Essex Outfielder : The Unofficial Essex CCC Forum
Cricket => Official Q&A => Topic started by: brazilianglen on January 29, 2015, 12:34:51 PM
-
I attended last nights 'consultation'. 2 sessions lasting an hour each with a combined total of just under 50 'ordinary' members attending. I was on the second session having applied in mid November.
Derek Bowden and four long term and well known Committee members were in attendance. The meeting was informal and cordial throughout. It was an interesting hour of my time without learning anything concrete.I expected to be given a presentation but found myself part of a consultation group! The new ground will basically look the same as the model on the Pavilion table I got shown by David East all those years ago EXCEPT certain areas will be tweaked and scaled down, not least the new pavilion which will be three floors rather than five (although it can always be extended to five in the years ahead). The original plans envisaged Essex CCC borrowing £4m - this will not be happening and many will see that as a sensible decision (especially seeing the debt some counties have built up).
The consultation was basically to ask a random selection of members what they wanted from the new Pavilion/Ground. Essex CCC would then submit a summary of their needs to the developer who would then come back with various plans etc etc. The members present last night were not short of ideas, questions or concerns and in my view, did their best to represent the wider membership on a number of common topics. Nothing (surprisingly) was mentioned about the future of Colchester or playing at the Olympic Stadium - perhaps this was always 'blue sky thinking' ?
Before posting this, I re read the postings on the old Ground Development topic and two particular postings are still very relevant - No 34 (squarelegumpire) and No 39 (mog)
Meanwhile, it was confirmed there would be a few minor improvements for spectators/members in the coming season.
There was a piece on BBC East last night about Chelmsford being the second busiest commuter station outside London (8,000 per day and growing). I saw this for myself as I travelled from Chelmsford eastwards at 8am yesterday morning. There are at least six current developments within walking distance of the station and at the moment, there seems no end to this boom. So in terms of the developer finding it attractive to move ahead to the next stage, (ie getting sufficient interest at the right price to make building blocks b) and c) attractive), this appears to me to be the perfect time. We shall see.
I hope this helps
-
Many thanks brazilianglen.
As you expected I at least think that borrowing money is not a good idea, and I'm glad the Committee have set their face against it.
I hope that in the new Pavilion the players changing rooms will be significantly better than they are now.
Not too surprised there was nothing about Colchester or the Olympic stadium; it was after all about the new Chelmsford ground.
You make a good point about the way Chelmsford is expanding, and if the plans for improving the rail line go ahead that will continue. Liverpool Street is after all in the heart of the City; much closer than any other main line terminal, and the developments around Stratford will need more workers than can live around there!
Thanks again!
-
I trust that the wider membership will also be consulted?
The 'luck few' that managed to book in are not a statistically reliable sample as it will be biased towards a certain demographic.
Quite a few of us could not get there but have a valid opinion ...
-
My opinion is the club shouldn't go into debt over this and must continue to play festival cricket.
-
I attended last nights 'consultation'. 2 sessions lasting an hour each with a combined total of just under 50 'ordinary' members attending. I was on the second session having applied in mid November.
Derek Bowden and four long term and well known Committee members were in attendance. The meeting was informal and cordial throughout. It was an interesting hour of my time without learning anything concrete.I expected to be given a presentation but found myself part of a consultation group! The new ground will basically look the same as the model on the Pavilion table I got shown by David East all those years ago EXCEPT certain areas will be tweaked and scaled down, not least the new pavilion which will be three floors rather than five (although it can always be extended to five in the years ahead). The original plans envisaged Essex CCC borrowing £4m - this will not be happening and many will see that as a sensible decision (especially seeing the debt some counties have built up).
The consultation was basically to ask a random selection of members what they wanted from the new Pavilion/Ground. Essex CCC would then submit a summary of their needs to the developer who would then come back with various plans etc etc. The members present last night were not short of ideas, questions or concerns and in my view, did their best to represent the wider membership on a number of common topics. Nothing (surprisingly) was mentioned about the future of Colchester or playing at the Olympic Stadium - perhaps this was always 'blue sky thinking' ?
