General New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Land Deal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
Orkney Islands Yellow said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1699378836444451197
Click to expand...
Surely somebody at the club is collecting all their mistakes such as this and will just blow all their credibility out the window as and when it’s necessary. I mean let’s not forget the triangle is toxic wasteland after all. I know there’s probably far more serious aspects to all of this but continued examples such as this which shows they will just do whatever they can to stop it without any care for things actually being taken seriously can’t leave them on a very strong footing.
 
Bornyellow said:
Surely somebody at the club is collecting all their mistakes such as this and will just blow all their credibility out the window as and when it’s necessary. I mean let’s not forget the triangle is toxic wasteland after all. I know there’s probably far more serious aspects to all of this but continued examples such as this which shows they will just do whatever they can to stop it without any care for things actually being taken seriously can’t leave them on a very strong footing.
Click to expand...
fact is McIvor ( FoSB) knows exactly how to manipulate the easily pressured with her scaremongering and misinformation. As a protester against any kind of progress McIvor has years of experience to draw on for maximum impact. Additionally McIvor appears to have the ear of pretty much all forms of local media outlets and uses that to further her campaigns
 
Orkney Islands Yellow said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1699724193171124251
Click to expand...

This is typical of the great work OUFC does in the community, as a club we probably don’t shout about it enough, but it‘s part of what we do and what we bring to the local community.

As the article says “this sort of community outreach is something that the football club does on a regular basis, although it is rarely publicised”.

Never any positive acknowledgement from Middleton and the FOSB Nimbys about the great work the club does in the local community, just, lies, hypocrisy, snobbery, scaremongering and a wish to see the demise of a 130 year old county institution.

Shame on them.
 
Yellow River said:
This is typical of the great work OUFC does in the community, as a club we probably don’t shout about it enough, but it‘s part of what we do and what we bring to the local community.

As the article says “this sort of community outreach is something that the football club does on a regular basis, although it is rarely publicised”.

Never any positive acknowledgement from Middleton and the FOSB Nimbys about the great work the club does in the local community, just, lies, hypocrisy, snobbery, scaremongering and a wish to see the demise of a 130 year old county institution.

Shame on them.
Click to expand...
seconded
 
Middleton may have dropped a massive Clanger on nextdoor we are just waiting for his evidence this is about the new law that any new development needs have a minimum of 10% net gain of biodiversityScreenshot_2023-09-07-11-39-34-67_a5e8fe7543e41cfbc6cdd74088af5b74.jpg
 
Below is an addendum, from David Robey, Chair of KCC, which he wants to add to their anti stadium stance, that they will discuss at the KCC meeting tonight.

Suggested addition to the draft letter stating our position on the consultations.

In the first OCC online consultation, out of 822 Kidlington and Gosford & Water Eaton respondents 38% were in favour of taking the stadium proposal forward and 58 per cent were against. In the Parish Poll held in May of this year 928 Kidlington electors supported the proposal and 2,073 voted no, a turnout of 29.99%. The analysis of the County Council’s recent engagement exercise substantially supports these results: residents living within a 2-mile radius do not believe that OUFC’s plans wholly or mostly meet 6 out of 7 of OCC’s stated priorities. Our view is the same.

For the all reasons stated above we do not believe that the priorities have been met sufficiently for the proposal to go forward. We also believe that the recent engagement exercise is a misleading guide to majority opinion in Oxfordshire. Within the 2-mile radius, Club supporters are very much a minority among respondents; in the County outside the radius they are very much a majority. This cannot truly reflect a real-life difference in the distribution of supporters across Oxfordshire. It simply shows that outside the radius supporters responded out of all proportion to their actual numbers.

I think the last sentence in particular is indicative of just how these people will try to twist things to suit their agenda. I would suggest the REAL reason for the disparity between supporters, inside and outside of the two mile radius, is in fact that FOSB, Middleton, Robey, and co have rallied a disproportionate number of NON supporters from within that area, not the other way round, as they're trying to suggest. Anyway, it's not enough, they lost.

It could almost have been drafted by Middleton himself..................

Thank God these people are no more than a sideshow now.
 
Colin B said:
Below is an addendum, from David Robey, Chair of KCC, which he wants to add to their anti stadium stance, that they will discuss at the KCC meeting tonight.

Suggested addition to the draft letter stating our position on the consultations.

In the first OCC online consultation, out of 822 Kidlington and Gosford & Water Eaton respondents 38% were in favour of taking the stadium proposal forward and 58 per cent were against. In the Parish Poll held in May of this year 928 Kidlington electors supported the proposal and 2,073 voted no, a turnout of 29.99%. The analysis of the County Council’s recent engagement exercise substantially supports these results: residents living within a 2-mile radius do not believe that OUFC’s plans wholly or mostly meet 6 out of 7 of OCC’s stated priorities. Our view is the same.

For the all reasons stated above we do not believe that the priorities have been met sufficiently for the proposal to go forward. We also believe that the recent engagement exercise is a misleading guide to majority opinion in Oxfordshire. Within the 2-mile radius, Club supporters are very much a minority among respondents; in the County outside the radius they are very much a majority. This cannot truly reflect a real-life difference in the distribution of supporters across Oxfordshire. It simply shows that outside the radius supporters responded out of all proportion to their actual numbers.

I think the last sentence in particular is indicative of just how these people will try to twist things to suit their agenda. I would suggest the REAL reason for the disparity between supporters, inside and outside of the two mile radius, is in fact that FOSB, Middleton, Robey, and co have rallied a disproportionate number of NON supporters from within that area, not the other way round, as they're trying to suggest. Anyway, it's not enough, they lost.

It could almost have been drafted by Middleton himself..................

Thank God these people are no more than a sideshow now.
Click to expand...

Quick response from me to David Robey: 'It's OCC land, Oxfordshire's residents should decide what happens to it.'

Billyox said:
Middleton may have dropped a massive Clanger on nextdoor we are just waiting for his evidence this is about the new law that any new development needs have a minimum of 10% net gain of biodiversityView attachment 15459
Click to expand...

Once again, Chester V has gone against his own councillors. As I posted on Nextdoor from p11 of the Report to the Executive, the Officers feel that, so far, OUFC have 'mostly addressed' this point.

If the club's consulting partner has admitted that BNG is not possible but OCC are satisfied that it is, both are in the wrong. Or, more likely, it's a bullshit claim, misinformation and a clear baseless lie posted by an elected official.

Capture p11a.JPG
 
Colin B said:
Below is an addendum, from David Robey, Chair of KCC, which he wants to add to their anti stadium stance, that they will discuss at the KCC meeting tonight.

Suggested addition to the draft letter stating our position on the consultations.

In the first OCC online consultation, out of 822 Kidlington and Gosford & Water Eaton respondents 38% were in favour of taking the stadium proposal forward and 58 per cent were against. In the Parish Poll held in May of this year 928 Kidlington electors supported the proposal and 2,073 voted no, a turnout of 29.99%. The analysis of the County Council’s recent engagement exercise substantially supports these results: residents living within a 2-mile radius do not believe that OUFC’s plans wholly or mostly meet 6 out of 7 of OCC’s stated priorities. Our view is the same.

For the all reasons stated above we do not believe that the priorities have been met sufficiently for the proposal to go forward. We also believe that the recent engagement exercise is a misleading guide to majority opinion in Oxfordshire. Within the 2-mile radius, Club supporters are very much a minority among respondents; in the County outside the radius they are very much a majority. This cannot truly reflect a real-life difference in the distribution of supporters across Oxfordshire. It simply shows that outside the radius supporters responded out of all proportion to their actual numbers.

I think the last sentence in particular is indicative of just how these people will try to twist things to suit their agenda. I would suggest the REAL reason for the disparity between supporters, inside and outside of the two mile radius, is in fact that FOSB, Middleton, Robey, and co have rallied a disproportionate number of NON supporters from within that area, not the other way round, as they're trying to suggest. Anyway, it's not enough, they lost.

It could almost have been drafted by Middleton himself..................

Thank God these people are no more than a sideshow now.
Click to expand...
Surely the Council will realise the folly of this argument
If a housing estate was being proposed for this land and a survey/consultation was held there would be a big fat zero in favour by residents of Kidlington and it would still go ahead
The fact that there are a good percentage of residents who are in favour must count for sonething
 
I think KPC need to be reminded that Oxfordshire County Council represents all of the county, not just Kidlington.

None of this is a surprise to any of us, I’m sure. From the moment Robey stood beside FoSB on the BBC TV news piece, his hand was shown.
 
