurement of residential buildings. This in part was due to a separation in tasks in that the valuation surveyor of many companies was not always be the same person responsible for physically measuring the property, hence a perceived knowledge gap in how the process of measurement was approached. Similarly, the length of the questionnaire and the depth of detailed knowledge needed of the actual physical measurement

2.0 Respondents Background, Regulations and Common Measurement Practice

Questionnaire Respondents by World RegionTable 2.1

World Region Countries1 Number of Respondents % of Total

Americas Brazil, Canada, USA 9 22%

Asia/Middle East China (inc HK), India, UAE 9 22%

Europe – Mainland France, Germany 8 19.5%

Europe – UK UK 8 19.5%

Oceania Australia 7 17%

Total 41 100%

meant that a number of those initially targeted felt they were unable to accurately respond to the questions posed, resulting in a lower than anticipated response rate. Whilst, the returned responses were broadly of similar size across the 5 world regions, at a country level the responses were low and therefore only used to provide an indicative case study commentary of localised practice.

In terms of expertise, the majority of respondents 71% (29) indicated that they were members of the RICS, with 32% (13) also indicating they had dual membership of the RICS and also membership of their local property professional body. All respondents held professional membership of at least one real estate organisation demonstrating that they were qualified to participate in this survey. The average experience of the participating respondents was 22 years, further supporting the level of expertise and experience that the sample had in the residential property industry.

1 Country level responses were split across a range of cities including São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Toronto, New York, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Delhi, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Paris, Frankfurt, London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Melbourne.

Image source: Radiokafka - Shutterstock




National Property Measurement Standards in Surveyed Countries2Table 2.2

World Region Country Measurement Standard

Americas Brazil ABNT NBR 12721

Canada CREA Standard Method of Measurement

USA BOMA Multi Unit Residential Buildings – Standard Methods of Measurement 2010

American National Standard for Single Family Residential Buildings – Square footage method for calculations

Asia/Middle East China (inc Hong Kong) List of Engineering Quantity Calculation Rules 2013

HKIS Code of Measuring Practice

Shanghai Real Estate Area Measurement Specification

India CREDAI Code of Conduct

UAE Dubai Municipality Area Definitions

Europe – Mainland France Charte de l'expertise en évaluation immobilière

Loi Carrez

Germany Wohnflächenverordnung - WoFlV

GIF/DIN 277

Europe – UK UK RICS Code of Measuring Practice 6th Edition

Oceania Australia PCA – Method of Measurement for Residential Property

2.2 Property Measurement Regulatory Environment The proliferation of local standards to govern the measurement of buildings has created measurement inconsistencies across different countries. Within the surveyed countries a number of different national standards or legislation were identified (Table 2.2) some of which differed further at a local city level. From Table 2.2 it is clear that not all the standards mentioned are solely applicable to residential dwellings and therefore the extent to which they chart the actual inclusions/exclusions for residential properties or the basis to be used differed greatly. Furthermore, as is the case of China and Brazil the norms or standards for measurement are heavily influenced by the wider engineering professions hence the professionals conducting the surveys differ significantly.

Across the total sample 71% (29) of respondents were aware of some form of legislation or professional standards relating to the measurement of residential floor areas in their local market. However, despite the presence of standards in some markets the level of awareness of these was limited with 29% (12) of respondents citing no local mandatory measurement standards being in place. Of these 12 respondents, 4 were located in Australia, 2 in India, 2 in the USA, 2 in Canada and 2 in UAE, only the latter of which had no national standard relating to measurement. This limited knowledge of measurement standards may in part be explained by the lack of specific national residential standard in certain markets (India, Canada, UAE). However, for the established markets of the USA and Australia where specific residential standards exist it is more surprising and points to the need for more professional body training to ensure measurement practice adheres to local standards otherwise local inconsistencies in the measurement approach will promulgate.

2 Respondents from the United Arab Emirates did not list any local standards or legislation, although initial searches online identified a specific residential measurement guidance at a Municipality level (Dubai). This may support the rationale for why the Dubai Government were one of the first governments to endorse the IPMS standards.

rics.org/research



2.3 Common Measurement Practice In responding to the question about the presence of any accepted market practice relating to residential measurement, a number of respondents referred back to the specific legislation or guidance covered in the previous section. However some respondents started to allude to the measurement basis used in their market and the inconsistencies that this can cause3. There would appear to be consistency within some countries, for example in the case of UAE a similar approach was highlighted between Abu Dhabi and Dubai. The former utilises external areas including balconies to quote the maximum floor area possible, whereas the latter utilises Built up Area (BUA) which is broadly similar to Gross External Area (GEA). Similarly, in Canada there was reference to provincial guidance and building permits being based on external measurements. Likewise, in India there was reference to the use of both the RICS and National Building Codes of India in determining the use of correct definitions and ultimately deciding what inclusions/exclusions there should be depending on the definition used, with some further guidance contained in the local development regulations for each city.

Of more significance was the situation described in Australia which has resulted in new case law relating to the inconsistencies in the measurement approach particularly within apartments. The Australian respondents pointed to houses being measured on a gross area basis but apartments being measured on a mixed basis with some on net area basis utilising the internal face of boundary walls and others on a gross area basis utilising the external face of external walls. Furthermore, Australian residential measurement practices can be subject to variance at a state level, where different measurement practices are adopted between states resulting in a lack of transparency for end users. This resulted in the case of Birch v Robek and Anor (2014 VCC 68) where the purchaser challenged

the developer on the finished size of the property which was significantly less than the 40.5m2 advertised and therefore not complying with the minimum area terms as laid down by the finance company providing the mortgage. The four accepted measurement methods and the variation encountered were as follows –

• PCA method of measurement – 39.3 m2, 3% less than that advertised in the brochure

• Title (based on the internal surface of boundary wall) – 34.9 m2, 13.8% less than advertised

• Internal finished surface – 33.8 m2, 16.5% less than advertised

• Usable floorspace – 32.6 m2, 19.5% less than advertised.

Despite four different measurement values being used, the variation in size was ruled to be too large to force the completion of the sale and the deposit of the apartment had to be returned. This legal case and the confusion on the different measurement methods has highlighted the market need for the creation of an overarching international residential measurement standard to increase the transparency of the measurement methods and in turn eliminate inconsistencies in local market practice.

To determine if the measurement purpose had an impact on the measurement approach, respondents were asked if their measurement approach differed depending on if it was for a new home, resale, letting or management property. Overall 71% (29) indicated that they did not differ in their measurement approach despite differences in the purpose. Of the remaining 29% (12) there was reference to some variation mainly between sales and lettings with new sales often quoted on a gross basis to maximise the sale price whereas the lettings quoted on a useable space basis. It would appear that this links back to profit generation agenda of a property developer/seller and may suggest that the case of Birch v Robek and Anor is more common than many previously anticipated.

3 Section 4 of this report will return to the inconsistencies in measurement practice in referring to the specific inclusion and exclusion components.




2.3.1 Inclusion of Floor plansAs part of the survey questionnaire respondents were asked to provide sample floor plans for typical single dwellings and apartment buildings. A sample of the information obtained is included in Table 2.3 coloured coded as per the legend. The first observation of Table 2.3 is how the majority of markets favour metric over imperial measurements, with only USA and Canada currently solely using the imperial approach, whereas India and the UK quote in both metric and imperial units. The table also shows that there is some inconsistencies even within countries on how measurements are recorded in the floor plans especially in relation to the inclusion of dimensions or total floor areas4. The majority of floor plans included some form of dimensions in either m2 (Australia, China, UAE and France) or square feet (USA, Canada) and sometimes both (India and UK).

4 The responses to this question are further supplemented by the questionnaire detail analysed in Section 2.3.3.5 No floorplans were provided for the Brazilian market.

Indicative Floorplan Information across Survey Countries5Table 2.3

World Region Country

Dimensions Total Floor Area Balcony/Patio

Stated Separately

Disclaimer Includedm2 sq ft m2 sq ft

USA New York ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓

USA New York ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓

Canada Toronto ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓

Canada Toronto ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓

Australia Melbourne ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓

Australia Melbourne ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓

China Shanghai ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗

India Mumbai ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗

India New Delhi ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗

UAE Dubai ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗

UAE Dubai ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓

UK Edinburgh ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓

UK London ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓

UK London ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓

France Paris ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗

France Paris ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗

Germany Frankfurt ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗

Germany Frankfurt ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗

Single Dwelling Apartment

However, there were still some floorplan examples (Canada, Australia and Germany) that only provided the total floor areas and not the breakdown dimensions, illustrating that some floorplans may have been received directly from the developers rather than individually measured. There was widespread use of disclaimers on errors in floor measurement with the exception of emerging markets such as China, India, UAE and the European markets of France and Germany. There was evidence of differing practice in relation to the area measurements being stated separately for balcony/patio areas, with limited consistency even within some markets. It would appear that where this information has been provided or measured directly then it has been included. There is also some minor inconsistencies between building types within some markets but this could be reflective of the plans that were received rather than a wider market indicator.

rics.org/research



Respondents were asked if they usually provide floor plans for different sales/lettings purposes with 66% (27) indicating that this was common practice for new homes but less so for resale (54%) or lettings (46%) purposes (see Table 2.4). It would appear that this practice is conducted on an individual property basis with the frequency of occasional inclusion increasing in resale and lettings. Perhaps more surprising is that there is approximately a third of all respondents who do not provide floor plans for any of the three purposes. In discussing the reasons for the difference in practice respondents alluded to plans being provided by the developers, measured drawings only being provided when asked for or it not being part of the services the company offers as this would need to be costed for separately.

Table 2.5 illustrates the level of consistency in including floor plans at a world region level, which starts to unravel which specific regions do not have the established market practice of including floor plans. In this instance it is clear that for new homes there is consistency in the Americas (89%), Asia/Middle East (78%) and mainland Europe (88%) with the majority of respondents in each of these regions including floorplans. There was less consistency within the UK and Oceania on the floor plan inclusion for new homes with the percentage breakdown falling dramatically

to 25% and 43% respectively. Indeed, these two regions across all three categories show much less evidence of including floor plans within either sales or lettings material. In contrast, mainland Europe demonstrates a much higher preference for including floor plans with this region the highest in the sample across two of the three categories.

It is also clear from Table 2.5 that the percentage inclusion level decreases for both resale homes and lettings/management, suggesting that more information may be available from the developer for new homes or that more effort is put into the sales brochures for new developments compared to those for resale or letting purposes. This corresponds to some of the responses received from the survey who indicated that depending on the age of the property there might be floor plans available from the developer and again reference to it not being a core service to provide measured floor plans unless lenders or clients specifically ask for them. Interestingly, there was only one respondent who mentions checking the plans received by developers to make sure they correspond to their own measurements. A further respondent also mentioned the price point of the property having an impact on the production of plans with more expensive properties more likely to have this produced even for resale/letting purposes.

Inclusion of Floor plans for Different Purposes [Total Sample]Table 2.4

Yes No Sometimes Missing

New Homes 27 (66%) 12 (29%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%)

Resale Homes 22 (54%) 13 (32%) 5 (12%) 1 (2%)

Lettings/Management 19 (46%) 15 (37%) 6 (15%) 1 (2%)

Inclusion of Floor plans for Different Purposes [Total Sample]Table 2.5

Region

New Homes Resale Homes Lettings/Management

Yes No Sometimes Yes No Sometimes Yes No Sometimes

Americas 8 (89%) 1 (11%) – 4 (44.4%) 4 (44.4%) 1 (11.2%) 5 (56%) 3 (33%) 1 (11%)

Asia/Middle East 7 (78%) 1 (11%) 1 (11%) 6 (67%) 1 (11%) 2 (22%) 5 (56%) 2 (22%) 2 (22%)

Europe Mainland 7 (87.5%) 1 (12.5%) – 7 (87.5%) 1 (12.5%) – 6 (75%) 1 (12.5%) 1 (12.5%)

Europe UK 2 (25%) 6 (75%) – 2 (25%) 4 (50%) 2 (25%) 1 (12.5%) 5 (62.5%) 2 (25%)

Oceania 3 (43%) 3 (43%) 1 (14%) 3 (43%) 3 (43%) 1 (14%) 2 (29%) 4 (57%) 1 (14%)




2.3.2 Inclusion of Total Floor Area/ Property SizeSurvey respondents were asked about whether their sales and lettings details stated the total floor area of the property. From Table 2.6 it is apparent that the majority of respondents include some form of total floor area figure in their property particulars with this figure relatively similar across the three categories namely 66% for lettings, 73% for resale homes and 76% for new homes. For some world regions notably Asia/Middle East and Mainland Europe there was 100% agreement that the total floor area would be included, whereas in others there was more diverse views with only 78% in the Americas, 50% in Europe UK, and 43% in Oceania. At a city level the divergent markets were Glasgow, Edinburgh, São Paulo, Melbourne and New York. However, interestingly there was no indication given by respondents on how they define what is included in this total floor area figure so prospective buyers would be unsure if this total figure included non-habitable rooms, corridors and other residential areas.

To further clarify how property size was captured in the absence of total area, respondents were asked if they used the number of bedrooms, number of floors/stories or plot area. Table 2.7 illustrates that a range of measures were used with no real consensus on which represented the best alternative. The lettings/management purpose shows the highest level of agreement in using the number of bedrooms and this could be linked to the high proportion of families seeking accommodation through the private rented market where the number of bedrooms becomes a key selling point. In general, it would appear collectively that either the number of bedrooms or number of floors/stories represents the most popular options but these are only a small proportion of the market compared to those quoting the total floor area. However this does point to some alternative language being used to denote size and often it will be a combination of the floor area, number of bedrooms and number of stories that are utilised across markets.

Inclusion of Total Floor Area [Total Sample]Table 2.6

Yes No Missing

New Homes 31 (76%) 7 (17%) 3 (7%)

Resale Homes 30 (73%) 8 (20%) 3 (7%)

Lettings/Management

27 (66%) 11 (27%) 3 (7%)

Alternative Size MeasurementsTable 2.7

No. of BedroomsNo. of Floors/

Stories Plot Area Other Total Responses

New Homes 4 (40%) 3 (30%) 2 (20%) 1 (10%) 10

Resale Homes 5 (38.5%) 4 (30.8%) 3 (23%) 1 (7.7%) 13

Lettings/Management

7 (58.3%) 2 (16.7%) 1 (8.3%) 2 (16.7%) 12

rics.org/research



2.3.3 Typical Measurement Content of Marketing Materials The final question linked to establishing the common market measurement practice focused on whether the marketing material produced for new homes, resales or lettings included the floor dimensions or individual room areas. Apartments and single dwellings have been separated in this analysis to determine any differences that may exist. From Table 2.8 it is clear that similar to the analysis of the floorplans in Table 2.3 there is a variation in the practice of including either dimensions or individual room areas in the marketing materials. There is a relatively low number of respondents including dimensions in their material for apartments and of that only certain elements show any reoccurring frequency namely living rooms/kitchen/dining/bedrooms (all 54%) and bathrooms/toilets 51%. All the remaining elements scored less than 50% with communal lobby (12%), internal walls (15%) and communal/emergency staircase/corridors/lift (7%) returning particularly low responses. Even lower frequencies are returned for the inclusion of individual room areas with it evident that this is not common practice across most markets.

A lack of consensus was also evident in the inclusion of dimensions and individual room areas in single dwellings, although the list of what was dimensioned has increased (Table 2.9). There are 8 elements (compared to 4) from a dimension perspective which have shown a frequency of over 50% namely living rooms/kitchen/dining/bedrooms/study room (all 56%), bathrooms (54%) and laundry/utility room and en suite bathrooms both 51%. In terms of the greatest dimension inclusion variance this is evident in chimney/fireplace (27%), internal staircases (29%), storage with restricted height (34%) and internal walls only 17%. From an individual room area perspective there is still limited agreement on inclusion of room areas with no element returning a frequency above 24%, a slight drop from the 29% returned in the apartment calculations. In both instances the highest and lowest frequencies of the individual room areas directly map the highest and lowest frequencies of the individual dimensions showing some common market practice is evident. This is further explored at world region level in Tables 2.10-2.13.

Inclusion of Dimensions and Individual Room Areas – Apartment (Total Sample)Table 2.8

Dimensions IncludedIndividual Room

Area Included

Living room(s) 22 (54%) 12 (29%)

Kitchen/dining 22 (54%) 12 (29%)

Closet/cupboard/storage (with restricted height) 15 (37%) 11 (27%)

Bedrooms 22 (54%) 12 (29%)

Bathrooms/toilets 21 (51%) 12 (29%)

Vestibule/entrance hall 16 (39%) 12 (29%)

Private corridors/passages/landings 12 (29%) 10 (24%)

Communal lobby 5 (12%) 4 (10%)

Internal walls 6 (15%) 3 (7%)

Communal/emergency staircase/corridors/lift 3 (7%) 3 (7%)




Inclusion of Dimensions and Individual Room Areas – Single Dwellings [Total Sample]Table 2.9

Dimensions IncludedIndividual Room

Area Included

Living room(s) 23 (56%) 10 (24%)

Chimney/fireplace 11 (27%) 4 (10%)

Kitchen 23 (56%) 10 (24%)

Dining 23 (56%) 10 (24%)

Vestibule/entrance hall 19 (46%) 9 (22%)

Corridors/landings 17 (41%) 8 (20%)

Internal staircases (within dwelling) 12 (29%) 3 (7%)

Guest toilet/downstairs toilet 20 (49%) 9 (22%)

Laundry/utility room 21 (51%) 9 (22%)

Bedrooms 23 (56%) 10 (24%)

Ensuite bathrooms 21 (51%) 9 (22%)

Bathroom 22 (54%) 9 (22%)

Study room 23 (56%) 10 (24%)

Storage (with restricted height) 14 (34%) 6 (15%)

Internal walls 7 (17%) 1 (2%)

Inclusion of Dimensions by World Region – ApartmentTable 2.10

AmericasAsia/

Middle EastEurope

Mainland Europe

UK Oceania

n=9 n=9 n=8 n=8 n=7

Living rooms 7 (78%) 7 (78%) 3 (38%) 3 (38%) 2 (29%)

Kitchen/dining 7 (78%) 7 (78%) 3 (38%) 3 (38%) 2 (29%)

Closet/cupboard/storage (with restricted height)

6 (66%) 4 (44%) 3 (38%) 1 (13%) 1 (14%)

Bedrooms 7 (78%) 7 (78%) 3 (38%) 3 (38%) 2 (29%)

Bathrooms/toilets 7 (78%) 7 (78%) 3 (38%) 3 (38%) 1 (14%)

Vestibule/entrance hall 6 (66%) 4 (44%) 3 (38%) 2 (25%) 1 (14%)

Private corridors/ passages/landings

4 (44%) 4 (44%) 2 (25%) 2 (25%) 0

Communal lobby 2 (22%) 2 (22%) 1 (13%) 0 0

Internal walls 0 4 (44%) 0 1 (13%) 1 (14%)

Communal/emergency staircases/corridors/lift

0 2 (22%) 1 (13%) 0 0

rics.org/research



Analysis of the inclusion of dimensions in apartment floor plans by world region (Table 2.10) shows a divergence in practice between the Americas and Asia/Middle East compared to Europe mainland, UK and Oceania. The Americas and Asia/Middle East have a much higher prevalence of including dimensions for the core living space such as living rooms (78%), kitchen/dining (78%), bedrooms (78%) and bathrooms/toilets (78%), this compares to just 38% for the same rooms in Europe mainland and the UK and only 29% in Oceania. In terms of the components that seldom get allocated dimensions there is wider consistency with communal areas such as lobbies and communal staircases/lifts etc. ranging from no inclusion to only 22% inclusion. Internal walls have a similarly low percentage inclusion rate across the world regions (0-14%) except for Asia/Middle East (44%) which is influenced by the practice in India and the UAE. It is clear that where the percentage inclusion rate drops below 50% it is more likely that the variation in approach is indicative of in-house practice rather than the common market practice.

Table 2.11 displays the dimension inclusion of single dwellings across the world regions and this follows a broadly similar distribution to the apartment analysis. Again there is a higher prevalence in both the Americas and Asia/Middle East to include dimensions with these again dominated by the core living space. There is less consensus on the areas that seldom get dimensioned with only internal walls ranging from 0-29% showing any level of consistency. Internal staircases (0-33%) and storage with restricted height (0-38%) do demonstrate some consistency across the regions except in the case of the Americas (56%) which have more evidence of this being included across markets including Brazil, USA and Canada. It would appear that Europe (both the mainland and UK) and Oceania do not provide dimensioned plans within their marketing material for either apartments or single dwellings with as much frequency as the Americas and Asia/Middle East, which may point to a more demanding client base within these latter markets.

