Delaying validation

[Gary Prentice]

24 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

PS just had a pair of TPO app's approved at week 6, never happened before 8th week before, BZ LA 

 

(just got some scheduling issues to overcome now)

Felled six TPOd trees yesterday and submitted the application four hours later!  beat that!

 

I don't care how long that one takes to get a written design.

[Roz]

Hi E - I totally agree with what you say, councils are working on what they perceive to be 'transferable skills' to 'dumb' down person and job specifications.  If you can tick a box then hey there you go ?!?!?  And by dumbing down  a drop in salary and a saving...but in what?!

 

But its not only in this industry within councils I see it happening to other colleagues e.g. archaeology and landscaping....councils want all the experience, knowledge  but pay graduate pay - not encouraging.  One colleague a landscape architect highly qualified designing the towns gardens etc in a restructure was told they would be taking on pricing up for removal of fly tipped rubbish and be delivering recycling bags?!?!?  how to make you feel valued huh ?!   

 

So in the mean time I just keep my head down, dodge the politics and stick to the facts.............happy days.....

   

[Gary Prentice]

7 hours ago, Gary Prentice said:

 

 

I don't care how long that one takes to get a written design.

Design!  Bloody predictive text!  Decision, a written decision.

[Gary Prentice]

10 hours ago, EdwardC said:

The Portal is vastly improved and is, I would say, the best way to put in applications and S211's.

 

 

I really should give the Portal another go. Currently I email a PDF of the app/submission, with any plans/photos merged into one document. All our local authorities send an immediate automatic response of receipt so we know they've got them. 

9 hours ago, Roz said:

It is interesting being on the other side as a TO - I certainly don't condone the incompetence of some council practices which I hear about on here and seen first hand, but as a whole the industry has changed and is changing - along with councils.

 

Councils are so process driven they have lost site of the purpose - PUBLIC SERVICE -  and in trying to be efficient and work in this digital age the role of the TO is wrapped up in the same parcel as a planner/planning process which can cause problems.  For example if you wanted a site meeting with me you now have to make a PreApp request and be charged for it ?!?!  i get accused by my managers of being too helpful and being asked 'should that have been a PreApp?'  Err No I'm here to help and I dont see an us and them were on teh same side; whats the best option for the tree(s).

 

Also colleagues have experienced not being able to fill TO/Tree inspector posts and the reason, in the old days if you were lucky you did the ND in arb  or trained on the job gaining your tickets worked brash dragging then, climbing and decided you could do it better  yourself set up on your own learned more on the jobs etc effectively an apprenticeship and at some point possibly decided that a job with the council seemed a good option on those freezing cold days.  With the development of qualifications within the industry more people are gaining foundation degree, MSCs etc and want to launch into consultancy roles leaving a big gap in the skill base in terms of coming up through the ranks.  I am not criticisng the development of making the industry more professional and recognised qualifications etc but what you are left with in terms of filling TO roles can be questionable.

 

Just the observations of a TO - Happy Friday

I don't know how many tree-owners actually request a Pre -app discussion, very few from personal experience as we get loads of 20% thin customers asking how much smaller/lower is the tree going to be. TBH in the councils position I'd probably be wanting to  charge, being forced to listen to the barrage of complaints about Satellite receptions, bin bags full of leaves, shade and other perceived nuisances.

 

I do occasionally request a pre-app meeting if I'm unsure myself whether consent would be forthcoming, on trees that may not have much merit but are still protected in some way so I can get an idea of the TOs feelings towards them. The response from planning is always "Why?" I don't understand this, The PO and TO have to go out anyway, so why not thrash out a deal in a ten minute meeting and then get an application based on that? They're not going to go to the site again.

Err No I'm here to help and I dont see an us and them were on teh same side; whats the best option for the tree(s). 

  Who do you mean Roz? Most of the 'them' I meet have no interest at all in the tree, the only interest is to get what they want

8 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Looking online at the abysmal standard of some of the TPO apps that are validated and processed by my LA, and therefore take up TO / PO time & resource to consult on, I can't help thinking a good chunk of time could be saved by an early rejection of inadequate submissions  rather than letting them progress through the system exhausting resources along the way to the inevitable refusal.  

 

But there in lies some of the problem with most public sector organisations - they need to show "workload" to safeguard jobs / resources so it would be foolish to find ways of reducing loading and become more efficient because that could result in less staff / resource. 

 

Hate to say it, but maybe it IS time that 211/TPO apps were a pay to use service, might result in some better standard submissions. 

For sure. 

 

Manchester council wouldn't validate one of mine because I wanted to do a small reduction on a 4m yew, I think I used a percentage or 'reduce by' figure so they sent it back. I checked the regs and couldn't complain, so now provide a radial branch spread after reduction - the climber then knows what I'm after, the client knows and doesn't batter the climbers head for a 'bit lower/shorter'. 

 

I wish they would toughen up personally, it would save a lot of confusion along the line. Maybe spend a bit of time on the LA website explaining what they will and won't allow, and the details required to validate an app.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

2 hours ago, Gary Prentice said:

Maybe spend a bit of time on the LA website explaining what they will and won't allow, and the details required to validate an app.

There's a book for that Gary, if more "arb's" had a copy.... (notwithstanding the debate about it being perceived as being cost prohibitive!) 

 

I think the issue (at least in part - and the golden key to the opposite argument is "central government funds are cut so we have to do less") is that LA's aren't driven to seek more efficient / streamlined processes in the same way that the commercial sector is.  For you and me, time is money, for public sector, the money is the same regardless how the day is filled.  There's no incentive to make the day more efficient, perhaps even the opposite could be true where staff and resources are under scrutiny - more workload appears to be a safeguard to the status quo whereas if you can't appear to fill your day, you're under threat. 

[Gary Prentice]

Kevin &  Edward 

I meant to explain better to the home owner putting their own apps in.

 

 

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

2 hours ago, EdwardC said:

There's a British Standard for it. And despite the length of time it's been around, and length of time it's been around in its current incarnation it is still ignored by most arborists putting in apps/S211's. I'm not sure how efficient it is for arborists to put in an app/S211, get it back and have to do it all over again, and again, until they get it right. Would it not be better to get it right first time by using the BS.

That was exactly what I meant Ed.

 

2 hours ago, EdwardC said:

There's never enough time to do it right, but always enough time to do it twice.

 That's not a quote from the LA strategic plan is it Ed???  

 

2 hours ago, EdwardC said:

Local authorities have to live within their means

As do we all!  I won't argue that that which has been sold as "austerity measures" has been wholly effective (it would be foolish to do so since the numbers don't really stack up) but I might think (a) that I welcome the consequential examination and scrutiny of historic processes which has resulted in saving where previously there was waste / inefficiency and (b) I reject the Labour party stance of simply throwing more (borrowed) money at the problem without examining the problem first.

 

2 hours ago, EdwardC said:

I'm reminded of the story of the man with a donkey which he used for moving goods around. He decided on efficiency savings. Having ascertained that feeding the donkey was the biggest outgoing he decided to stop feeding it. Just as his cuts were starting to pay dividends the donkey died.

I like your parable Ed, it's entirely appropriate.....

 

But you started at the end rather than at the beginning!  

 

In the beginning, the donkey was lean, keen, efficient and effective....

 

He worked hard and was appreciated by his master for the valuable contribution he made...

 

The donkey enjoyed the benefits of a reasonable work / life balance, he was secure in the knowledge that he would have some work everyday (but not too much) and his reward was adequate.   

 

If he needed kit, equipment or additional training for a task, it was provided and he didn't even have to work any harder to get it, often, he'd even get his training AND his pay, but didn't have to do the days work as well! 

 

He was a VERY HAPPY donkey - one of the best looked after donkeys in the paddock.  If he was sick he would be taken care of, he had plenty of rest and holiday where he'd still be fed and watered but didn't need to do any work.  

 

The donkey knew his long term plan was safe and that he'd be provided for in his later life where he would gradually slide into the twilight of his years in comfort and contentment.

 

What the donkey didn't realise, was that his master was BORROWING the money he needed for all the advantages the donkey was enjoying over and above his fellows in the paddock.  

 

He was a kind and generous master that did whatever was necessary to keep as many people as possible happy so that they all liked him.

 

One day however, the donkey's master realised he'd made an almighty ass (giggle) of the whole thing.  He'd spent way too much money trying to keep people happy.  

 

He hadn't saved any of the surplus money he had earned whilst business was good.   He'd sold the family gold.  He'd borrowed way too much money and now he couldn't borrow any more.

 

The donkey's master, Gordon, had made an almighty balls up of the entire happy situation.  One of his friends left a note saying there was no money left and that Gordon had to go back to the barren lands in the North.

 

The donkey's new master was astounded to see how Gordon had behaved so recklessly and then run away.  The new master faced a serious decision - should he be like Gordon and "find" more money to keep people liking him, or should he try to be just a little bit more responsible - after all, it wasn't his money he was spending!

 

Don't be like Gordon, Gordon made an ass of it.....

 

(cheered me up writing that!  Big of a giggle!! It needs some VI or Steve or Eggs input for the 'middle' before we get to your 'end')