New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Planning

Maybe to you but not me and I hope the club have more fight than alot on here who would throw the towel in just because a few Lib Dem's and a green have been elected on the district council.

The club would of been well aware of the lack of support to the conservatives country wide and would of known that the areas closest to the proposed stadium would of all been given to a councillor who would seem to go against the stadium.
No one is throwing in the towel I can assure you of that. But the clout the greens have now along with their Libdem friends has got stronger.
Regarding the conservatives they were not expected to win let alone get overall control so we would have to rely more on Labour Cllr’s for a positive result.
By no means is this dead in the water but I fear a lot more obstacles leading to lengthier delays maybe put up.
I hope I’m wrong i really do but like @The mighty Aldo has said he is very passionate and 69 yrs old i too and very passionate but 63 yrs old and what he and I plus thousands more want is to see the games at the new stadium time is not our side.
 
Last edited:
Didn't take long.

Green Party predetermination?

This is turning ugly. I wondered whether OXVOX or Oxford United supporters panel or whoever should have put a candidate in for the CDC elections, certainly in the Kidlington area. The candidates wouldn't win but would take a good percentage of the turn out. Charlton Athletic did this when they wanted to return to the Valley Ground and the Greenwich council was against it.
 
‘It is not our place to tell people where to vote in local elections and by remaining outside of that debate we have been able to have frank and hopefully meaningful talks with many of those councillors. Political choices are both personal and private …’

From the OxVox update.

Personally I disagree. Whilst I would not expect the supporters to put out a guide to ‘fans from X should vote Y’, they could and should have stressed the need to vote and to consider your choices carefully.

It’s not a crime to be self-interested in this and as the supporters’ group they can be whereas the club have to be more politically neutral.

A missed trick from OxVox in my view.
My view is that it is less helpful in the mid to long term though for the club or OxVox (the latter of which will often be seen as being an extension of the club by external stakeholders, despite their independence) to publicly engage on political matters in this way.

Firstly, if your preferred candidates lose (as was very likely to be the case in a complex local election where there are many different factors in play), it then looks much more like a mandate for winning candidates (and parties as a whole) on a particular issue.

Secondly, it burns your bridges and makes any subsequent engagement and conciliatory pragmatism - in private but particularly in public - very difficult if not impossible.

Elected officials have their own pressures and internal political issues to deal with, aside from just ours. We have to recognise this. Sometimes they need a bit of space, time and back-channels for ongoing discussions. Particularly during election periods.

The stadium proposal is an emotive issue on both sides. Somewhat understandably and inevitably - particularly in modern times when social media use and general discourse has made debate more tribal - people want definitive black or white answers and public proclamations. But it’s more nuanced than that with any large development in a complex political environment.

We would all do well to take a step back and consider how much progress we’ve already made in extremely complicated circumstances.

We’ve very rarely been in this kind of situation where we have successfully agreed heads of terms for the leasing of land (on Green Belt no less), of having successfully worked with Planning Officers to submit a comprehensive and impressive planning application, and have demonstrated - repeatedly - a majority support from residents across the County.

It’s a minor miracle we’ve got this far. There are still big and significant hurdles to overcome. But I’d argue that it’s unhelpful to our cause at this stage to become divided and start turning fire on those who have played a key role in getting us here, and are so close to delivering this fantastic opportunity.

There will inevitably need to be a final push from us as fans (writing to CDC when the planning committee date is confirmed, attending on the day to peacefully and passionately demonstrate the importance of approval) and that’s where our focus should move to.

But that will be in a few weeks’ time. For now, let’s enjoy the play-offs opportunity that we’ve also achieved as a club. Momentum is back with us and we can play our part in helping that to continue, both on and off the pitch.

All United, and all that.

COYY
 
Last edited:
Help me (and perhaps others) out here. There's a couple of perhaps fundamentally important issues I am not entirely clear on.

Firstly, does the CDC planning committee need to reflect the overall make up of the elected council? Therefore would we expect ratios of Tory, Labour and Lib Dem to reflect the above result in Cherwell?

