General New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Planning

[SteMerritt]

New Stadium Project

Planning Portal: Planning Application - 24/00539/F Latest from Club: Stadium Update (Info Submission / Footbridge) (07/11/2024) Oxford United Football Club can confirm it has submitted a confidential pre-application request to Cherwell District Council in relation to plans for its new stadium. The document explores the potential of a footbridge over Oxford Road linking Oxford Parkway and the new stadium and at its suitability for, and impact on, the site and surrounding environment. It will be considered by Cherwell District Council planning officers, with formal feedback provided to the Club in due course. (More in link above) Latest from CDC: 31/10/2024 The 'Target Decision Date' has been set to 31st March 2025 according to an update on the portal. You can see this new date by opening the planning portal from the link above, it is displayed on the opening screen. Target Decision Date: 31st March 2025.

 

[FatOldSun]

The other issue with alternative sites is that, assuming we purchased the land, there would be no protections in place like the lease agreement which ties the club to the stadium. This could result in a similar situation to now, and leave the residents of North Oxford with a big stadium and nobody using it. Whether this is taken into consideration by the planning committee, I have no idea.

 

[Scotchegg]

Let's hope those responsible for providing the information do so ASAP. Slightly disappointing the application isn't absolutely watertight at this stage.

That's not how it works. Every application will contain information which could be subject to questions or clarifications no matter how hard one party tries to avoid it.

Every assertion can be countered with a "prove it" or "what about..." It's like arguing with a child.

The planning officer has the right to dismiss any questions that they feel are unnecessary, but in doing so they could face accusations that they haven't followed due process which could then give grounds for an appeal of Judicial Review. It may not feel like it, but they're doing us a favour by bringing these issues out in to the open and providing a formal opportunity to counter them on record.

 

[Orkney Islands Yellow]

EFL club issue update on new £130million stadium as part of stunning complex

AN EFL club has issued a “really positive” update on plans for a new £130million stadium. Oxford United are planning on moving from the 12,500-capacity Kassam Stadium to a new 16,000-ca…

www.thesun.co.uk

 

[LowerSouth]

CDC appear to be investigating FoSB's allegations that there are other available sites. Hopefully provision of the requested information will put that to bed.

It also appears CDC haven't yet seen the document OCC have seen confirming staying at the Kassam isn't an option.

View attachment 23609

That’s absolutely unbelievable.
This was all over the lease negotiations with OCC-and a vital “fact” in obtaining same .
How an earth could the club’s representatives have come this far in the process and this information has not been provided to CDC ?

 

[OUFCwaffle]

Soooooo...

I was bored of reading about Middleton and his cronies and wanted to to another science experiment using my state of the art architectural design software that is Microsoft Paint.

Looking closely at the designs, there does appear to be quite a lot of potential room for expansion should we ever require it, without expanding the footprint size at all.

The south and east stands, could extend by a further 8 rows, expanding capacity from 26 to 34 rows, a 30% increase, which using the existing footprint would be approximately 60% of the seating bowl 'circumference'.

The north and west stands have much more expansion capacity, with the potential for a whole extra tier of seating to be added above where the hotel and conference facilities are. This would make up approximately the remaining 40% of the bowl 'circumference', adding an additional 22 rows of seats, doubling capacity.

Doing some rudimentary calculations I make...

South and east stands:
60% of 16,000 = 9,600
9,600 + 30% = 12,480

North and west stands:
40% of 16,000 = 6,400
6,400 x 2 =12,800

Therefore the approximate maximum expansion is around 25,000. That's without adding any footprint size. It could be our mini version of the stadium of light.

It would however mean losing some of the hotel space and reallocating a lot of interior space for concourses etc, and an awful lot of messing around with the roof and support structure. But it's not impossible.

I'd like to think the club would have this in the back of their mind when finalising the structural design. If they included the steel supports for extra stand space where the hotel and conference facilities are then it could save an awful lot later down the line if we look to expand. The east and south stands would be fairly straightforward to expand, just would need to move the roof up slightly. Easier said than done though.

Behold my mastery

 

[LowerSouth]

Soooooo...

I was bored of reading about Middleton and his cronies and wanted to to another science experiment using my state of the art architectural design software that is Microsoft Paint.

Looking closely at the designs, there does appear to be quite a lot of potential room for expansion should we ever require it, without expanding the footprint size at all.

The south and east stands, could extend by a further 8 rows, expanding capacity from 26 to 34 rows, a 30% increase, which using the existing footprint would be approximately 60% of the seating bowl 'circumference'.

The north and west stands have much more expansion capacity, with the potential for a whole extra tier of seating to be added above where the hotel and conference facilities are. This would make up approximately the remaining 40% of the bowl 'circumference', adding an additional 22 rows of seats, doubling capacity.

Doing some rudimentary calculations I make...

South and east stands:
60% of 16,000 = 9,600
9,600 + 30% = 12,480

North and west stands:
40% of 16,000 = 6,400
6,400 x 2 =12,800

Therefore the approximate maximum expansion is around 25,000. That's without adding any footprint size. It could be our mini version of the stadium of light.

It would however mean losing some of the hotel space and reallocating a lot of interior space for concourses etc, and an awful lot of messing around with the roof and support structure. But it's not impossible.

I'd like to think the club would have this in the back of their mind when finalising the structural design. If they included the steel supports for extra stand space where the hotel and conference facilities are then it could save an awful lot later down the line if we look to expand. The east and south stands would be fairly straightforward to expand, just would need to move the roof up slightly. Easier said than done though.

Behold my mastery
View attachment 23614View attachment 23615View attachment 23618View attachment 23616

Impressive.
Our owners will need very deep pockets and staying power,for us just to survive in the Championship ( beyond this season)
The stadium project as is,will cost far in excess
of the original figure .
Very deep pockets indeed .

 

[Benox]

I wouldn’t worry too much about the request for more information about other sites, personally. Just taking a step back, with a logical head on, do we really think the club would just dismiss other viable sites half heartedly? Why would this be in their interests? It doesn’t appear to be a project focused on scrimping in costs, so I doubt the land costs would be the overriding concern if another site was available, costed at a fair price & viable.

My theory on that CDC letter is that it’s a recurring objection, so they want the club to provide enough info to put it to bed. Most other decision as part of this process are based on factual information and assessments (environmental impact, modelling etc) so it’s one of the only bits of conjecture remaining.

 

[Billyox]

Just to lighten things up

Of course you did ian

 

[Concretebob]

Just to lighten things up

Of course you did ian View attachment 23619View attachment 23620

Ironic he's going on about peace

*cough* blood diamonds *cough*

 

[Concretebob]

The other issue with alternative sites is that, assuming we purchased the land, there would be no protections in place like the lease agreement which ties the club to the stadium. This could result in a similar situation to now, and leave the residents of North Oxford with a big stadium and nobody using it. Whether this is taken into consideration by the planning committee, I have no idea.

And of course, who would FoSB blame for that?

As Colin says, damned if we do, damned if we don't.

 

[LeftSideLarry]

I’m heartened by the type of question that CDC are asking. We need them to be rigorous with this process. If they’re not, it just leaves a gap for objection and possible delay.

The planning officers are doing their job and I hope they do it well. We need them to.

 

[Made-in-Jericho]

Are CDC using underhand delaying tactics? Is this all just part of the normal, thorough process which we should be applauding?
At what point does a judicial review need come in to play?
Sorry for all the questions.

 

[Scotchegg]

Are CDC using underhand delaying tactics?

No, they are following due process

Is this all just part of the normal, thorough process which we should be applauding?

It's better for us to have every angle covered openly

At what point does a judicial review need come in to play?

Following the outcone of the planning application if either side feels that the process was flawed in some way

Sorry for all the questions.

