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.