Before posting this, I re read the postings on the old Ground Development topic and two particular postings are still very relevant - No 34 (squarelegumpire) and No 39 (mog)
Meanwhile, it was confirmed there would be a few minor improvements for spectators/members in the coming season.
There was a piece on BBC East last night about Chelmsford being the second busiest commuter station outside London (8,000 per day and growing). I saw this for myself as I travelled from Chelmsford eastwards at 8am yesterday morning. There are at least six current developments within walking distance of the station and at the moment, there seems no end to this boom. So in terms of the developer finding it attractive to move ahead to the next stage, (ie getting sufficient interest at the right price to make building blocks b) and c) attractive), this appears to me to be the perfect time. We shall see.
I hope this helps
Thanks for your report, brazilianglen.
The Club are belatedly making some sort of 'effort' to engage, but the miniscule scale of this consultation session(s) is woefully inadequate in simple reach and inclusivity. Fifty members is 2% of a base of 2,500 full members. It is unrepresentative, and as I overtly stated back in the previous thread surrounding the "redevelopment", appears to have offered no detailed insight whatsoever, let alone asking for a collaborative consultation. For example, you mention that the representatives of the membership invited are asked to contact the developer directly? From my experience, even with those constituent's best intentions- I'd be surprised if 50% of those present have either the time...or inclination to do so. The developer will then (probably) pay lip service to those wish-lists and produce a joint statement with the Club to say they were out of scope or would add an unaffordable burden to the budget. Alternatively, they'll just be consigned to nearest waste paper bin. Can I ask, was suggesting what you would like to see the new pavilion feature constricted from a set of 'suggestions' pre=provided - and selected?
I hate to say I told you so, but this was a public relations exercise and actually quite a cynical one, if I'm reading between the lines accurately, based on your report.
Additionally, why is there nothing post-consultation meeting on the website? Why, have we yet to see a three-dimensional artists impression/architects drawing of the pavilion design? Was any of the aforementioned available for free access at the meeting?
I have to refer back to the fundamental question here - what have ECCC got to hide?
The fact is the design is already decided upon, a couple of tiers of the original structure featured in DE's vanity planning nearly ten years ago, will be lopped off the model, but otherwise the design will be exactly the same. That is totally lacking in innovation and imagination - (well known as models of operation by ECCC for years), there have been extensive advances in construction and materials, spectator comfort in the design of sporting stadia..and pavilions in the interim. My question is why has the easiest and laziest option been taken?
The whole model should in my opinion, be measured against probing criteria, including cost, current and future requirements. Members involved in a fresh sheet of paper approach and rolled out to significantly more members, in fact the whole voting membership should be engaged with!
Actually, reading this sadly an all too predictable outcome, I'd be prepared to offer the Club my services gratis, to get some creative juices flowing.
-
Taking up comments by Mog
I have just played again the interview with Derek Bowden by Essex TV on 15 December 2014 - the second half relates to ground redevelopment. Mr Bowden more or less repeated this on Weds eve with perhaps one or two subtle variations? It is very difficult to tell and I might easily have misunderstood. The last thing I want to do is misquote Mr Bowden. However, it is clear that the club has difficult and delicate discussions ahead with the Developer.
There were no pre selected suggestions and the sessions started off with a blank sheet. What the audience came up as suggestions were very basic ones - common to most members I would have thought. I felt it advantageous that I had seen/recalled the original model whereas some attendees had not ie having some rough idea in my head what certain areas of the new ground eg the 'river end', rear of pavilion etc might look like on completion.
You state ''For example, you mention that the representatives of the membership invited are asked to contact the developer directly? '' Where did I say that?
I think it was confirmed that new models/drawings will be forthcoming once the developer produces plans based on the Club's revised wish. Perhaps the club feels that until that point, it cannot make definitive statements or undertake a wider consultation?
I agree that feedback to members in recent years on this redevelopment has been woeful. Of course the club should be making use of those members able/willing to offer specialist skills/expertise
-
Taking up comments by Mog
You state ''For example, you mention that the representatives of the membership invited are asked to contact the developer directly? '' Where did I say that?
I think it was confirmed that new models/drawings will be forthcoming once the developer produces plans based on the Club's revised wish. Perhaps the club feels that until that point, it cannot make definitive statements or undertake a wider consultation?
I agree that feedback to members in recent years on this redevelopment has been woeful. Of course the club should be making use of those members able/willing to offer specialist skills/expertise
Apologies, I have revisited that passage and appreciate you prefixed your sentence with; "ECCC would then submit a summary....."
Meanwhile, the circulation of plans/drawings/images are commonplace with all development proposals - except this one apparently. The design, as you've reported, will be basically the same and occupy the original footprint. It has never, to my knowledge been publicised to date, despite a gestation period of around eight years. I continue to be intrigued as to why this is? If you seek to engage and produce tangible visualisations to stakeholders (that's what members are....or certainly should be!) you achieve this, by and large. Yet all we've had to date are the drawings/ floor plans of apartments. The least important part of the development to the mere member, with one dimensional floor plans of the pavilion, containing vague detail. Quite frankly, unless you're actually a purchaser of an apartment - you could care less. I would suggest the overwhelming majority of members are rather more interested in what the actual design of the partially redeveloped ECG (the portion in which to spectate the cricket) will appear.
Your report more than hints at the avoidance of debt, as DB stated in his interview, late last year. This appears to point towards a requirement and necessity to deliver a more basic pavilion. Fair enough. That is the ideal platform to start from scratch and design a structure that really does meet the requirements of the paying members, spectators and other stakeholders, alike. Good design does not necessarily cost more - fact. It seems that by merely tinkering with the 2008 vintage - money is no object - we know best design but keeping the basic design concept - a huge opportunity is being wasted.
One of many glaring flaws with the whole episode has been a concentration of planning to cram as many seats into the pavilion as possible to 'justify' the development - i.e. a higher capacity must be better? Really? Those constraints are being exacerbated by the opaque and still secret intentions to the potential redevelopment of existing main seating capacity - sited at the River End, with more apartments, which as I'm sure you'll recognise reduces the seating capacity at the end, whilst additionally shrinking the area of the outfield.
I really appreciate your report and neutrality in portrayal of the main points, brazilanglen, as I'm certain does everyone else who frequents this site - who, whatever our opinions, care enough to be consulted.
-
Perhaps we should sell up and move? Should've done more with buying the old hospital in the 1990s. Now we've a ground not fit for category 2 let alone category 1. Peter Edwards et al really missed the boat.
Anyway the club will become a semi-pro 2nd class team in the not too distant future if the 'big boys' get their way. Better hope the big boys go bust and sanity restored to a game that stupidly think franchises and copying the EPL is the future...
-
The 'controversial' River End Apartments (Block D) were mentioned the other evening and if I heard correctly, would be the final stage of the whole development.
If any Essex CCC official reads this, could they confirm whether or not the playing area will be reduced from its current size?
-
Maybe we should sell up and move. Southend Council said they'd develop Garon Park for us this deal fell through - not that many would welcome a move there apart frpm my son who loves the place....
-
I am in the position to be able to afford one of the apartments as an investment. I will not be investing and neither will anyone else. The type of investors that they are looking at do not go east of Canary Wharf.
With the old peoples apartments at one end and 14 story blocks of flats at the other, how is the grass going to grow. The head groundsman has already said that the shadow from the old peoples apartments is making pitch and ground preparation a lot more difficult.
-
The 'controversial' River End Apartments (Block D) were mentioned the other evening and if I heard correctly, would be the final stage of the whole development.
If any Essex CCC official reads this, could they confirm whether or not the playing area will be reduced from its current size?
It was stated some time ago that the playing area would be reduced ... 'slightly' they say. It is already too small so the flats had better have re-enforced glass windows. Block D should not go ahead.