 

[Made-in-Jericho]

Thanks Scotchegg. So when/if planning is refused we would take it to judicial review - I’m assuming the losers foot the (very costly) bill?

 

[Billyox]

I'm sure in the coming weeks and months we will have more of these days where it feels like everything is against us. its frustrating but cdc are just covering everything base if anything it's making it more watertight
Fosb might well be thinking they have a win under there belts but I think they are in fact aiding us

 

[The mighty Aldo]

That’s absolutely unbelievable.
This was all over the lease negotiations with OCC-and a vital “fact” in obtaining same .
How an earth could the club’s representatives have come this far in the process and this information has not been provided to CDC ?

Surely if OCC have agreed to a lease they will have done due diligence for it to get this far

OCC have all the information CDC should contact them not OUFC or have I got this wrong.

Do you need that background information anyway if you submit planning that has already been approved by the higher Authority Ox County Council

 

[Orkney Islands Yellow]

Surely if OCC have agreed to a lease they will have done due diligence for it to get this far

OCC have all the information CDC should contact them not OUFC or have I got this wrong.

Do you need that background information anyway if you submit planning that has already been approved by the higher Authority Ox County Council

It's key to ensuring the Triangle really is the only viable site before CDC will approve development on Green Belt. Even then I believe it needs Secretary of State ratification.

Same with the other sites mentioned in their letter, the club need to evidence they're absolutely not available to build the stadium on.

 

[bazzer9461]

I'm sure in the coming weeks and months we will have more of these days where it feels like everything is against us. its frustrating but cdc are just covering everything base if anything it's making it more watertight
Fosb might well be thinking they have a win under there belts but I think they are in fact aiding us

But could this not lead to another delay in the planning application

 

[Billyox]

Ians finally come out of his hole on the bridge why does the bridge have to come directly out of Parkway and into the stadium it just needs to cross the road surely

 

[unification]

But could this not lead to another delay in the planning application

It depends entirely on the question posed, how long it takes to answer and when that question is posed. CDC asking now for further proof that the land Merton College owns isn't available should be fairly quick to answer, I suspect. Likewise the frustrating question regarding 'StAyInG aT tHe KaSsAm' which OCC knows the answer to. I don't know why this hasn't been shared with CDC. Is there a way to find this out?

Should they throw a curveball in January for more modelling for something or other, that is the kind of thing that I reckon would cause further delays.

CDC are doing the right thing by posing the questions now rather than blindsiding the club and stadium team with them at a later date. One big thing in our favour is EFL regulations over moving grounds and the Alternative Sites Report has an email from the EFL listing what you can and cannot do to relocate a team to a new stadium (pp15-18). It says:

It is clear from the factors and brief history set out above OUFC is intrinsically linked with the city of Oxford. On this basis the Board of the EFL could only be reasonably satisfied that the location is appropriate to provide consent if any proposed location is in or in a close proximity to the city of Oxford. The proposed site at Stratfield Brake* is in close proximity to the city of Oxford and the Board was satisfied this location is appropriate to the name of the Club 'Oxford United Football Club'. The EFL Board noted that Bolton Wanderers FC, which had been inextricably linked with the town of Bolton, was permitted to move a similar distance**, to Horwich, and that move was a success and stands as an existing precedent. If OUFC proposed a site that was not in the city of Oxford or was not within close proximity to the city of Oxford, the EFL Board would be unlikely to provide consent given the significant risk that the Board could not be reasonably satisfied the location is appropriate having regard to the Club name applying regulation 13.6.2.

*Report was written when SB was the preferred site.
**Bolton moved 7 miles from the centre of Bolton, the furthest distance the EFL has granted to a team to move grounds (with the unique exception of MK Dons)

The bit in bold is big to us and stops any sort of nonsense for the club having to move to Didcot or other farfetched ideas. I would assume that OCC and CDC have to entertain this regulation. If not, they then look complicit in killing a football club which is a guaranteed vote loser.