| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Dangerous Dogs - A Serious Problem, please read | |
| Posted by: | Adam Beamish | |
| Date/Time: | 14/04/09 20:07:00 |
| Stephen, I'm personally far from convinced that consultants like KPMG actually perform a useful function, and the cynical side of me suggests that it wouldn't look good (or ensure they get whatever astronomical fees they charge) if they ever reported back that no jobs should be cut. As you know I worked for many years managing Planning Enforcement Teams for various LPA's and only at one (ironically the one where I had the unfortunate experience I mentioned earlier) did I have anything like sufficient staff to meet all our statutory targets and be able to assist the public. Yes I think the 'dead wood' needs sifting out of Councils, but in my experience that is more a case of getting read of the people who are 'dead wood' rather than just generally getting rid of x number of staff without a thorough assessment of the skills, abilities etc. of each individual. I totally agree about Councils needing to appear bulletproof, excessively so sometimes in my view. A member of the public who had a grudge against me doing my job once make a formal complaint that I had phoned his house and told him that my Team was always overworked because of the problems Asians caused in the Borough. I knew I have never phoned that person and my Team had noted (I asked them to because I sense this person was the type to fabricate something) earlier that day when I was in meetings that one particular person kept phoning me and when someone else answered the phone they refused to speak to anyone else or leave a message. I made sure my Team witnessed all telephone coversations I had that day (I said 'outbuildings', apparently very clearly, not 'Asians')and as soon as the compliant came in I immediately asked for records of my phone calls which proved I had never called this person but on the day in question that person had called me four times. I was still subjected to a full formal interview and the person making the complaint got a 6 page letter which came across as though the Council were apologising for that person having to complain, whereas my view was that that person should have been told very firmly where to go. As for your example about planning, to be fair and as you know if an developer appeals on completely spurious reasons without presenting a reasonable case the Inspector can make a full award of costs against the appellant. And equally a developer can seek a similar award of costs against a Council who behaves unreasonably. Only today I was advising a third party to an appeal that if a Council now acted in a certain manner (in presenting its case) it would open itself up to a potential application for Costs. So developers aren't always 'the bad boys' !. |