Inclusion of Dimensions by World Region – Single DwellingTable 2.11

AmericasAsia/

Middle EastEurope

Mainland Europe

UK Oceania

Living rooms 8 (89%) 7 (78%) 3 (38%) 3 (38%) 2 (29%)

Chimney/fireplace 4 (44%) 3 (33%) 3 (38%) 1 (13%) 2 (29%)

Kitchen 8 (89%) 7 (78%) 3 (38%) 3 (38%) 2 (29%)

Dining 8 (89%) 7 (78%) 3 (38%) 3 (38%) 2 (29%)

Vestibule/entrance hall 8 (89%) 4 (44%) 3 (38%) 3 (38%) 2 (29%)

Corridors/landings 7 (78%) 4 (44%) 3 (38%) 3 (38%) 2 (29%)

Internal staircases (within dwelling)

5 (56%) 3 (33%) 2 (25%) 1 (13%) 2 (29%)

Guest toilet/ downstairs toilet

8 (89%) 5 (56%) 1 (13%) 3 (38%) 2 (29%)

Laundry/utility room 8 (89%) 5 (56%) 0 3 (38%) 2 (29%)

Bedrooms 8 (89%) 7 (78%) 1 (13%) 3 (38%) 2 (29%)

Ensuite bathrooms 8 (89%) 5 (56%) 0 3 (38%) 2 (29%)

Bathroom 8 (89%) 6 (66%) 0 3 (38%) 2 (29%)

Study room 8 (89%) 7 (78%) 0 3 (38%) 2 (29%)

Storage (with restricted height)

5 (56%) 3 (33%) 0 3 (38%) 2 (29%)

Internal walls 2 (22%) 2 (22%) 0 0 2 (29%)




Inclusion of Individual Room Area by World Region – ApartmentTable 2.12

AmericasAsia/

Middle EastEurope

Mainland Europe

UK Oceania

Living rooms 1 (11%) 3 (33%) 7 (88%) 0 1 (14%)

Kitchen/dining 1 (11%) 3 (33%) 7 (88%) 0 1 (14%)


1 (11%) 3 (33%) 7 (88%) 0 0

Bedrooms 1 (11%) 3 (33%) 7 (88%) 0 1 (14%)

Bathrooms/toilets 1 (11%) 3 (33%) 7 (88%) 0 1 (14%)

Vestibule/entrance hall 1 (11%) 3 (33%) 7 (88%) 0 1 (14%)


0 3 (33%) 6 (75%) 0 1 (14%)

Communal lobby 0 3 (33%) 1 (13%) 0 0

Internal walls 0 3 (33%) 0 0 0

Communal/emergency staircases/corridors/lift

0 2 (22%) 1 (13%) 0 0

It is apparent from Table 2.12 that with the exception of Mainland Europe there is no established practice across the world regions to quote the individual room areas in their apartment marketing material. This is further emphasised with the UK not including any individual room areas and Asia/Middle East (22-33%) and Oceania (0-14%) showing limited inclusion. In contrast, mainland Europe have a much more established practice of including room areas for the majority of private space with this practice evident in both France and Germany. Similarly, the Asia and Middle East practice is influenced by respondents from India and China, suggesting that these markets have more evidence of providing individual floor areas.

Table 2.13 shows similar trends for the single dwellings as the apartment buildings regarding the limited inclusion of individual room areas within certain markets such as the Americas, Europe UK and Oceania. Again really only in the case of Europe mainland is there any established practice of including the individual room areas in the marketing material and floor plans, which continue to be dominated by the main living space. It is clear across both apartments and single dwellings the internal wall measurements and areas are seldom listed. Similarly, staircases whether communal (apartments) or private (single dwellings) have limited inclusion from either a dimension or individual area basis. This suggests that prospective buyers/tenants are really only concerned with knowing the dimensions and areas of their core living space.

rics.org/research



Inclusion of Individual Room Area by World Region – Single DwellingTable 2.13

AmericasAsia/

Middle EastEurope

Mainland Europe

UK Oceania

Living rooms 0 2 (22%) 7 (88%) 0 1 (14%)

Chimney/fireplace 0 1 (11%) 3 (38%) 0 0

Kitchen 0 2 (22%) 7 (88%) 0 1 (14%)

Dining 0 2 (22%) 7 (88%) 0 1 (14%)

Vestibule/entrance hall 0 2 (22%) 7 (88%) 0 0

Corridors/landings 0 2 (22%) 6 (75%) 0 0

Internal staircases (within dwelling)

0 2 (22%) 1 (13%) 0 0

Guest toilet/downstairs toilet

0 2 (22%) 7 (88%) 0 0

Laundry/utility room 0 2 (22%) 7 (88%) 0 0

Bedrooms 0 2 (22%) 7 (88%) 0 1 (14%)

Ensuite bathrooms 0 2 (22%) 7 (88%) 0 0

Bathroom 0 2 (22%) 7 (88%) 0 0

Study room 0 2 (22%) 7 (88%) 0 1 (14%)

Storage (with restricted height)

0 2 (22%) 4 (50%) 0 0

Internal walls 0 1 (11%) 0 0 0




3.0 Measurement Tools, Units, Approach and Accuracy

3.1 Measurement Tools The survey sample was asked to rank the most common measurement tools used in their local market. From Table 3.1 it is clear that use of a laser (57.5%) was the overall favoured tool, followed by scaled drawing (44.7%) and a measuring tape (28.6%). This shows that a high proportion of buildings still get physically measured rather than merely relying on the developer’s plans. In terms of the factors listed in the other category these ranged from physical measures such as a measuring wheel or rod to information based measures such as survey plans provided by realtors or areas registered with local governments.

When this information was analysed on a world region basis it was clear that certain markets adopt specific approaches to measurement. From Table 3.2 it is apparent that Europe mainland (75%), Europe UK (100%) and Oceania (71.4%) tend to rely either exclusively or predominantly on the use of a laser measuring tool. This is in direct contrast to Asia/Middle East who place much more reliance on scaled drawings (55.6%) with the laser measuring tool ranking third behind the drawings and measuring tape. This reliance on scaled drawings could lead to local inconsistencies in the areas calculated especially if local developers have inflated their areas to seek higher sale capital values on a square footage/metre basis. Moreover, if photocopies of original scale drawings are used then this can affect the scale and distort the accuracy of measurements provided unless check measurements are taken to confirm the accuracy of the scale provided. However, it is to be expected that emerging markets such as Asia and the Middle East would rely more on floor plan measurements given their limited training in measurement and the added cost associated with undertaking physical measurements.

The Americas demonstrate more variation in their approach with two thirds of this market using either a measuring tape or laser and a further 44.4% ranking scaled drawings as second most common measuring tool. Further sub-analysis at a city level shows that the preference for using the laser tool is dominated by the practice in cities such as Paris, Glasgow, Edinburgh, London, Melbourne and Frankfurt. Similarly, use of the measuring tape takes precedence in Toronto but has only sporadic use as the most common method in other cities. Scaled drawings remain prevalent in Delhi, Shanghai and Hong Kong and the fall back measure of choice in London, Melbourne and Toronto.

rics.org/research



Ranking of Most Common Measurement Tools [Total Sample]

Ranking of Most Common Measurement Tools [World Regions]

Table 3.1

Table 3.2

No. of Responses 1 2 3 4

Measuring tape 35 7 (20%) 8 (22.9%) 10 (28.6%) 10 (28.6%)

Laser 40 23 (57.5%) 6 (15%) 7 (17.5%) 4 (10%)

Scaled Drawing 38 8 (21.1%) 17 (44.7%) 11 (28.9%) 2 (5.3%)

Other 20 3 (15%) 1 (5%) 2 (10%) 14 (70%)

Regions MethodNo. of

Responses 1 2 3 4

Americas Measuring tape 9 3 (33.3%) 2 (22.2%) 3 (33.3%) 1 (11.1%)

Laser 9 3 (33.3%) 2 (22.2%) 2 (22.2%) 2 (22.2%)

Scaled Drawing 9 2 (22.2%) 4 (44.4%) 2 (22.2%) 1 (11.1%)

Other 4 1 (25%) 0 1 (25%) 2 (50%)

Asia/Middle East Measuring tape 9 1 (11.1%) 2 (22.2%) 2 (22.2%) 4 (44.4%)

Laser 8 1 (25%) 0 5 (62.5%) 2 (25%)

Scaled Drawing 9 5 (55.6%) 4 (44.4%) 0 0

Other 4 2 (50%) 1 (25%) 0 1 (25%)

Europe Mainland Measuring tape 7 1 (14.3%) 1 (14.3%) 2 (28.6%) 3 (42.9%)

Laser 8 6 (75%) 2 (25%) 0 0

Scaled Drawing 7 1 (14.3%) 2 (28.6%) 4 (57.1%) 0

Other 2 0 0 0 2 (100%)

Europe UK Measuring tape 6 0 3 (50%) 1 (16.7%) 2 (33.3%)

Laser 8 8 (100%) 0 0 0

Scaled Drawing 8 0 4 (50%) 3 (37.5%) 1 (12.5%)

Other 4 0 0 1 (25%) 3 (75%)

Oceania Measuring tape 4 2 (50%) 0 2 (50%) 0

Laser 7 5 (71.4%) 2 (28.6%) 0 0

Scaled Drawing 5 0 3 (60%) 2 (40%) 0

Other 6 0 0 0 6 (100%)




Most Common Unit of Measurement [Total Sample n=41]

Table 3.3

Unit of Measurement

% response Total Sample n=41

Square Metres 26 (63.4%)

Square Feet 7 (17.1%)

Both 8 (19.5%)

Most Common Unit of Measurement [World Regions]Table 3.4

Square Metres

Square Feet Both

Americas 3 (33.3%) 5 (55.6%) 1 (11.1%)

Asia/Middle East 3 (33.3%) 2 (22.2%) 4 (44.4%)

Europe Mainland 8 (100%) 0 0

Europe UK 5 (62.5%) 0 3 (37.5%)

Oceania 7 (100%) 0 0

3.2 Measurement Units There was anecdotal evidence presented in the previous Section (Table 2.2) gathered from the sample floor plans to suggest that some specific markets favour metric over imperial measurement units. This evidence was further supplemented by the questionnaire with Table 3.3 showing that square metres (63.4%) dominated the survey responses.

Table 3.4 presents the world region level data and this provides further distinctions between regions with mainland Europe and Oceania exclusively using square metres, whereas the Americas are dominated by square feet (55.6%). At a city level, Rio de Janeiro, Hong Kong and London tended to quote floor areas in both units; whereas New York, Toronto and Delhi were the only markets to be dominated by the use of square feet. A higher proportion of cities were dominated by square metres namely Paris, Glasgow, São Paulo, Melbourne, Shanghai and Frankfurt.

3.3 Measurement ApproachSurvey respondents were asked on their respective approach to measuring both apartments and single dwellings to determine if and how this differed across markets. At an apartment level Table 3.5 shows that the majority of apartment buildings are measured either internally (61%) or both internally and externally (34.1%). This is in stark contrast to the lack of consensus across all three categories on the measurement approach adopted for single dwellings, with internal measurements (36.6%) only just edging out externally (31.7%) and the combination approach (31.7%). The preference for internal measurements for apartments may be influenced by the presence of common areas and therefore recognition that floor area measurements needs to reflect that which is in solely private occupation.

Measurement Approach – Apartment/Single Dwelling Table 3.5

ApartmentSingle

Dwelling

Externally 2 (4.9%) 13 (31.7%)

Internally 25 (61%) 15 (36.6%)

Both Externally and Internally

14 (34.1%) 13 (31.7%)

rics.org/research



Measurement Approach – Apartment/Single Dwelling [Total Sample n=41] Table 3.6

Externally Internally Both

ApartmentSingle

Dwelling ApartmentSingle

Dwelling ApartmentSingle

Dwelling

Americas 1 (11.1%) 3 (33.3%) 3 (33.3%) 2 (22.2%) 5 (55.6%) 4 (44.4%)

Asia/Middle East 1 (11.1%) 3 (33.3%) 3 (33.3%) 0 5 (55.6%) 6 (66.7%)

Europe Mainland 0 0 5 (62.5%) 5 (62.5%) 3 (37.5%) 3 (37.5%)

Europe UK 0 0 8 (100%) 8 (100%) 0 0

Oceania 0 7 (100%) 6 (85.7%) 0 1 (14.3%) 0

Internal Measurement Approach – Apartment/Single Dwelling [Total Sample n=41]

Table 3.7

ApartmentSingle

Dwelling

External face of the external wall

7 (17.1%) 16 (39%)

Mid-point of wall thickness (party wall)

8 (19.5%) 4 (9.8%)

Internal face of wall surfaces

26 (63.4%) 21 (51.2%)

Internal Measurement Approach – Apartment/Single Dwelling [World Regions]Table 3.8

Externally Mid-point Internal Face

Apartment Dwelling Apartment Dwelling Apartment Dwelling

Americas 2 (22.2%) 5 (55.6%) 4 (44.4%) 1 (11.1%) 3 (33.3%) 3 (33.3%)

Asia/Middle East 3 (33.3%) 3 (33.3%) 3 (33.3%) 3 (33.3%) 3 (33.3%) 3 (33.3%)

Europe Mainland 0 0 0 0 8 (100%) 8 (100%)

Europe UK 1 (12.5%) 1 (12.5%) 0 0 7 (87.5%) 7 (87.5%)

Oceania 1 (14.3%) 7 (100%) 1 (14.3%) 0 5 (71.4%) 0

Respondents were asked on how they approached the internal measurement of apartments and single dwellings. Table 3.7 supports the findings of Table 3.6 above by again displaying a clear split between the practice adopted in apartments and single dwellings. In the case of apartments (63.4%) and single dwellings (51.2%), it is clear that the majority of internal measurements are conducted on an internal face of wall surface basis. However, there is also some evidence of certain markets favouring the external face of the external wall measurement. Of less significance is the use of the mid-point of the wall thickness, particularly from brochures and plans that are not to scale.




Measurement Margin of Error/Tolerance [Total Sample]Table 3.9

Measurement Margin of Error % Response Rate

1% 6 (15.8%)

2% 4 (10.5%)

3% 4 (10.5%)

5% 17 (44.7%)

8% 3 (7.9%)

10% 4 (10.5%)

Average 4.61%

3.4 Measurement AccuracyThe level of accuracy achieved in any property measurement is ultimately linked to the method of measurement, the margin of error and the inclusion of rounding within various stages of the measurement process. Earlier in this section the measurement tool and approach was explored, whereas this section focuses on the margin of error and value rounding. Table 3.9 outlines the different values provided by survey respondents on what margin of error or tolerance that they felt was acceptable in their local market. This table shows that there is a lack of consensus across the sample on the percentage tolerance that would be acceptable. Despite the fact that 5% tolerance returned the highest percentage response (44.7%) and the average value of the respondents’ tolerance was 4.61%, there is a high degree of variation across the remaining responses, suggesting that there is no common accepted norm in place within

Measurement Margin of Error/Tolerance [World Regions]Table 3.10

AmericasAsia/

Middle EastEurope

Mainland Europe

UK Oceania

1% 1 (11.1%) 1 (11.1%) 2 (28.6%) 1 (14.3%) 1 (16.7%)

2% 3 (33.3%) 1 (11.1%) 0 0 0

3% 3 (33.3%) 1 (11.1%) 1 (14.3%) 1 (14.3%) 1 (16.7%)

5% 0 4 (44.4%) 4 (57.1%) 4 (57.1%) 2 (33.3%)

8% 0 1 (11.1%) 0 1 (14.3%) 1 (16.7%)

10% 2 (22.2%) 1 (11.1%) 0 0 1 (16.7%)

Mean Value 4.67% 4.89% 3.57% 4.57% 5.33%

Timing of Measurement Rounding [Total Sample n=41]Table 3.11

Measurement Rounding Timing % response

At beginning (initial calculations)

3 (7.3%)

At the end (final figure) 31 (75.6%)

Both of the above 7 (17.1%)

specific markets. Just over one third of the sample (36.9%) felt that the tolerance should be set at 3% or less whereas nearly two thirds of sample (63.1%) felt that a tolerance of between 5-10% would be acceptable. Clearly this divergence in opinion amounts to a significant amount when applied to the floor areas of specific properties.

Interestingly, when the level of tolerance is examined from a world region perspective (Table 3.10) the Americas display the lowest margin of error with two thirds of the sample for this region indicating a 2-3% tolerance range. In contrast the 4 remaining regions all returned the highest percentage for the 5% value. When the mean value was calculated, mainland Europe and the UK scored the lowest average values at 3.57% and 4.57% respectively. This lower tolerance level coincides with the regions that relied more upon the laser measuring tool suggesting that the accuracy expected from this method is higher

rics.org/research



than that using alternative means. At a city level there was no real consistency shown even within countries suggesting that current standards do not provide detailed advice on the issue of accuracy or margin of error which may be of concern to occupiers/investors who will be purchasing/renting on the basis of a price per square foot/metre.

To determine the impact of the timing of measurement rounding on the accuracy the respondents were asked to indicate when they carried out their value rounding. From Table 3.11 the evidence suggests that the majority of respondents (75.6%) only undertake rounding at the end of the measurement calculations. A small proportion undertake rounding at the beginning (7.3%) but there is some limited market evidence of rounding being undertaken at both the beginning and end of the process (17.1%) hence exacerbating any measurement inaccuracies that may have been recorded.

When the timing of the measurement rounding is observed from a world region perspective it is clear that the majority of markets still prefer to undertake rounding at the end of the measurement exercise (Table 3.12). Indeed only Melbourne and Paris recorded any instances of undertaking measurement rounding at the beginning based on initial dimensions. Furthermore, the instances of rounding occurring at both the beginning and the end were recorded in Paris, London, São Paulo, Shanghai, Toronto and New York with only the last city displaying

Timing of Measurement Rounding [World Regions]Table 3.12

At Beginning At the End Both

Americas 0 5 (55.6%) 4 (44.4%)

Asia/Middle East 0 8 (88.9%) 1 (11.1%)

Europe Mainland 1 (12.5%) 6 (75%) 1 (12.5%)

Europe UK 0 7 (87.5%) 1 (12.5%)

Oceania 2 (28.6%) 5 (71.4%) 0

Rounding of Measurements [Total Sample] Table 3.13

Metric Rounding n=40 Imperial Rounding n=35

1 decimal place 13 (32.5%) Nearest inch 8 (22.9%)

2 decimal places 20 (50%) Nearest ½ inch 5 (14.3%)

Not applicable 7 (17.5%) Not applicable 22 (62.9%)

more than one response. This points to the dual rounding being a company specific practice or the nature and practice of the individuals rather than a market norm, thus ensuring such measurement inconsistencies do not adversely affect the market.

To get a sense of the nature of the measurement rounding being undertaken locally the respondents were asked to indicate the units for both metric and imperial measurements that would be considered their normal practice. Table 3.13 clearly shows that metric rounding tended to observe smaller unit values than imperial rounding with 50% of the sample referring to using 2 decimal places or recording in centimetres. In contrast, recording imperial measurements to the nearest inch was considered the norm in the markets that used imperial values, with a small proportion currently recording to the nearest half inch. This would suggest that the markets utilising metric measurement units are likely to be slightly more accurate in their recording of the dimensions and room areas than those using the imperial measurements.

Sub analysis of the metric measurements in Table 3.14 confirms the established practice of using 2 decimal places within Asia/Middle East (77.8%), Europe mainland (62.5%) and Europe UK (57.1%). The only cities recording metric rounding to only 1 decimal place were Edinburgh, New York, Delhi, Paris and Melbourne, with the latter two cities the only cities to suggest that this is common market practice.




Rounding of Metric Measurements [World Regions]

Rounding of Imperial Measurements [World Regions]

Table 3.14

Table 3.15

1 Decimal Place 2 Decimal Places Not Applicable

Americas 2 (22.2%) 3 (33.3%) 4 (44.4%)

Asia/Middle East 1 (11.1%) 7 (77.8%) 1 (11.1%)

Europe Mainland (2) 3 (37.5%) 5 (62.5%) 0

Europe UK (1) 2 (28.6%) 4 (57.1%) 1 (14.3%)

Oceania 5 (71.4%) 1 (14.3%) 1 (14.3%)

(X) Denotes number of missing values

Nearest Inch Nearest ½ Inch Not Applicable

Americas 3 (33.3%) 1 (11.1%) 5 (55.5%)

Asia/Middle East (1) 1 (12.5%) 4 (50%) 3 (37.5%)

Europe Mainland (2) 2 (33.3%) 0 4 (66.6%)

Europe UK 2 (25%) 0 6 (75%)

Oceania (3) 0 0 4 (100%)

(X) Denotes number of missing values

As mentioned previously the imperial measurements are only used in a small proportion of countries and therefore Table 3.15 shows a low coverage of imperial rounding results. Of these results only the Asia/Middle East market (50%) demonstrate an established market practice of measuring to the nearest ½ inch with this market practice strongly influenced by Delhi. Measuring to the nearest inch appears to represent the more likely practice but again sub-analysis at a city level fails to establish any clear market level consistency to indicate that it represents a norm.

