Shipping Containers Coming To Fargate

[Planner1]

24 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

With respect to you it is necessary to look at this project from the day it was dreamt up and how it is ending.

There have been numerous complications and one has to ask why and who is to blame for the project failure.

Regardless of how much it has cost in relation to other projects it has cost the council and government a lot of money in real cash terms.

Have I ever said it wasn’t a good idea to look at a project and see what didn’t go well and why? I’ve always said learning lessons is a good thing and I’d expect SCC will be doing that.

 

You’re quoting a response to a specific point about why the council is having to organise getting the containers removed.

1 hour ago, Mr Bloke said:

It looks like at least someone is trying to distance themselves from another 'successful' SCC vanity project.

 

To paraphrase Mr Mohammed, "Let's hope they're gone and everyone forgets about them... in time for the next elections!"

Well he is leader of the opposition, so you might well expect him to be looking to make what political capital he can from it. 

[ECCOnoob]

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

The council always seems to be in dispute with someone, especially over contracts, (John Lewis anybody?) Yet they are a big employer offering big contracts and with Lawyers and advisors on hand to check the legalities and the small print. The Council should have the upper hand in any contract deals and be able to dictate terms.

 

So where does it all go wrong?

It's our money. We have a right to know.

Disputes that go to court cost a fortune. (oftem millions.) They could save money by getting it right in the first place.

God it must be so wonderful to live in your dreamland where everyone agrees on everything straight away, everyone complies with everything as they should, every single thing that everyone does is perfectly by the book, on time  on schedule with not a single change of plan, delay or hiccup....... 

 

Just like any other large organisation of course the council is always in "dispute" with someone. It's compliance, responsibilities and impact goes across a huge spectrum of both our personal and corporate lives.

 

Lawyers don't have some magic crystal ball that can predict and plan and prepare for every single, possible eventuality across every single aspect of the spectrum between now and the end of the world.  Neither is the law a complete black and white absolute finite set of rules which can be quickly and simply applied in some binary format.  It is filled with contradiction, ambiguity, overlap and even huge gaping holes which are open to wide interpretation, challenge and appeal.  What earth makes you think the council has some automatic upper hand? The law is supposed to be judged equally. Lets also not forget those companies signing the council contracts will have lawyers of their own being just as meticulous and heavy-handed looking after their client's interests too.

 

You don't think every planning decision gets quietly accepted without challenge? You don't think every major works project gets quickly agreed around the coffee table without months of major contractual negotiation, drafting and dispute do you?

 

When John Lewis broke their contractual agreement and closed down their store - you're damn right the council raised a dispute.  JL owed a lot of money. The council made sure they were getting it back.

 

When the dispute arose with Yorkshire Water over the placement of the shipping containers, "the law" stated the council had no obligation to consult them because it was a temporary structure.  The Council could have told YW to shove on it up their backside but they chose to show compromise and move the structure which some would argue was a best outcome.

 

Now the Operator of the containers was failing to comply with their obligation in terms of fire regulations, and dismantlement, the council could have continued to dispute with them delaying both removal of the structures and the other improvement works to fargate. However, they are choosing to think about the bigger picture and get on with it. Something which again, most people have being screaming for them to do for a long time.

 

It's obvious that the council is going to have legal action all the time. It's obvious not every decision they make is going to be accepted wholesale by the population. Not every challenge they dare to raise is going to be blindly agreed on by a judge either - but that's all the reality of running the organisation.  Yes of course there is an element of picking one's battles but the same time we shouldn't have a council that's so timid to take any legal action or maintain defences of claims against them, for constant fear of public purse - that could easily be just as much abused by serial claimants, corporations or disrupters.

 

You declare the public "has a right to know", well if most actually bothered to look it's already there.   Just like parliament, there are vast amounts of council minutes, committing notes, meeting recordings, session recordings, case details all available on the net.   A vast majority of civil court hearings are public hearings which anyone can go in sit in.  Except of course for disputes involving family matters which quite rightly the public doesn't have a right to know about. It's none of their business.

 

It's nothing like as simple as you naively make out.

Edited February 17, 2023 by ECCOnoob

[Planner1]

1 hour ago, Mr Bloke said:

SCC's contingency planning would appear to consist of paying whatever is now necessary to just make this problem go away - a 'problem' that was known about from the very first day when someone stated that it was always going to be a  'temporary' project!

 

Presumably, if the original contractors agreed to dismantle the boxes and have now changed their minds, then SCC will be legally persuing them for any additional costs SCC have to pay?

 

That's how it would work, right?

 

Well it would, if SCC legally had a leg to stand on, and had made sure all such issues were covered in any agreed contracts!

 

So  maybe  these 'appropriate circumstances' is the fact that SCC now need to get the boxes removed 'as quickly as possible'?

 

Well, what would you expect them to do if the original contractor isn’t going to do the work?

 

The site needs to be cleared, so they have to get it done and sort the fallout later. 
 

Their standing orders will allow them to step outside the normal process if they need to act rapidly and normal processes would take too long.

[harvey19]

13 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Have I ever said it wasn’t a good idea to look at a project and see what didn’t go well and why? I’ve always said learning lessons is a good thing and I’d expect SCC will be doing that.

 

You’re quoting a response to a specific point about why the council is having to organise getting the containers removed.

 

The specific point can not be taken in isolation as it is a part of  the whole project's failure.

"Lessons will be learnt " the usual phrase.

 

[Mr Bloke]

19 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Well he is leader of the opposition, so you might well expect him to be looking to make what political capital he can from it. 

Hmmm...

And this is just the sort of petty, vindictive thinking that many Government and local council employees tend to have, and why very little of any use ever gets done!

 

It's all about point scoring and ego stroking...
... and they themselves always THINK they know best and are NEVER in the wrong!

[Planner1]

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

Disputes that go to court cost a fortune. (oftem millions.) They could save money by getting it right in the first place.

Yes, they always try to, which is why they have procurement and legal teams that must be involved in any procurements and sign off on them.

 

They also use industry standard forms of contract and normally look for contractors through established frameworks, where the contractors have been vetted and provided evidence of compliance with all the requirements you’d expect.

 

As has been said, no matter what extent you go to, legal / contract disputes can and do arise.

Just now, Mr Bloke said:

Hmmm...

And this is just the sort of petty, vindictive thinking that many Government and local council employees tend to have

You’re talking about a councillor, not an employee.

[Mr Bloke]

5 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

You’re talking about a councillor, not an employee.

Hmmm...

 

You think?

[Planner1]

9 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

The specific point can not be taken in isolation as it is a part of  the whole project's failure.

"Lessons will be learnt " the usual phrase.

 

Sorry, but I can choose to answer a specific point with a specific answer. It’s nothing to do with an overall view of the project. You are quoting things out of context.

 

Yes, the usual phrase which any organisation will use. What exactly would you expect?

[RollingJ]

Just now, Planner1 said:

Sorry, but I can choose to answer a specific point with a specific answer. It’s nothing to do with an overall view of the project. You are quoting things out of context.

 

Yes, the usual phrase which any organisation will use. What exactly would you expect?

For them to actually mean what they say, without the figurative 'crossed fingers behind their backs'?

[E-Man Groovin]

Maybe our authorities should go for fixing the broke things instead of trying to fix not broke things and then creating a whole new stratum of broke. Take Abbeydale and Eccleshall Roads for example. Current status: not broke; indeed thriving. Oh dear, here comes a bunch of numpties trying to fix things. Watch out, new level of broke incoming.

 

Anyway, that's my humble contribution to the debate. Never mind me, as you were.