sure, the tree might "provide value", but you have to ask if it's providing more value that what you might have put there in its place. such as: knocking down a 2-storey house to build a 5-storey apartment building, thus letting more people live in the city, at an affordable rent, and with a short commute.
or maybe something even more trivial -- maybe you just want to add a small extension to the house for your newborn kid or so your grandma can move in, etc. but you can't do it because the fucking tree is in the way and you can't cut it down even though it's on your property. so you either just accept living in a smaller house than you want, or you move out and pay a higher mortgage on the new place. either way is deadweight loss to the economy.
it's yet another layer in the death-by-a-thousand-cuts that is the british planning system, that keeps housing scarce and strangles the economy. it all adds up[1].
this is why I say it is (a small part of) a scam. specifically a supply-restriction cartel, like OPEC. it lets landlords collectively enrich themselves at no risk, by making themselves unable to respond to market price signals telling them to intensify the use of their land, to meet the demand for housing.
this is the sordid root of so much "tory environmentalism" btw; it's a wonderful deniable tool that nimbys use to veto redevelopment.
but people still need places to live. and if you can't build up in the city, you have to build out into the countryside. and that's where the new housing supply (what little of it there is) is predominantly coming from: rubbish suburban new-builds. they have to trample over a lot of nature to do that.
if we really must conserve the number of trees, let landowners cut them down on their own property but contribute money into a council fund for the planting of an equivalent tree on public land. more tree-lined streets, more parks, as a fully public good. trees are much more valuable when they are in a place to provide shade to pedestrians!
when housing is easy to build, you get competition between landlords (instead of competition between renters). rents go down. landlording becomes a risky enterprise once again, not some economic fief for lucky boomer incumbents.
>The most celebrated case of this is Fitzroy Road in Primrose Hill, pictured below, which was formerly an extreme ‘gap-tooth’ terrace with just a single old mansard. The residents campaigned for permission to add more, which the council eventually granted on condition that every house add an identical mansard simultaneously.
or maybe something even more trivial -- maybe you just want to add a small extension to the house for your newborn kid or so your grandma can move in, etc. but you can't do it because the fucking tree is in the way and you can't cut it down even though it's on your property. so you either just accept living in a smaller house than you want, or you move out and pay a higher mortgage on the new place. either way is deadweight loss to the economy.
it's yet another layer in the death-by-a-thousand-cuts that is the british planning system, that keeps housing scarce and strangles the economy. it all adds up[1].
this is why I say it is (a small part of) a scam. specifically a supply-restriction cartel, like OPEC. it lets landlords collectively enrich themselves at no risk, by making themselves unable to respond to market price signals telling them to intensify the use of their land, to meet the demand for housing.
this is the sordid root of so much "tory environmentalism" btw; it's a wonderful deniable tool that nimbys use to veto redevelopment.
but people still need places to live. and if you can't build up in the city, you have to build out into the countryside. and that's where the new housing supply (what little of it there is) is predominantly coming from: rubbish suburban new-builds. they have to trample over a lot of nature to do that.
if we really must conserve the number of trees, let landowners cut them down on their own property but contribute money into a council fund for the planting of an equivalent tree on public land. more tree-lined streets, more parks, as a fully public good. trees are much more valuable when they are in a place to provide shade to pedestrians!
when housing is easy to build, you get competition between landlords (instead of competition between renters). rents go down. landlording becomes a risky enterprise once again, not some economic fief for lucky boomer incumbents.
[1] e.g. check this shit out https://conservativehome.com/2021/08/16/samuel-hughes-revivi...
>The most celebrated case of this is Fitzroy Road in Primrose Hill, pictured below, which was formerly an extreme ‘gap-tooth’ terrace with just a single old mansard. The residents campaigned for permission to add more, which the council eventually granted on condition that every house add an identical mansard simultaneously.