Valuation of Amenity Trees

[daltontrees]

Other avenues that could be offset as an investment against the value, could be to explore the possibility of "curing" the tree of it's ailments - depending on the fungal infection - with stem injection and other such treatments. But routes like that are one's that would favour the "love" factor of that particular tree, as opposed to the costs factor.

 

My hypothetical tree has Meripilus, let's say it is not practical to try and ameliorate its environment and that investigation shows that the underside of roots and butresses are in a fairly advanced and untreatable stage of decay.

 

I am guessing form what you say that you would expect the cost of treatment to be uneconomic, exceeding the value of the tree. Valuers make a very specific and important distinction between 'value' and 'worth'. For that reason as an ex property valuer I get really cheesed off with the 'how much is a tree worth?' debate. It is worth £x to the owner. It is worth £y to the neighbour. It adds £z to the bids that the house would get on the open market, which is what it is worth to the highest bidder in addition to a hypothetical treeless house. And it is worth £w to the public, which if this is high enough will probably get it TPO'd. It's worth nothing to the arborist except as a source of profit for felling or pruning it. These are all measures of worth. Not of value. The value is ....?

[daltontrees]

 

In terms of costs alone, for example, the owner of the tree may be of limited means and lacking in ready cash, in which case the £250 for reduction may be the only available avenue - alternatively, if cash is no object, then the £1500 to fell and replant is the better option, knowing that the replacement tree has the possibility of reaching a reasonable value in years to come; in which case the £1500 would be a reasonably justifiable investment.

 

 

One might also consider the gambling involved in retaining the tree. If there is a 1:20,000 risk of it killing someone and triggering a £1M law suit, the cost of that risk is perhaps 1/20,000 of £1M which equals £50 a year. That is what I see the QTRA approach as doing or allowing you to do.

[daltontrees]

Right tool for the right job.

 

I agree that CAVAT is useful for LAs. I don't think it has any other use. CTLA I believe is the future, it is the only system that is a true valuation rather than a monetised amenity assessment. iTree seems to be a monetising system too.

 

So which tool is the right one for the job here on my hypothetical tree? What if Helliwell produces £2,500 and CTLA produces £1,000? It could be life or death for the tree.

[daltontrees]

It's interesting, if I've interpreted it as intended, that I think your main thrust is determining a notional financial value. And I'd agree, that may be the main focus for the home owner - after all, money is the bottom line which will often over ride conservation / ecology ideals.

 

That is my main thrust, not because of the rather distateful bean-counting tendency in modern life to reduce everything to a financial decision but because I don't see any other way of weighing up costs, private amenity values, public amenity values, risk management decisions etc. They must surely all be measured in the same units and the same currency, and all be capable of being related back to testable market values or market costs?

[daltontrees]

And then, as if that isn't difficult enough, should there be a different scale for urban and rural environments?

 

 

There should be! But Helliwell doesn't try. CAVAT sort of tries insofar as it multiplies the tree value bya rounded-off factor that reflects the population density of the local authority area. Which is a decent stab at the problem but doesn't work for anything other than LA accounting. And the resultant number is as consequence arbitrary. It is incapable of being tested against market values or costs and therefore is not really a valuation. It is, however, a measure of worth (see earlier comment to Mr Clark) if the LA accepts it to be one.

[daltontrees]

Would it be missed if it went

Does it add to the neighbourhood

Does it need replacing

Is it worthy of a Tpo

That's more where I see amenity in that they are there for everyone rather than the individual who believes it affects them most wether they are the owner or not.

 

Out of curiosity do you work for, or have you worked for, a Local Authority?

 

I think you have listed the right questions but I think they can all be rephrased as follows -

How much would it be missed if it went, and by whom. And for how long?

How much does it add to the neighbourhood?

How badly does it need replacing, and how urgently? By a replacement of the same size and species?

How worthy is it of a TPO? And what difference does that make to the value?

 

And you didn't mention the poor owner...

 

And now my head is starting to hurt.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

That is my main thrust, not because of the rather distateful bean-counting tendency in modern life to reduce everything to a financial decision but because I don't see any other way of weighing up costs, private amenity values, public amenity values, risk management decisions etc. They must surely all be measured in the same units and the same currency, and all be capable of being related back to testable market values or market costs?

 

Yes, I get it. £, ultimately, is the only common unit of denomination (esp for the home / land owner - wether it be value added or liability added.) But I'm sure the cloud gazers will be offended by that - and I can't see LA TOs buying the logic. That's part of what troubles me about the phrase "Amenity Value" it means different things to different people and nobody seems to be able to find a common ground.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

my[/u] head is starting to hurt.

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

and you were asking if Dave if he worked for LA as I was typing!

[daltontrees]

I think what troubles you is what troubles everyone. Putting a £ value on amenity.

 

But as soon as a TPO'd tree is removed without consent and a measure of the penalty is required, people will try.

 

Which reminds me, did you see the recent appeal court case in Poole, Regina v Davey? It could be a useful one for people to look at here?