daltontrees

Aye but on the Isle of Man the Act was changed to include deciduous trees AND individual trees.

It's OK, I amn't troubled, I usually research my contributions to Arbtalk obsessively, but sometimes I think I don't leave a lot of scope for other people to contribute. That's what I was apologising for. I am on the lookout for pictures that illustrate the subject, hasta la vista. Much more interesting for the average Arb than my dictionarytalk.

You're welcome... Does anyone on Arbtalk havve any experience of the high hedges legislation being put into practice in the Isle of Man, particularly deciduous trees or individual trees. I am very curious to know how the seasonal nature of deciduous tree shade is measured and applied to the test of 'reasonable enjoyment' of a property. The Manx Guidance ducks the issue completely.

I thought it was fair comment, but I apologise now for killing the thread stone dead.

The guy topping the tree with an axe at 160 feet on spikes and a rope strop is the business. I'll never take a chainsaw for granted again.

tree preservation 101 - landowner has to decide if the risk associated with foreseeable failure of the tree are unacceptable and then decide whether it needs felled, reduced, fenced off or whatever. You don't ask the LA, you tell them what you plan to do and it's up to them to stop you if they disagree or want to take the rap for failure.

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.

Aesthetic appearance is one of the criteria for special architectural interest, quite rightly so, it's the quintessence of good architecture. The word 'pretty' is much too subjective and soft for my liking, the term 'intrinsic beauty' in teh Guidelines seems an improvement on 'prettiness'. Trees can be gaunt and tortured-looking, far from pretty but wuite beautiful at the same time because we can marvel at their tenacity, history, context even if they are not pretty lollipops.

As the saying goes, there are only three things that affect the value of property - location, location and location. Context is everything because context means location. Your reference to improvement notices is a useful one, I will look into it (scottish legislation always seems to differ slightly), I was involved in the would-be compulsory purchase of a derelict site a few years ago on the basis of its detriment to the amenity of the area. Something that I suspect would be easy to pull off after the war on bombsites than these days when the owner was just sitting back waiting for development offers and using the state of the site to create local political desparation for any sort of development consent that would make the problem go away. I don't agree entirely about listed buildings, the statutory purpose of listing is to preserve buildings that are of special architectural or historical significance. They may have local context but otehrwise are not location-sensitive. A stately home would be just as worthy of listing if it was at the end of a long driveway as at the end of a short one. One couldn't say the same about the public amenity value of a tree.

I would contend that the sole purpose of a TPO is to preserve the amenity provided by a tree. Its amenity 'value' has presumably already been considered and has formed the rationale for the TPO.

THe relevant Guidelines are not too long to reporoduce here in their entirety. 3.2 The Act does not define 'amenity', nor does it prescribe the circumstances in which it is in the interests of amenity to make a TPO. In the Secretary of State's view, TPOs should be used to protect selected trees and woodlands if their removal would have a significant impact on the local environment and its enjoyment by the public. LPAs should be able to show that a reasonable degree of public benefit would accrue before TPOs are made or confirmed. The trees, or at least part of them, should therefore normally be visible from a public place, such as a road or footpath, although, exceptionally, the inclusion of other trees may be justified. The benefit may be present or future; trees may be worthy of preservation for their intrinsic beauty or for their contribution to the landscape or because they serve to screen an eyesore or future development; the value of trees may be enhanced by their scarcity; and the value of a group of trees or woodland may be collective only. Other factors, such as importance as a wildlife habitat, may be taken into account which alone would not be sufficient to warrant a TPO. In the Secretary of State's view, it would be inappropriate to make a TPO in respect of a tree which is dead, dying or dangerous. 3.3 LPAs should be able to explain to landowners why their trees or woodlands have been protected by a TPO. They are advised to develop ways of assessing the 'amenity value' of trees in a structured and consistent way, taking into account the following key criteria: (1) visibility: the extent to which the trees or woodlands can be seen by the general public will inform the LPA's assessment of whether its impact on the local environment is significant. If they cannot be seen or are just barely visible from a public place, a TPO might only be justified in exceptional circumstances; (2) individual impact: the mere fact that a tree is publicly visible will not itself be sufficient to warrant a TPO. The LPA should also assess the tree's particular importance by reference to its size and form, its future potential as an amenity, taking into account any special factors such as its rarity, value as a screen or contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area. As noted in paragraph 3.2 above, in relation to a group of trees or woodland, an assessment should be made of its collective impact; (3) wider impact: the significance of the trees in their local surroundings should also be assessed, taking into account how suitable they are to their particular setting, as well as the presence of other trees in the vicinity. The word amenity is in the Act, the purpose is very simply stated. " If it appears to a local planning authority that it is expedient in the interests of amenity to make provision for the preservation of trees or woodlands in their area, they may for that purpose make an order with respect to such trees, groups of trees or woodlands as may be specified in the order." There is no latitude in the Act for different LPAs to use TPOs for different purposes. But it is up tot the LPA to decide on expediency and amenity. The lack of case law as to what amenity means might be partly a result of there being no right of appeal to a TPO being made. I agree, context is everything. Even so, you may have noted that the Guidance says that LPAs "are advised to develop ways of assessing the 'amenity value' of trees in a structured and consistent way". Maybe we should all ask our local Council if it has done so.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 just going by how some dealers are currently stating the policy online. For me I am happy to have a dealer that realises there will be no adverse comeback for them or Stihl by selling me an e-clip for a Ms230. It took me 1 minute to install including taking clutch cover on and off. Nobody has died or lost any limbs (yet|) as a result.

Wouldn't one expect premature death and continued attachment of leaves on Ash affected by Chalara? And if so, can you say whether these leaves wilted early and stayed attached? Looks like autumn to me (sorry, I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, I am just questioning why some leaves are off and others are still on and hanging).

The pictures are just sihouettes. Are you sure those hanging things aren't just ash keys? Apart form Chalara, it'd been a bumper year for Ash and their fruiting,

Thanks for replying, yes that Forestry Commission document is pretty good. Berar in mind though, that it deals with methodologies that are used for street trees; in a way that is straightforward because street trees are antirely in the public domain (road verges, central reserves and so forth) and there are a couole of implications for the relative simplicity of this (i) there is no prospect of sale of the trees or their land and the values are unlikely ever to be tested or needed for anything other than accounting purposes and (ii) the amenity contribution of the trees is enjoyed only by the public, not bnecessarily by the owners of the tree or by private individuals. My plan was to move on to your earlier questions about notional benefit versus notional nuisance next. I might not get a chance until later today though. Even though the FC document covers a lot of good stuff, I alos plan to go through the various methods one at a time and point pout how they are done in practice and how good or bad they are and why.

Sort of reminds me of the Ogden Nash poem, inspired initially by Wordsworth but making a perhaps more useful point. I am quoting from memory, apologies in advance for any mistakes. I think that I will never see A billboard lovely as a tree Perhaps, unless the billboards fall, I will never see a tree at all.

I've copied that poem and printed it off for my office wall.

Phew, thank goodness someone is looking in. I wouldn't value a car on a DRC basis. Think of the tests. Are there lots of transactions to compare with the car being valued (yes)? Are there lots of buyers and sellers (yes)? Is there lots of freely available information about the market (yes)? Are cars specialised things (no)? Would you have to make one yourself becasue demand for them is so low or infrequent that no-one makes them for sale (no)? So cars are a classic example of open market comparison valuation, definitely not depreciated replacement cost. What about trucks? Still open market value, I think. What about Unimogs? I think they should probably be done on a DRC basis, checked by a open market basis, but it''s a marginal one (think of the tests). What about a tracked Unimog with a Hiab on the back and a snowplough at the front? You'd have to make it yourself or have it specially made and would be willing to pay the cost if it was going to provide a return to your (bizarre) business plan. That's what DRCs are for. I will get round to public and private benefits of trees presently. This is the debate that shows some of the current thinking and metheodologies for the nonsense that they are. You are only a step behind me, insofar as you recognise the problem and how undemocratic it can be if it is ill-informed.

Markets are highly imperfect. Lack of information, unreliability about supply and demand, people thinking apples will do for pears, wedding rings that have huge sentimental 'value', cars that wear out from the moment they are made and go down in value, houses that fool the buyer with new carpets to hide the rotten floor etc. But there is another dreadful shortcoming of markets. What if there is no market? Or if all the transactions in the market are kept secret? Or if transactions are so infrequent that they can't be relied upon as valuations? Or there is only one buyer and no seller? Let me put forward the idea (in a utopian NHS society) of the hospital that is run by the state for citizens. Where then does the NHS buy a hospital? Or if it has one it no longer needs, who can it sell it to? The answer is obvious, as happens in reality. It builds one. In building it, it enters a market where there are lots of sellers, otherwise known as building contractors and suppliers of bricks, windows, roof tiles etc. This is a market in which it can satisfy itself it is getting the best price. But here's the important bit. How much is the new hospital worth on the open market? Nothing (there are no buyers nad no demand). What is it's value? Well, the cost of building it. Cost becomes a proxy for value. Cost for a moment equals value because it is worth that to the occupier. The decision to spend that much on building it has been justified by the benefits that will come from occupying it. That is a Replacement Cost valuation. Over time it gets worn out or stops being in the format required of a modern hospital. Yet is still operates, repairs are more expensive and it's not so efficient as it might be. That's called Depreciation. Combine the two and you have Depreciated Replacement Cost. For trees, planting costs are akin to building costs. Poor form, old age and defects are akin to depreciation Which is the basis of CTLA and CAVAT. And if I am being kind there are elements of that in Helliwell too. There, that isn't so complicated after all. There's no obvious market for mature trees. So we should value them on the depreciated replacement cost basis. Or shoud we?

So why do we need valuations? Why not just sell the thing and see what you get for it? Well, you can only do that if you have a marketplace, you have sellers and buyers together at the same time in reasonable numbers, you have a product that buyers can try, touch, see. And maybe the seller doesn't want to sell at that time, he just wants to know what he can expect to get when the time comes. Can he take his apples to market, haggle a price with someone then tell teh buyer he was just fishing? No, he can't. But he can suss out the going rates for apples so that he can go home and ponder whether to plant apple trees or pear trees. He can work out how much planting will tcost, how long he has to wait for apples or pears, how much work is required, how much he will get for the apples or pears and for how many years. He can then make an informed decision about what to plant. Vasluations are used when we buy a house and get a mortgage (back in the days when you could). What is the valuation saying. It says if you default on your mortgage and the bank repossesses and sells to get its loan money back, the house will fetch enough on the market to justify the risk of lending in the first place. There might never be such a sale, but an imitation of the market is needed, based on current house prices and current supply and demand. Valuations are used when something is to be insured. There is never any intention to sell the thing. But if it is stolen or destroyed, the insurer will pay the owner. The amount is the hypothetical amout that would be needed to buy or make a replacement in the open market. It might be a wedding ring, it might be a car, it might be a house, but it's still an imitation of the market. Without any buyers or sellers having been directly consulted. Another common use of valuations is for the sale directly off the market. Our man needs another cart of apples next week. He says to his neighbour, no need to take your aplles to market, I'll buy them from you. Perfect! But what's the sale price? So the neighbour asks around other people that have been to the market, both parties now have good knowledge and they strike a fair deal based on a mutually agreed valuatoin. Again, an imitation of the market. The seller won't accept less than he would get at the market. The buyer won't pay more than he would at the market. I am still planning to get rounfd to trees. But there is another important principle to explain. The most important one for anyone hoping to understand the strengths and weaknesses of tree valuations. I will give it it's full sunday name and allow everyone a chance to run away in horror. Depreciated Replacement Cost. It's not that scary though, I will pick it apart for you.