UKTC Archive

Re: CAVAT and the elephant and castle regeneration project

Subject: Re: CAVAT and the elephant and castle regeneration project
From: Simon Pryce Arboriculture
Date: Nov 10 2019 10:08:50
1) LPA agrees not to object to removal of poplar in a CA implicated in subsidence case provided they were paid cost of planting a new tree in their park nearby. Insurers were prepared to pay in the interests of getting the job done and avoiding underpinning, which would have been technically problematic as well as expensive. Didn't involve CAVAT, but there was a public benefit for an LPA which no doubt had budget constraints. However it was ironic considering the number of times I've known LPAs refuse offers by owners to pay for replacements for felled TPO trees on council land.

2) Large commercial landlord with no evident budget constraints required leaseholder to pay CAVAT valuation for tree removed as part of refurb and extension of house.  That one seems to be a long way from the original rationale of the system, particularly the way the guidance was interpreted and the big difference in the figures calculated by the two parties for the same small privately owned tree in an enclosed garden.  In fairness the other systems throw up big differences as well.


The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy