It isn't just techlogs. The fairly recent requirement in the UK that EACH individual operator has to write his own maintenence programme for each type of hele was a similar nonsense. This was based upon the entirely false assumption that each operator knows best how his aircraft should be maintained.
I made a half-hearted attempt to suggest standard programmes techlogs and similar, perhaps published by somone like the BHAB. I think they, as with the CAA, ran away from the idea because of potential liability if there was a mistake or something significant was missed.
You could of course be cynical and suggest that if we weren't all forced to produce our own separate documents, the CAA would not have to visit us to discuss them every 6 months.
Overall, perhaps a more important concern than all this wasted effort is that it may well produce a less safe result. If you operate in an enviroment of pilots moving between operators, it must increase the chances of mistakes.
It is really the same as the over-regulation of certification. In the light aircraft market development has been pretty stagnant. The best example is piston engines. The AVGAS engine would be more at home in a pre-war tractor than an aircraft. The reason for this lack of development is that the prohibitive cost of certification of a new engine precludes new ones from coming on the market. A glorious exception is the diesel, which may succeed for special reasons. In the Permit world there have been all sorts of developments using new technology, that make them appear more efficient and (possibly) safer. It is the paradox of regulation, when it is overly prescriptive