New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Planning

Billyox said:

A few more comments have dropped on planning portal
And this is why I will continue to call them out brought in to fosb lies View attachment 18538

Click to expand...

That bl**dy article again from the 18th January. When misinformation or distorted versions of the truth enter the public domain, this is the sort of thing that occurs.

I have asked OxVox to ask the club about that article and, as a follow up, to ask about the relationship with the OM specifically (not the back pages which remain supportive but the front pages that are running half-baked articles such as this)

unification said:

That bl**dy article again from the 18th January. When misinformation or distorted versions of the truth enter the public domain, this is the sort of thing that occurs.

I have asked OxVox to ask the club about that article and, as a follow up, to ask about the relationship with the OM specifically (not the back pages which remain supportive but the front pages that are running half-baked articles such as this)

Click to expand...

The article could be the undoing of all this if certain people believe it.

How can that article, basically a couple of word reply to a question that we never actually saw, be taken seriously? No follow up, no more questions, no detail, no attempt at an actual interview. Its meaningless without anything further to back it up. Been ages since it came out and nothing else since, if it had any substance more would of come out by now.

Concretebob said:

The article could be the undoing of all this if certain people believe it.

Click to expand...

People do believe it. OUFC supporters believe it. Only recently did I have a conversation with a well educated sensible young man who was convinced that, if it appeared in the press, it must have some validity. Fortunately, my knowledge of club matters is well regarded amongst OUFC acquaintances and I was able to explain the situation. However, how many more normal, intelligent fans are mislead by this sort of story?

Mr kassam has never been one to shy away from the press if it was true he would of come out long before January to have his day it's that simple.
Read the email that this was supposed to be from he says in that if oufc find a new home I'm very supportive of it why would someone who don't want us to leave say that

Mean while

Billyox said:

A few more comments have dropped on planning portal
And this is why I will continue to call them out brought in to fosb lies View attachment 18538

Click to expand...

Most of that is opinion, so will not be viewed as material but there are points raised against policy which piqued my interest, so I looked at the CDC Local Plan, or more specifically those three policies for Ecologically Sustainable Development

ESD 1: Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change
There are three targets
1) Carbon emission to be reduced (over the life of the plan)
2) No permission to be granted contrary to advice from the Environment Agency advice on Flood Risk grounds
3) Access to services and facilities by public transport, walking and cycling to be improved (over the life of the plan)

ESD 3: Sustainable Construction
Two targets here, the first is concerned with dwellings so is not applicable, the second requires that non-residential development is built to a minimum BREEAM Very Good standard

ESD 14: Oxford Green Belt
One target here, the rather ambiguous statement that all development in Green Belt is to comply with Policy ESD14. Looking at the quoted paragraph B.260, this states “It is essential that the impact on the Green Belt is minimised, therefore priority will be given to locations that lie adjacent to existing development, avoid the coalescence of settlements, protect the vulnerable Kidlington Gap and otherwise have the least impact possible on the Green Belt”

So in my view, ESD1 and ESD3 are met in full by the published plans and ESD 14 is arguable. Bear in mind, I am an amateur and minds immeasurably superior to mine will have already dissected these policy statements and compared them with the requirements of the NPPF and PPG to conclude whether the benefits outweigh the harm when making the application.

While looking, I note that the Local Plan has been recently reviewed (as it must every 5 years) and CDC approved the review in Feb 2023. The conclusions therein for all three ESB points are that they are "generally consistent with the NPPF”, so CDC should not be able argue otherwise.

Billyox said:

Mean while

Biodiversity Reports

We are grateful to Dr Judith Webb, an experienced independent ecological consultant, who has generously updated the reports that she wrote on the Triangle and the Woodland to the south. These reports show a staggering level of biodiversity and an important relationship between the two areas...

www.friendsofstratfieldbrake.org

Click to expand...

Correct me if I’m wrong but the trees to the south of the site will remain untouched anyway?

They provide a natural border. It’s why the site is a ‘triangle’ and not a full ‘diamond’.

Billyox said:

Mean while

Biodiversity Reports

We are grateful to Dr Judith Webb, an experienced independent ecological consultant, who has generously updated the reports that she wrote on the Triangle and the Woodland to the south. These reports show a staggering level of biodiversity and an important relationship between the two areas...

www.friendsofstratfieldbrake.org

Click to expand...

How odd then that Natural England, in their response to a request from CDC, stated:

SUMMARY OF NATURAL ENGLAND’S ADVICE
NO OBJECTION
Based on the plans submitted, Natural England considers that the proposed development will not have significant adverse impacts on statutorily protected nature conservation sites or landscapes.

The remit of Natural England is stated as:

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

unification said:

Correct me if I’m wrong but the trees to the south of the site will remain untouched anyway?

They provide a natural border. It’s why the site is a ‘triangle’ and not a full ‘diamond’.

Click to expand...

Correct and why also report on SB oh I know to make people think we taking SB as well

Manorlounger said:

How odd then that Natural England, in their response to a request from CDC, stated:

SUMMARY OF NATURAL ENGLAND’S ADVICE
NO OBJECTION
Based on the plans submitted, Natural England considers that the proposed development will not have significant adverse impacts on statutorily protected nature conservation sites or landscapes.

The remit of Natural England is stated as:

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Click to expand...

Amazing isn't it same site 2 completely different opinions one from a neutral and one from fosb

Billyox said:

A few more comments have dropped on planning portal
And this is why I will continue to call them out brought in to fosb lies View attachment 18538

Click to expand...

Ah the ever reliable source material of the Oxford Mail

Manorlounger said:

People do believe it. OUFC supporters believe it. Only recently did I have a conversation with a well educated sensible young man who was convinced that, if it appeared in the press, it must have some validity. Fortunately, my knowledge of club matters is well regarded amongst OUFC acquaintances and I was able to explain the situation. However, how many more normal, intelligent fans are mislead by this sort of story?

Click to expand...

Sadly, quite a few. What people do forget is that FK merely said yes because he only cares about 1) his wallet 2) how good he looks.

2) makes him look like a saint in this circumstance. He was always going to say yes!

Billyox said:

Mean while

Biodiversity Reports

We are grateful to Dr Judith Webb, an experienced independent ecological consultant, who has generously updated the reports that she wrote on the Triangle and the Woodland to the south. These reports show a staggering level of biodiversity and an important relationship between the two areas...

www.friendsofstratfieldbrake.org

Click to expand...

Knowing FoSB, those photos probably aren't from anywhere near The Triangle or Stratfield Brake.

I think I'll trust what Natural England have to say.

You could probably do a wildlife survey on my back garden and come up with 100+ species of wildlife and yes, we have foraging bats!

And yet another one who believes everything fosb say lies lies and more lies

Billyox said:

And yet another one who believes everything fosb say lies lies and more lies View attachment 18539

Click to expand...

FoSB's greatest hits right there. Absolutely laughable.

Billyox said:

And yet another one who believes everything fosb say lies lies and more lies View attachment 18539

Click to expand...

All waffle no substance

And mr objector we have had one home game in the past month

Ah, the old pissing in gardens argument is back.



The green space between Oxford and Kidlington (what practical reason is that needed, bit whimsical and idealistic isn't it?) will be Stratfield Brake, the University land immediately south of the triangle and the beautiful newly created public green space at the tip of the triangle.