As I understand it Amey tried to streamline the support services at WBC such as HR and IT when they ran them. I guess they left their 25 year contract after 5 years, because they found there was no way to do this, and this was all pre-Gershon and pre-recession. If there was improvements to be made an money to be had I'm sure they'd still be there now.Not all of the private sector. Most bankers, who got us into this mess seem very secure in their jobs. Add that to general higher wages for most, profit share schemes, Christmas bonuses as the like and the private sector have it pretty good compared to those that choose to take get paid less to serve their community.
Amey had problems because they couldn't cut services - this is not a problem this time. And thousands of jobs were lost in the banks during the crash - sure, most bankers still have jobs, just as most public sector workers will have jobs following the forthcoming cuts.
You didn't comment on the easiest way to save money in this case which is to relax the planning laws, get rid of listed buildings status, remove the red tape and let people build where they want. WBC would need less planners then permanently and we'd all save some money. I can see this happening before long. Sound like a good idea to you?
And you didn't comment on where you would make the inevitable cuts.
Amey had problems because they couldn't cut services - this is not a problem this time. And thousands of jobs were lost in the banks during the crash - sure, most bankers still have jobs, just as most public sector workers will have jobs following the forthcoming cuts.
And you didn't comment on where you would make the inevitable cuts.
Amey could have cut as many staff as they wanted. They were mainly in support services so they would have removed as many of surplus to requirement back office staff as possible in order to maximise their profits. I not sure if they were able to remove any but if they couldn't it would certainly explain why they pulled out of the contract so early.
I twice suggested if we relax the planning laws, remove listed building status and cut the red tape around planning as this might mean a reduction in the number of planners needed. You haven't commented on this though. Is this one service you'd like to see cut and one set of rules relaxed?
I twice suggested if we relax the planning laws, remove listed building status and cut the red tape around planning as this might mean a reduction in the number of planners needed. You haven't commented on this though. Is this one service you'd like to see cut and one set of rules relaxed?
There's another way...no listed buildings demolished until the next election.
I twice suggested if we relax the planning laws, remove listed building status and cut the red tape around planning as this might mean a reduction in the number of planners needed. You haven't commented on this though. Is this one service you'd like to see cut and one set of rules relaxed?
Why do this if getting rid of the 50 or so excess management staff does the trick?
Why do this if getting rid of the 50 or so excess management staff does the trick?
It won't and whatever happened about the management cuts that were publicised towards the end of last year, did they ever happen.
I can see that User is throwing up the usual smokescreen to disguise the fact that savings need to be made. We do not need, neither should we remove the planning department or any other department but it is encumbent upon the WBC's senior management to do an honest appraisal of all the departments to either restructure or cut back or possibly in some cases reinforce.
I don't know what happened with the Amey contract but the point about external companies is that they need to make a profit on their business. WBC does not, it just has to be efficient in it's operation and the way that they use the government and our money. My bet is that Amey were saddled with a load of no hopers by default that they couldn't get rid of or use efficiently, passed on to them by the council. I'm sure User will be able to put this in perspective for us or he could ask another irrelevant question to dodge the issue.
There's another way...no listed buildings demolished until the next election.
I don't think that's the style of this new government, they seem to be all about cutting regulation, not increasing it. I can see them relaxing the planning laws some time in the term of this parliament.
I think I'm done in this thread as some seem to be going round in circles but I'm sure they're going to be surprised as the effect of the cuts they seem to be proposing.
I don't think that's the style of this new government, they seem to be all about cutting regulation, not increasing it. I can see them relaxing the planning laws some time in the term of this parliament.
I think I'm done in this thread as some seem to be going round in circles but I'm sure they're going to be surprised as the effect of the cuts they seem to be proposing.
Why? are you all going to be bullshie when you have to start pulling your weight??
I twice suggested if we relax the planning laws, remove listed building status and cut the red tape around planning as this might mean a reduction in the number of planners needed. You haven't commented on this though. Is this one service you'd like to see cut and one set of rules relaxed?
And I have three times asked you to suggest where the inevitable cuts should be made - but I'll try not to reduce this to your standard petty point scoring by answering your question re-planning.
No I would not be in favour of removing all restrictions on building as you seem to suggest might happen. But I'm not worried about it happening - planning is probably the only WBC department that comes close to making a profit so they won't want to cut back too much. On the listed building front the Tories are probably more likely to increase than reduce the level of protection. It was Labour (especially Prescott) who were determined to build so many homes that the housing market would be flooded with new builds and prices would fall to more affordable levels. As a result planning law has already been relaxed - the Tories are saying they will return the power to determine what is built to local government, not remove even more power. The savings in planning can be made in Whitehall, by getting rid of the majority of the people who spent their time overriding local authority planning decisions.
Now - where do you think WBC should save £4million?
PS A pay freeze will save over £1million without anyone losing their job ...
I twice suggested if we relax the planning laws, remove listed building status and cut the red tape around planning as this might mean a reduction in the number of planners needed. You haven't commented on this though. Is this one service you'd like to see cut and one set of rules relaxed?
Would this be the same planning department that allowed a local land-owner to personally destroy a SSSI whilst Friends of the Earth were at the High Court obtaining an injuction? (they sat in their car and watched it happen) Would this be the same department who refused to send someone out to stop the tiles being removed from the front of the Anchor when I contacted them? Would this be the same planning department who allowed Davis's china shop (listed) to be flattened and replaced by the architectural no-mark that is the Macdonalds building? Would this be the same planners that turned a blind eye to Lefarge building an illegal plant on the airbase? The very same department that went all ends up over the Prologis site? Is this the same department whos head (Lugg G) had to admit (in 2009) that they didn't quite know where all the Section 106 money was or what it had been spent on? Coming more up to date, would this be the same department that allowed an industrial plant at Greenham to start up, seemingly mere seconds before their own Environmental department turned up and closed it down as a health hazard?
I'd rather have just a few competent planners as opposed to the room full of shaved monkeys that we seem to have got at the moment.
Logged
Male
