Valuation of Amenity Trees

[Andy Clark]

"A Metro spokesman said: “The CAVAT method reflects a tree’s contribution as a public amenity and cannot be used to calculate a tree’s replacement cost.

 

“In his report Mr Turner has ascribed a value to the replacement trees on the day they are planted, rather than when they have reached any maturity."

 

I hoped /dreamed CAVAT would be about cost-benefit analysis - ie adding £14m to the bill for lost trees makes the project uneconomic?

or eg the price of any house that to build requires removal of a mature tree must reflect the value of the tree - say £50k minimum?

 

 

Excellent find Silvia,

 

I think the key thing with CAVAT is to remember the realm in which it came to life, and then use it in a similar vein. ie, in dealing with mitigation of tree related building damage claims, primarily subsidence - in view of pressure from one party (the claimant) to fell the tree, Vs pressure from the other party (the LA) to retain the tree.

 

Outside of that context, the system doesn't really work that well for any other application.

 

I mean, the principle of the system allows the T/O and the claimant to be on a level playing field and meet in the middle, by being able to both demonstrate a monetary figure relative to their own respective standpoint.

 

- eg, claimant has building damage that will cost £5k to repair if the tree is removed, £15k to repair via underpiniing if the tree remains - T/O has a tree worth £40k - thus the two can begin negotiation to look at the most cost effective way to find a resolution.

 

In the example above, it is of course in the LA's interest to pay the £15k damages to underpin the property, than to loose £40k in asset value. Everyone's a winner.

 

Ok, i've used it in defence of other damage related cases outside of subsidence - such as patio damage, tree pushing over wall, tree roots cracking car park etc...... but the principle is always a matter of HOW you use the figures. Namely, with the tree being woth "X" in monetary terms as an asset, then it is better to invest further in terms of repairs, up to a negotiated threshold indicated by the monetary asset value, and the tree gets to stay without a repeat of the damage -

 

- Trees worth £150k have caused cracking to a car park

 

- Car park costs £20k to resurface - if the trees remain it will cost another £20k in "X" years time as the cracking will undoubtedly re-occour, hence pressure to remove the trees.

 

In the "olden days", justification to fell would most likely have been reached by the value of the costs of the tree works - £10k in tree work costs to fell vs consequtive £20k's to continually repair.

 

But alternatively, taking into account the loss in asset value of the trees if removed, we can now quanify a rationale to invest an additional £10k to the £20k surfacing cost to fascilitate a Cellweb type engineering solution, and the trees can stay.

 

- everyone wins

 

 

 

And i think that's the key issue in the Leeds Metro case. Right valuation sytem, wrong application of the resulting figures, resulting in a square peg being used to try and fill a round hole.

 

It shouldn't be a case of "We've lost £14m in trees, so we need to spend £14m in replacement planting" - That's just never even going to be possible.

 

The figure should have been used to chivvy the planners to go back to the drawing board, and then applied as a template to justify further investment into "other" solutions that may have meant that the trees could have stayed - namely, "Do we loose £14m in asset value, or do we invest an additional £2m in re-working the project to make sure the trees can stay?".

 

 

Same principle with your house building scenario - it's not so much about adding value to the property or making the builder pay for £50k's worth of replacement planting, more about reaching a quantifiable point for bringing pressure to the builder to invest further in the project and find an engineering solution to ensure that the tree can stay.

 

 

Hope my ramblings make sense?

[Andy Clark]

Let's throw this into the mix and get the grey matter ticking.........

 

 

http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/documents/documents/publications/cabe/making-the-invisible-visible-summary.pdf

[daltontrees]

Let's throw this into the mix and get the grey matter ticking.........

 

 

http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/documents/documents/publications/cabe/making-the-invisible-visible-summary.pdf

 

I have just got round to noticing this and looking at it. I am afraid to say that it seems to take itself round in ever decreasing circles and then cops out by suggesting trees be valued by Helliwell, CAVAT or another average value technique. I admire the passion and frustration of the arguments that parks are undervalued, but when CABE tries to equate 'undervalued' as in not appreciated and funded enough with 'undervalued' as in aren't treated properly in accounting terms, it loses its way.

 

What did you think of it? Anyone else?

[Gary Prentice]

Excellent find Silvia,

 

I think the key thing with CAVAT is to remember the realm in which it came to life, and then use it in a similar vein. ie, in dealing with mitigation of tree related building damage claims, primarily subsidence - in view of pressure from one party (the claimant) to fell the tree, Vs pressure from the other party (the LA) to retain the tree.

 

Outside of that context, the system doesn't really work that well for any other application.

 

I mean, the principle of the system allows the T/O and the claimant to be on a level playing field and meet in the middle, by being able to both demonstrate a monetary figure relative to their own respective standpoint.

 

- eg, claimant has building damage that will cost £5k to repair if the tree is removed, £15k to repair via underpiniing if the tree remains - T/O has a tree worth £40k - thus the two can begin negotiation to look at the most cost effective way to find a resolution.

 

In the example above, it is of course in the LA's interest to pay the £15k damages to underpin the property, than to loose £40k in asset value. Everyone's a winner.

 

Ok, i've used it in defence of other damage related cases outside of subsidence - such as patio damage, tree pushing over wall, tree roots cracking car park etc...... but the principle is always a matter of HOW you use the figures. Namely, with the tree being woth "X" in monetary terms as an asset, then it is better to invest further in terms of repairs, up to a negotiated threshold indicated by the monetary asset value, and the tree gets to stay without a repeat of the damage -

 

- Trees worth £150k have caused cracking to a car park

 

- Car park costs £20k to resurface - if the trees remain it will cost another £20k in "X" years time as the cracking will undoubtedly re-occour, hence pressure to remove the trees.

 

In the "olden days", justification to fell would most likely have been reached by the value of the costs of the tree works - £10k in tree work costs to fell vs consequtive £20k's to continually repair.

 

But alternatively, taking into account the loss in asset value of the trees if removed, we can now quanify a rationale to invest an additional £10k to the £20k surfacing cost to fascilitate a Cellweb type engineering solution, and the trees can stay.

 

- everyone wins

 

 

 

And i think that's the key issue in the Leeds Metro case. Right valuation sytem, wrong application of the resulting figures, resulting in a square peg being used to try and fill a round hole.

 

It shouldn't be a case of "We've lost £14m in trees, so we need to spend £14m in replacement planting" - That's just never even going to be possible.

 

The figure should have been used to chivvy the planners to go back to the drawing board, and then applied as a template to justify further investment into "other" solutions that may have meant that the trees could have stayed - namely, "Do we loose £14m in asset value, or do we invest an additional £2m in re-working the project to make sure the trees can stay?".

 

 

Same principle with your house building scenario - it's not so much about adding value to the property or making the builder pay for £50k's worth of replacement planting, more about reaching a quantifiable point for bringing pressure to the builder to invest further in the project and find an engineering solution to ensure that the tree can stay.

 

 

Hope my ramblings make sense?

 

I think this may be interest, using a asset value to make decisions on infrastructure works has been a long established practice in Cincinnati at least.

 

http://joa.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&ArticleID=2088&Type=2

[daltontrees]

I've just crash-read Mynors thoughts on assessment of amenity (The Law of Trees Forests and Hedges 2nd Ed section 22.2.6 p570-572) and requested the definition of “Amenity value” (of a tree/s) as it might be understood, interpreted and applied by my local authority - I'll post that up if I get something useful back.

 

Hello, did you ever get anything back? Even a fob-off?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Hello, did you ever get anything back? Even a fob-off?

 

I did but it was so meaningless I didn't think it worth repeating, it certainly didn't add any value to the discussion.

 

"Regarding amenity value there are a number of systems and each has it's own benefits and disadvantages. We do not follow any particular system over another although we are starting to gather data to undertake CAVAT valuations of our trees for the future."

[daltontrees]

I did but it was so meaningless I didn't think it worth repeating, it certainly didn't add any value to the discussion.

 

"Regarding amenity value there are a number of systems and each has it's own benefits and disadvantages. We do not follow any particular system over another although we are starting to gather data to undertake CAVAT valuations of our trees for the future."

 

Priceless! I am off to chortle about that while I make the dinner. At least you got an answer... No doubt I will bore the ether with my thoughts on it in due course.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Priceless! I am off to chortle about that while I make the dinner. At least you got an answer... No doubt I will bore the ether with my thoughts on it in due course.

 

Looking forward to that! (No, seriously!!)

[daltontrees]

Sorry, I have been preoccupied with ALL sorts of other stuff, will definitely get round to this.

[daltontrees]

Here's a general question for anyone that's interested. For once isn't any sort of loaded or rhetorical question.

 

Can amenity be quantified in ££s?