Shipping Containers Coming To Fargate

[Planner1]

1 hour ago, sheffbag said:

For someone who doesnt work for the council you revealed that last Friday even though it was only announced yesterday..............

It was mentioned in an SCC report that someone linked to. I definitely don’t have any direct insider knowledge on this one.

Just now, Planner1 said:

 

Edited January 26, 2023 by Planner1

[Resident]

18 hours ago, Planner1 said:

My experience of SCC internal audit is that they are independent and thorough.
 

Alleviate the population’s fears? I think a little proportionality is perhaps needed. SCC spend circa £1.5 billion a year. On that scale, the overspend is relatively modest and is well within the wider scheme’s budget. We’re told the wider Fargate regeneration scheme is still expected to hit its targets and outputs.

 

Unless the internal review uncovers any wrongdoing, I wouldn’t see any need for external audit. 
 

Lots of construction projects overspend. It’s a fact of life in that field. You don’t send for external audit every time there’s an overspend.

Relatively modest? 

A project that was costed at £300,000 from start to finish is now, so far at £655,000 and set to be more as we don't yet know the 'storage fees' to be involved. So at present the project is 118 percent OVERspent

You say it's within the wider scheme's budget but if they stick to that wider budget then it means somewhere something within the scheme will lose all or most of it's funding therefore the whole scheme becomes incomplete and a failure. 

You keep throwing in all these big numbers in order to try and muddy the waters because you're assuming members of this forum are stupid and will fall for it.

You tried it earlier in the thread when you mentioned Crossrail & HS2 by using cost figures whilst trying to state that "proportionally" the overspend is much less when proportially, as I proved using math that the the container scheme was upto FOUR times overbudget than those when comparing initial budgets vs actual spend as a percentage, which accurately shows proportions. I also pointed out that you were comparing apples to oranges due to the massive scale of both those multi-billion pound infrastructure changes.  For reference, here again, are those proportionate calculations for Crossrail and HS2:
 

Quote

Crossrail - Original costings 14.4 billion, actual 18.8 billion.  - 23% over
HS2 - Original costings 36 billion, actual 56 billion - 35% over

23% and 35% are a LOT different to 118% and rising. 

Additionally the £1.5 billion that you mention isn't spent on just improving the city. Most of it will be for operation of essential services, again an attempt at muddying the waters.

Your constant defence of the indefenceable when it comes to SCC is astonishing. I, personally, will maintain that either you're lying and still do work for SCC or that you're still very much riding SCC's gravy train. 

[Planner1]

1 hour ago, Resident said:

Your constant defence of the indefenceable when it comes to SCC is astonishing. I, personally, will maintain that either you're lying and still do work for SCC or that you're still very much riding SCC's gravy train. 

You can maintain whatever you like, but you are wrong.

 

When I worked for SCC and posted on here I told people upfront that was the case.

 

What exactly do you mean by “very much riding SCC's gravy train”?

[AndrewC]

1 hour ago, Resident said:

23% and 35% are a LOT different to 118% and rising. 

I don't disagree with you that a 118% overspend should red-flag concerns with the competency of people behind a project, but I suspect what Planner1 was getting at was that the sums involved are relatively modest. To use the examples you give:

 

HS2:             £56,000,000,000

Crossrail:   £18,800,000,000

Fargate:     £                  655,000

 

 

Generally, I agree with you - it's all relative. If I give my kid £10 for a lemonade stand and he says it ended up costing him £22, I might not let him spend my money so freely in the future...

[Resident]

21 minutes ago, AndrewC said:

I don't disagree with you that a 118% overspend should red-flag concerns with the competency of people behind a project, but I suspect what Planner1 was getting at was that the sums involved are relatively modest. To use the examples you give:

 

HS2:             £56,000,000,000

Crossrail:   £18,800,000,000

Fargate:     £                  655,000

 

 

Generally, I agree with you - it's all relative. If I give my kid £10 for a lemonade stand and he says it ended up costing him £22, I might not let him spend my money so freely in the future...

But he didn't say sums. He used the word proportionally and the obvious way of determination is to equalise the figures through percentage, as I have done. 

[Planner1]

2 hours ago, Resident said:

Relatively modest? 

A project that was costed at £300,000 from start to finish is now, so far at £655,000 and set to be more as we don't yet know the 'storage fees' to be involved. So at present the project is 118 percent OVERspent

You say it's within the wider scheme's budget but if they stick to that wider budget then it means somewhere something within the scheme will lose all or most of it's funding therefore the whole scheme becomes incomplete and a failure. 

You keep throwing in all these big numbers in order to try and muddy the waters because you're assuming members of this forum are stupid and will fall for it.

You tried it earlier in the thread when you mentioned Crossrail & HS2 by using cost figures whilst trying to state that "proportionally" the overspend is much less when proportially, as I proved using math that the the container scheme was upto FOUR times overbudget than those when comparing initial budgets vs actual spend as a percentage, which accurately shows proportions. I also pointed out that you were comparing apples to oranges due to the massive scale of both those multi-billion pound infrastructure changes.  For reference, here again, are those proportionate calculations for Crossrail and HS2:
 

23% and 35% are a LOT different to 118% and rising. 

Additionally the £1.5 billion that you mention isn't spent on just improving the city. Most of it will be for operation of essential services, again an attempt at muddying the waters.

The point I’m making and you are ignoring is that in terms of £’s viewed against an overall project budget of around £16 million, circa £300k extra on one element of the scheme isn’t in itself a major issue. The council’s report says they can achieve the outputs required within the funds available, which will avoid the potential for the funders to claw back the grant. Yes it will mean there’s a bit less to spend on other aspects of the scheme. It is pretty normal on bigger schemes for that to happen and costs be balanced out by reducing spend on some element.

