New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Planning

Concretebob said:

Sorry have I missed something, did Middleton suggest OUFC could move to Didcot?

That's against EFL rules.

Click to expand...

He cited it as an example site from one of the 60+ sites in the Savills report that should have been explored ahead of SB/The Triangle.

That Didcot was one of the proposed sites for the Thames Valley Royals, that playing that far outside the City of Oxford city itself would contravene EFL rules to keep the Oxford name, that it really doesn't encourage sustainable means of travel to matches and that the Savills report was a first pass at possible sites so included a lot that also came with colossal red tape was not mentioned by our Ian.

His argument boils down to 'well, the locals don't want it so it should go somewhere else'. If the locals 'somewhere else' don't want it, what then? We build nothing of note ever again seemingly.

Sarge said:

good assessment @unification

absolutely spot on re Sophie Law not asking questions & pressing prospective candidates on specific points

Shame that despite having probing questions submitted that the Rad Ox show producer bottled asking most of them, thus giving the politicians a very easy ride

Click to expand...

It was all a bit BBC. Letting councillors talk rather than posing them serious questions, especially as we saw a few good ones posted on Twitter, Facebook and the like ahead of the programme. Old gasbag Middleton went on for too long too. Why bother asking for them if you're going to ask two at most to councillors?

In fairness to Sophie Law and her program, she's a breakfast radio presenter and not Jeremy Paxman in this. It was designed to be asking some questions and not a grilling of these people. If it had been Jerome and a clued up local journo who knew all about local politics, I suspect we would have had a lot more. A 30-minute special involving these people would have been interesting. Simpson v Middleton would have been a great battle.

OX14 said:

Even if we had we would of been alright due to the possibility of extended the licence beyond 2026. Kassam using force majure clause in 2020 before the play off semi final tearing up the original licence caused us into this situation where we have no right to renew beyond 2026.

Click to expand...

Interesting.

People have been telling Vicky Campbell that on facebook but she "doesn't believe that interpretation of the license agreement"

Always worth remembering that the Greens in Brighton and Hove strongly objected to the Amex being built back in the early 00s, despite the club being at real risk of going out of business.

Thankfully (for BHAFC fans) the stadium was built and the rest, as they say, is history.

I've no doubt that if the stadium does get built we will see Green Party members faking support and attempting to ride the wave, but for me (as someone who is sympathetic to genuine green causes) the damage is permanently done - as it was for Brighton's Supporter Group -
If the Greens ever want to be taken seriously on a larger scale they need to be truly progressive, encouraging developments that both benefit society and are environmentally conscious. They should be ousting champagne socialists like Middelton, not giving them a platform to spout small-minded, classist ideas that are so clearly based on selfish interests rather than what's best for society as a whole.

OX14 said:

If Radio Oxford ever stopped covering our games I would cancel my TV licence. The rest of the BBC and Radio Oxford when not covering us is absolute guff.

Click to expand...

to be fair Rad Ox are handy and helpful weekday daytimes with traffic report updates ( IMO), if you need to get from one side of the 'shire to the other & similar ...that apart - and pre, post match and match coverage excepted- it is pretty much guff

unification said:

He cited it as an example site from one of the 60+ sites in the Savills report that should have been explored ahead of SB/The Triangle.

That Didcot was one of the proposed sites for the Thames Valley Royals, that playing that far outside the City of Oxford city itself would contravene EFL rules to keep the Oxford name, that it really doesn't encourage sustainable means of travel to matches and that the Savills report was a first pass at possible sites so included a lot that also came with colossal red tape was not mentioned by our Ian.

His argument boils down to 'well, the locals don't want it so it should go somewhere else'. If the locals 'somewhere else' don't want it, what then? We build nothing of note ever again seemingly.



It was all a bit BBC. Letting councillors talk rather than posing them serious questions, especially as we saw a few good ones posted on Twitter, Facebook and the like ahead of the programme. Old gasbag Middleton went on for too long too. Why bother asking for them if you're going to ask two at most to councillors?

In fairness to Sophie Law and her program, she's a breakfast radio presenter and not Jeremy Paxman in this. It was designed to be asking some questions and not a grilling of these people. If it had been Jerome and a clued up local journo who knew all about local politics, I suspect we would have had a lot more. A 30-minute special involving these people would have been interesting. Simpson v Middleton would have been a great battle.

Click to expand...

Simpson would tear Chester V a new one

I'm pretty sure Ian Middleton has had a few pops at Nigel Simpson on Nextdoor?

So Middleton doesn't mind if the club moves to Didcot, even though he has argued against the club moving at all, so he is now for the club moving. I wonder why he is so keen on this imaginary Didcot site? Other than the fact its not near his house.

A prospective MP is against a £150 million pound investment in his constituency which will bring further economic benefits because its too near to his house, and there are are actually people that will vote for this nimby. Thankfully not many.