The rounding aspect was posed as a qualitative question in the questionnaire to determine when and how rounding was reported to the client. Only 20 responses were received for this question with a number indicating that the measurement rounding is not formally communicated to the client and that the use of disclaimers on measurements being approximate are common. There was also some clarification on the fact that in some markets (e.g. UK, Germany and Hong Kong) rounding may occur on the final figure rather than in earlier room calculations. The earlier rounding of dimensions or room areas was perceived to inflate the area calculations and tended to be favoured in markets where the information was provided directly by

developers. However, countries such as Australia recognise that this area inflation can have wider implications on granting of mortgages, with bank lenders often stipulating a minimum floor area that they will lend against so more care is now being taken in how this is quoted back to clients.

In terms of the legal disclaimers there was a variety of these provided some of which are summarised in Table 3.16. Some of the companies indicated that this information is confidential and therefore did not share its wording. One broker from Toronto indicated that new build contracts in Canada are silent on this and that disputes about resale measurements often requires legal recourse. Similar legal recourse is referred to in Australia which makes specific reference to how there could be a disparity between that provided by the developers particularly at a buying off-plan stage and that measured at the completion/handover stage. Some respondents have also pointed to the measurement standard that has been used to govern the inclusions and exclusions rather than specific wording around the physical measurement process or output. Where a measurement standard does not exist (such as the UAE) respondents have relied upon developers stated sizes and dimensions derived from the architectural drawings.

rics.org/research



Examples of Legal Measurement DisclaimersTable 3.16

World Region Disclaimer Wording

Americas – Brazil Two bedrooms, one bathroom, one parking space with 65m2. In this case the 65m2 refers to the saleable area.

Americas – Canada Measurements were done by the appraiser using a tape. Given that there is landscaping, downspouts, tape sag, corner capping, bay window and upper floors may have overhangs the measurement is approximate. However sufficient for the purposes of an appraisal assignment.

Americas – USA All dimensions are approximate, plans, specifications and materials may vary due to construction, field conditions, requirements and availabilities. Square footages are measured to exterior face of exterior walls and centreline of demising walls between units. Walls adjacent to corridor and common areas are measured to the exterior face of the demising wall. Exterior terrace area is measured from the exterior face of the unit wall to the exterior side of the terrace walls.

Asia/Middle East – Hong Kong State that the floor areas are believed to be correct, but have not been measured on site.

Asia/Middle East – UAE Room dimensions are in meters and total area in square feet. All materials, dimensions and drawings are approximate. Information subject to changes without notice. Actual usable floorspace may vary from the stated floor plan. Drawings not to scale. The developer reserves the right to make revisions to the floor plans.

Europe – UK Whilst every attempt has been made to ensure the accuracy of the floor plan contained here, measurements of doors, windows, rooms and any other items are approximate and no responsibility is taken for any error, omission, or misstatement. This plan is for illustrative purposes only and should be used as such by any prospective purchaser. The services, systems and appliances shown have not been tested and no guarantee as to their operability or efficiency can be given.

Europe – UK In accordance with the RICS Code of Measuring Practice (6th Edition) sizes taken at the time of our inspection are based upon a net internal area. All dimensions are for use and occupation only and are given without responsibility. Any intended purchaser or tenant should not rely on them as statements or representative of fact but must satisfy themselves by inspection or otherwise as to the correctness of each of them.

Oceania We have measured the net area of the apartment by laser measuring equipment by measuring from the internal face walls.

Oceania Measurements taken at the inspection by the valuer are in accordance with Bank directives and acceptable practice, being the net area of the apartment (excluding balconies and car spaces – of applicable) and calculated to be xxx sqm. Note that the developer’s plan and marketing material may advise the living area of the subject property to be larger than our measured area because they usually adopt the Property Council of Australia guidelines.

From Table 3.16 it is clear that there is various levels of detail presented on the floor area disclaimers from those that name the measurement standards and are written to prevent legal recourse and others that refer more to the context within which the measurement was undertaken and reported. It would appear that certain markets (e.g. UK, Australia) favour a more detailed disclaimer that can try and prevent legal recourse. Whereas other markets (e.g. Canada, USA) focus more on explaining the measurement approach adopted. Finally, some markets (Asia/Middle East) are clearly relying on the plans and disclaimers provided by the developers and therefore defer to these in their own marketing documentation.




4.1 Measurement Inclusions and Exclusions The survey respondents were provided with floor plans of both a single dwelling and an apartment building and asked to outline the components of each that they included in their total floor area calculations. In order to establish the residential measurement variance it was necessary to have a baseline measurement for comparison purposes. The draft IPMS 1 and 3a have been used as a baseline for measuring the external area of the residential buildings, whereas the draft IPMS 2 was used as a baseline for measuring the interior area of a residential building, as it effectively included all the private and communal facilities connected to the residential buildings. The draft IPMS 3b and 3c were also used to help capture the % variance of the occupied building areas in exclusive use. In each instance it was possible to capture the % variance from these baselines to give an impression of the differing local practice in the world regions. It should be noted that the respondents were not asked to measure in accordance with the new IPMS standards but rather base their measurements on their own local practice, with the IPMS standards just used as the baselines to determine the level of variation.

Table 4.1 shows the percentage breakdown of the elements included in apartment buildings against the respective IPMS standards, with 100% consensus on elements such as living rooms, kitchen, bedrooms and bathrooms. High percentage returns were also realised for vestibules (95.1%), closets (92.7%) and corridors (85.4%) with the majority of respondents across all survey areas indicating that these

4.0 Measurement Variation

elements formed part of their area calculations. Areas where there was less consensus included external walls (39%), internal walls (58.5%), roof terraces (39.5%), open balconies (36.8%), recessed balconies (36.8%) and loggias (36.8%). The lowest overall inclusion percentages were returned by the communal aspects of communal lobbies (19.5%) and communal/emergency staircases and lifts (9.8%), but given that these elements are excluded in IPMS 3b and 3c this demonstrates that across markets there is already evidence of some level of the IPMS draft residential compliance. Whilst local market practice can differ substantially depending on the component and how it is treated in local measurement standards there is broad consensus on the core elements and main exclusions.

To determine to what extent the returns would comply with IPMS 1, 2, 3a, 3b and 3c, a percentage variation figure was calculated for the apartments. To calculate this variation, the summation of the floor areas for all the included areas from the apartment and single dwelling floor plans in accordance with the IPMS standards was directly compared to the summation of the floor areas from the survey responses reflecting local practice. From Table 4.1 it is apparent that the inclusion returns would result in a negative variance (i.e. a figure lower than the baseline) of as much as -27.17% compared to IPMS 1 and -26.15% compared to IPMS 2. This negative variance is slightly less for IPMS 3a (-18.51%) and IPMS 3b (-18.11%) and further reduced for IPMS 3c (-10.14%). The fact that a number of local markets do not include elements such as balconies and terraces etc. has resulted in this negative variance with some markets potentially losing out on the additional revenue that the increased floor area could command.

rics.org/research



Table 4.1

Apartment [N = 41] IPMS 1 IPMS 2 IPMS3a IPMS 3b IPMS 3cNo. [%] of responses

that includes

Living room ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 41 [100%]

Kitchen ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 41 [100%]

Closet ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 38 [92.7%]

Bedroom ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 41 [100%]

Bathroom ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 41 [100%]

Vestibule ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 39 [95.1%]

Corridor ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 35 [85.4%]

Communal lobby ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ 8 [19.5%]

External walls ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ 16 [39.0%]

Internal walls ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ 24 [58.5%]

Communal/emergency staircase/lift ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ 4 [9.8%]

Roof terrace ** ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 15 [39.5%]

Open balcony ** ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 14 [36.8%]

Recessed balcony ** ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 14 [36.8%]

Loggia / covered gallery ** ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 14 [36.8%]

% Variation to IPMS -27.17% -26.15% -18.51% -18.11% -10.14%

Apartment Inclusions against IPMS Standards

NB: ** no of responses = 38




Table 4.2

Single Dwelling House [N = 41] IPMS 1 IPMS 2 IPMS3a IPMS 3b IPMS 3c

No. [%] of responses that includes

Living room(s) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 40 [97.6%]

Chimney/fireplace ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 28 [68.3%]

Kitchen ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 40 [97.6%]

Dining ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 40 [97.6%]

Vestibule/entrance hall ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 40 [97.6%]

Corridors/landing ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 38 [92.7%]

Internal staircases ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 34 [82.9%]

Guest toilet/downstairs toilet ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 40 [97.6%]

Laundry/utility room ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 39 [95.1%]

Bedrooms ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 40 [97.6%]

En suite bathroom ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 40 [97.6%]

Bathrooms ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 40 [97.6%]

Study room ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 40 [97.6%]

Storage (with restricted height) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 35 [85.4%]

External walls ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ 26 [63.4%]

Internal walls ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ 30 [73.2%]

Roof terrace/roof garden ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 12 [34.2%]

Open balcony ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 13 [31.6%]

Terrace/patio ** ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 13 [31.6%]

Veranda ** ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 13 [31.6%]

Carport ** ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 8 [21.1%]

Garden ** ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 5 [13.2%]

Outdoor swimming pool ** ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 6 [15.8%]

% Variation to IPMS +3.12% +7.39% +3.12% +7.39% +10.22%

Single Dwelling Inclusions against IPMS Standards

Table 4.2 demonstrates that for single dwellings there is a strong consensus on the aspects that are traditionally included by the majority of respondents, including living rooms (97.6%), kitchens (97.6%), dining rooms (97.6%), vestibule/entrance halls (97.6%), guest toilets (97.6%), bedrooms (97.6%), en suite bathrooms (97.6%), bathrooms (97.6%), study rooms (97.6%), laundry rooms (95.1%), storage with restricted height (85.4%) and internal staircases (82.9%). There was less consensus on the

inclusion of what constitutes external space in particular roof terraces (34.2%), open balconies (31.6%), patios (31.6%), veranda’s (31.6%), carports (23.7%) gardens (13.2%) and outdoor swimming pools (15.8%). The majority of this space falls outside the inclusion remit of the draft IPMS standards with the exception of patios, balconies and verandas and therefore demonstrates some consistency between the proposed new IPMS standards and local market practice.

