Safety Advisory Group (SAG) Minutes from meetings

It has been over seven months since I requested these minutes from BMBC.

As BMBC were basically messing me about I had to complain to local Councillors and the Information Commissioners Office (ICO), which seems to have done the trick as I was finally sent them this morning.

They have been redacted to remove individuals names, I would have expected the redacted name to have been replaced with the organisation the person represented to make them easier to follow.

My intention was to try and find out once and for all who made the decisions regarding access to the ground and the decision to close Beevor Court.

I am currently reading through them and picking out the information relating to this. In the meantime here they are from the last five years.

 

And the final one.

 

"Ground alterations, installations, and development work
xx advises that there are discussions around extending the concourse in the
corner of the south/west stand.
xx has received the details of this and has provided comment."

Interesting

 

"Risk of collision between pedestrian and vehicles, xx raises concerns around
crowds of fans mixing with hospitality traffic around the south stand. Further
strengthens the need for discussion around a separate traffic management plan,
including a separate car park plan and fan zone plan. xx that BFC will go away and review car park and vehicle issues and feedback to the SAG. Discussion around
the increase in traffic near the ground, linked to the closure of Beevor Court"

So it was BFC who reviewed the car park arrangements. Interesting

Also

"xx raises the FOI has been received for SAG minutes. These will need to be
redacted and consultation had with SAG partners. Propose to move to redact the
minutes after each meeting once agreed. xx advises that his notes would not
need redacting."

I wonder who the coward is and what they have to hide.

 

Probably not as grand as it sounds.

In the meeting from the one before you posted it says the following.

“xx advised that some early thoughts are been given to the SW corner, by moving fence back to create more room on the concourse.
xx advised a formal proposal would be made once the considerations are worked through.”

 

And that was only raised nearly five months after I had requested them!

 

I've never been more disappointed

 

What is clear to me is that the club have been fully involved in all discussions and have agreed to them.

There is reference to the 'wooded area' which I assume means where the gap in the fence used to be and also reference to the path which leads toward Monk Bretton and looking into blocking that off too.

Do they actually want us there at all?!!!

 

Shows what contempt the public are held in.

Fair play to the one person though who doesnt want his notes redacting

 

That will be Khaled.

 

I'll not be able to get into these for a while, but I just had a quick look at 2nd December 2021 meeting.

''Item 53 – xx has some information on this which he will forward to xx.

xx felt that the sub-group is ever growing in its remit so whilst it is a very useful group, agreeing on exactly what is to be discussed would be helpful. xx suggested next meeting can be used to agree priorities. xx confirmed that sub-SAG meetings are now being held at the ground rather than online which is making discussions easier. General xx confirmed his intention to rationalise the agenda items as duplication exist''

This part is intriguing... ''xx felt that the sub-group is ever growing in its remit so whilst it is a very useful group, agreeing on exactly what is to be discussed would be helpful.''

Any clues in the other PDF's who or what the sub group are, and are they producing minutes of their meetings?

On ''Item 53..(Wooded Area) xx confirmed that this was not discussed at the last meeting. Suggested that a set agenda would help avoid any missed items.''

Anything other than a set agenda is not acceptable....this is not a private debating society.

 

Can we have a condensed version?

 

What read to me is that there is a new provider of services, they raised a concern over car parking etc & club went away to review and the end result being where we are.
I agree the club is involved as it clearly shows it, I would be surprised if it’s Khaled going though more likely a staff member responsible for H&S and reporting back.

 

Custer?