Valuation of Amenity Trees

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I think that there seems to be confusion throughout this thread between "amenity value" and "asset value".

 

The two are very different.

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

 

Andy, the clear difference between the 2 elements is recognised and acknowledged, I wouldn't say it's a confusion 'between' the 2 different aspects but an attempt (certainly on my part) to understand the juxtaposition - or arrive at a point where it's obviously impossible if that makes sense?

[Andy Clark]

Andy, the clear difference between the 2 elements is recognised and acknowledged, I wouldn't say it's a confusion 'between' the 2 different aspects but an attempt (certainly on my part) to understand the juxtaposition - or arrive at a point where it's obviously impossible if that makes sense?

 

 

Ermmmmm, no, not really.

 

If the difference between the two are already recognised and acknowledged, then surely the application of a juxtaposition is perhaps pointless? Borderline even irrelevant?

 

Amenity value as a standalone in arboriculture terms, especially in the uk, is well recognised as being a consideration, primarily in relation to stat controls (TPO/Cons. Area) as defined in the Act and relevant guidance papers in respect of a LA's duty to preserve trees (or indeed any such other amenity "object").

 

As there is almost no other stat controls for any party other than a local authourity to consider amenity value and thus preserve a tree based on that amenity value, it's application is almost irrelevant outside of the public sector realm. Even with 5837 and the requirement for trees with high amenity value to be retained, it is still the LA who adjudicates/assess the surveyors application of amenity value.

 

Ok, JFL has put together the TEMPO methodology for evaluating amenity value as part of the TPO process, but overall it will always be a subjective matter, and only really of an relevance in a stat control situation.

 

Asset value on the other hand, is the application of a monetary sum on the material "worth" of a tree in relation to a given topic. For calculating the asset value of a tree in relation to direct/indirect damge claims, we have CAVAT. For calculating the asset value of a tree in relation to it's ability for offsetting carbon we have I-TREE. Mortgage valuations tend to be the argumentative one, with the AA preferring Helliwell, and CAS preferring the CTLA methodology. (Or so I was last led to believe).

 

All of the above is pretty well acknowledged across the board, by the arb industry and others, and proven to work in the given context of the situation, so I'm just really struggling to see why there needs to be this debate or what there is to be achieved by having it.

 

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

[Gary Prentice]

I think that falls into the tools for the job category, as long as you state what your figures cover and don't cover there is no problem. Except as ever that valuations are not valuations if they are not rooted, literally and metaphorically, in the legal control of the land on which the tree or trees are situated. In effect you are trying to put a figure on the benefits that everyone gets from a tree, which has very very little relationship to the value of the tree to the owner. As long as you keep calling that 'assigning a financial value' instead of 'valuing', it's sound.

 

As to which of these factors are amenity ones, wellbeing/feelgood definitely is. That seems to be what amenity is all about. Property prices are a reflection of that rather than another factor.

 

I'd now be thinking that the 'Amenity Value' ( so much loved as a reason for saying no by the LA), if it includes well being, must ergo include such items as SuDs, carbon sequestering, air quality- both good provisions and bad, water filtration/purification and polluted water storage -phytoremediation.

 

The definitions for amenity are a bit vague and are certainly not all inclusive

 

noun (plural amenities)

a desirable or useful feature or facility of a building or place:

the property is situated in a convenient location, close to all local amenities

 

[mass noun] the pleasantness or attractiveness of a place:

developments which would clash with amenity

 

 

I always think, or the idea comes to mind, that a refusal on the grounds of the visual amenity of a tree is a way of saying, 'It's a pretty tree so we will force you to keep it'

Edited November 10, 2013 by Gary Prentice

[Gary Prentice]

I'm just really struggling to see why there needs to be this debate or what there is to be achieved by having it.

 

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

 

so what's your opinion on the 'favourite weather girls (or boys)' thread? :lol:

 

Don't hold back now:lol:

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Ermmmmm, no, not really.

 

If the difference between the two are already recognised and acknowledged, then surely the application of a juxtaposition is perhaps pointless? Borderline even irrelevant?

 

* Recognised and acknowledged by those fortunate enough to have the benefit of greater knowledge and experience, the point and relevance, for me, is that I'm on the journey of gaining more knowledge and experience, not yet at the destination.

 

Amenity value as a standalone in arboriculture terms, especially in the uk, is well recognised as being a consideration, primarily in relation to stat controls (TPO/Cons. Area) as defined in the Act and relevant guidance papers in respect of a LA's duty to preserve trees (or indeed any such other amenity "object").

 

*If I've interpreted DT's line of discussion accurately, it's the term 'Amenity value' that is inappropriate since the 2 words are poor bedfellows - perhaps separate phrases 'Amenity worth' and 'Financial value' would be a more accurate way of separating the 2 very different elements of the common use 'Amenity value.'

 

*Whilst I recognise the term amenity value as being in common use, and since my initial/primary interest is in the way it is calculated and applied by LA's, that is why I am trying to broaden my understanding of how it is calculated and applied.

 

As there is almost no other stat controls for any party other than a local authourity to consider amenity value and thus preserve a tree based on that amenity value, it's application is almost irrelevant outside of the public sector realm. Even with 5837 and the requirement for trees with high amenity value to be retained, it is still the LA who adjudicates/assess the surveyors application of amenity value.

 

Ok, JFL has put together the TEMPO methodology for evaluating amenity value as part of the TPO process, but overall it will always be a subjective matter, and only really of an relevance in a stat control situation.

 

Asset value on the other hand, is the application of a monetary sum on the material "worth" of a tree in relation to a given topic. For calculating the asset value of a tree in relation to direct/indirect damge claims, we have CAVAT. For calculating the asset value of a tree in relation to it's ability for offsetting carbon we have I-TREE. Mortgage valuations tend to be the argumentative one, with the AA preferring Helliwell, and CAS preferring the CTLA methodology. (Or so I was last led to believe).

 

All of the above is pretty well acknowledged across the board, by the arb industry and others, and proven to work in the given context of the situation, so I'm just really struggling to see why there needs to be this debate or what there is to be achieved by having it.

 

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

 

I've just put my thoughts inside the quote above Andy. All I can say is, I have found it a useful thread.

[Andy Clark]

I've just put my thoughts inside the quote above Andy. All I can say is, I have found it a useful thread.

 

 

And now you have, it makes a lot more sense.

 

Would I be fairer then in saying that this is perhaps more of a learning curve for you on the use of the methodology's themselves, as opposed to a debate about the relevant application of the methodology's?

 

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

[Andy Clark]

so what's your opinion on the 'favourite weather girls (or boys)' thread? :lol:

 

 

 

Don't hold back now:lol:

 

 

I think many of our weather girls/boys are a great amenity asset, and should be celebrated accordingly.

 

Now if we could figure out a way to apply a monetary value to those individuals, based on their respective amenity value, then we'd certainly have a subject worth debating.

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

[Andy Clark]

I'd now be thinking that the 'Amenity Value' ( so much loved as a reason for saying no by the LA), if it includes well being, must ergo include such items as SuDs, carbon sequestering, air quality- both good provisions and bad, water filtration/purification and polluted water storage -phytoremediation.

 

The definitions for amenity are a bit vague and are certainly not all inclusive

 

noun (plural amenities)

a desirable or useful feature or facility of a building or place:

the property is situated in a convenient location, close to all local amenities

 

[mass noun] the pleasantness or attractiveness of a place:

developments which would clash with amenity

 

 

I always think, or the idea comes to mind, that a refusal on the grounds of the visual amenity of a tree is a way of saying, 'It's a pretty tree so we will force you to keep it'

 

 

It's not so much a "much loved" reason to say no, it's a subjective view of the tree, as a tree, in context of it's surroundings - both in the immediate and wider proximity - plus historic use of the surroundings, and prospective use of the surroundings - all made in respect of the duty to retain trees placed on an LA by the TCPA.

 

Hence why we also have the appeals process, so that the Courts can add their ten-penneth to the equation also if need be, and agree/disagree on the TO's rationale for classifying the tree with an amenity value as such that it is worth retention.

 

If the judge agrees that "it's a pretty tree", then so be it.

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I think many of our weather girls/boys are a great amenity asset, and should be celebrated accordingly.

 

Now if we could figure out a way to apply a monetary value to those individuals, based on their respective amenity value, then we'd certainly have a subject worth debating.

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

 

Their salary would be the obvious starting point (from the employer/employee perspective at least) might be different for the person who was expecting fair weather and got PWT!

[Andy Clark]

Their salary would be the obvious starting point (from the employer/employee perspective at least) might be different for the person who was expecting fair weather and got PWT!

 

 

Not necessarily. Surely the salary would be recompense for their monetary value as a quantified asset, not as an amenity?

 

Paying salary based on amenity value would surely be discriminatory?

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk