UKTC Archive

Re: CAVAT and the elephant and castle regeneration project

Subject: Re: CAVAT and the elephant and castle regeneration project
From: Jerry Ross
Date: Nov 08 2019 11:00:42
The use of CAVAT to 'pay' for felled trees is not what I meant - I've used it on several occasions in alleged subsidence cases where (usually minor) damage has led to a demand to remove a probably perfectly innocent tree (I should point out we're not on clay here). It probably won't make the bulldozing subs management companies to suddenly see sense and give up their destructive ways, but it seems to me to be a worthwhile argument to add into the mix, especially when the CAVAT value of the tree is significantly more than the cost of effective repair.

On 08/11/2019 08:44, Jim Quaife wrote:
I have absolutely no disagreement about the environmental - essential 
environmental - value of trees Jerry, but the planning process as it is can 
control tree retention/loss.  Pre-emptive felling is done by some developers, 
but this use of CAVAT is hardly likely to improve that situation - in fact it 
will inevitably aggravate it.
To what extent should an LPA claim money for private individuals' or 
commercial/institutional owners' property?  What next?
This really hasn't been thought through.
In short there are any number of reasons why CAVAT should not be used for 
privately-owned trees, and even if after due consideration the government decides that 
it should, there must be due process - not the opportunistic "morphing" of it 
into the system by a few LPAs.
At the very least it is unprofessional, but at worst it is an undemocratic 
impingement into private affairs.
It most certainly won't make people think twice about removing a tree, they 
may just do it before making the planning application.
If we in the UK are serious about our environment then policies should follow 
the normal gestation process - not be a whim.
Rather pertinently I attended a seminar on Wednesday given at a London legal chambers, presented 
by eminent silks and a professor of EU law.  They have examined the government's proposed 
post-Brexit environmental policies, trumpeted by the ministers as "enshrining" 
environmental controls in law, when in fact many will be at the "discretion" of the SoS.

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Jerry Ross
Sent: 08 November 2019 08:14
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: CAVAT and the elephant and castle regeneration project

Not about the Elephant & Castle and not about raising cash, but JIm: you
say "CAVAT is a valuation method for publicly-owned trees" - Indeed,
that is what Chris Neilen set it up for. But is there any reason why it
should not be used for privately owned trees?

Any cash value put on such unquantifiable things as amenity and
ecological importance is going to be more or less arbitrary, but it can
make people think twice about destroying a tree if one can say that it
has been valued at, say, £20,000. Is there a reason why it should be
invalid to use this system for a tree that's NOT in public ownership?

On 08/11/2019 07:44, Jim Quaife wrote:
CAVAT is a valuation method for publically-owned trees and whereas I 
understand its original purpose (and attended one of Chris' earlier 
presentations along with occasional updates and his last seminar), it seems 
now that there is a trend emerging for it to be used to generate cash.
The significant ecological and environmental value of trees is beyond 
dispute, but there is of course a potential conflict of interest in that an 
LPA could be seen to be agreeing to the loss of trees on cash return basis.
I don't have any indication from the few encounters I have had that there is 
any profound thinking behind this in terms of the potential repercussions and 

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Mark
Sent: 07 November 2019 15:49
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: CAVAT and the elephant and castle regeneration project

Good afternoon

I am doing some with with colleagues on natural capital and net environmental 
gain and I remembered the work done at the elephant and castle redevelopment 
using cavat to calculate the on and off site compensation.

Given all the current press on net gain and “Nat cap”, this scheme was really 
at the vanguard.

Does anyone have a report or more information?

Thank you

Sent from my iPhone

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy