Valuation of Amenity Trees

[Amelanchier]

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.

 

Putting aside the obvious banality of retrospective assessment which IME is the norm; the TEMPO "TPO defensible" threshold is too easily achieved by all but the poorest trees - those that fail are so blatently undeserving that it's hard to imagine anyone even contemplating assessing them in the first place. The end result is that in the rare event that a TEMPO is undertaken in advance of serving an Order it is a fait accompli. If you know anything about trees (and the process assumes you do) and can imagine assessing it, then it's TPOable under TEMPO.

[daltontrees]

Very helpful, thanks. Point well made and taken.

[Andy Clark]

Putting aside the obvious banality of retrospective assessment which IME is the norm; the TEMPO "TPO defensible" threshold is too easily achieved by all but the poorest trees - those that fail are so blatently undeserving that it's hard to imagine anyone even contemplating assessing them in the first place. The end result is that in the rare event that a TEMPO is undertaken in advance of serving an Order it is a fait accompli. If you know anything about trees (and the process assumes you do) and can imagine assessing it, then it's TPOable under TEMPO.

 

Tony,

 

I think the point that's been missed though, regardless of the rights or wrongs of the system itself, is that the system is realistically only intended to provide a papertrail that an assesment was made, and act as supporting evidence to show how the conclussion to TPO or to not TPO was reached.

 

I don't think it's meant as a "how to guide" for a TO, who, agreeably, should be able to walk through the TPO process with their eyes closed.

 

 

On the flip side though, I have actually used it a couple of times in anger, but from the other side of the table - to argue that an exsisting TPO wasn't worth the parchment they were written on, and thus grounds for refusal of works were totally impractical.

[Amelanchier]

I don't disagree with you Andy. It does give you a paper trail and it's certainly useful to critique an existing Order but I think it provides an easy way out for the lazy in serving. I think a TPO should be justified by a description of its merits much like a building listing rather than a score that must be untangled but then perhaps that's another thread entirely!

[Sylvia]

Spotted this - thought it might be of interest - apologies if it's deja vu.

 

 

Trees facing axe for Leeds trolleybus ?worth £14m? - Yorkshire Evening Post

[Sylvia]

"A Metro spokesman said: “The CAVAT method reflects a tree’s contribution as a public amenity and cannot be used to calculate a tree’s replacement cost.

 

“In his report Mr Turner has ascribed a value to the replacement trees on the day they are planted, rather than when they have reached any maturity."

 

I hoped /dreamed CAVAT would be about cost-benefit analysis - ie adding £14m to the bill for lost trees makes the project uneconomic?

or eg the price of any house that to build requires removal of a mature tree must reflect the value of the tree - say £50k minimum?

[daltontrees]

Thanks for bringing that case to the attention of Arbtalk. It deserves a little analysis. Sorrty but I have rather neglected this thread in favour of earnign a living, but I should get back to it soon. What I have in mind is outlining each of the currently used systems and then assessing their strengths and weaknesses. BUt i don't mind saying in advance that CAVAT is fundamentally limited. It starts off as a pretty decent valuation then jumps into fantasy land at the last moment, and as such isn't a valuation.

[phill]

There's so many mature street trees disappearing recently

It's a right shame

Edited November 20, 2013 by phill

[Gary Prentice]

Thanks for bringing that case to the attention of Arbtalk. It deserves a little analysis. Sorrty but I have rather neglected this thread in favour of earnign a living, but I should get back to it soon. What I have in mind is outlining each of the currently used systems and then assessing their strengths and weaknesses. BUt i don't mind saying in advance that CAVAT is fundamentally limited. It starts off as a pretty decent valuation then jumps into fantasy land at the last moment, and as such isn't a valuation.

 

Please do:thumbup1: I'm trying to read to much at the moment and it would be helpful to someone elses critical analyse of them.

[daltontrees]

HELLIWELL SYSTEM 2008

 

Here is a brief summary of the features of the system.

 

The 'value' in £s is produced by multiplying together 7 numbers. The first six are factors that give a total score. The score is then multiplied by a £ value per score.

Factor 1 Size - this is based on the area of the canopy when viewed side-on. The area in m2 is looked up in a table to give a factor score for example an area of 20-30m2 gives a faactor score of 3

Factor 2 Duration - this is based on the valuer's estimation of the expected duration of the amenity. This can loosely be equated to remaining lifespan. The value is looked up in the table to give a factor score. For example 5 to 40 years gives a factor score of 2.

Factor 3 - Importance - this is based on the visual prominence of the tree, in terms of both visibility and the viewing population. The relevant importance is taken from a table and converted to a number. For example "Individual roadside trees" give a factor score of 2.

Factor 4 - Tree Cover. This is based on the general abundance of trees. The more trees, the less special the tree being valued and vice versa. The relevant term is looked up in a table and convertyed to a number. For example, if less than 10% of the visual area is covered by trees, but at least one other tree is present, the factor score is 3.

Factor 5 - Suitability to Setting. This is impossible to summarise, it is a complex set of subjective tests on how right or wrong the tree is for where it is. The chosen relevant category is looked up in a table and given a number value. For example, a tree that is "Fairly suitable (Fairly well placed. A definite asset to the landscape)" scores 2.

Factor 6 - Form. This is an aesthetic classification, looked up in a table and given a number value. For example, an "average/indifferent" tree scores 1.

 

These scores are multiplied together. In the examples I have given the score would be 3 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 72.

 

This score is then multiplied by the current £/points value determined by a committee of the Arb Assoc and updated by the Retail Price Index. The current value is about £30 per point.

 

In my example, the resultant value is £2,160.

 

And that's it. The example is a smallish street tree in suburbia.