Colin B said:
Below is an addendum, from David Robey, Chair of KCC, which he wants to add to their anti stadium stance, that they will discuss at the KCC meeting tonight.

Suggested addition to the draft letter stating our position on the consultations.

In the first OCC online consultation, out of 822 Kidlington and Gosford & Water Eaton respondents 38% were in favour of taking the stadium proposal forward and 58 per cent were against. In the Parish Poll held in May of this year 928 Kidlington electors supported the proposal and 2,073 voted no, a turnout of 29.99%. The analysis of the County Council’s recent engagement exercise substantially supports these results: residents living within a 2-mile radius do not believe that OUFC’s plans wholly or mostly meet 6 out of 7 of OCC’s stated priorities. Our view is the same.

For the all reasons stated above we do not believe that the priorities have been met sufficiently for the proposal to go forward. We also believe that the recent engagement exercise is a misleading guide to majority opinion in Oxfordshire. Within the 2-mile radius, Club supporters are very much a minority among respondents; in the County outside the radius they are very much a majority. This cannot truly reflect a real-life difference in the distribution of supporters across Oxfordshire. It simply shows that outside the radius supporters responded out of all proportion to their actual numbers.

I think the last sentence in particular is indicative of just how these people will try to twist things to suit their agenda. I would suggest the REAL reason for the disparity between supporters, inside and outside of the two mile radius, is in fact that FOSB, Middleton, Robey, and co have rallied a disproportionate number of NON supporters from within that area, not the other way round, as they're trying to suggest. Anyway, it's not enough, they lost.

It could almost have been drafted by Middleton himself..................

Thank God these people are no more than a sideshow now.
Click to expand...
At 2.6 miles away Mr Middleton your view don't count
 
Billyox said:
Middleton may have dropped a massive Clanger on nextdoor we are just waiting for his evidence this is about the new law that any new development needs have a minimum of 10% net gain of biodiversityView attachment 15459
Click to expand...
Ian has responded he's not even talking about the triangle but about sb

My response to him

Following calculations undertaken using the DEFRA Biodiversity Metric 3.1
Calculation Tool, it can be seen that a net gain in biodiversity will not be delivered
for habitats as a result of the proposed development however, a gain in hedgerows
will be achieved. Specifically, the development will essentially ‘break even’ in
habitat units (from 36.76 units to 36.75 units, equating to a 0.01% decrease) and
an increase in hedgerow units from approximately 27.27 units to 38.29 units
(which equates to a 40.41% increase). The DEFRA Biodiversity Metric 3.1

Those understand that maybe able help me out does that mean it will just about make the 10%
IMG_20230907_151003.jpg
 
Billyox said:
Ian has responded he's not even talking about the triangle but about sb

My response to him

Following calculations undertaken using the DEFRA Biodiversity Metric 3.1
Calculation Tool, it can be seen that a net gain in biodiversity will not be delivered
for habitats as a result of the proposed development however, a gain in hedgerows
will be achieved. Specifically, the development will essentially ‘break even’ in
habitat units (from 36.76 units to 36.75 units, equating to a 0.01% decrease) and
an increase in hedgerow units from approximately 27.27 units to 38.29 units
(which equates to a 40.41% increase). The DEFRA Biodiversity Metric 3.1

Those understand that maybe able help me out does that mean it will just about make the 10%
View attachment 15463
Click to expand...
So, to summarise what he put: "No, I don't have any facts. But here is some information about a different proposal, which I've twisted to in an attempt to make a point on this one."

Glad he's cleared that up for us.
 
Perhaps percentages are a challenge for him.

After all if a bigger site (SB) had a base of 50 units, you would need an increase of 5 units to hit the target. A smaller site (TT) might only have a base of 10, so you only need to add 1 to reach your goal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Northstandboy
  • Sticky
New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Planning
814 815 816
Replies
16K
Views
838K
Bicester Yellow
B
brightonyellow
  • Locked
General New Stadium Plans - Stratfield Brake
304 305 306
Replies
6K
Views
416K
ljs
L
MarkG
What will happen to the Kassam stadium?
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Concretebob
C
OUSP
Call to Action Stadium Planning
Replies
4
Views
791
OUSP
OUSP
OUFCwaffle
Study: New stadium location of safe standing model.
Replies
14
Views
1K
ljs
L
Back
Top Bottom