Common Villager said:

Always worth remembering that the Greens in Brighton and Hove strongly objected to the Amex being built back in the early 00s, despite the club being at real risk of going out of business.

Thankfully (for BHAFC fans) the stadium was built and the rest, as they say, is history.

I've no doubt that if the stadium does get built we will see Green Party members faking support and attempting to ride the wave, but for me (as someone who is sympathetic to genuine green causes) the damage is permanently done - as it was for Brighton's Supporter Group -

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1660573674628427778

If the Greens ever want to be taken seriously on a larger scale they need to be truly progressive, encouraging developments that both benefit society and are environmentally conscious. They should be ousting champagne socialists like Middelton, not giving them a platform to spout small-minded, classist ideas that are so clearly based on selfish interests rather than what's best for society as a whole.

Click to expand...

In fairness to them, their Local Planning and Built Environment Policy does make concessions to this:


LP510 Local authorities should review their green belt on a periodic basis where they are failing to achieve sustainable development, for example where they are causing sprawl and commuting beyond their bounds, and where there is scope for more sustainable development on existing green belt sites, for example near transport hubs. Reviews should seek to achieve the policies set out in LP406-407, ensure no net loss in the quantity and quality of green belt land, and should aim to ‘green the greenbelt’.

If that bit in bold doesn't see an eco-stadium next to a mainline train station qualify, I'm not sure what does.

Whether Green Party councillors read and follow this policy is another matter.

Concretebob said:

Interesting.

People have been telling Vicky Campbell that on facebook but she "doesn't believe that interpretation of the license agreement"

Click to expand...

She doesn't know her a**e from her elbow.

She keeps quoting she has seen documents that says otherwise, but no suprise she hasn't shown them us. Probably see the documents in her dreams the fantasist.

OX14 said:

She doesn't know her a**e from her elbow.

She keeps quoting she has seen documents that says otherwise, but no suprise she hasn't shown them us. Probably see the documents in her dreams the fantasist.

Click to expand...

She's completely out of her depth. She strikes me as quite well... dim actually.

unification said:

LP510 Local authorities should review their green belt on a periodic basis where they are failing to achieve sustainable development, for example where they are causing sprawl and commuting beyond their bounds, and where there is scope for more sustainable development on existing green belt sites, for example near transport hubs. Reviews should seek to achieve the policies set out in LP406-407, ensure no net loss in the quantity and quality of green belt land, and should aim to ‘green the greenbelt’.

If that bit in bold doesn't see an eco-stadium next to a mainline train station qualify, I'm not sure what does.

Click to expand...

Shame that you didn't spot that earlier (or my apologies if you did and I didn't see it) as that is the type of comment that should be on any submission of support where green belt building is raised - the planning officer could not fail to give that policy "weight" and therefore give less "weight" to any objection on the ground of "loss of green belt".

unification said:

In fairness to them, their Local Planning and Built Environment Policy does make concessions to this:

Local Planning and the Built Environment - Policy

Page updated: Background LP100 There will always be competing demands for the finite resource of land. A free market in land would give undue power to wealthy landowners and rich buyers, and would lead to unsustainable patterns of development. This has been recognised since the establishment of...

policy.greenparty.org.uk

LP510 Local authorities should review their green belt on a periodic basis where they are failing to achieve sustainable development, for example where they are causing sprawl and commuting beyond their bounds, and where there is scope for more sustainable development on existing green belt sites, for example near transport hubs. Reviews should seek to achieve the policies set out in LP406-407, ensure no net loss in the quantity and quality of green belt land, and should aim to ‘green the greenbelt’.

If that bit in bold doesn't see an eco-stadium next to a mainline train station qualify, I'm not sure what does.

Whether Green Party councillors read and follow this policy is another matter.

Click to expand...

The trouble is, as Oxfordshire shows, the Green party has been infiltrated by nimby's using it to stop any developments near where they live (see potential MP proposing we move to Didcot today) especially at a local level. McIvor, Evans, Campbell, Middleton etc should really be standing for the not anywhere near me party, that's all they are interested in, until the Green party is stricter on who it lets stand for it they are dangerous, these people have no morals at all yet appear to be completely free of censure by the national party.

Here’s my brief take on this morning’s Radio Oxford piece. Middleton is a liar regarding facts and hypocrite with regards to Green policy regarding sustainability and transport. The Labour man spoke reasonably well but could’ve been better.
The Liberal just seems to want to commit to nothing and for me the Conservative spoke constructively about ways to aleaviate traffic issues amongst other things.
Put simply if you want to have a new stadium and club past 2026 vote Conservative or Labour if you can’t make your mind up vote Liberal and are against vote Green.

Firstly to stick up for Rad Ox with this feature, they didn't need to focus on the football ground as a central issue a few days prior to local elections so big tick to them bringing this into the discussion as there are lots of other things that are going on which many would argue are more important in life.

