New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Planning

bashamwonderland said:
What about an aqueduct instead of a bridge.

The risk of crush would be virtually eliminated as people would need to use a small ferry or canal boat to cross.

It would also be in keeping with the chocolate box architecture of Kidlington-on-Cherwell.
Click to expand...

It would be a more hygienic place to P**s. Particularly if I didn't want to go in the garden where I'd dumped my car.
 
m said:
It would be a more hygienic place to P**s. Particularly if I didn't want to go in the garden where I'd dumped my car.
Click to expand...
Just mind out for the hundreds of dumped shopping trollies from Sainsburys that all our rascal fans will deposit in there . . .
 
Yellow River said:
As far as the bridge idea goes how about a good fashioned British compromise?

Get the Stadium built.

Trial for a season with road crossings from Oxford Parkway and the short 3 minute diversion via Frieze Way. Ironing out any initial issues that are bound to arise. With a commitment from the club to build a bridge if it is proven that local residents are being hugely inconvenienced.
Click to expand...
Far too sensible for the self serving local councillors I'm afraid.

We all know they don't care about the bridge, it's just their only hope of stopping the stadium and killing OUFC.
 
Last edited:
Do any posters have a line to any ex-(or current) players? Personally, I think it would be brilliant and a positive headline to get a few players of old putting their comments on the portal.

James Constable (naturally, because he is just the best) wrote a great letter to OCC in support of the new stadium when we needed it back in September last year. It just gives you an extra spike of pride and may well rally a few more fans to follow suit.

If anyone gets Abdou Sall, Doudou and Tsun Dai to put their comments in, we'll build a statue in your honour at the new stadium.
 
unification said:
Do any posters have a line to any ex-(or current) players? Personally, I think it would be brilliant and a positive headline to get a few players of old putting their comments on the portal.

James Constable (naturally, because he is just the best) wrote a great letter to OCC in support of the new stadium when we needed it back in September last year. It just gives you an extra spike of pride and may well rally a few more fans to follow suit.

If anyone gets Abdou Sall, Doudou and Tsun Dai to put their comments in, we'll build a statue in your honour at the new stadium.
Click to expand...
Paul Moody often pops up on Facebook taking about OUFC doesn't he?
 
Sheik djibouti said:
I assume that it was the elected councillors of OCC who made this "promise"* without taking any advice from their planning and traffic management experts first to see if it was entirely necessary :unsure:

Have they followed due process in making that "promise"*? Because if they haven't and they have made this commitment without being able to demonstrate that it does not entail excessive and unnecessary costs to the developer then it can and will be subject to appeal, I would imagine.

*the promise may of course just be mealy mouthed words and not actually binding. I mean it wouldn't be the first time a group of politicians promised something and then don't actaully deliver it, especially if all the legal and technical advice concludes it is not in fact legal OR required!
Click to expand...
OCC hasn’t promised anything other than to hold OUFC to task for its acceptance of the conditions discussed between them. It was OUFC that first included a bridge in the plans and agreed to the condition concerning the management of pedestrians to Parkway. It was only at the public exhibitions/first glimpse of the plans where they introduced the closures. Whether a bridge is needed or not, OUFC handled that part of this process exceptionally poorly.

I’m all for bashing the local authorities when they deserve it, but in this case I don’t think the club has much of a case. I think there’s been a belief amongst us fans that the lease is done and it’s all about planning. Unfortunately, that’s simply not the case.
 
Last edited:
LeftSideLarry said:
OCC hasn’t promised anything other than to hold OUFC to task for its acceptance of the conditions discussed between them. It was OUFC that first included a bridge in the plans and agreed to the condition concerning the management of pedestrians to Parkway. It was only at the public exhibitions/first glimpse of the plans that the introduced the closures. Whether it’s needed or not, OUFC handled that part of this process exceptionally poorly.

I’m all for bashing the local authorities when they deserve it, but in this case I don’t think the club has much of a case. I think there’s been a belief amongst us fans that the lease is done and it’s all about planning. Unfortunately, that’s simply not the case.
Click to expand...
Was there a promise of a bridge at the Triangle or was that at SB
 
Headley said:
Was there a promise of a bridge at the Triangle or was that at SB
Click to expand...
TW mentioned having a bridge when meeting with OCC to discuss the plans at The Triangle. It was after that meeting that IM ridiculed him for his lack of local knowledge, claiming that TW would be building a bridge into thin air.
 
Last edited:
LeftSideLarry said:
OCC hasn’t promised anything other than to hold OUFC to task for its acceptance of the conditions discussed between them. It was OUFC that first included a bridge in the plans and agreed to the condition concerning the management of pedestrians to Parkway. It was only at the public exhibitions/first glimpse of the plans where they introduced the closures. Whether a bridge is needed or not, OUFC handled that part of this process exceptionally poorly.