NB: ** no of responses = 38

rics.org/research



Apartment Inclusions by World Region Table 4.3

Apartment AmericasAsia/Middle

EastEurope

Mainland Europe UK Oceania Total

Living room(s) 9 [100%] 9 [100%] 8 [100%] 8 [100%] 7 [100%] 41 [100%]

Kitchen/dinning 9 [100%] 9 [100%] 8 [100%] 8 [100%] 7 [100%] 41 [100%]


9 [100%] 8 [88.9%] 8 [100%] 6 [75%] 7 [100%] 38 [92.7%]

Bedrooms 9 [100%] 9 [100%] 8 [100%] 8 [100%] 7 [100%] 41 [100%]

Bathrooms/toilets 9 [100%] 9 [100%] 8 [100%] 8 [100%] 7 [100%] 41 [100%]

Vestibule/entrance hall 8 [88.9%] 9 [100%] 8 [100%] 8 [100%] 6 [85.7%] 39 [95%]


7 [77.7%] 8 [88.9%] 8 [100%] 7 [87.5%] 5 [71.4%] 35 [85%]

Communal lobby [1] 5 [55.6%] 2 [22.2%] 1 [12.5%] 0 [0%] 0 [0%] 8 [20%]

External walls [#] 6 [66.7%] 6 [66.7%] 3 [37.5%] 0 [0%] 1 [14.3%] 16 [39%]

Internal walls [2] 5 [55.6%] 9 [100%] 1 [12.5%] 8 [100%] 1 [14.3%] 24 [59%]

Communal/emergency staircase/corridors/lift [1] 1 [11.1%] 2 [22.2%] 1 [12.5%] 0 [0%] 0 [0%] 4 [10%]

Roof terrace/roof garden ** 3 [33.3%] 3 [33.3%] 6 [75%] 1 [14.3%] 2 [33.3%] 15 [39.5%]

Open balcony ** 3 [33.3%] 3 [33.3%] 5 [62.5%] 1 [14.3%] 2 [33.3%] 14 [36.8%]

Recessed balcony ** 3 [33.3%] 3 [33.3%] 5 [62.5%] 1 [14.3%] 2 [33.3%] 14 [36.8%]

Covered gallery/loggia ** 2 [22.2%] 3 [33.3%] 6 [75%] 2 [28.6%] 1 [16.7%] 14 [36.8%]

** no of responses = 38 [1] excluded under IPMS 3b [1] and [2] excluded under IPMS 3c [#] excluded under IPMS 2, 3b and 3c.

A similar % variation figure was calculated for the single dwelling inclusions and in contrast to the apartment buildings the total variation returned was categorised as a positive variance (i.e. a figure higher than the baseline). IPMS 1 and 3a were calculated on the same basis and returned a positive variance of +3.12% whereas IPMS 2 and 3b returned a positive variance of +7.39% with IPMS 3c returning a +10.22% variance compared to the respective IPMS standards. This shows that in the case of single dwellings there is more evidence of measurements being inflated through inclusion of additional external space (such as patios, gardens, carports etc.) which do not form part of the apartment calculations.

Table 4.3 displays the apartment inclusions by world regions with a strong consensus again evident on the inclusion of living spaces within the apartments. Of note is some of the areas highlighted in purple which either deviate from the collective response or go against the proposed IPMS residential standards. The first of these is the reduced consensus on the inclusion of storage with restricted height within a UK context. Further sub-analysis shows that the city that did not include this restricted height storage was London, this may be influenced

by the market requesting useable space especially as some London apartments are classified as 1-bedroom studios, hence the actual useable space takes on more significance. Further discrepancies are shown in terms of dealing with the communal elements. The Americas (66.6%) and Asia/Middle East (66.7%) show a preference for including external walls as per IPMS 1 and 3a, whereas in contrast external walls are almost universally excluded by the UK and Oceania. Similarly, the Americas (55.6%) also show a preference for including the communal lobbies as per the direction of IPMS 2 and again lobbies are nearly universally excluded by the other world regions which comply more with IPMS 3b and 3c.

The inclusion of internal walls across the world regions again demonstrates differing practice with Asia/Middle East and Europe UK universally including these to comply with IPMS 2 and 3b but going against the practice of IPMS 3c. At the other extreme mainland Europe (12.5%) and Oceania (14.3%) show limited evidence of including internal walls and therefore demonstrate more compliance with IPMS 3c. Across the external space (roof terrace, open balcony, recessed balcony and loggia) there is only concerted evidence from mainland Europe of attempting




to include these in the total area calculations, with the other world regions showing more evidence of excluding these from the area calculations. In terms of city level inclusions of these spaces the Americas are dominated by Brazil with evidence from both Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, whereas Asia/Middle East is primarily influenced by the practice of Hong Kong and Shanghai. IPMS 2, 3b and 3c all include these in the total area (albeit with the caveat of also listing the areas separately) and therefore this is potentially one of the key contributors to the negative variance mentioned earlier for apartment buildings. See Table 4.7 for discussion on the impact of different percentage inclusions of these outdoor spaces across markets.

Table 4.4 shows the world region inclusions for single dwellings with the key differences again highlighted in purple. The first key variation arises with the treatment of chimneys/fireplaces, with their inclusion ranging from only 25% (Europe mainland) to 100% (Oceania), this item is included under each of the IPMS standards and therefore only Oceania would be complying with the proposed IPMS residential standards. There is a further anomaly evident with mainland Europe in relation to internal staircases which returned again only 25% inclusion figures, compared to nearly complete consensus from the other world regions. Again the area for internal staircases at the ground floor level is included as part under each of the IPMS standards and therefore mainland Europe are alone in excluding this aspect from their dwelling floor plan calculations.

Single Dwelling Inclusions by World RegionTable 4.4

Single Dwelling House AmericasAsia/Middle

EastEurope

Mainland Europe UK Oceania Total

Living room(s) 9 [100%] 9 [100%] 8 [100%] 7 [87.5%] 7 [100%] 40 [97.6%]

Chimney/fireplace 5 [55.6%] 7 [77.8%] 2 [25%] 7 [87.5%] 7 [100%] 28 [68.3%]

Kitchen 9 [100%] 9 [100%] 8 [100%] 7 [87.5%] 7 [100%] 40 [97.6%]

Dining 9 [100%] 9 [100%] 8 [100%] 7 [87.5%] 7 [100%] 40 [97.6%]

Vestibule/entrance hall 9 [100%] 9 [100%] 8 [100%] 7 [87.5%] 7 [100%] 40 [97.6%]

Corridors/landing 9 [100%] 9 [100%] 7 [87.5%] 7 [87.5%] 6 [85.7%] 38 [92.7%]

Internal staircases 9 [100%] 9 [100%] 2 [25%] 7 [87.5%] 7 [100%] 34 [82.9%]

Guest toilet/downstairs toilet 9 [100%] 9 [100%] 8 [100%] 7 [87.5%] 7 [100%] 40 [97.6%]

Laundry/utility room 8 [88.9%] 9 [100%] 8 [100%] 7 [87.5%] 7 [100%] 39 [95.1%]

Bedrooms 9 [100%] 9 [100%] 8 [100%] 7 [87.5%] 7 [100%] 40 [97.6%]

Ensuite bathroom 9 [100%] 9 [100%] 8 [100%] 7 [87.5%] 7 [100%] 40 [97.6%]

Bathrooms 9 [100%] 9 [100%] 8 [100%] 7 [87.5%] 7 [100%] 40 [97.6%]

Study room 9 [100%] 9 [100%] 8 [100%] 7 [87.5%] 7 [100%] 40 [97.6%]

Storage (with restricted height) 8 [88.9%] 9 [100%] 5 [62.5%] 6 [75%] 7 [100%] 35 [85.4%]

External walls [#] 7 [77.8%] 9 [100%] 3 [37.5%] 0 [0%] 7 [100%] 26 [63.4%]

Internal walls [2] 7 [77.8%] 9 [100%] 0 [0%] 7 [87.5%] 7 [100%] 30 [73.2%]

Roof terrace/garden ** 1 [11.1%] 3 [33.3%] 6 [75%] 0 [0%] 2 [28.6%] 12 [31/6%]

Open balcony ** 2 [22.2%] 3 [33.3%] 6 [75%] 0 [0%] 2 [28.6%] 13 [34.2%]

Terrace/patio ** [1] 2 [22.2%] 3 [33.3%] 6 [75%] 0 [0%] 2 [28.6%] 13 [34.2%]

Veranda ** 2 [22.2%] 3 [33.3%] 6 [75%] 0 [0%] 2 [28.6%] 13 [34.2%]

Carport ** [1] 2 [22.2%] 2 [22.2%] 2 [25%] 0 [0%] 2 [28.6%] 8 [21.1%]

Garden ** [1] 0 [0%] 3 [33.3%] 1 [12.5%] 0 [0%] 1 [14.3%] 5 [13.2%]

Outdoor swimming pool ** [1] 1 [11.1%] 3 [33.3%] 1 [12.5%] 0 [0%] 1 [14.3%] 6 [15.8%]

** no of responses = 38 [1] excluded under IPMS 2 and 3b [1] and [2] excluded under IPMS 3c [#] excluded under IPMS 2, 3b and 3c.

rics.org/research



Floor Area Variation for Apartments by World RegionTable 4.5

Total Sample Americas

Asia/Middle East

Europe Mainland

Europe UK Oceania Range

IPMS 1 - 27.17% - 26.33% - 22.41% - 23.04% - 28.81% - 33.39% 10.98%

IPMS 2 - 26.15% - 26.12% - 22.08% - 21.85% - 26.59% - 31.76% 9.68%

IPMS 3a - 18.51% - 22.82% -17.49% -18.36% - 26.09% - 32.37% 14.88%

IPMS 3b - 18.11% - 22.38% - 16.83% - 16.52% - 22.91% - 30.05% 13.22%

IPMS 3c - 10.14% - 12.81% - 6.57% - 6.22% - 13.02% - 21.00% 14.42%

Average 12.64%

There remains some inconsistencies in the treatment of storage with restricted height within mainland Europe (62.5%) and Europe UK (75%) despite the proposed IPMS standards universally including this element.

The inclusion of external walls obtained a much higher consensus for dwellings than apartments across all regions with the exception of mainland Europe (37.5%) and the UK which completely excluded this element from its calculations. Similarly, the inclusion of internal walls was more common practice across the world regions for single dwellings than apartments, with the exception of mainland Europe who excluded these entirely in compliance with IPMS 3c. Treatment of internal and external walls would appear to require more consistency to develop a common market practice across rather than just within countries.

