In a message dated 29/12/2004 11:36:49 GMT Standard Time, dscottcul@xxxx.net
writes:
On the leftist or social welfare side you might argue that somebody ought
to
be interspering parks and gardens into Dingy Dale for the amenity of the
poor folks. The government through a tax scheme or the better-off folks
through some imposed charity scheme. It's only fair.
This discussion seems to have gone off at something of a tangent from the
'Thread Heading' Scott. Just to confuse you more I'll try and explain how
things
work in Sheffield before going off at another tangent. Or not.
The budget for tree management and Tree Officers are completely separate
here. The TO with responsibility for planning matters that is TPOs
conservation
areas and the like, has nothing whatsoever to do with the day to day
management
of street trees, park trees, or any other trees. All the Planning TOs are
Landscape Artichokes and I don't think there is a one of them who could
specify a
tree job to an adequate standard.
They will if necessary seek the advice of the City Arboriculturist but as a
rule they don't unless an awkward bu**er demands it. The City Arb has a crew
of
5 or 6 managers (now called something like Community TOs) who are responsible
for managing woodlands/parks and LA owned trees that don't fall under
Highways. The LA highways dept manage their own trees and rarely have much to
do with
Planning or Parks. (Sheffield has about 2000 acres of woodland within its
city limits and some outside as well)
There almost seems a deliberate policy to keep the people involved with trees
apart. The conspiracy theorist within me likes that idea but in reality I
don't think that the HR sections of the LA could ever be that organised. I
have
to say that the little cross contact between the various sections means that
there is no crossing of knowledge, so only the Planners know about planning
and
trees, etc etc. It means that the training budget is kept down because no one
is aware that the industry has anything going on at all. You could ask any of
the sections about current events in the industry, say BS reviews, and they
wouldn't have the slightest idea they were taking place! (Except for the
local
awkward bu**er who keeps reminding them of course)
Just to relate this to "what are they worth?" If you consider that the
individuals knowledge is thus restricted then any "Salary Grading" (did
Richard
Garnett call it Hay grading? I'd find a summary of the system interesting
Richard)
is bound to be suitably reduced.
To go back to the "Where are all the TPOs?" question and not wanting to to
contradict Jerry or John, then in my opinion a lot of the "gentrification" of
former near/slum areas must have had an effect on the distribution of TPOs as
wealth has moved into areas with little space for trees. Arguably as the
DOE/DETR/ODPM? claim that a TPO has to be expedient (which we can interpret
to mean
under threat) then Lord Loaded of Muck who has absolutely no intention of
removing any trees or building any houses in his front garden should never
have a
TPO served on him.
Seems to suggest that your average Planner has to have an ear to the ground
just to get a handle on Lord Mucks plans/change of financial circumstances/
wayward heirs gambling habits etc etc. Which in turn seems a bit unfair when
the
Govt don't have any idea of Mark Thatchers plans to invade Sierra Leone or
wherever it was though....
Perhaps a Hay grading should include upgrading for hanging around in
establishments likely to reveal such insights? Or perhaps MI5 should be
tipping TOs
off?
What ho.
Bill.
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