I’m all for bashing the local authorities when they deserve it, but in this case I don’t think the club has much of a case. I think there’s been a belief amongst us fans that the lease is done and it’s all about planning. Unfortunately, that’s simply not the case.
Click to expand...
The bridge is totally unnecessary and should be removed as a condition. It wasn't promised by OUFC but was part of its initial first draft plans, subject to change.
 
LeftSideLarry said:
TW mentioned having a bridge when meeting with OCC to discuss the plans at The Triangle. It was after that meeting that IM ridiculed him for his lack of local knowledge, claiming that TW would be building a bridge into thin air.
Click to expand...
I remember it being mentioned as a possibility but nothing promised by TW
 
LeftSideLarry said:
I think there’s been a belief amongst us fans that the lease is done and it’s all about planning. Unfortunately, that’s simply not the case.
Click to expand...
OCC have agreed "in principle" to lease the land if the club demonstrate that it can meet a series of conditions (5 or maybe 7, I don't recall). One of these was that the club must improve transport links for rail use, cycling and walking but the provisioning of a footbridge was not specifically mentioned. Now, a deal in principle is not legally binding but it would be a massive turnaround by Cabinet if they did not complete the deal when the club has clearly met the objectives which it was obliged to do (and even if certain groups opposed to the development have played down the financial benefits, OCC are not going to let this opportunity for revenue vanish into thin air) on semantics alone.

With the planning approved, the lease can be signed; the bridge then becomes a matter for CDC to consider. They may try to put up a show of strength by attaching some conditions to the stadium plan regarding a bridge but as any bridge is not relevant to the development (of the stadium site) and given that a separate application is to be made concerning a bridge, it would fail at least one of the criteria necessary for any conditions to be imposed. The second thing that works in our favour is that negatively worded conditions (so-called "Grampian Conditions") cannot be used if they make the implementation of the planning application unachievable.
 
Oxymoron said:
One of these was that the club must improve transport links for rail use, cycling and walking but the provisioning of a footbridge was not specifically mentioned
Click to expand...
It was not. But not disrupting the flow of traffic on the Oxford Road was.

I’m becoming convinced that many fans believe that if we keep just saying it isn’t necessary that OCC will just agree.

The third of the conditions is this:

  • The club must provide details of how it will meet the commitments made in its submissions to the county council so far.
It is that condition that is the issue. In its submissions, the club did say that it would not disrupt the flow of traffic down the Oxford Road. That is why OCC have promised the four parishes that they will not proceed with the lease if we do.

I’m not making it up, fellas.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone taken time to read the "independent biodiversity report" that FoSB published the other day?
 
LeftSideLarry said:
It was not. But not disrupting the flow of traffic on the Oxford Road was.

I’m becoming convinced that many fans believe that if we keep just saying it isn’t necessary that OCC will just agree.

The third of the conditions is this:

  • The club must provide details of how it will meet the commitments made in its submissions to the county council so far.
It is that condition that is the issue. In its submissions, the club did say that it would not disrupt the flow of traffic down the Oxford Road. That is why OCC have promised the four parishes that they will not proceed with the lease if we do.

I’m not making it up, fellas.
Click to expand...
I know you're not . . . but I do wonder if using the existing crossing points and controlling the flow of traffic and pedestrians for an hour tops either side of the game would really count as disrupting the flow. They are after all existing points that could be subject to higher pedestrian footfall already (for example, when they hold rugby tournaments at Strafield Brake and use the P&R for parking, which they have in the past). It's not like it would be stopping the flow entirely, which I think was the biggest sticking point when the club hastily suggested road closures at the 11th hour.

And as I've said, there are plenty of examples at other venues use existing crossing points without having to close the road completely.

Maybe this would meet those criteria....who knows :unsure:
 
LeftSideLarry said:
It was not. But not disrupting the flow of traffic on the Oxford Road was.

I’m becoming convinced that many fans believe that if we keep just saying it isn’t necessary that OCC will just agree.

The third of the conditions is this:

  • The club must provide details of how it will meet the commitments made in its submissions to the county council so far.
It is that condition that is the issue. In its submissions, the club did say that it would not disrupt the flow of traffic down the Oxford Road. That is why OCC have promised the four parishes that they will not proceed with the lease if we do.

I’m not making it up, fellas.
Click to expand...
Interesting that you mention the it would not disrupt the traffic flow down the Oxford Rd. anyone who knows the Oxford Road from Sainsbury’s to the High Street can tell you how many sets of pedestrian lights are within that stretch . 7
 
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
924K
Northstandboy
Northstandboy
brightonyellow
  • Locked
General New Stadium Plans - Stratfield Brake
304 305 306
Replies
6K
Views
412K
ljs
L
MarkG
What will happen to the Kassam stadium?
2
Replies
23
Views
686
WarwickOx
WarwickOx
OUSP
Call to Action Stadium Planning
Replies
4
Views
539
OUSP
OUSP
OUFCwaffle
Study: New stadium location of safe standing model.
Replies
14
Views
1K
ljs
L
Back
Top Bottom