pauld
Reserve Team
Posts: 244
|
Post by pauld on Mar 7, 2024 15:20:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Keithsson on Mar 7, 2024 16:38:59 GMT
I assume the 'Elmo 392' was the old capacity?... ie pre-tarmac last season.
I'd understood we were only allocated 100 for the new capacity figure once we flattened it.
|
|
|
Post by dutchboy74 on Mar 7, 2024 20:01:42 GMT
You have to admit it all looks very good. If and when it is all build I feel the shed end looks a bit out of place. Unless there are already plans for that??
|
|
pauld
Reserve Team
Posts: 244
|
Post by pauld on Mar 25, 2024 14:47:01 GMT
The Club are not actually building what we have planning permission for. So let's hope the Council like the end result. Also, will it comply with the Green Guide to safety in sports grounds? The stand was OK for the Council planning inspectors, but where is the crush barrier? I could have done with that to lean on yesterday.
|
|
pauld
Reserve Team
Posts: 244
|
Post by pauld on Mar 28, 2024 15:06:35 GMT
The Club are not actually building what we have planning permission for. So let's hope the Council like the end result. Also, will it comply with the Green Guide to safety in sports grounds? The stand was OK for the Council planning inspectors, but where is the crush barrier? I could have done with that to lean on yesterday. The club has applied to vary the planning permission, as the design showed the roof sloping down to the front but it has been built sloping down to the back. Also, it is 50 metres long whereas it was approved as 70 metres.
|
|
|
Post by northstander on Mar 30, 2024 7:26:55 GMT
The Club are not actually building what we have planning permission for. So let's hope the Council like the end result. Also, will it comply with the Green Guide to safety in sports grounds? The stand was OK for the Council planning inspectors, but where is the crush barrier? I could have done with that to lean on yesterday. The lack of a crush barrier should be a red safety warning for the Club. It is a requirement of the Green Guide and it's omission will impact on the safe capacity of the stand and the whole ground. Let's hope that a barrier can be retro fitted without reducing the capacity even further. The tarmac area had a capacity of 392. The new West stand will have reduced this because of its size, shape and lack of a crush barrier. The North stand development, if approved might achieve a theoretical capacity of 4000. However, the safe capacity of the ground would be much less than this because of the lack of sufficient turnstiles and exits. The Club would need to provide at least two extra turnstiles and two extra exits somewhere other than the East end. Only then might we achieve the 4000 capacity, and only if the ground could be evacuated in eight minutes.
|
|
|
Post by rambler on Apr 1, 2024 9:21:42 GMT
Exactly why our ambition should be limited to being a high scoring, carefree National South side (until we have a plot of land and a chest of gold that allows us to match National League attendances).
|
|
|
Post by supertom1 on Apr 8, 2024 13:35:50 GMT
The stand was OK for the Council planning inspectors, but where is the crush barrier? I could have done with that to lean on yesterday. The lack of a crush barrier should be a red safety warning for the Club. It is a requirement of the Green Guide and it's omission will impact on the safe capacity of the stand and the whole ground. Let's hope that a barrier can be retro fitted without reducing the capacity even further. The tarmac area had a capacity of 392. The new West stand will have reduced this because of its size, shape and lack of a crush barrier. The North stand development, if approved might achieve a theoretical capacity of 4000. However, the safe capacity of the ground would be much less than this because of the lack of sufficient turnstiles and exits. The Club would need to provide at least two extra turnstiles and two extra exits somewhere other than the East end. Only then might we achieve the 4000 capacity, and only if the ground could be evacuated in eight minutes. it would require doing a deal with the bowls club but I wonder if there's a chance of having a turnstile in what is essentially the south west corner with fans walking through the bowls club from Pavilion Road and the entrance being just to the west of the south stand?
