As daft as it is dealing with two different councils, OCC grant the use (purchase or lease) of it to OUFC whereas CDC give permission for what goes on it (ie, a stadium and its ancillaries).
As such, CDC shouldn’t need to ask any further questions provided OCC have done it for them.
Happy to be told otherwise if I’m not correct there.
Because objectors — notably Friends of Stratfield Brake (FoSB) and Ian Middleton — repeatedly claimed:
That Oxford United can stay at the Kassam.
That the club hadn’t proven they can’t remain there.
That no proof had been submitted about the lease expiring or being unrenewable.
These claims made the “need to relocate” a contested point, especially under Green Belt policy, where “Very Special Circumstances” (VSCs) must be demonstrated.
When objectors raise something that:
Relates to a core justification for development (in this case, OUFC needing a new stadium),
And call into question the evidence base behind that claim…
…the planning officer is obliged to:
Assess whether the application still holds up, and
Request further information if needed to properly determine the application.
But here's the twist
By demanding “proof” of the club’s lease problems, fosb forced OUFC to:
Submit updated legal evidence,
Clarify they have no long-term security at the Kassam, and
Strengthen their case for the Triangle development.
So ironically, in trying to block the stadium, FoSB and others may have: Triggered the very evidence that supports it.
.