-
I doubt it will.
The whole project is a monumental balls up which will deliver an even worse spectating experience.
-
Yes I remember that the playing area will be reduced. It's too small already
-
Perhaps we should sell up and move? Should've done more with buying the old hospital in the 1990s. Now we've a ground not fit for category 2 let alone category 1. Peter Edwards et al really missed the boat.
Anyway the club will become a semi-pro 2nd class team in the not too distant future if the 'big boys' get their way. Better hope the big boys go bust and sanity restored to a game that stupidly think franchises and copying the EPL is the future...
The Club were in negotiations to buy the ex-Chelmsford City football ground around 15 years ago, to turn into nets/colts ground, but...got stung by a con-man to whom they foolishly gave £100k...never to be seen again!
You're spot-on about purchasing the old hospital site. If ECCC had been a little more adventurous they would have had a sizable area to expand spectator accommodation whilst creating circulation space, wider than a persons width that they have now over on the public seating side. In turn having freed-up space to have redeveloped the pavilion side, without having the project dictated by the whims and fads of buy-to-let, apartment block developers, not to mention lasting legacies of a vain CEO!
As for relocating, I would be confident the Club primarily received planning permission for the ongoing fiasco because they committed to stay in their present site.
Quite apart from that, can you imagine the utilitarian, Durham Riverside-esque - Rose Bowl-lite cricket ground that ECCC would have ended up in - tied in forever to a soulless, windswept mini bowl........
-
Not sure if I'm correct but doesn't the Ground/Outfield have to be a minimum size like with football pitches?
Essex's problem is that they cannot really expand in 3 out of 4 directions (only backwards from the current Pavilion & by going back we will lose the Car Park & GG Cricket School). Garon Park could be developed & is certainly a fair size but transport links are poor, the railway is 20/30 minutes away & the Ground itself suffers from cold winds etc, the wicket too isn't great.
Chelmsford is an ideal location as it is slap bang in Mid Essex but if we stay where we are then the capacity won't really increase that much.
-
What is the current capacity and what will it be once this work is complete?
-
well there are several single storey stands which could be multi storey, there are hospitallity tents which could be stands (which could incorperate hospitallity whether we have enough money for that i dont know?
-
I believe the current capacity is 6,500 seats, not sure if & how many people are allowed to stand in addition (only for T20 I think), the 'new' Ground was going to be 8,500 so an additional 2,000 seats are to be added presumably mainly in the new Pavilion & surrounding area. A great pity we seem committed to spending a few million for a modest increase & this will take a considerable time for Essex to recover the costs in Match receipts etc, it will also lead to increased traffic on match days in an already congested area (rush hour driving into Chelmsford now is very slow especially on Fridays for T20 night matches.
-
Thanks IlfordEagle, that was my thinking but i wasn't sure. I do struggle to get my head around why all this work just for an increase of 2K.
-
So, when are the rest of us who couldn't get a ticket going to be consulted?
As someone that has supported the club since the late 1960s I think I deserve a say.
-
The only "stakeholders" the club are interested in are the 20/20 boozehounds.
-
Thanks IlfordEagle, that was my thinking but i wasn't sure. I do struggle to get my head around why all this work just for an increase of 2K.
You fail to understand the main reason for the re-development. The main reason is to increase and improve the facilities for corporate customers.
The second reason is to provide better facilities for players.
Any improvements for 'normal' spectators come a distant third in the list of priorities.
-
I believe the current capacity is 6,500 seats, not sure if & how many people are allowed to stand in addition (only for T20 I think), the 'new' Ground was going to be 8,500 so an additional 2,000 seats are to be added presumably mainly in the new Pavilion & surrounding area. A great pity we seem committed to spending a few million for a modest increase & this will take a considerable time for Essex to recover the costs in Match receipts etc, it will also lead to increased traffic on match days in an already congested area (rush hour driving into Chelmsford now is very slow especially on Fridays for T20 night matches.