 

Some people on here seem to think that  the overspend is a major issue, heads should roll, external auditors should be brought in etc. etc. I’m not sure that some folk here have a good understanding of how much construction projects cost, the risks involved etc.

 

The poster I initially replied to said that if a government scheme had overspent by that much, folk on here would be complaining. I gave examples of government schemes that have overspent by a lot more than that in £’s terms. The size and complexity of scheme wasn’t mentioned by the poster I replied to, they were just talking about how many £’s. I was replying to a specific point made by one poster.

Edited January 26, 2023 by Planner1

[Baron99]

5 hours ago, Planner1 said:

The point I’m making and you are ignoring is that in terms of £’s viewed against an overall project budget of around £16 million, circa £300k extra on one element of the scheme isn’t in itself a major issue. The council’s report says they can achieve the outputs required within the funds available, which will avoid the potential for the funders to claw back the grant. Yes it will mean there’s a bit less to spend on other aspects of the scheme. It is pretty normal on bigger schemes for that to happen and costs be balanced out by reducing spend on some element.

 

Some people on here seem to think that  the overspend is a major issue, heads should roll, external auditors should be brought in etc. etc. I’m not sure that some folk here have a good understanding of how much construction projects cost, the risks involved etc.

 

The poster I initially replied to said that if a government scheme had overspent by that much, folk on here would be complaining. I gave examples of government schemes that have overspent by a lot more than that in £’s terms. The size and complexity of scheme wasn’t mentioned by the poster I replied to, they were just talking about how many £’s. I was replying to a specific point made by one poster.

One question.  Are you happly satisfied that SCC have wasted part of your tax contribution? 

 

If yes, you need not explain.  If no, what do you think a suitable response from SCC and or the Project Lead should be?  I don't think the sad, often trotted out line of "Lessons will be learned."   I'm sure that has been used previously by SCC in other debacles. 

 

I've just seen the MD of Trans Pennine Express being interviewed on tv, holding his hands up & publicly apologising to his customers. How long do we have to wait to for an apology from SCC' s Chief Exec; Council Leader or Project Leader or whoever is ultimately responsible for the shambles? 

Edited January 26, 2023 by Baron99

[hackey lad]

10 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

https://www.welcometosheffield.co.uk/content/articles/regeneration-of-fargate-and-high-street/

 

The "Front Door" scheme seems like a good idea, and in fact has already started.

 

I also like the Grey to Grey schemes rolled out in other parts of the city. 

No , I meant what are the "targets and outputs" ?

[Planner1]

13 hours ago, Baron99 said:

One question.  Are you happly satisfied that SCC have wasted part of your tax contribution? 

 

If yes, you need not explain.  If no, what do you think a suitable response from SCC and or the Project Lead should be?  I don't think the sad, often trotted out line of "Lessons will be learned."   I'm sure that has been used previously by SCC in other debacles. 

 

I've just seen the MD of Trans Pennine Express being interviewed on tv, holding his hands up & publicly apologising to his customers. How long do we have to wait to for an apology from SCC' s Chief Exec; Council Leader or Project Leader or whoever is ultimately responsible for the shambles? 

I don’t expect to agree with everything my taxes are spent on and don’t think of the things I disagree with as a waste of money.

 

I think having a container park in a temporary location is a reasonable idea.

 

This one spent more than expected, didn’t deliver the number of container units into use that was expected and didn’t meet at least one of its targets ( increasing footfall on Fargate). 
 

Any well run scheme would have a post implementation review, so I would expect to see all the issues covered in that. 
 

I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the Leader of the council to be apologising for everything the council is involved in that doesn’t go quite as expected. 
 

The comparison with Northern trains isn’t a good one. There have been widespread issues with the train services they provide over their whole area for a lengthy period. Huge numbers of travellers have been and continue to be affected. They are clearly failing to deliver their primary objective, to have a train network that runs to timetable. They are a franchise and might well be concerned that poor performance could result in franchise termination. Therefore understandable that the head of the organisation is seen to be admitting to the issues and saying how they are dealing with them.

 

Meanwhile, one of the council’s many projects had a few issues, didn’t deliver all the expected benefits and cost a bit more than expected, but that can easily be managed within the wider project budget. Very small beer compared to Northern’s issues.

[harvey19]

3 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

I don’t expect to agree with everything my taxes are spent on and don’t think of the things I disagree with as a waste of money.

 

I think having a container park in a temporary location is a reasonable idea.

 

This one spent more than expected, didn’t deliver the number of container units into use that was expected and didn’t meet at least one of its targets ( increasing footfall on Fargate). 
 

Any well run scheme would have a post implementation review, so I would expect to see all the issues covered in that. 
 

I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the Leader of the council to be apologising for everything the council is involved in that doesn’t go quite as expected. 
 

The comparison with Northern trains isn’t a good one. There have been widespread issues with the train services they provide over their whole area for a lengthy period. Huge numbers of travellers have been and continue to be affected. They are clearly failing to deliver their primary objective, to have a train network that runs to timetable. They are a franchise and might well be concerned that poor performance could result in franchise termination. Therefore understandable that the head of the organisation is seen to be admitting to the issues and saying how they are dealing with them.

 

Meanwhile, one of the council’s many projects had a few issues, didn’t deliver all the expected benefits and cost a bit more than expected, but that can easily be managed within the wider project budget. Very small beer compared to Northern’s issues.

I don’t think Northern Rail and the container project can be compared at all.

Vastly different size, logistics, staffing levels, distances, and basically completely different types of problems.