New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Planning

Scotchegg said:
I haven't looked through these plans in detail, but my initial thoughts were that the area signposted for rail seating falls well below the 25% of total seating as was recently suggested. I would imagine that seating will be flexible and there will be no reason why rail seating can't be moved or added during the building stage.
Click to expand...
I imagine that the seats will fall under fittings and fixtures since they are not part of the structure of the stadium, and so may be altered as and when required?
 
Orkney Islands Yellow said:
Some objections to counter when putting on your comments:
Click to expand...
Commenting on a planning application is not about arguing with objectors or pointing out false claims - the planning inspector will automatically dismiss any comment that is not a "material consideration" - that is to say your comment must be about the application in hand and must be made in the public interest rather than reflecting a personal view of what might happen eg "Residents will rent out their drives" is not a valid objection and similarly "I want a stadium" is a personal need. Saying that "Objector X" is wrong is not relevant to the planning process.

The vast majority of comments on planning applications are from objectors and the majority of those are ill-thought out and offer very little in terms of influencing the planning officer or inspectors decision, but the one thing that can make them look twice is the volume of comments. If we can match (or even get to 50% of) the number of objections, the positive support will carry a lot of weight in the decision making process.

Don't get involved in making technical points. There are 175 documents that cover all those and I certainly don't understand 5% of what's contained in the application to want to try and justify why the text is right (that's another trap those objecting often fall into). You don't need to know the details to offer support for the whole project - the legal teams will sort out the detail.

A strong submission in support of the stadium does not need to go into much detail but it should include some sort of reasoning to show why you believe this application should be approved. Something like "I support this application - not only does it safeguard the future of OUFC but it brings huge social and financial benefits, not just for Kidlington but for the whole county" is adequate and underlines why you want the plans approved. Overly long comments can lose the essence of the message by the time the whole missive has been read.

Don't however copy and paste other people's comments. You can make the same points, but the submission should be in your own words, even if you simply phrase it differently ("gives OUFC a home", "will contribute much to the economy both locally and county wide"; you get my drift. Multiple identical submissions can dilute the impact of the overall support.

Hope that helps
 
Last edited:
Oxymoron said:
Commenting on a planning application is not about arguing with objectors or pointing out false claims - the planning inspector will automatically dismiss any comment that is not a "material consideration" - that is to say your comment must be about the application in hand and must be made in the public interest rather than reflecting a personal view of what might happen eg "Residents will rent out their drives" is not a valid objection and similarly "I want a stadium" is a personal need. Saying that "Objector X" is wrong is not relevant to the planning process.

The vast majority of comments on planning applications are from objectors and the majority of those are ill-thought out and offer very little in terms of influencing the planning officer or inspectors decision, but the one thing that can make them look twice is the volume of comments. If we can match (or even get to 50% of) the number of objections, the positive support will carry a lot of weight in the decision making process.

Don't get involved in making technical points. There are 175 documents that cover all those and I certainly don't understand 5% of what's contained in the application to want to try and justify why the text is right (that's another trap those objecting often fall into). You don't need to know the details to offer support for the whole project - the legal teams will sort out the detail.

A strong submission in support of the stadium does not need to go into much detail but it should include some sort of reasoning to show why you believe this application should be approved, so something like "I support this application - not only does it safeguard the future of OUFC but it brings huge social and financial benefits to not just for Kidlington, but for the whole county" is adequate and underlines why you want the plans approved. Overly long comments can lose the essence of the message by the time the whole missive has been read.

Don't however copy and paste other people's comments. You can make the same points, but the submission should be in your own words, even if you simply phrase it differently ("gives OUFC a home", "will contribute much to the economy both locally and county wide"; you get my drift. Multiple identical submissions can dilute the impact of the overall support.

Hope that helps
Click to expand...
Bang on the money. most of the objections will of been answered in the application and will be ignored
 
Oxymoron said:
Commenting on a planning application is not about arguing with objectors or pointing out false claims - the planning inspector will automatically dismiss any comment that is not a "material consideration" - that is to say your comment must be about the application in hand and must be made in the public interest rather than reflecting a personal view of what might happen eg "Residents will rent out their drives" is not a valid objection and similarly "I want a stadium" is a personal need. Saying that "Objector X" is wrong is not relevant to the planning process.

The vast majority of comments on planning applications are from objectors and the majority of those are ill-thought out and offer very little in terms of influencing the planning officer or inspectors decision, but the one thing that can make them look twice is the volume of comments. If we can match (or even get to 50% of) the number of objections, the positive support will carry a lot of weight in the decision making process.

