Shipping Containers Coming To Fargate

[Planner1]

14 hours ago, LovePotion said:

They have funding for a planning team so you'd atleast expect them to do the planning competently.

I'm not sure you understand the functions of a local authority planning team. There's a big difference between the planning (application) process and the project design process (ie planning the project) and they are done by different specialist people in different organisations or parts of an organisation (if it's a local authority).

 

There are usually two areas of work in local authority planning teams, one is about processing and determining planning applications, the other is about developing planning policies (which are used to determine planning applications)

 

The involvement Sheffield council planners  will have had with this project will have been to appraise and determine the planning application.

 

How this is done is set out in planning law and national policy.

 

You can see the planning application and all the supporting documents on the planning portal here

 

If you look in the documents there has been a topographical survey carried out by a specialist company, which included mapping and identification of all the underground services in the area, including sewers.

 

The actual design of the project isn't done by the council planning team.  If you read this article on the project, it was carried out by a specialist company who are based in Kelham, who would have been appointed by the scheme promoters (probably another council department who are managing the project).

 

Because it  is a temporary structure it appears that Yorkshire Water are not a statutory consultee on the planning application, so they say they have only recently become aware of it. The rules on who is  a statutory consultee are set out in the national planning regulations that all planning authorities in the country follow.

 

I am involved in major transport projects on a daily basis. They usually involve quite a bit of interface with buried services. In my experience, the statutory undertakers (ie the owners of the buried plant, like electricity, gas, telecoms and water) often can't say precisely where their plant is located and it isn't uncommon to come across buried services that haven't been identified in the enquiries that are made with them through a regulated process. That's why scheme promoters carry out their own surveys with ground penetrating radar and electromagnetic location and physical investigations, which also aren't foolproof, but its the best you can do to manage the risk. 

 

Even when buried services have been identified as needing diversion or protection as the result of works, it is sometimes the case that the owners are slow to determine what work is actually needed and even then change their mind about it late in the process. That's why prudent scheme promoters make appropriate risk allowances in their budgets and programmes to plan for the very real potential for additional costs and delays no matter how well you design your project and engage with the statutory undertakers.

 

As far as I can see in this case, the project designers have done what you would expect them to do in terms of surveying and identifying buried services. The planning application appears to have been of the required standard and has been approved.

 

The problem appears to have been that Yorkshire Water decided that they needed  unrestricted access to their buried plant and had some concerns about potential damage from the weight of the structure. Those appear to have been resolved (we don't know how, could have been as simple as providing YW with more information on ground loadings, footings locations etc) following discussions with the scheme promoters. There was a minor delay and no doubt there was some cost involved. From my experience in significant highways projects, issues like this are not uncommon even on the best designed and managed projects. I certainly wouldn't be pointing the finger at the designers or promoters as being incompetent just because there was a minor issue with some buried plant.   These things happen, you plan for it, deal with it and move on.

Edited August 5, 2022 by Planner1

[Guest busdriver1]

8 hours ago, Planner1 said:

Because it  is a temporary structure it appears that Yorkshire Water are not a statutory consultee on the planning application, so they say they have only recently become aware of it. The rules on who is  a statutory consultee are set out in the national planning regulations that all planning authorities in the country follow.

 

I am involved in major transport projects on a daily basis. They usually involve quite a bit of interface with buried services. In my experience, the statutory undertakers (ie the owners of the buried plant, like electricity, gas, telecoms and water) often can't say precisely where their plant is located and it isn't uncommon to come across buried services that haven't been identified in the enquiries that are made with them through a regulated process. That's why scheme promoters carry out their own surveys with ground penetrating radar and electromagnetic location and physical investigations, which also aren't foolproof, but its the best you can do to manage the risk.

Given all the above ( and I fully understand and accept the case put), there appears to be a case for all statutory undertakers to carry out a survey and identify ALL assets and provide the councils planning department with details of their positioning including depth and approximate age. 

It CAN be done, I know of one authority that has demanded it and got it.

Edited August 5, 2022 by busdriver1

[hackey lad]

10 hours ago, Planner1 said:

I'm not sure you understand the functions of a local authority planning team. There's a big difference between the planning (application) process and the project design process (ie planning the project) and they are done by different specialist people in different organisations or parts of an organisation (if it's a local authority).

