• ****Join the YF Fantasy EFL League: HERE. ****

General New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Planning

New Stadium Project

1727427237534.png		Planning Portal: Planning Application - 24/00539/F

Latest from Club: New Stadium scoops 'Deal of the Year' Award
Latest from CDC: 11/09/2024
The Council is currently undertaking a period of statutory re-consultation, following the receipt of the applicant’s North Oxford VISSIM Model Scoping Report, dated August 2024.The Council has also issued a second Regulation 25 request, pursuant to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (‘The EIA Regulations’), requiring the applicant to supply further information. Upon receipt of this additional information, there will be a further period of statutory re-consultation.

Target Decision Date: February 2025.
 
Billyox said:
View attachment 23018
Click to expand...

What difference does it make if a football stadium closes the gap (which it isn’t?)
between Oxford and Kidlington? You will still live in one or the other, that will not change. The two places will still be as far away from each other as they are now, the boundaries are not moving. Will just be a state of the art, brand new football stadium there rather than a piece of scrap land.
 
Billyox said:
View attachment 23018
Click to expand...


Snore, the triangle is hardly the serengeti.

Note they don't suggest an alternative site near to Oxford Parkway and explain why they think the road closure is unnecessary.

Banging on about how football fans don't care about the green belt but they don't seem to care about football fans safety.

Bog roll.
 
Last edited:
Concretebob said:
Snore, the triangle is hardly the serengeti.

Note they don't suggest an alternative site near to Oxford Parkway and explain why they think the road closure is unnecessary.

Banging on about how football fans don't care about the green belt but they don't seem to care about football fans safety.

Bog roll.
Click to expand...

We did look at an alternative site near to Parkway as well, KPC wouldn’t allow it.
 
holdsteady said:
We did look at an alternative site near to Parkway as well, KPC wouldn’t allow it.
Click to expand...
We also looked at the land next to Parkway and the aggregate works.

There were two fields to the north of Parkway car park, one was a larger field that was privately owned and approaches were made to the owner, but they were not interested at all. There were other logistical issues with this piece of land too.

There was a smaller field immediately bordering the car park (about the size of the Triangle), also privately owned, and negotiations were entered into, and offers made (of several £m), but an agreement couldn't be reached, for a number of reasons. It was an awkward shape and would have required us to take part of the existing car park, and also re-route the car park access. We had plans drawn up and even a 3D fly through video of the stadium produced, which I've still got.

All of this was in 2019 and the video was produced in October 2019, so it really annoys me when the opposition claim that we didn't do anything until 2022, that we never looked at other sites, and that we were only interested in what they call "free public land". Nothing could be further from the truth, but they're not interested in the truth, as they constantly prove every time they open their mouths.
 
Colin B said:
We also looked at the land next to Parkway and the aggregate works.

There were two fields to the north of Parkway car park, one was a larger field that was privately owned and approaches were made to the owner, but they were not interested at all. There were other logistical issues with this piece of land too.

There was a smaller field immediately bordering the car park (about the size of the Triangle), also privately owned, and negotiations were entered into, and offers made (of several £m), but an agreement couldn't be reached, for a number of reasons. It was an awkward shape and would have required us to take part of the existing car park, and also re-route the car park access. We had plans drawn up and even a 3D fly through video of the stadium produced, which I've still got.

All of this was in 2019 and the video was produced in October 2019, so it really annoys me when the opposition claim that we didn't do anything until 2022, that we never looked at other sites, and that we were only interested in what they call "free public land". Nothing could be further from the truth, but they're not interested in the truth, as they constantly prove every time they open their mouths.
Click to expand...

It would be good if this could be put into a reply to that letter, the misinformation about this has never really been answered in this sort of detail so it has allowed them to carry on spreading it.

I doubt they would have been happier about any of the other sites you mention though, its not the location of the triangle to parkway that really bothers them but the fact its (never actually that) near to where they live
 
holdsteady said:
It would be good if this could be put into a reply to that letter, the misinformation about this has never really been answered in this sort of detail so it has allowed them to carry on spreading it.

I doubt they would have been happier about any of the other sites you mention though, its not the location of the triangle to parkway that really bothers them but the fact its (never actually that) near to where they live
Click to expand...
I second that, Colin is well versed on this but @bazzer9461 does seems their favourite pro stadium letter writer at the moment.

And yes, we've always known it's been about rampant NIMBYism and classism - "football fans don't care about the green belt" being the next sweeping generalisation.
 
Colin B said:
We also looked at the land next to Parkway and the aggregate works.

There were two fields to the north of Parkway car park, one was a larger field that was privately owned and approaches were made to the owner, but they were not interested at all. There were other logistical issues with this piece of land too.

There was a smaller field immediately bordering the car park (about the size of the Triangle), also privately owned, and negotiations were entered into, and offers made (of several £m), but an agreement couldn't be reached, for a number of reasons. It was an awkward shape and would have required us to take part of the existing car park, and also re-route the car park access. We had plans drawn up and even a 3D fly through video of the stadium produced, which I've still got.

All of this was in 2019 and the video was produced in October 2019, so it really annoys me when the opposition claim that we didn't do anything until 2022, that we never looked at other sites, and that we were only interested in what they call "free public land". Nothing could be further from the truth, but they're not interested in the truth, as they constantly prove every time they open their mouths.
Click to expand...
Are these sites on the saville report?
 
SteMerritt said:
Well, unsurprisingly, he has blocked me. For reference, my replies...
View attachment 23001

I know it's not going to do any good, but again, for reference, I have contacted the owners of that site (which is probably the same group as FoSB to be fair) and reported him there. Of course nothing will be done either, but again, for reference...

View attachment 23002
Click to expand...
We have the answer to the question utter utter drivel
1000020760.jpg
 
Billyox said:
Are these sites on the saville report?
Click to expand...


Site 28 'Land north of Oxford Parkway Station' would be the main one, I guess. Stratfield Brake is Site 40. I suspect @Colin B could confirm.

Re-reading this again, some are wild. Site 12 under 'Allocated sites' - 'The John Radcliffe Hospital'. I know that Savills had to show all their working but ploughing down the county's main hospital for a football stadium is a bit far fetched.

(Something I'd glossed by for the last two years - Site 26 'Oxford City Football Club' at Marsh Lane. It says 'Oxford City Council have turned down historic approaches by OUFC'. Savills state that 'We understand from OU that the site is not viable due to issues relating to access, its size and traffic.' Well, obviously ...)
 
unification said:

Site 28 'Land north of Oxford Parkway Station' would be the main one, I guess. Stratfield Brake is Site 40. I suspect @Colin B could confirm.

Re-reading this again, some are wild. Site 12 under 'Allocated sites' - 'The John Radcliffe Hospital'. I know that Savills had to show all their working but ploughing down the county's main hospital for a football stadium is a bit far fetched.

(Something I'd glossed by for the last two years - Site 26 'Oxford City Football Club' at Marsh Lane. It says 'Oxford City Council have turned down historic approaches by OUFC'. Savills state that 'We understand from OU that the site is not viable due to issues relating to access, its size and traffic.' Well, obviously ...)
Click to expand...
It won't make much difference to middleton we had all this on next-door and we pointed all this out to him he done his usual and ignored just kept banging on about why we released the alternative site report after we had said the triangle was the chosen one
 
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
980K
Northstandboy
Northstandboy
brightonyellow
  • Locked
General New Stadium Plans - Stratfield Brake
304 305 306
Replies
6K
Views
430K
ljs
L
Northstandboy
General Stadium Compliance
2 3
Replies
55
Views
4K
MJB
MJB
MarkG
General Future of the Kassam Stadium?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
8K
Peterdev
Peterdev
OUSP
Call to Action Stadium Planning
Replies
4
Views
2K
OUSP
OUSP
Back
Top Bottom