Shipping Containers Coming To Fargate

[Bargepole23 337]

4 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

Not many Tories on Sheffield Council 

12 years of them in central government cutting LA funding though eh. 

[hackey lad 3,938]

2 minutes ago, Bargepole23 said:

12 years of them in central government cutting LA funding though eh. 

Do the Council have no one capable of planning some cabins correctly ?

[Bargepole23 337]

Just now, RollingJ said:

There is a very good reason why those industries (and others) work to strict procedures - they are safety critical to a  high degree - council planning doesn't come anywhere near.

Not suggesting otherwise. Merely refuting the point made that by following procedures suggests lack of qualification or interest.

[Bargepole23 337]

1 minute ago, hackey lad said:

Do the Council have no one capable of planning some cabins correctly ?

They have someone capable of doing all the checks required to site a temporary structure. If those checks are not adequate then we should review the procedures.

 

That's what I would expect to happen in a professional environment. That's what would happen in the types of organisation I work in.

 

What would have happened in the professional workplaces you have been employed in?

Just now, LovePotion said:

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

Do they have sufficient funding to have enough people to cover the workload adequately?

 

You don't think 12 years of Tory budget cuts will have impacted that?

[hackey lad 3,938]

3 minutes ago, Bargepole23 said:

They have someone capable of doing all the checks required to site a temporary structure. If those checks are not adequate then we should review the procedures.

 

That's what I would expect to happen in a professional environment. That's what would happen in the types of organisation I work in.

 

What would have happened in the professional workplaces you have been employed in?

Do they have sufficient funding to have enough people to cover the workload adequately?

 

You don't think 12 years of Tory budget cuts will have impacted that?

So first its the Tories fault , then its a problem with procedures . What next , the weather ? 

[Bargepole23 337]

Just now, hackey lad said:

So first its the Tories fault , then its a problem with procedures . What next , the weather ? 

I'm sure even you can understand that cash strapped council departments will be stretched. And those self same departments don't have all the time in the world to think about what might be nice to do, rather they will do what they have to do and move onto the next thing.

 

Maybe that's what's happened here, who knows.

 

No different to what is happening in social services, caused by budget cuts, overworked staff not having time to do the job they want to do.

 

What did you expect when you voted for a Tory government that has overseen huge reductions in LA funding? An entirely foreseeable outcome that you voted for.

[Mr Bloke 1,445]

4 minutes ago, Bargepole23 said:

I'm sure even you can understand that cash strapped council departments will be stretched. And those self same departments don't have all the time in the world to think about what might be nice to do, rather they will do what they have to do and move onto the next thing.

 

Maybe that's what's happened here, who knows.

 

No different to what is happening in social services, caused by budget cuts, overworked staff not having time to do the job they want to do.

 

What did you expect when you voted for a Tory government that has overseen huge reductions in LA funding? An entirely foreseeable outcome that you voted for.

Hmmm...

Well clearly, you believe that you are the only person who does!

[Bargepole23 337]

8 hours ago, Mr Bloke said:

Hmmm...

Well clearly, you believe that you are the only person who does!

Nope. Just not sniping at people who are doing their jobs as they are supposed to, likely time and resource limited, and not having the benefit of hindsight to tell them to consult YW when there was no requirement for them to do so in the first place.

 

But if it makes you feel better to do so, you carry on, I'll look forward to having a drink there when it's opened. 

[Bargepole23 337]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1555436778563272704

[RollingJ 1,993]

42 minutes ago, Bargepole23 said:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1555436778563272704

Ruddy 'ell that's quick. I'll have a look early next week.

[Planner1 428]

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