An increase in capacity in any sporting arena, has to meet strict criteria both in terms of licensing authorities, as well as the ability of the surrounding transport/road infrastructure to cope with the resultant increase in footfall.
So, for example, I'm sure ECCC would have rather liked an increase to 10,000. The problem is the aforementioned infrastructure would reach gridlock quickly and consistenly. Circulation space is a key consideration too. I would suggest that a 6k attendance at the ECG feels uncomfortably constricted, with inadequate toilet and catering, not to mention shelter from bad weather. The more people you throw into the mix, on basically the same footprint would only exacerbate such issues.
Now, add in a high density series of apartment blocks - 350 I understand? Each dwelling occupier has an average of 1.25 cars = (437 vehicles). I've personally seen no explanation, apart from the vague promise of a multi-storey car park, of where exactly these cars are going to go? Add into the transport issues, of how the narrow New Writtle Street will cope with cricket attendees, as well as allowing apartment occupiers, free and unrestricted access/egress to their homes? Do you think they may be a little upset if they are late for their trip to the supermarket because they are unable to leave site
Stop and consider that the ECG is served by this sole vehicle access route - then stop and think how any of the emergency services will have the capability to respond to any emergency during a Friday night at the ground.
-
Is there still going to be a foot bridge from central park?
-
Sadly New Writtle Street is not really fit for purpose.
-
Is there still going to be a foot bridge from central park?
bet that will get knocked on the head now the money has dried up.
-
The only "stakeholders" the club are interested in are the 20/20 boozehounds.
which is a shame as the best T20 game in the last few years, for atmosphere et al, was the Sussex game which was played on a Sunday afternoon.
-
Is there still going to be a foot bridge from central park?
Yes.
Connection to the City Centre was one of the main points of the scheme.
-
Is there still going to be a foot bridge from central park?
Yes.
Connection to the City Centre was one of the main points of the scheme.
can I ask what information you have to be certain of that quincy ?
-
The only "stakeholders" the club are interested in are the 20/20 boozehounds.
which is a shame as the best T20 game in the last few years, for atmosphere et al, was the Sussex game which was played on a Sunday afternoon.
Absolutely spot on, great weather,great game, a capacity crowd very much family orientated & a really friendly & relaxed atmosphere, what a pity we haven't had a Sunday T20 since then!!
-
Yes footbridge across the river definite - important part of the plans not only to link two parts of the town but also provide access to the ground and to the year round retail outlets
Mr Bowden couldn't give precise figure on the ground capacity except that it would be more than it is now
-
Yes footbridge across the river definite - important part of the plans not only to link two parts of the town but also provide access to the ground and to the year round retail outlets
Mr Bowden couldn't give precise figure on the ground capacity except that it would be more than it is now
What insight from DB! He's a real inspiration, isn't he!?
In summation, after circa eight years, he can categorically state the capacity of the proposed ground redevelopment will greater than at present.
::)
-
Be fair he's got important stuff to worry about.
Like booking a holiday during the cricket season.
-
Yes footbridge across the river definite - important part of the plans not only to link two parts of the town but also provide access to the ground and to the year round retail outlets
Mr Bowden couldn't give precise figure on the ground capacity except that it would be more than it is now
What insight from DB! He's a real inspiration, isn't he!?
In summation, after circa eight years, he can categorically state the capacity of the proposed ground redevelopment will greater than at present.
::)
Read my lips ... ground...capacity...is ... not ...a ... significant... factor...in...this...project.
Now repeat 10 times.
-
Is there still going to be a foot bridge from central park?
Yes.
Connection to the City Centre was one of the main points of the scheme.
can I ask what information you have to be certain of that quincy ?
Cos otherwise yer cant access the ground from City Centre on foot. The underpass is to be an emergency exit from river end flats.
All this was in the original plan and hasn't been altered AFAIK.
-
The original plan is so old I'm surprised it's not on parchment.
-
The original plan is so old I'm surprised it's not on parchment.
Not that old, although Goochie did have (has own) hair at the time ;)