UKTC Archive

RE: CAVAT and the elephant and castle regeneration project

Subject: RE: CAVAT and the elephant and castle regeneration project
From: Rupert Baker
Date: Nov 08 2019 18:22:46

But if it is only monetary value you are after, why use CAVAT - why not use 
CTLA or Helliwell - or both and strike an average if they are reasonably 
close- which is what I've done on several occasions in the past
Atb
Rupert

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info On Behalf Of Jim Quaife
Sent: 08 November 2019 11:59
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: CAVAT and the elephant and castle regeneration project

You get there in the end with me Jerry!
I need more black coffee I think!
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
[mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Jerry Ross
Sent: 08 November 2019 11:50
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: CAVAT and the elephant and castle regeneration project

"if CAVAT is used to put a notional value on a tree (as opposed to saying "it 
is a nice tree") then I can see that it might be helpful."

Precisely!



On 08/11/2019 11:41, Jim Quaife wrote:
I understand that Jerry, but if the LPA is involved then the tree must be 
protected.  If it is an LA or Highway tree then if the evidence is not 
persuasive (and the absence of a shrinkable soil seems to be pertinent!) 
removal can simply be refused.  If it is a private tree CAVAT does not (or 
should not by its own terms of reference) apply.  If CAVAT is just to 
provide an independent monetary value and cash is not going to change hands 
it is a touch academic.
After saying this, if CAVAT is used to put a notional value on a tree (as 
opposed to saying "it is a nice tree") then I can see that it might be 
helpful.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
[mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Jerry Ross
Sent: 08 November 2019 11:00
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: CAVAT and the elephant and castle regeneration project

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.
Wonderful!
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
[mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] 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 escalation.
Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
[mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] 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 mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/