Sheffield Retail Quarter (ex-"Sevenstone") MEGATHREAD

[DC1990]

Sheffield city centre has some fantastic areas. Fargate, Orchard Square, The Peace gardens and such are all great places, and it's good to see The Moor coming along nicely. It's a real shame though that there has been so much trouble with Sevenstone though as it would have been a much needed addition to the city and a good connection between surrounding areas.

 

What is important now though is to get the ball rolling again, and sooner rather than later. There's already been too much wasted time and Sheffield desperately needs more facilities. People need more facilities and although they cost money to provide it is surely better to have these in Sheffield and draw people to the city than it is to have people heading out of the city to get what they need.

 

Sheffield is a massive city, and one that I love greatly. It's a real shame that it just doesn't get the investment that it needs and deserves.

[Vague_Boy]

It might make perfect sense to petrolhead dinosaurs like you, but not to anyone else.

 

I'm a non-driver but even I can see the vast increase in cars on the council estate I live on (over the past 10 years certainly). Clearly there are a still a lot of petrolhead dinosaurs about.

 

At present, there are nearly 35 million vehicles on UK roads and year-on-year, car ownership rates are slowly rising. Many households are acquiring additional cars with around 30% owning two or more cars

 

LINK

 

If the city centre doesn't want their money, there are places that do.

 

And one such place, Meadowhall, is clearly thriving, even in a depression recession.

 

Footfall up at Meadowhall

 

Footfall at Meadowhall Shopping Centre increased by 2.8 per cent as co-owner British Land looked to its catchment area, attract more affluent consumers and extend the time shoppers spend there.

 

Last month, British Land signed a new long-term joint venture agreement at Meadowhall with Norges Bank Investment Management, one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world.

 

In its results for the six months to 30 September, British Land reported underlying pre-tax profit of £137m and said its portfolio was valued at £10.4bn.

 

LINK

 

In many ways, with Peak Oil already here [LINK] we should be planning for a more centralized, car free environment. But that won't happen until it's way, way too late.

[Narden Dee]

We don't need to. The council did the CPO's, boarded up the shops and got everything tee'd up. Hammerson did not then build Sevenstone.

 

So we know the contract the council drew up was inadequate to ensure that the council doing their bit would result in Hammerson doing their bit.

 

Now the contract is null and void if it's such a fine contract that doesn't bring shame on the incompetent council fools that negotiated it maybe you can publish it so we can all bask in it's glory?

 

But you won't do that. You'll refuse to make it public and try to criticise anyone who suggests the council got it wrong because they haven't seen the document you will refuse to publish despite the net result being plain for all to see.

 

And you wonder why the council are loathed in this city.

if its so important to you request a copy under the Freedon of information act

I dont think Planner would have a copy

[Planner1]

We don't need to. The council did the CPO's, boarded up the shops and got everything tee'd up. Hammerson did not then build Sevenstone.

 

So we know the contract the council drew up was inadequate to ensure that the council doing their bit would result in Hammerson doing their bit.

 

Now the contract is null and void if it's such a fine contract that doesn't bring shame on the incompetent council fools that negotiated it maybe you can publish it so we can all bask in it's glory?

 

But you won't do that. You'll refuse to make it public and try to criticise anyone who suggests the council got it wrong because they haven't seen the document you will refuse to publish despite the net result being plain for all to see.

 

And you wonder why the council are loathed in this city.

 

How exactly am I going to publish it when I've never seen it or had anything to do with it?

 

I also think it is relevant to ask the person who is commenting on the adequacy of a contract, whether they have actually seen it.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Planner1

[andygardener]

How exactly am I going to publish it when I've never seen it or had anything to do with it?

 

I also think it is relevant to ask the person who is commenting on the adequacy of a contract, whether they have actually seen it.

 

It's not remotely relevant. Even you claim not to have seen it and you in many other council matters claim to be "in the know". So "have you seen it" is utterly disingenuous, suggesting that those who have not seen the contract should be loath to comment on whether it was a good contract or not.

 

It was not a good contract as it utterly failed to deliver what it was claimed to do in a timely fashion and with water tight taxpayer guarantees that we would not be out of pocket if the developer failed to honour their part of the bargain. We can all see that, it's public domain fact. The contract failed to prevent this mess, thus the contract was not up to scratch. don't need to read it to know that, I just need to look a what it achieved, or rather didn't.

[Planner1]

It's not remotely relevant. Even you claim not to have seen it and you in many other council matters claim to be "in the know". So "have you seen it" is utterly disingenuous, suggesting that those who have not seen the contract should be loath to comment on whether it was a good contract or not.

 

It was not a good contract as it utterly failed to deliver what it was claimed to do in a timely fashion and with water tight taxpayer guarantees that we would not be out of pocket if the developer failed to honour their part of the bargain. We can all see that, it's public domain fact. The contract failed to prevent this mess, thus the contract was not up to scratch. don't need to read it to know that, I just need to look a what it achieved, or rather didn't.

No, it's suggesting that it might be useful to have seen and understand the content of something that you are slagging off.

 

I think you are probably missing the point that Hammerson (or any other major developer for that matter) would probably never have signed a contract that you might consider "up to scratch".

 

If no-one has seen the contract then it's all just pointless speculation anyway.

[Bilge]

I'm glad Hammerson have left the stage / been kicked off it. I'm also glad that the NRQ probably won't now be called 7stone because (a) it won't bear any relation to the original plans, and (b) it will be such a long time after first being mooted that it will be too embarrassing to give it the same name, much better to call it something else altogether and not pretend it's the same thing.

 

What are they/we going to call the new scaled-down development? They can make a good start with getting everyone back on board the NRQ by coming up with a name people support.

 

The Moor development seems to be doing well already and hasn't had to come up with a daft new name. Perhaps NRQ could do the same and take a key street name (e.g. Cambridge Street).

[lil-minx92]

How exactly am I going to publish it when I've never seen it or had anything to do with it?

 

I also think it is relevant to ask the person who is commenting on the adequacy of a contract, whether they have actually seen it.

 

Yes I saw it. Although obviously I cant prove that. It was very heavily loaded in Hammersons favour. As we have found out.

[Jonny5]

I also think it is relevant to ask the person who is commenting on the adequacy of a contract, whether they have actually seen it.

No. Its a cop out. You are only asking because you know that Andy hasn't seen it.

 

I've not been on the Sun but I know that its hot.

 

We know it was inadequate because it resulted in complete failure.

[Planner1]

Yes I saw it. Although obviously I cant prove that. It was very heavily loaded in Hammersons favour. As we have found out.

I thought you might have from previous comments.

 

Have you seen any other development contracts used in other places?

 

What I am wondering is whether they are typically loaded in favour of the developer? People on here are pointing to this being incompetence on the part of the council. But, my thought is whether a major developer would actually sign a binding contract that had penalties for non-delivery (as people seem to expect should have been in place), or is agreement in principle they best that any local authority gets out of developers?

 

---------- Post added 31-07-2013 at 12:12 ----------

 

No. Its a cop out. You are only asking because you know that Andy hasn't seen it.

 

I've not been on the Sun but I know that its hot.

 

We know it was inadequate because it resulted in complete failure.

 

No, read the posts properly. I was asking Lil-Minx as I had noted from previous comments that they might have actually seen it.

 

You are just speculating, because you have nothing factual to base an opinion on. Contracts aren't always fulfilled and there can be a lot of reasons for that which don't involve incompetence, inadequacy or bad faith on either side.