Again the inclusion of external space creates the largest variations in terms of inclusions. Taking the elements that are currently included under the IPMS standards (e.g. roof terrace, open balcony and veranda) with the exception of mainland Europe (75%) there is limited evidence of these being included in the floor space calculations.

Further variation arises from the treatment of the excluded elements (e.g. patio, carport, garden and outdoor swimming pool). Only the UK was consistent with the IPMS standards in completely excluding each of these from the total floor area calculations. Evidence from other world regions showed city level inclusion practice in Hong Kong and Shanghai from Asia/Middle East, with some similar inclusions in Rio and Toronto from the Americas. Paris was the only European city to have any reference to inclusion of this outdoor space although with the exception of the terrace/patio (75%) this was only 1 or 2 recorded instances and therefore not illustrative of common market practice. The specific inclusion of terraces/patios, gardens and outdoor swimming pools by virtue of their relative sizes has a significant impact on the differences in the % variation figures across world regions.

Table 4.5 summarises the floor area variations for the apartments by world region compared to the proposed IPMS standard baselines and the total sample responses. This clearly illustrates that from an apartment perspective there is a negative variance across all world regions.




The largest of the negative variance is demonstrated in terms of IPMS 1 which effectively represents the Gross External Area (GEA) of the building and IPMS 2, which effectively represents the Gross Internal Area (GIA) of the building including the communal areas. This is not surprising given that the majority of respondents did not include external wall measurements and measured common areas separately hence resulting in total measurements below the IPMS baselines. Of more significance is the responses to IPMS 3b and 3c which are more representative of the common measurement practice of internal measurements either through or to the internal face of walls. In this regard there was still a negative variance across all world regions but the magnitude of the variation starts to reduce. It would therefore appear that the proposed IPMS 3c represents the closest standard to current local practice but remains influenced by the failure to include roof terraces, balconies and loggias.

In terms of specific levels of variation using IPMS 3c as the baseline, it is clear that Asia/Middle East (-6.57%) and mainland Europe (-6.22%) for IPMS 3c got the closest to the actual calculated area for the apartment buildings as denoted by the IPMS 3c baseline. Similarly, the USA (-12.81%), the UK (-13.02%) and Oceania (-21%) demonstrated the largest variation from the IPMS 3c baseline. Interestingly, there is a relatively small range denoting the difference between the highest and lowest values across regions with an average range of only 12.64% demonstrating that there is a broad consistency across regions in the measurement approach to apartments. This range would drop further if Oceania was excluded6, whose returns have been influenced by their higher exclusion rates of the outdoor space of terraces, balconies and loggias. If looked at across all three IPMS standards, the largest variation across the sample ranges is returned for IPMS 3a (14.88%) and IPMS 3c (14.42%) with this dropping to 13.22% for IPMS 3b, 10.98% for IPMS 1 and just 9.68% for IPMS 2. This is in stark contrast to the single dwellings ranges as can be seen later in Table 4.6.

The single dwelling measurements by region produced less consistency across regions than the apartments, but more consistency with the IPMS standard baselines from the collective sample. This is illustrated by the fact that for IPMS 2, 3b and 3c the Americas (-2.53%) and Europe UK (-19.74% and -17.57%) returned negative variance based on the inclusions across the IPMS standards, whereas Asia/Middle East (+32% and +35.48%), Europe mainland (+15.85% and +18.9%) and Oceania (+13.83% and +16.88%) displayed a positive variance. This is in direct contrast to the apartment buildings where all regions returned a negative variance. Likewise, for IPMS 1 and 3a there were similar differences in the positive and negative variance returned across the regions demonstrating much more inconsistency and uncertainty within markets about the measurement inclusions and exclusions. The Americas (- 4.44%) and Oceania (- 3.64%) got close to compliance with IPMS 1 and 3a demonstrating that these markets actively consider external measurements. In contrast, Asia/Middle East (+28.89%) and Europe UK (-29.32%) demonstrated limited consistency with the IPMS 1 and 3a baselines. Similar inconsistencies are recorded across all of the regions with the IPMS baselines for single dwellings, meaning that what is included and excluded varies greatly both within and across regions. Furthermore, in many instances varying single dwelling measurements are adopted within markets for sales, letting and registration purposes leading to a further lack of transparency within markets, particularly for end users, who may not be aware of the original purpose of these measurements.

The magnitude of the differences as measured by the range also varied greatly across the regions. Table 4.6 demonstrates the floor area variation for the single dwellings and unlike the apartment sample these responses show a much higher level of variation between countries given the presence of both positive and negative variance. As can be seen the total sample variance is positive primarily as a result of the positive and negative variance cancelling each other out.

Floor Area Variation for Single Dwellings by World RegionTable 4.6

Total Sample Americas

Asia/Middle East

Europe Mainland

Europe UK Oceania Range

IPMS 1 + 3.12% -4.44% +28.89% +8.23% -29.32% -3.64% 58.21%

IPMS 2 +7.39% - 2.53% +32.00% +15.85% - 19.74% +13.83% 51.74%

IPMS 3a + 3.12% - 4.44% +28.89% +8.23% -29.32% -3.64% 58.21%

IPMS 3b +7.39% - 2.53% +32.00% +15.85% - 19.74% +13.83% 51.74%

IPMS 3c +10.22% +0.05% +35.48% +18.90% - 17.57% +16.88% 53.05%

Average 54.59%

6 This outlier performance is somewhat surprising given the afore mentioned court cases but perhaps the figure is currently influenced by the inconsistency in how the local standards conflict on using

rics.org/research



The measurement range evident across world regions shows that the highest variation was recorded by Asia/Middle East and Europe UK with the lowest variation was recorded by the Americas. Table 4.6 shows that there is a much higher range of values returned for single dwellings compared to apartments with an average difference of 54.59% compared to just 12.64% for apartments. The highest range is recorded for IPMS 1 and 3a at 58.21%, with IPMS 3c at 53.05% and IPMS 2 and 3b at 51.74%. These differences are primarily influenced by the practice in Shanghai and Hong Kong of including gardens and outdoor swimming pools in the total floor area calculations and the lack of including roof terraces, balconies and verandas as part of the floor space in the UK. Similarly, the Asia/Middle East market was previously found to have a reliance on developer plans rather than physical measurement which tends to inflate the floor areas for commercial gain. The Australian practice for single dwellings is more in keeping with the collective sample unlike in the apartment calculations where Oceania appeared to be somewhat of an outlier. Again this can be traced back to the earlier court cases and the caution shown on what is quoted back to the client.

4.2 Respondent Views on Local Measurement ProblemsThe survey respondents were asked a qualitative question at the end of the survey to determine if there were any aspects of their current local measurement practice that could be improved or anything that they felt was particularly effective. Within a UK context there was a consensus across the respondents that the RICS Code of Measuring Practice was both an effective, logical and straightforward standard that was almost universally applied within the UK creating a higher degree of transparency. However, even the RICS Code of Measuring Practice is open to various interpretations and this level of acceptance of a measurement standard and its effectiveness was not mirrored in other world regions where responses focused more on the problems/challenges rather than their positive experience. A total of 20 responses were received and these are summarised in the following sub-sections.

4.2.1 Market Inconsistencies and Need for Standardised ApproachIn India there was mention of both inconsistencies within the country as well as from market to market with the lack of codified measurement practices often resulting in high variance across different jurisdictions. This same point was also made in Australia with the presence of two different measurement standards (one of which focuses on gross measurements and the other on net areas) creating disparities that can influence bank lenders.

In the UAE there was some concern that the introduction of one measurement standard could see legal challenges to the areas quoted on previous transactions. However, the majority of respondents still were in favour of eliminating the inconsistencies that presently exist through some form of standardised approach.

4.2.2 Reliance on 3rd Party MeasurementsIn France there was reference to the fact that valuers are often not responsible for physical measurement and therefore rely on the measurements taken by 3rd party géomètre experts. This use of 3rd parties was also mentioned in Canada where some appraisers rely on area information provided by local tax assessment authorities. In both instances the values provided are not checked in-house and therefore any errors would not have been identified. Again the practice of relying on legal disclaimers to cover checking measurements or dimensions would be prevalent.

4.2.3 Confusing Local Practice on Percentage InclusionsSome responses from Germany were concerned about the differing local practice in how to deal with balconies or carports where a percentage allocation of up to 50% could be applied. The local German standard does not stipulate the percentage to be used hence local practice differs from company to company. This was further reinforced in the survey responses which asked what percentage of areas were included of some specific outdoor spaces (e.g. roof terraces, balconies, carports, verandas, gardens and outdoor swimming pools). The allocation of different specific percentage values to the inclusion of this outdoor space was prevalent in France, Germany, Brazil, China and India. Table 4.7 shows that some countries had consistency for some elements whereas for others a range was more prevalent. Where a market starts to allocate different percentage inclusions to these spaces it becomes prone to inconsistencies and the local standards really need to have more direction and guidance on the specific percentage allocation that should be included.

Table 4.8 shows the indicative percentage inclusions for the outdoor space of the single dwellings, which still demonstrates some inconsistent market practice in terms of percentage ranges. However there is also some consensus within certain markets on how it deals with the inclusion of these additional spaces. This corresponds with the earlier comments on how some markets have over measured the floor space if the proposed IPMS 2 and 3c were to be applied given that they exclude the terrace/patio, carport, garden and outdoor swimming pools.




Indicative7 Percentage Included of Outdoor Apartment SpaceTable 4.7

CountryRoof Terrace/

Garden Open Balcony Recessed Balcony Loggia

Brazil 20-100% 50-100% 50-100% 100%

India – 50-100% 100% 100%

China – 50% 50% 50%

France 10-30% 10-20% – 30-100%

Germany 25% 25-50% 25-50% 25-50%

Indicative7 Percentage Included of Outdoor Single Dwelling SpaceTable 4.8

Country

Roof Terrace/Garden

Open Balcony

Terrace/Patio Veranda Carport Garden

Swimming Pool

Brazil 30-100% 30-100% 50-100% 50-100% 30-100% 20-100% 30-100%

USA 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

India 50% 100% 100% 100% – – –

China – 50% – 50% 100% – –

France 20-30% 10-20% 15% 30-100% – – –

Germany 25% 25-50% 25% 25% - - -

4.3 Respondent Recommendations on Measurement ImprovementsThe final qualitative question of the survey asked respondents to bring forward any suggestions or recommendations that they felt would benefit residential property measurement. A total of 15 responses were received for this question with the broad reoccurring themes outlined in the following sub-sections8.

