Well covered Michael.
I had the pleasure of carrying out just this kind of service as a young buck
in LPA some years ago, and it was very frustrating as a front-line arb
officer.
It resulted in endless paperwork, emails and phone calls on top of an already
excessive workload.
The "clients" expect a modern commercial service from local authority
institutions, is that realistic?
This comes from my perfectly unbiased (commercial) viewpoint, of course.
Jasper Fulford-Dobson MArborA
B.J. Unwin Forestry Consultancy
Mobile: 07872 XXXXXX
Office: 01684 XXXXXX
Web: www.bjunwin.co.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Lawson [mailto:michael.lawson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk]
Sent: 20 December 2011 18:05
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Councils Carrying Out Tree Inspections on Private Land
"The proposal is that we would carry out inspections on private trees, for a
fee and as long as the trees are not covered by any statutory protection."
It would be wise to look at this matter across a range of issues:
* Public Purse
* Public Policy
* Equitability
* Conflicts of interest
* Impacts
Local Government is funded through taxes paid for by all of us. Central and
local government funding delivers services at the local, regional and
national level. However a balanced economy requires a private sector tax base
that is in equilibrium with the requirements of government spending and able
to support the policy driven service and infrastructure requirements of UK
PLC.
That is currently not the case. Currently there is a very wide disparity
nationally which is at unsustainable levels in the regions. How does charging
(that is competing) with the private sector square with Central Governments
need to generate more private sector employment and taxes to rebalance the
regions crippled by a too large state infrastructure?
Charging out for technical services by Councils who provide a too costly
administrative, support, office and pension base suggests over capacity. It
is this over capacity which is making a return to growth so difficult.
The Council would effectively be subsidising a competitive market against its
own tax base - which I would suggest is suicidal.
The Council would be potentially harming local businesses, increasing local
unemployment and forcing skills away from its administrative area by charging
a fee to compete with its fee charging private sector, which I would suggest
is suicidal.
If there is the time for these surveys, for the web site and brochures, for
the administration and reports, templates and training, the investigative
hardware and software, then your have spare capacity. It is not in the public
interest, the public purse or policy to seek to harm the private sector by
subsidised competitive effort.
It is hardly equitable to seek to compete against SMEs and small traders
without the subsidy, with overdrafts, mortgages, supplier creditors, crown
creditors and long debtor days.
Equally the individual officer will inevitably become embroiled in real
conflicts of interest, interests over land, advice, professional standing,
report recommendations.
Lets start simply, by charging a fee you owe a direct and immediate duty of
care to the client recipient. You will also make your Council sufficiently
contractually "proximate" to allow a whole raft of liabilities that you can
currently avoid drop into the Councils in-box.
Customers will need to have copies of terms and conditions prior to
appointment, your report will be for their use alone, the information you
generated could not and must not be used to disadvantage your client. There
would be issues of professional indemnity, employers liability, of complaints
and insurance issues of a general kind should a tree fail.
You will become at risk of entrapment and of risks of allegations of
maladministration.
There would be so many negative impacts, impacts on impartiality and a
general failing of the esteem in which local officials are often held,
impacts on the nature and extent of the private sector, impacts on the tax
base, impacts on complaint levels to Councils, impacts on the UKs
competitiveness.
However the central point for me is, if you can afford to look at this you
are over-manned. Think about it another way, are you willing to be spun out
as an arm's length consultancy with a 2 year contract which will then be
freshly procured, are you confident your service would retain the loyalty of
the LA, ask the RSLs the same question.
Michael Lawson
Managing Director
Landscape Planning Group Ltd
Arboriculture . Ecology . Landscape . Forestry
4 The Courtyards
Phoenix Square
Severalls Park
Colchester
CO4 9PE
T: 01206 XXXXXX
F: 01206 XXXXXX
M: 07786 XXXXXX
Skype: Michael.Lawson23
www.landscapeplanninggroup.co.uk<http://www.landscapeplanninggroup.co.uk>
[cid:790E1D02-A6B1-4E59-9DF3-1BDBF2768992@home] Follow us on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/lplgroupltd
The information in this email and any attachments are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not an addressee,
any disclosure or copying of the contents of this email or any action taken
(or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorised and maybe unlawful. If you
are not the addressee, please inform the sender immediately. This email
represents the personal views of the author / sender and Landscape Planning
(Group) Ltd and its group companies accepts no responsibility whatsoever for
its content.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.co.uk
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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/
--
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/
