wearethesouthstand
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Feb 2008
- Messages
- 1,894
April 2024 that’s nothing to do with high ground it’s spelling out facts just so people understand what has happened and can keep their expectations around what’s possible with the club in checkOut of interest, had you been 'invited' before the plans had been approved by the council, what changes to the design would you have asked to see?
It is moot, but I am interested all the same.
Moot, because there was in fact a fairly extensive consultation process carried out before submitting the application, never mind having it being approved, lt was open to anyone and everyone including fans, fan reps, etc.
Forgive me for going over old ground on this one, but as the thread has been split now and you may not have been part of the discussion circa a year ago, I'll briefly summarise.
The first round was between December 22 and january 23 on basic ideas and feasibility studies. The second round in march 23 on concept proposals. There were three public events, 9th, 13th, 15th of march. And a drop-in exhibition available at the stadium all month. There was a live website the whole time where people could give feedback. And forms and where they could be sent to.
There is a 112 page report, on all the different ways it was advertised, who it reached, how feedback was gathered, all the parties that contributed including the wider community, and what that feedback was. By fans, anongst that. Specific quotes, and points included too.
Yes, it is a tickbox excersise. Not going to argue that. But it is a legislative requirement as well, and as such it has to he comprehensive, and transparent. And generally speaking, truthful, as the consultants producing these have to be professional and have their own reputation to uphold.
So to say you were only consulted 9 months after it was approved, as some type of high ground that the club aren't engaging, is a bit off. Individually, maybe, but as part of a wider fan base, that engagement was there, it wasn't a secret. It can't be, by law (planning law, but still law), for this class of development. Claiming otherwise is a distraction and shifts perception somewhat in the club's favour.
All this, on the design of the stand itself, not the pricing structure etc, which I do agree needs more clarity, although when that will come is up for grabs.
The public events were for local residents many of whom had worries about parking at the co op arena.
Whatever was raised at those meetings the plans still went in and were approved immediately
Maybe OSC or CM had some prior discussions? Who knows. Like we say we had one guy there CM 12.
CM would the club’s first point of call to open out discussions and first meeting on it was without 1894.
They are the main fan advisory board remember our main job is to do displays