North Stand Construction Discussion

Sid Snott said:
It's all here if anyone wants to trawl through
Click to expand...
It's not I'm afraid as the planning portal times out (presumably to stop spam attacks).

Enter the planning ref 136763/FO/2023 on the search page:-

Simple Search

pa.manchester.gov.uk pa.manchester.gov.uk

137999/FO/2023 is the application to relocate the 2 big screens.

136949/FO/2023 is the application to alter the concourse whilst work is ongoing I think.

136764/AOH/2023 is regarding the huge 3 screens on the outside of the extension and hotel.
 
supercity88 said:
I'm comfortable with them being appointed. Must have been a reason we didn't appoint Laing again considering they were in discussions and did the South Stand and our owners know the construction game pretty well.
Click to expand...
Didn't Laings keep raising the price?
 
Jacko1956 said:
This is just ground preparation work.from a separate planning application. The main construction work is scheduled to begin in November ! Unless a contractor had been annouched the main work is still out for tender although it seems Sisk are almost certain to get the job .
Click to expand...
Only Sisk are pricing.
 
Coatigan said:
I keep saying this, it all depends on what people consider as 'starting', and what 'main' means to them.

Both are technically right, there would have been works in October and November. And there have been works since June. There is no clear black and whit start, it overlaps. For example week 33 of the original programme (may have shifted, but as an example) there will be drainage works, roof removals, roof installation, and concourse installation all overlapping. Impossible to call anything in clear line terms. Other than the ultimate start and finish.
Click to expand...
You are right that ultimately there is a start and finish, but Sisk will have two contracts with two different sets of dates, the first impacts the second insofar as the majority of the works included in the first contract must be completed to allow the second to start. If those works overrun Sisk wont start on time and will in all likelihood look for a revised completion date as part of their second contract. Whereas City will push for a resequencing of the programme to complete certain aspects of the build first to allow occupation, and then complete other areas after say the stand is occupied. I expect there will be many sectional handovers not just the 4 specific elements.
 
bluesmith said:
You are right that ultimately there is a start and finish, but Sisk will have two contracts with two different sets of dates, the first impacts the second insofar as the majority of the works included in the first contract must be completed to allow the second to start. If those works overrun Sisk wont start on time and will in all likelihood look for a revised completion date as part of their second contract. Whereas City will push for a resequencing of the programme to complete certain aspects of the build first to allow occupation, and then complete other areas after say the stand is occupied. I expect there will be many sectional handovers not just the 4 specific elements.
Click to expand...

Yep, more or less what I was trying to say. That everything between when it started and when it finishes is more fluid than the terms used on here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.