|
|
pauld
Reserve Team
Posts: 244
|
Post by pauld on Apr 8, 2024 13:51:35 GMT
The lack of a crush barrier should be a red safety warning for the Club. It is a requirement of the Green Guide and it's omission will impact on the safe capacity of the stand and the whole ground. Let's hope that a barrier can be retro fitted without reducing the capacity even further. The tarmac area had a capacity of 392. The new West stand will have reduced this because of its size, shape and lack of a crush barrier. The North stand development, if approved might achieve a theoretical capacity of 4000. However, the safe capacity of the ground would be much less than this because of the lack of sufficient turnstiles and exits. The Club would need to provide at least two extra turnstiles and two extra exits somewhere other than the East end. Only then might we achieve the 4000 capacity, and only if the ground could be evacuated in eight minutes. it would require doing a deal with the bowls club but I wonder if there's a chance of having a turnstile in what is essentially the south west corner with fans walking through the bowls club from Pavilion Road and the entrance being just to the west of the south stand? The club do currently have the use of some parking spaces at the bowls club, for officials only, and they access the ground through a gate in the fence just to the west of the main stand. I think it might take some persuasion to convince the bowls club that fans wouldn't trample all over their greens... There was an entrance in the north-west corner, similar to the recently opened "away" entrance in the NE, and the gate can still be seen in Bulkington Avenue, but at some point the neighbouring gardens have taken over the access route to the ground and I think we would struggle to get it back after all this time.
|
|
|
Post by newtoworthing on Apr 8, 2024 14:23:51 GMT
Being relatively new, what is the position with the bowls club, do they own the freehold? It seems to me that the best way to develop the ground and capacity would be to buy the bowls club and build them a new facility elsewhere. Is that totally out of the question?
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Apr 8, 2024 14:27:18 GMT
it would require doing a deal with the bowls club but I wonder if there's a chance of having a turnstile in what is essentially the south west corner with fans walking through the bowls club from Pavilion Road and the entrance being just to the west of the south stand? The club do currently have the use of some parking spaces at the bowls club, for officials only, and they access the ground through a gate in the fence just to the west of the main stand. I think it might take some persuasion to convince the bowls club that fans wouldn't trample all over their greens... There was an entrance in the north-west corner, similar to the recently opened "away" entrance in the NE, and the gate can still be seen in Bulkington Avenue, but at some point the neighbouring gardens have taken over the access route to the ground and I think we would struggle to get it back after all this time. There is also a football path on St Elmo's that leads to the north west corner of the ground, this may be an option in the future?
|
|
|
Post by supertom1 on Apr 8, 2024 15:20:06 GMT
it would require doing a deal with the bowls club but I wonder if there's a chance of having a turnstile in what is essentially the south west corner with fans walking through the bowls club from Pavilion Road and the entrance being just to the west of the south stand? The club do currently have the use of some parking spaces at the bowls club, for officials only, and they access the ground through a gate in the fence just to the west of the main stand. I think it might take some persuasion to convince the bowls club that fans wouldn't trample all over their greens... There was an entrance in the north-west corner, similar to the recently opened "away" entrance in the NE, and the gate can still be seen in Bulkington Avenue, but at some point the neighbouring gardens have taken over the access route to the ground and I think we would struggle to get it back after all this time. yes would definitely need some convincing. Could fence off the actual greens so that people could only walk along the walkways. Alongside opening up the existing pathways on the west and north ends this could give turnstiles on all sides with the north east one being reserved for away fans (probably more relevant IF we go up)
|
|
|
Post by saintsfan2009 on Apr 23, 2024 11:03:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Kenty in Weardale on Apr 23, 2024 11:59:46 GMT
So presumably while the work is being done our capacity would drop to around 2,700 or so?
|
|
|
Post by Keithsson on Apr 23, 2024 12:22:30 GMT
With Jacco's suggestion the other day about it being built regardless of promotion or not... could it maybe even be done pre-season? 😯
Unlikely I know with the time required for tendering but who knows, maybe that was being done simultaneously.
Either way this is fantastic news, I half expected some sort of NIMBY residents group would form in objection to it.
|
|