Valuation of Amenity Trees

[daltontrees]

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

 

|I would be kidding myself on if I said I had a complete answer to this. Hence my post a few minutes ago. In the left corner is the Act that gives the Council TPO powers in the interests of the amenity of the area. In the right corner is the Council trying to out a 'break it and you pay for it' label on its trees. Equating words with numbers has never been easy, and never will be.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Takes us full circle back to your thought provoking early points about "value" versus (or compared to) "worth."

 

And, so far as I can see, it depends upon who and where you are in the debate / discussion - landowner with liability or LA with amenity concerns.

 

All I have been able to establish in my mind is that 1 party's position on "worth, value, amenity" could be completely at odds with another party's position and the well established tools for establishing / measuring a recognisable quantity (wether we call that value or worth) has the potential to be considered as highly subjective depending upon how much financial liability (for pruning / reduction / management) the landowner is required to assume depending upon the LA's position on amenity "value" or should it be "worth??"

[daltontrees]

Takes us full circle back to your thought provoking early points about "value" versus (or compared to) "worth."

 

And, so far as I can see, it depends upon who and where you are in the debate / discussion - landowner with liability or LA with amenity concerns.

 

All I have been able to establish in my mind is that 1 party's position on "worth, value, amenity" could be completely at odds with another party's position and the well established tools for establishing / measuring a recognisable quantity (wether we call that value or worth) has the potential to be considered as highly subjective depending upon how much financial liability (for pruning / reduction / management) the landowner is required to assume depending upon the LA's position on amenity "value" or should it be "worth??"

That's a very good summary of the issues. But I suppose what I was getting at is that if you disregard whether worth or value is an appropriate term, is it even possible to put a figure on amenity? As long as there is no way of relating that figure back to some market test then I don't think that it is UNLESS the figure quoted is stated as being an artificial and purely relative one.

[daltontrees]

After 8 years I am giving this thread a bump, I don't recall how it fizzled out but lots has happened since then and I would be keen to hear of anyones' tree valuation experiences or thoughts, good or bad.

I am hearing quite regularly of CAVAT being abused as an instrument of extortion. I am all for the arb industry having a means of expressing the worth of trees, but for it to be compatible with the valuation of everything else, from a sticking plaster to a hospital, form woodchip to forests of growing timber, it needs to be defined and needs to measure how much these things change hands for on the open market OR at least how much they cost to make OR how much they earn the owner OR how much they add to the value of land they are fixed to. Otherwise they are not valuations, they are estimates of worth or are fantasies. CAVAT doesn't do any of those.

Anyway I have submitted an article to the Arb Mag for publication soon, on this general subject, but meantime (and probably till the day I die) I am open to discussion and anecdotes, the more the better. It's not as dry a subject as you might think.

[Ian Flatters]

After 8 years I am giving this thread a bump, I don't recall how it fizzled out but lots has happened since then and I would be keen to hear of anyones' tree valuation experiences or thoughts, good or bad.
I am hearing quite regularly of CAVAT being abused as an instrument of extortion. I am all for the arb industry having a means of expressing the worth of trees, but for it to be compatible with the valuation of everything else, from a sticking plaster to a hospital, form woodchip to forests of growing timber, it needs to be defined and needs to measure how much these things change hands for on the open market OR at least how much they cost to make OR how much they earn the owner OR how much they add to the value of land they are fixed to. Otherwise they are not valuations, they are estimates of worth or are fantasies. CAVAT doesn't do any of those.
Anyway I have submitted an article to the Arb Mag for publication soon, on this general subject, but meantime (and probably till the day I die) I am open to discussion and anecdotes, the more the better. It's not as dry a subject as you might think.

The only time recently I've used a valuation system is the heliwell system to value a western red cedar in the rear garden of a property. In a nutshell it was going through solicitors as the neighbour was trying to get it removed and I was asked what it's value could likely be. We won because the other parties consultant was really pushy about removing it and the valuation cost was higher than their removal cost.