Greens - They are set on a specific agenda whether locally, nationally or globally so you have to respect their stance even if their supporters do come across unnecessarily aggressive about it. They can't see the bigger picture in which we all have to live though, and they have this crazy utopian view that if we follow everything they say then hey presto the world crisis is solved overnight. I don't have to agree with it but that is their belief and it hasn't changed so fair play.

Labour - have the experience to see beyond this just being a football stadium located in Kidlington and can see the benefits beyond the county. Fully supportive of the new stadium but didn't really have much else to say.

Lib Dems - a continuing horror show from these guys who are becoming embarrassing to listen to. Rad Ox presenter pushed back on the comparison of closing the road outside the stadium for 30-45 minutes and the LTNs preventing people going about their daily lives anyway so what is the difference. To which the Lib Dem councillor said that was a matter for County Council so ask them, nothing to do with him. But the County Council is his party, he should know, he should be consistent with the overall plan for the party, if elected he will need to work with these people and they are even on his side! Apparently they will need to consider the views of both sides before deciding whether to come and and support or not support. So what have they been doing for the last 18 months? All the opinions are released now, if they can't answer the question yet then they are totally out of touch with local feeling and don't deserve to be anywhere near running a local council, county council, or god forbid national government after the last coalition Lib Dem lies when they accepted a power grab in 2010. Avoid this lot at all costs.

Tories - good points well made again following the same point of view as Labour but being able to expand on it with concise and more critical points. I just feel that on this occasion it would have been nice if it was someone who was not a die hard fan as well had said these things.

No doubt Middleton would say that Simpson's views don't count because he is not local enough. He has represented Kidlington North and Kirtlington.

AbsoluteZero said:

Firstly to stick up for Rad Ox with this feature, they didn't need to focus on the football ground as a central issue a few days prior to local elections so big tick to them bringing this into the discussion as there are lots of other things that are going on which many would argue are more important in life.

Greens - They are set on a specific agenda whether locally, nationally or globally so you have to respect their stance even if their supporters do come across unnecessarily aggressive about it. They can't see the bigger picture in which we all have to live though, and they have this crazy utopian view that if we follow everything they say then hey presto the world crisis is solved overnight. I don't have to agree with it but that is their belief and it hasn't changed so fair play.

Labour - have the experience to see beyond this just being a football stadium located in Kidlington and can see the benefits beyond the county. Fully supportive of the new stadium but didn't really have much else to say.

Lib Dems - a continuing horror show from these guys who are becoming embarrassing to listen to. Rad Ox presenter pushed back on the comparison of closing the road outside the stadium for 30-45 minutes and the LTNs preventing people going about their daily lives anyway so what is the difference. To which the Lib Dem councillor said that was a matter for County Council so ask them, nothing to do with him. But the County Council is his party, he should know, he should be consistent with the overall plan for the party, if elected he will need to work with these people and they are even on his side! Apparently they will need to consider the views of both sides before deciding whether to come and and support or not support. So what have they been doing for the last 18 months? All the opinions are released now, if they can't answer the question yet then they are totally out of touch with local feeling and don't deserve to be anywhere near running a local council, county council, or god forbid national government after the last coalition Lib Dem lies when they accepted a power grab in 2010. Avoid this lot at all costs.

Tories - good points well made again following the same point of view as Labour but being able to expand on it with concise and more critical points. I just feel that on this occasion it would have been nice if it was someone who was not a die hard fan as well had said these things.

Click to expand...

He is just following lib dem policy, commit to nothing, try to stand for everything. Its a desperate ploy to try and get any votes to be relevant. Our political system has created a third party who are actually worse than the two main parties, they exist only as a protest vote.

Out of curiosity, have Campbell, McIvor and Middleton ever been successful in their attempts to stop a development? Are they serial losers?

Orkney Islands Yellow said:

Football stadiums are proven to stimulate investment into the surrounding area:

View attachment 19179

Click to expand...

because the Parish council support s**t initiatives like funding a pointless poll that meant nothing

holdsteady said:

He is just following lib dem policy, commit to nothing, try to stand for everything. Its a desperate ploy to try and get any votes to be relevant. Our political system has created a third party who are actually worse than the two main parties, they exist only as a protest vote.

Click to expand...

And that's why Reform have overtaken Lib Dems in most national polls.

Back to the subject in hand and the distinct impression I got from the Lib Dem chappy (cutting through all the indecisiveness) was that they know there is virtually no substantial reason why planning permission won't be granted for the stadium and we're now in the realms of t crossing and I dotting to make sure concerns are sufficiently addressed.

Thankfully and rightly, planning committees are not simply allowed to do an Andy Pipkin and say "don't like it".

They all know this and so it is the peripheral details that are now being addressed, not the building of the ground itself.

That's my take anyway....hope I'm right!