nigelswift wrote:
I AM right!
I spent 27 years producing a house valuation system which applied an adjusted common unit of comparison. But houses, unlike heritage, are very clearly financial assets so the unit was pounds per adjusted unit obviously. To have tried to do that to a heritage asset using an "intellectual appreciation" unit of comparison would be just silly.
Fair enough Nigel. The phrase "intellectual appreciation" isn't one that I would use. I'll take a look at it next week. If your view is right, it may be worth asking for clarification of how archaeological value was derived by the Atkins submission: There are significant quantifiable environmental benefits to some of the other options.I spent 27 years producing a house valuation system which applied an adjusted common unit of comparison. But houses, unlike heritage, are very clearly financial assets so the unit was pounds per adjusted unit obviously. To have tried to do that to a heritage asset using an "intellectual appreciation" unit of comparison would be just silly.
Tata for now and maybe chat about it next week?
