Valuation of Amenity Trees

[Andy Clark]

http://www.asca-consultants.org/membersSection/archive/appraisal/pdfokWz8eJI1K.pdf this is a sort of interesting read

 

 

Good find

 

I was looking back through CAVAT stuff today -

 

http://www.ltoa.org.uk/resources/cavat

 

The text from Jim Chamberlain at Islington is well worth a read.

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

[daltontrees]

Plenty of homework for me then...

 

The Scott Cullen article is one I know well. It is nothing short of a masterpiece of english. I commend it to anyone. It doesn't say much about CTLA but it certainly establishes the context for DRC valuations.

[daltontrees]

It took a bit of digging but I found it. Section 65 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1971 "If it appears to a local planning authority that the amenity of any part of their area ... is seriously injured by the condition of any garden, vacant site or other open land in their area, then ... the authority may serve on the owner and occupier of the land a notice requiring such steps for abating the injury as may be specified in the notice .."

[Gary Prentice]

It took a bit of digging but I found it. Section 65 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1971 "If it appears to a local planning authority that the amenity of any part of their area ... is seriously injured by the condition of any garden, vacant site or other open land in their area, then ... the authority may serve on the owner and occupier of the land a notice requiring such steps for abating the injury as may be specified in the notice .."

 

Miscellaneous Provisions?

 

Sorry if that's a stupid question but I'm trying to keep up with this, as well as complete four assignments on planning policies and strategies

[daltontrees]

The text from Jim Chamberlain at Islington is well worth a read.

 

Definitely worth a read but (and I don't mind being controversial) far from convincing as proof of the validity of CAVAT. He says" As responsible tree owners, we cannot allow people or firms to get away with damaging our trees, and CAVAT is an effective way to hit the culprits where it hurts and reduce the likelihood of them reoffending." The fear of expensive litigation and of the unknown (bearing in mind we are talking about builders, with no knowledge about tree valuation, who damaged trees) is enough to make them back down. How many of them carried out their own CAVAT valuation, and cross checked it with a Helliwell and CTLA valuation, and then folded because of the overpowering credibiulity of the Council's case? Not many, I suspect. If any.

How about if he had said "As accountable public bodies, we cannot allow people or firms to get away with damaging our trees, and CAVAT is an effective way of demonstrating the cost to the public purse and recovering that amount from the culprits." But he didn't. It just sounded instead like sabre-rattling.

[Andy Clark]

Definitely worth a read but (and I don't mind being controversial) far from convincing as proof of the validity of CAVAT. He says" As responsible tree owners, we cannot allow people or firms to get away with damaging our trees, and CAVAT is an effective way to hit the culprits where it hurts and reduce the likelihood of them reoffending." The fear of expensive litigation and of the unknown (bearing in mind we are talking about builders, with no knowledge about tree valuation, who damaged trees) is enough to make them back down. How many of them carried out their own CAVAT valuation, and cross checked it with a Helliwell and CTLA valuation, and then folded because of the overpowering credibiulity of the Council's case? Not many, I suspect. If any.

 

How about if he had said "As accountable public bodies, we cannot allow people or firms to get away with damaging our trees, and CAVAT is an effective way of demonstrating the cost to the public purse and recovering that amount from the culprits." But he didn't. It just sounded instead like sabre-rattling.

 

 

Mostly because of context. CAVAT was the asset valuation methodology given fair support by other industries outside of the arb world, as being fair monetary valuation of trees as a public asset - hence the JMP.

 

We really do need to stop comparing apples and oranges here, as if these systems do the same job in the same way. They don't.

 

A worthy arb, in my opinion, will always be savvy and open minded to all of these systems, and keep them in his tool bag to be used as the job dictates.

 

 

 

.

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

[daltontrees]

That's kind of what I am getting round to. I wish there were more 'savvy arbs' who knew the limitations of these systems. Neither Helliwell nor CAVAT are properly valuations. They are multiplied by some fairly arbitrary number that doesn't bear up to examination.

 

AS I have said before, this thread may be of interest to a wider audience than the few that are contributing to it, and as such comparing apples with oranbges is exactly what is needed until people realise that (i) if you are counting fruit, that is fine but (ii) if you're counting apples it's not only wrong but it's downright misleading.

[daltontrees]

Miscellaneous Provisions?

 

Sorry if that's a stupid question but I'm trying to keep up with this, as well as complete four assignments on planning policies and strategies

 

Town & Country Planning Act 1971. It may have been re-enacted but I couldn't find a more modern provision. It's headed 'waste land', so a zoom throuhg the headings in the 80 Act might turn it up. I can give you the scottish reference but that's not much use.

[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.

 

If you're looking in, Tony, can you please explain (briefly) what you meant by 'pat on the back'? It could help me conclude my perspective on TEMPO.

[daltontrees]

Town & Country Planning Act 1971. It may have been re-enacted but I couldn't find a more modern provision. It's headed 'waste land', so a zoom throuhg the headings in the 80 Act might turn it up. I can give you the scottish reference but that's not much use.

 

Quoting myself here, bit odd but...

The 'Proper maintenance of waste land' provisions seem to have been modified or commenced in the Housing and Planning Act 1986 (see Scedule 11 para. 22 if you are intersted, I can't figure out what it means).