Steve's comment above is probably somewhere near the mark. As a Building Control Surveyor of 35 years I know how these things work. The Local Authority are responsible for the designated stadia in their area, and would normally inspect a number of times a year, including during performance inspections (when a match is on). Now it is quite possible that we were left relatively alone while our gates hovered around a 1200 average, with a smaller median as the average is bumped up by the bigger games. Our bigger gates will not have gone unnoticed and I would expect, have generated the need for a fuller inspection. It is not just the facilities, it is how we manage the event, stewarding, announcements, crowd control etc. were they at the Solihull game when that pillock ran on? They will certainly know about it.
As it is usually Building Control who do SASG (not always, they could use consultants), but BC will be inspecting the Fans Zone; did the visiting Surveyor notice things and pass it on? He would have a duty to if concerned.
If there are trip hazards on the terracing then it is dangerous, a different matter to street potholes. Persons falling suddenly amongst a crowd say celebrating a goal will cause others to fall over them too, it could lead to a serious incident. As for structural concerns obviously they would need to be assessed very closely, that might be from a follow up visit with a qualified Structural Engineer, hence the second reduction. That's usually how it would work. All speculation obviously but it would follow logically.
The ground is very tired and the only real surprise to me is that we got away with this condition for as long as we did.
I do however not understand how we were awarded the larger capacity last year, it doesn't stack up at all.