On-Site Worker or Central Team?

Until the 1970s there was a man, sometimes two, permanently assigned to Blacka Moor. He had a small hut for his tools, the ruins of which can still be seen from the path along the northern extremity, between the boundary wall and the new barbed wire amenity feature(joke intended).

His job was to maintain all aspects of the site, paths, bridleways, walls etc, and also to cut back birch spreading onto the heather. His job was axed, presumably in an economy drive. The theory was that it was more efficient to have centrally based teams who would come out from headquarters to deal with maintenance issues as and when necessary. This theory doubtless could be shown to save money and I'm sure the person whose idea it was made sure the figures fitted to prove just that. But in other ways it was disastrous.

Those who promote the central team idea of maintenance just don't get the point of on-site workers because the sites themselves matter less to them than the bottom line. This is also the problem with advocates of 'sustainability' who similarly occupy desks in offices, just venturing out occasionally to get evidence for a new report - and then they make sure they find the evidence that fits.



Here's a simple example. Bridleways on Blacka are often steep and so prone to fast water causing erosion. It's not easy (maybe not possible) to tell exactly what will work to divert the water from sudden downpours in specific locations. The obvious thing to do is try something and see how it goes - on a small scale. This is how a small landowner does a job. No major investment of time and effort, just ongoing work and careful observation. An on-site worker is ideally placed to do this. A team is plagued with desk manager problems from the outset. Scheduled for this area one week and that for another, it may be a month or two before they get round to a place. Then when they come they do too much, trying to take advantage of the time they have. There is no trial and error and often what is done proves not to work anyway. So much more time is spent to no effect at all.



The blog last month praised some work done by SWT in improvising a drainage channel for running water on the main bridleway (Canons' Path). It needed to be left to see how well it worked. If it was useless then so be it, try something else. If it worked then add some more at other suitable places. But instead of waiting to see, they had the people on the site and went ahead and did lots more. It's easy to see how this happens. The man in charge has got people to manage and wants to ensure they are busy, so they can just as easily be getting on with something appropriate or inappropriate. The first priority is that they should be working. None of this applies to the on site worker who, alongside these advantages, has chance to develop an attachment with the place and a sense of personal pride.

This one may work, some others are unlikely to. Best to go slow and wait and see.