Don't get involved in making technical points. There are 175 documents that cover all those and I certainly don't understand 5% of what's contained in the application to want to try and justify why the text is right (that's another trap those objecting often fall into). You don't need to know the details to offer support for the whole project - the legal teams will sort out the detail.

A strong submission in support of the stadium does not need to go into much detail but it should include some sort of reasoning to show why you believe this application should be approved, so something like "I support this application - not only does it safeguard the future of OUFC but it brings huge social and financial benefits to not just for Kidlington, but for the whole county" is adequate and underlines why you want the plans approved. Overly long comments can lose the essence of the message by the time the whole missive has been read.

Don't however copy and paste other people's comments. You can make the same points, but the submission should be in your own words, even if you simply phrase it differently ("gives OUFC a home", "will contribute much to the economy both locally and county wide"; you get my drift. Multiple identical submissions can dilute the impact of the overall support.

Hope that helps
Click to expand...
 
holdsteady said:
If a very temporary road diversion of private cars a few off peak times a year is enough to derail a huge investment project then (even ignoring the fact that road closures in the less wealthy parts are now the norm) you are not far from declaring Oxfordshire closed to business for large scale investment, which obviously has huge implications which all the councillors who are anti need to answer for in public.

Allowing a few vocal, wealthy nimbys to dominate the political landscape to such a degree that they impoverish everyone else is something that needs to be looked into, especially given the questionable motives of some of those nimbys and their political lackeys.
Click to expand...
Just dont vote the Liberals or Greens in again.
 
Some good news which will mean the stadium will be the best connected stadium in the country. Services will call at Oxford Parkway. Well worth mentioning in your comments on the planning application:

www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk

MEDIA INVITE: ‘East meets West’: rail project connects Oxford with Bletchley for first time in 50 years

Information for journalists, press, bloggers and the media about Network Rail. Contact the press office to receive news, updates, press releases, videos, pictures, and factsheets, and to arrange interviews, filming and photography
www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk

www.bbc.co.uk

Next stretch of East West Rail line approved in Budget

Accelerated work should allow services to run between Oxford and Bedford by the end of the decade.
www.bbc.co.uk

Screenshot_20240307_070757_Gallery.jpg

Screenshot_20240307_070903_Gallery.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I
Orkney Islands Yellow said:
Some good news which will mean the stadium will be the best connected stadium in the country. Services will call at Oxford Parkway. Well worth mentioning in your comments on the planning application:

www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk

MEDIA INVITE: ‘East meets West’: rail project connects Oxford with Bletchley for first time in 50 years

Information for journalists, press, bloggers and the media about Network Rail. Contact the press office to receive news, updates, press releases, videos, pictures, and factsheets, and to arrange interviews, filming and photography
www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk

www.bbc.co.uk

Next stretch of East West Rail line approved in Budget

Accelerated work should allow services to run between Oxford and Bedford by the end of the decade.
www.bbc.co.uk

View attachment 18137

View attachment 18138
Click to expand...
The Oxford Fail at it again & again& again..

They support so many anti progression in the County..
Screenshot_2024-03-07-08-30-03-99_40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you maybe right, that's all I could read. As you said that part of the build was a bit of a disaster..
I read yesterday somewhere ,that they're not happy in Bedford.Discussing 8 different routes through the Town . With the demolition of some houses & gardens...
 
Scrongo said:
I think you maybe right, that's all I could read. As you said that part of the build was a bit of a disaster..
I read yesterday somewhere ,that they're not happy in Bedford.Discussing 8 different routes through the Town . With the demolition of some houses & gardens...
Click to expand...

Having been to Bedford I reckon demolishing 8 houses should just be a start.
 
holdsteady said:
To be fair to the Oxford Mail it did have a top ten dogging sites in Oxfordshire click bait article online this week, quality local journalism that.
Click to expand...
Did they have some sort of ratings system? User reviews?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
General New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Land Deal
722 723 724
Replies
14K
Views
931K
Northstandboy
Northstandboy
brightonyellow
  • Locked
General New Stadium Plans - Stratfield Brake
304 305 306
Replies
6K
Views
415K
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
682
OUSP
OUSP
OUFCwaffle
Study: New stadium location of safe standing model.
Replies
14
Views
1K
ljs
L
Back
Top Bottom