Valuation of Amenity Trees

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Cup size?

[Andy Clark]

Cup size?

 

 

We could adapt some of criteria from the hazard evaluation methodology's - specifically the portions that relate to size of part.

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

[daltontrees]

 

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.

 

 

I hardly know where to start in expressing my disagreement to what you have said. This is a Forum, no0t a courtrooom, and of course I would always encourage people to express their minds in the interest of debate but on the other hand bold well -artuiculated statements are fair game for criticism.

 

I shall put it to you in this way. It is often said that if it aint broke don't try to fix it. But there was a time when people were burned at the stake for refuting the accepted wisdom that the world is flat. Courts are generally arbiters, they are reluctant to interpone themselves in a debate by suggesting a third option or (as I like think) the right answer. If Helliwell is accepted in a case over CAVAT, it doesn't mean Helliwell is right, it just means that the arbiter preferred it to the alternative in all the circumstances of that case.

 

I'm probing here. A number of questions... Do you really think that there is no room for improvement. Do you think that Helliwell is suitable for purpose? Do you think TEMPO is better in some circumstance? And (most importantly of all) do you think it is unnecessary to debate amenity tree valuation in a public forum because everyone already understands it or maybe because it doesn't matter of humble arbs don't understand it because they are just following orders and rules?

 

I'm not looking for a fight but I am taken aback by your dismissal of debate. I want to know what people in the business think about it. It wuld be paricularly convenient to my understanding if you present a representative view. Please pitch in again.

[Andy Clark]

I hardly know where to start in expressing my disagreement to what you have said. This is a Forum, no0t a courtrooom, and of course I would always encourage people to express their minds in the interest of debate but on the other hand bold well -artuiculated statements are fair game for criticism.

 

 

 

I shall put it to you in this way. It is often said that if it aint broke don't try to fix it. But there was a time when people were burned at the stake for refuting the accepted wisdom that the world is flat. Courts are generally arbiters, they are reluctant to interpone themselves in a debate by suggesting a third option or (as I like think) the right answer. If Helliwell is accepted in a case over CAVAT, it doesn't mean Helliwell is right, it just means that the arbiter preferred it to the alternative in all the circumstances of that case.

 

 

 

I'm probing here. A number of questions... Do you really think that there is no room for improvement. Do you think that Helliwell is suitable for purpose? Do you think TEMPO is better in some circumstance? And (most importantly of all) do you think it is unnecessary to debate amenity tree valuation in a public forum because everyone already understands it or maybe because it doesn't matter of humble arbs don't understand it because they are just following orders and rules?

 

 

 

I'm not looking for a fight but I am taken aback by your dismissal of debate. I want to know what people in the business think about it. It wuld be paricularly convenient to my understanding if you present a representative view. Please pitch in again.

 

 

I'm not dismissing a worthy debate, I'm dismissing a pointless debate.

 

With the greatest of respect, the one consistent thing missing from the thread is the question of context.

 

Until that is applied, it's mostly irrelevant.

 

As an example, you pitch helliwell is fit for purpose...... What purpose? Assesssing the monetary assest value of a tree in relation to an insurance claim? No, I don't. And neither do a hell of a lot of others, as is evident with the creation of CAVAT, and the joint mitigation protocol.

 

So when the thread is reflective of the methodology's and their accepted individual application, in context, then we might start getting somewhere.

 

 

Next? .

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

[Gary Prentice]

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.

 

Its the only standard reason that I've received in thirty odd years, and I'm yet to understand the criteria on which it is based. So a pretty tree seems, to me, as good as reason as any

 

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. So exactly how is the rationale decided to classify the amenity value? Surely there is a policy document that everyone refers to, for the sake of classification. Otherwise one authority tree officers idea of amenity value can be different to another's. That is, it becomes a subjective classification!

 

 

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

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

 

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[daltontrees]

I'm not dismissing a worthy debate, I'm dismissing a pointless debate.

 

With the greatest of respect, the one consistent thing missing from the thread is the question of context.

 

Until that is applied, it's mostly irrelevant.

 

As an example, you pitch helliwell is fit for purpose...... What purpose? Assesssing the monetary assest value of a tree in relation to an insurance claim? No, I don't. And neither do a hell of a lot of others, as is evident with the creation of CAVAT, and the joint mitigation protocol.

 

So when the thread is reflective of the methodology's and their accepted individual application, in context, then we might start getting somewhere.

 

Next? .

 

I hope you will appreciate that not all people looking at this thread or even contributing will have as seasoned a view of amenity tree valuation as you. Whatever reason I started the thread for, I think it involved at least giving something for arbs to refer to for a general understanding of the principles. I would like to bring people along with us or else they would get lost in the hard-core debate that I think you would prefer to see here.

 

Incidentally, I think the Helliwell system is a pile of pants and not worthy of the name 'valuation'. But I'll get to that soon enough.

[Amelanchier]

For the most part TEMPO is a pat on the back exercise - but then at least it doesn't pretend to be anything else.

 

I share some of the frustrations held by Bggtaz regarding the trite use of 'Amenity value' in LPA decisions (and FTR I have some history on that side of the fence too). Frequently I see it lazily used to defer a detailed response to its use (i.e., define something vaguely enough and it will fit whatever it needs to fit in a given circumstance) - at times it feels like punching smoke.

[daltontrees]

For the most part TEMPO is a pat on the back exercise - but then at least it doesn't pretend to be anything else.

 

I share some of the frustrations held by Bggtaz regarding the trite use of 'Amenity value' in LPA decisions (and FTR I have some history on that side of the fence too). Frequently I see it lazily used to defer a detailed response to its use (i.e., define something vaguely enough and it will fit whatever it needs to fit in a given circumstance) - at times it feels like punching smoke.

 

Tackling the definition of 'Amenity' in the statutory context for trees is on my to-do list for this thread. I will be interested when the time comes as to what people think of it. I will gather my thoughts on TEMPO at that point.

[daltontrees]

Here's my thoughts on one man's benefits being another man's nuisance.

 

Personally I have always liked the way economists classify things like this. The effects of something are either positive or negative. The benefits are felt entirely or partly by the owner of the thing providing the effect, and entirely or partly by others. The effect can be classified as a combination of positive/negative and internal/external effects.

 

Take for example a private lamppost at the mouth of a private driveway on a poorly lit public road. Half of the light reaches the road, and half reaches the driveway and gardens. The electricity and new bulbs are all paid for by the owner.

 

For the owner arriving home late, the light allows the driveway to be negotiated safely, dispels fears about people lurking, makes the property feel secure and so forth. The light goes into the front bedroom and can make it harder to get to sleep there.

 

So the internal effects are generally positive, the small negative effect being a bearable downside. Otherwise the owner could just switch off the light. So, that's a net positive internality (i.e wne perceived from inside the owner's perceptions).

 

The passing pedestrian or driver gets benefits too. Driving or walking is safer. It is a useful landmark at night. Cars coming out of the driveway can be seen more easily, contributing to mutual safety. So, that's a net positive exernality.

 

The house is a farm house. It breeds pigs. The smell on a summer's day is eye-watering. The owner doesn't care, the drawback is tolerable because it's his livelihood. He can smell it more strongly than anyone, but the human olefactory mechanism has the useful feature of getting tired and not noticing a smell after a while.

 

For the owner there are psitive and negative effects of pig farming. On balance they are positive. A net positive internality.

 

But for the passsing pedestrian it's different. And hte pedestrian cannot choose another route. The smell is forced upon his fresh nostrils. There are no upsides unless you are a fan of 'fresh country smells'. So that's a net negative externality.

 

So what about a tree on the front boundary that blocks it's owner's views and light yet he can do nothing about it because it is TPOd and his application to remove it has been refused because the tree is liked by everyone else in the neighbourhood. It is the owner that pays to have the leaves collected every year and to keep his electric lights burning all day in the inadequately lit front rooms.

 

I would suggest thte tree is a net negative internality. The Council clearly feels it is a net positive externality.

 

I think what I am getting at here is that the net effect of anything depends on whose pespective you are looking at things from. And here is where I have a serious problem with tree valuations. They engender confusion about who benefits from net positive effects. A Council might well attach a value to a TPOd private tree, but it is almost certainly doing it as a measure of net positive externalities. We mustn't ever forget that a TPO is a form of public appropriation (without compensation) of part of a private property. My earlier comments about street trees might make more sense, because if the tree is entirely public owned, the owner opf the house opposite it can get all the benefits it wants form the amenity of teh tree without paying and presumably the COuncil doesn't mind because (i) it can't do anything to recover a proportion of the tree's value anyway (ii) providing street trees is what Councils do and (iii) the public benefits are of overriding importance.

 

The public per the Council is the internal. The tree has a net positive internality. If the ex adverso owner likes it it has for him a net positive externality. If he hates it it has a net negative externality.

 

It would be the same if the lamppost was moved onto the footway and adopted by the Council.

 

Other valuation systems are obsessive about setting out these distinctions. Tree valuation systems don't.

[daltontrees]

A quick addendum to the previous post. It becomes all important in a valuation to make a distinction between a hypothetical owner and the actual owner. Valuations imitate the market, if most buyers of the house would see it as a good thing to have the tree opposite, it is a net positive. Even if the actual owner hates it. After all, in theory he could sell the house and buy a similar one without a tree opposite. and in so doing he would be cashing in the value accruing from the tree. A hypothetical buyer will pay x for the house and y more because of the tree. Then our Mr. Unhappy buys anothter similar house for x and pockets y.

 

Valuations should always reflect a hypothetical purchaser. If they reflect an actual purchaser or owner, they are measures of worth. Which are entirely personal and highly subjective. Calling measures of worth valuations is an unforgiveable crime against english. Do it in a professional capacity in property valuation and you are finished. Doing it in the tree world seems de rigueur, and my kind of pedantry is seen as the crime. But if tree valuation is to be credible these issues need to be fixed.