Sheffield Container Park: Star readers voice anger at plans to scrap 'waste of time' city centre project

Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now
Sheffield City Council’s decision to scrap its ill-fated Container Park has been met with anger, frustration and accusations of incompetence.

After months of turmoil, delays and overspending on the scheme, the local authority announced on Friday it will dismantle the box park from January 30. It was envisioned as a means to boost footfall in the city, but has ended as a stain on the council’s record with a final bill of £600,000 – double the original £300,000 estimate.

Other failures included how a set of missing power cables led to it being run on a £20,000-a-month diesel generator. An upstairs bar was shelved over red tape, and a dispute with Yorkshire Water over its positioning ended with it being moved 6ft south – at a cost of £70,000.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Following the announcement on Friday, The Star asked readers if they felt the money had been well spent.

These images were taken on August 5 when the first stages of the Container Park were lowered into place. Now, less than five months later, Sheffield City Council are planning to pull it all down again.These images were taken on August 5 when the first stages of the Container Park were lowered into place. Now, less than five months later, Sheffield City Council are planning to pull it all down again.
These images were taken on August 5 when the first stages of the Container Park were lowered into place. Now, less than five months later, Sheffield City Council are planning to pull it all down again.

"Is that a serious question?” wrote reader John Leedham. “Another own goal by Sheffield City Council where it appears no one is accountable for any actions they take. An absolute disgrace.”

In a statement on Friday, Ajman Ali, executive director of operational services, said they were “disappointed it has not gone as we had hoped” but the council had “learned several lessons from this project”.

It comes as talks also continue to stall over the proposed development of a ‘Gravity Park’ at the derelict Ski Village.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Reader Dean Lowe wrote: “Should never have been installed. Absolute eyesore, and while this council were pushing for this they have most likely lost the contract on the redevelopment of the old ski village site [...]. Just stick to closing roads, causing more pollution and putting planters down. Aren’t we as the public blessed with this shower.”

“Do Sheffield people get an apology from the council for wasting their money?” wrote Janet Shepherd.

"Unbelievable incompetence by the council,” wrote reader John Paul Taylor. “If this was private industry everyone of those involved would have been fired but because it’s council tax payers money no one is held accountable. Ridiculous.”

"Put your hand up if you saw this coming,” commented Hayley Ross."

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

"Container parks are a fantastic and successful idea,” wrote one more constructive reader, Mat Smith. “They offer the opportunity for small up and coming businesses to have premises that are cheap, accessible with short term rental contracts.

“The good examples in London (Wembley, Croydon and York) show that people can aspire to own their own businesses.

“Sheffield’s box park is too small and in the wrong place. The size of this needs to be three-four times bigger, covered from the elements and placed in an area that requires quick redevelopment.”

And Robert Cook wrote: “Yes [it was a good use of money] in the most part. The council had a go at improving an area of the city that could do with it and although it had many numerous and obvious flaws they did deliver something for a limited time.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“It will be wasted money though if they lose their nerve and don’t try again with this or a similar concept and apply all the lessons they learned. The flaws can and should be fixed but the council shouldn’t stop trying schemes like this to improve the city.”

Comment Guidelines

National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.