Other than that I can't recall ever valuing a tree to be honest with you.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

26 minutes ago, Ian Flatters said:

The only time recently I've used a valuation system is the heliwell system to value a western red cedar in the rear garden of a property. In a nutshell it was going through solicitors as the neighbour was trying to get it removed and I was asked what it's value could likely be. We won because the other parties consultant was really pushy about removing it and the valuation cost was higher than their removal cost.

Other than that I can't recall ever valuing a tree to be honest with you.

That kind of sounds like a misuse of a valuation system in a sense (appreciate there is probably much more to the story than the brief insight here)

 

Does the "value" of a tree (however calculated) change the ability / validity / authority of a 3rd party to try and compel the owner of something to do something they might be disinclined to do?

[daltontrees]

55 minutes ago, Ian Flatters said:

The only time recently I've used a valuation system is the heliwell system to value a western red cedar in the rear garden of a property. In a nutshell it was going through solicitors as the neighbour was trying to get it removed and I was asked what it's value could likely be. We won because the other parties consultant was really pushy about removing it and the valuation cost was higher than their removal cost.

Other than that I can't recall ever valuing a tree to be honest with you.

Thaks, a valid example. And a simple test of weighing up value against removal costs.

 

To me helliwell is really simple to use. NO valuation judgement is needed, as all 'values' are determined by the £s per point decided annually by the Tree Council per the AA.  One size fits all, from Mayfair to Muckle Flugga

[daltontrees]

30 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

That kind of sounds like a misuse of a valuation system in a sense (appreciate there is probably much more to the story than the brief insight here)

 

Does the "value" of a tree (however calculated) change the ability / validity / authority of a 3rd party to try and compel the owner of something to do something they might be disinclined to do?

That's a compilcated question. Have you got a 'for example..."?

[Ian Flatters]

That kind of sounds like a misuse of a valuation system in a sense (appreciate there is probably much more to the story than the brief insight here)
 
Does the "value" of a tree (however calculated) change the ability / validity / authority of a 3rd party to try and compel the owner of something to do something they might be disinclined to do?

It was more of the third party saying the tree is required removal as nothing can be done because it was lifting a wall and path.

I was independently asked to draw up a counter proposal to it. Bridging the root area, installing cellweb. The reason I had to do a valuation is because it had been costed for removal, so the trees value had to be given a monetary number.

It seems numbers are easy to weigh up against each other in the legal process these days. You know the value to remove is £600. Cost to do bridging is £800 but to retain the tree its amenity value is £1500 if that makes sense.

[JaySmith]

After 8 years I am giving this thread a bump, I don't recall how it fizzled out but lots has happened since then and I would be keen to hear of anyones' tree valuation experiences or thoughts, good or bad.
I am hearing quite regularly of CAVAT being abused as an instrument of extortion. I am all for the arb industry having a means of expressing the worth of trees, but for it to be compatible with the valuation of everything else, from a sticking plaster to a hospital, form woodchip to forests of growing timber, it needs to be defined and needs to measure how much these things change hands for on the open market OR at least how much they cost to make OR how much they earn the owner OR how much they add to the value of land they are fixed to. Otherwise they are not valuations, they are estimates of worth or are fantasies. CAVAT doesn't do any of those.
Anyway I have submitted an article to the Arb Mag for publication soon, on this general subject, but meantime (and probably till the day I die) I am open to discussion and anecdotes, the more the better. It's not as dry a subject as you might think.

Firstly I must confess that I haven’t read the thread from start to finish - but will shortly.

From my quick cursory view you seemed to be a fan of CAVAT but that now seems to have dropped, why is that? (Sorry is you have covered this in detail already). Is it because LA’s are getting large sums of money for trees that potentially lack the value?

Let’s be honest you will either be a fan of CAVAT or not depending on what side of the fence that you sit. If you are in the LA (which I know you have significant experience of) you will value CAVAT even if dare I say it ‘bigs up a tree value’. A very well known and hugely respected consultant said to me once that your main responsibility is to your insurers and your second is to your client - said in the context of private consultancy. If you work for an LA then your primary concern should still be to protect the liability against the insurer but also to your asset and then the tax payers money that you use and how you use it.