 

There are usually two areas of work in local authority planning teams, one is about processing and determining planning applications, the other is about developing planning policies (which are used to determine planning applications)

 

The involvement Sheffield council planners  will have had with this project will have been to appraise and determine the planning application.

 

How this is done is set out in planning law and national policy.

 

You can see the planning application and all the supporting documents on the planning portal here

 

If you look in the documents there has been a topographical survey carried out by a specialist company, which included mapping and identification of all the underground services in the area, including sewers.

 

The actual design of the project isn't done by the council planning team.  If you read this article on the project, it was carried out by a specialist company who are based in Kelham, who would have been appointed by the scheme promoters (probably another council department who are managing the project).

 

Because it  is a temporary structure it appears that Yorkshire Water are not a statutory consultee on the planning application, so they say they have only recently become aware of it. The rules on who is  a statutory consultee are set out in the national planning regulations that all planning authorities in the country follow.

 

I am involved in major transport projects on a daily basis. They usually involve quite a bit of interface with buried services. In my experience, the statutory undertakers (ie the owners of the buried plant, like electricity, gas, telecoms and water) often can't say precisely where their plant is located and it isn't uncommon to come across buried services that haven't been identified in the enquiries that are made with them through a regulated process. That's why scheme promoters carry out their own surveys with ground penetrating radar and electromagnetic location and physical investigations, which also aren't foolproof, but its the best you can do to manage the risk. 

 

Even when buried services have been identified as needing diversion or protection as the result of works, it is sometimes the case that the owners are slow to determine what work is actually needed and even then change their mind about it late in the process. That's why prudent scheme promoters make appropriate risk allowances in their budgets and programmes to plan for the very real potential for additional costs and delays no matter how well you design your project and engage with the statutory undertakers.

 

As far as I can see in this case, the project designers have done what you would expect them to do in terms of surveying and identifying buried services. The planning application appears to have been of the required standard and has been approved.

 

The problem appears to have been that Yorkshire Water decided that they needed  unrestricted access to their buried plant and had some concerns about potential damage from the weight of the structure. Those appear to have been resolved (we don't know how, could have been as simple as providing YW with more information on ground loadings, footings locations etc) following discussions with the scheme promoters. There was a minor delay and no doubt there was some cost involved. From my experience in significant highways projects, issues like this are not uncommon even on the best designed and managed projects. I certainly wouldn't be pointing the finger at the designers or promoters as being incompetent just because there was a minor issue with some buried plant.   These things happen, you plan for it, deal with it and move on.

Stop it ,  its coming to the point of embarrassing  yourself  

[Guest makapaka]

1 hour ago, hackey lad said:

Stop it ,  its coming to the point of embarrassing  yourself  

No - he’s actually explaining perfectly clearly what appears to have happened and what happens on projects every day all over the world.

 

the counter argument seems to be “typical sheffield council”

 

you’re embarrassing yourself by not addressing the valid points made.

[Bargepole23]

10 hours ago, hackey lad said:

Stop it ,  its coming to the point of embarrassing  yourself  

You'll have to explain this one, where has P1 embarrassed himself? 

[Baron99]

The BBC have posted a piece. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-62441441.amp

[dutch]

16 hours ago, Baron99 said:

The BBC have posted a piece. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-62441441.amp

OMG this will actually make Sheffield really look like third world country. 

It will need 24 hours security to prevent graffiti artist from having a go at it.

[HeHasRisen]

Its a good job the city centre is monitored 24 hours from the CCTV room already then.

[ECCOnoob]

13 minutes ago, dutch said:

OMG this will actually make Sheffield really look like third world country. 

It will need 24 hours security to prevent graffiti artist from having a go at it.

Yes I'm sure the many similar attractions all over the world have dragged their respective cities down to the level of 'third world' 🙄

 

You do realise we've already have a similar location on Kelham Island for several years and miraculously it hasn't turned into a graffiti covered eyesore.

 

Now can we stop with the dramatics and simply admit that to you personally don't like the style of this development.

 

[ads36]

i took a detour on my way to work this morning, and went for a spin around the container-site.

 

it'll be interesting to watch the site develop, i like it - good luck!

 

(it's only there for a limited time - it's good to see the council trying something, it's brave)