4.3.1 Harmonisation of Existing Measurement StandardsThere was widespread agreement from respondents that the proliferation of measurement standards and approaches both within and across countries needed to be addressed to avoid measurement inconsistency and legal challenges. To this end respondents welcomed the launch of the IPMS residential standards and felt that having a more harmonised approach to measurement

would benefit all markets and help with the increasing volume of international property transactions. The one caveat to this process is how to best alter the local reporting of measurements to start to reflect the different IPMS definitions to ensure that it does not add another bureaucratic tier to the regulation of the industry and therefore prove unpopular.

4.3.2 Mandating of Measurement StandardsThe forthcoming introduction of the IPMS residential measurement standard was said to be only the first part of the challenge with the bigger challenge being to legalise these standards and regulate how it is carried out, accepted and understood at the local level. There were several calls for the mandating of the IPMS standards given that local market practice will only change if forced to do so to compliance with local legislation. Such a move may prove difficult in some markets but the general willingness of a number of governments, professional bodies/local associations to back the creation and implementation of the IPMS shows that there is an

7 These are indicative percentage values based on small sample sizes and therefore should not be taken as typical in a wider market context. 8 As the comments provided to this question were more generic and applicable to measurement practice across jurisdictions there is no attempt to identify the country or region from which they were sourced.

rics.org/research



appetite across jurisdictions to improve measurement practice given the potential of building size to impact upon property values. Any such move would also benefit the consumer given that a property is the single biggest expenditure of any individual.

4.3.3 Adoption of Measurement Standards by Key StakeholdersThere was some commentary around how any introduction of the new IPMS residential standards would need to be agreed and adopted by all key stakeholders not just those directly measuring properties. In this regard reference was made to the role that banks, investors and corporate occupiers have needing accurate measurements of floor space and therefore how these allied professionals would also need to adopt any new measurement standard and understand the inclusions/exclusions contained therein.

4.3.4 Better Communication of StandardsThe introduction of the new IPMS residential standards will only gain traction in the market if this is properly communicated to all real estate and allied professions such as the architects, contractors, developers, facilities

managers, urban/space planners, just to name a few. There were calls for the inclusions/exclusions to be made more explicit in the floor plan calculations so that it was more transparent how the final figure was derived. Likewise there was appreciation for the fact that if everyone adopted the same standard and code of practice then everyone should generate the same floor area figures and therefore this would help improve the client confidence and reduce litigation as well as improved the market efficiency and transparency.

4.3.5 More Physical MeasurementThere was recognition that within some markets there is still an over-reliance on developer floor plans for measurement calculations rather than property professionals undertaking their own physical measurements on site. To help avoid some of the over measurement scenarios that reliance on developer plans can create there was a call for more physical measurements or check measurements to be undertaken. This would also enable the responsible practitioner to take note of the inclusions/exclusions in a more transparent and IPMS compliant manner and give confidence to the consumers, clients and lenders that the as built resembles the original floor plan drawings.




The key findings of the research report are:• Recognition that national measurement standards

are often fundamentally different in their respective measurement approaches and what is included/excluded in the area calculations.

• Evidence of a lack of awareness of the local measurement standards in some markets, which may require more professional body training to ensure local practice adheres to the standards.

• Support demonstrated for proposed IPMS residential standards to avoid confusion between standards, legal cases and to eliminate the inconsistencies between markets.

• No consensus on the inclusion of floor plans within marketing material across countries, with plans more likely to be included for new homes if provided by the developer or if the price point of the property warranted their inclusion.

• Evidence that the total floor area of properties is included in the property marketing particulars in the majority of cases although sometimes this is quoted in a number of bedrooms or number of stories (or a combination therein).

• The floor plans of apartments and single dwellings seldom include dimensions and are even less likely to include actual room areas, with this practice only ever included for the main living space. However, it is common practice to provide detailed dimensions and floor areas for high end high value properties.

5.0 Key Findings

• The use of a laser measuring tool remains the preferred option in a number of markets (UK, Europe and Oceania) although scaled drawings are popular in Asia/Middle East, who need to guard against developer inflation of floor plans areas as check measurements are often not carried out.

• The majority of markets tend to use square metres, although there is a clear distinction between mainland Europe and Oceania solely using square metres whereas the Americas preferred square feet, with the UK and Hong Kong utilising both.

• Apartment buildings tended to be measured internally, whereas there was no consensus on the measurement approach for single dwellings, with a combination of internal and external measurement used. Similarly, when approaching internal measurements the majority used the internal surface of walls but there was also some evidence of use of mid-points of walls or external face of walls causing market inconsistencies.

• The majority of the respondents felt that a measurement accuracy or tolerance level of between 5-10% was considered acceptable, although this level did differ across regions. Lower tolerance levels were returned in the regions that favoured use of the laser measuring tool.

• Rounding is mainly undertaken at the end of the measurement calculations on the final total area figure, but evidence also existed of dual rounding of dimensions as well as the areas which could potentially inflate the floor areas.

rics.org/research



• Legal disclaimers vary in content from those naming the measurement standards, to those focused on explaining the approach, with the more detailed disclaimers evident in markets where litigation is more prevalent.

• Inclusion of communal aspects of apartments is not prevalent in any market showing more measurements are more closely aligned with proposed IPMS 3b or 3c than IPMS 2.

• Local practice in measuring apartments showed a negative variance up to a maximum of 27.17%, influenced largely by common local practice of excluding balconies, roof terraces and loggias/covered galleries.

• Local practice in measuring single dwellings returned a positive variance up to a maximum of 10.22%, influenced largely by some regions including patios, carports, gardens and outdoor swimming pools.

• Local practice in measuring apartments demonstrated a relatively high level of consistency across regions with variation between regions only up to a maximum of 14.88%.

• Local practice in measuring single dwellings demonstrated a lack of consistency across regions with both positive and negative variance returned, resulting in a variation between regions of up to a maximum of 58.21%.

• The high degree of variance in single dwellings was influenced by lack of consistency regarding the inclusion of items such as chimneys, internal staircases, storage with restricted height, internal walls and the external space.

• Some markets (notably France and Canada) rely on 3rd parties for measurement information either from géomètre experts or local tax assessment authorities, which often are not checked in-house.

• A lack of guidance on the inclusion percentage of some external space across markets with a wide variation in the percentage included for spaces such as roof terraces, balconies, loggias, patios, verandas, carport, gardens and outdoor swimming pools, again highlights the need for an international standard.

• Widespread support for a common and harmonised mandated international standard that gained widespread adoption by all key stakeholders and one that was capable of communicating clearly the specific inclusions and exclusions to the market players and clients.

• Recognition that some markets over relied on floor measurements provided by developers and therefore more physical measurement was needed to cross check measurements and ensure quoted floor areas correspond to that built.




6.0 AcknowledgementsThe authors wish to express our gratitude to a number of key individuals who have helped facilitate this research study. This research would not have been possible without the help and support of numerous individual participants who gave freely of their time to answer our questions and participate in our survey.

In particular, we would like to thank the following individuals who have been instrumental in helping with the technical content of the proposed IPMS residential standards.

• Max Croft (Chairman of IPMS Standard Setting Committee)

• Alexander Aronsohn (Director of Technical International Standards, RICS)

• Professor Marc Grief (University of Applied Sciences Mainz)

We would also like to thank RICS, Dr Clare Ericsson and Amanprit Arnold who have supported the research through helping to source potential respondents, providing contact details and constructive feedback.

rics.org/research




Confidence through professional standardsRICS promotes and enforces the highest professional qualifications and standards in the development and management of land, real estate, construction and infrastructure. Our name promises the consistent delivery of standards – bringing confidence to the markets we serve.We accredit 118,000 professionals and any individual or firm registered with RICS is subject to our quality assurance. Their expertise covers property, asset valuation and real estate management; the costing and leadership of construction projects; the development of infrastructure; and the management of natural resources, such as mining, farms and woodland. From environmental assessments and building controls to negotiating land rights in an emerging economy; if our members are involved the same professional standards and ethics apply.

We believe that standards underpin effective markets. With up to seventy per cent of the world’s wealth bound up in land and real estate, our sector is vital to economic development, helping to support stable, sustainable investment and growth around the globe.

With offices covering the major political and financial centres of the world, our market presence means we are ideally placed to influence policy and embed professional standards. We work at a cross-governmental level, delivering international standards that will support a safe and vibrant marketplace in land, real estate, construction and infrastructure, for the benefit of all.

We are proud of our reputation and we guard it fiercely, so clients who work with an RICS professional can have confidence in the quality and ethics of the services they receive.

GLOB

AL/S

EPTE

MBE

R 20

16/D

ML/

2163

1/RE

SEAR

CH

United Kingdom RICS HQParliament Square, London SW1P 3AD United Kingdom

t +44 (0)24 7686 8555 f +44 (0)20 7334 3811 [email protected]

Media [email protected]

Ireland 38 Merrion Square, Dublin 2, Ireland

t +353 1 644 5500 f +353 1 661 1797 [email protected]

Europe(excluding UK and Ireland)Rue Ducale 67, 1000 Brussels, Belgium

t +32 2 733 10 19 f +32 2 742 97 48 [email protected]

Middle EastOffice G14, Block 3, Knowledge Village, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

t +971 4 446 2808 [email protected]

AfricaPO Box 3400, Witkoppen 2068, South Africa


AmericasOne Grand Central Place, 60 East 42nd Street, Suite #542, New York 10165 – 2811, USA


South AmericaRua Maranhão, 584 – cj 104, São Paulo – SP, Brasil

t +55 11 2925 0068 [email protected]

OceaniaSuite 1, Level 9, 1 Castlereagh Street, Sydney NSW 2000. Australia


East Asia3707 Hopewell Centre, 183 Queen’s Road East Wanchai, Hong Kong

t +852 2537 7117 f +852 2537 2756 [email protected]

China (Shanghai)Room 2006, Garden Square, 968 Beijing Road West, Shanghai, China


China (Beijing)Room 2507-2508B, Jing Guang Centre, No.1 Hu Jia Lou Road, Chaoyang District Beijing 100020, China


JapanLevel 14 Hibiya Central Building, 1-2-9 Nishi Shimbashi Minato-Ku, Tokyo 105-0003, Japan


ASEAN06-22 International Plaza, 10 Anson Road, Singapore 079903

t +65 6635 4242 f +65 6635 4244 [email protected]

South Asia48 & 49 Centrum Plaza, Sector Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon – 122002, India

















September 2016 Residential Property Measurement Practice · 2018-07-11 · specialist measurement...

Documents

Transcript of September 2016 Residential Property Measurement Practice · 2018-07-11 · specialist measurement...