Secondly, am I right in thinking that ANY decision by planning committee is done by a majority vote.

Thirdly (linked to my first point), is there a danger that LD/Green can realistically form a minority administration and load the planning committee in their image.

Finally, (and I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to this) am I right in thinking that ANY planning application cannot simply be refused because some people don't want it. There has to be a sound technical, policy-based LEGAL reason for refusal. I appreciate that is not the same as saying they can't refuse it at committee, but more that they would not have a very strong case to defend at appeal, and therefore the risk of appeal will be taken into consideration at the decision stage.
 
‘It is not our place to tell people where to vote in local elections and by remaining outside of that debate we have been able to have frank and hopefully meaningful talks with many of those councillors. Political choices are both personal and private …’

From the OxVox update.

Personally I disagree. Whilst I would not expect the supporters to put out a guide to ‘fans from X should vote Y’, they could and should have stressed the need to vote and to consider your choices carefully.

It’s not a crime to be self-interested in this and as the supporters’ group they can be whereas the club have to be more politically neutral.

A missed trick from OxVox in my view.

OxVox seem to have decided they need to behave almost exactly as the club do, I don’t get the thinking behind that?

It does leave them open to criticism, it’s ok sending out email’s saying we are doing something but can’t talk about it every now and then, which they may well be but a supporters organisation can also do more than this (a bit questionable for me) clandestine stuff.

They are a supporters group, ignoring (stock email aside) the support is a strange one, it’s as if they are worried us humble fans might embarrass them in front of the fancy dan political circles they are now moving in.
 
It only matters if she is on the planning committee to decide. Anyone on there who isn't neutral on the subject will be removed or if they aren't the club have an easy route to challenge the decision. Trust the process.

It's clear her view expressed there is Green Party policy locally.
 
OxVox seem to have decided they need to behave almost exactly as the club do, I don’t get the thinking behind that?

It does leave them open to criticism, it’s ok sending out email’s saying we are doing something but can’t talk about it every now and then, which they may well be but a supporters organisation can also do more than this (a bit questionable for me) clandestine stuff.

They are a supporters group, ignoring (stock email aside) the support is a strange one, it’s as if they are worried us humble fans might embarrass them in front of the fancy dan political circles they are now moving in.
The thing is that is quite ironic, is that compared to the opposition us humble fans behaviour has been exemplary. (I don't care what Middleton thinks otherwise because he still cannot prove it despite many requests to do so)
 
The thing is that is quite ironic, is that compared to the opposition us humble fans behaviour has been exemplary. (I don't care what Middleton thinks otherwise because he still cannot prove it despite many requests to do so)

Considering we have all been slurred as people that are unable to use a toilet purely because we have a large number of working class fans we would have to go a long way to reaching the low of that level of bigotry.
 
Considering we have all been slurred as people that are unable to use a toilet purely because we have a large number of working class fans we would have to go a long way to reaching the low of that level of bigotry.
It just shows that if you are arrogant and entitled enough, you can say what you like.
 
It just shows that if you are arrogant and entitled enough, you can say what you like.

Be uproar if they said that about any other group in society, treated it as a joke at the time but it does start to get to you that they have been able to slur us with complete impunity.

I want us to win mostly because I want the club to exist and prosper, but I won’t deny that beating a group of absolute bigots won’t make it sweeter.
 
Looking at the Kidlington East Ward result where, to my surprise, Linda Ward got in, it is some consolation to note the low numbers and, maybe more significant, that she polled 1010 votes and the combined total of votes not in her favour is 1302. That gives a total number of votes cast (and accepted) as just 2312. If anyone could show that as justification for not allowing the stadium to go ahead, I would be shocked.

Of course, she, and her fellow FoSB acolytes will trumpet a victory and justify their claims to speak for the majority but, as has become more than apparent, they tend to rely on misinformation, spurious claims for the existence of rare wildlife, false accusations of threatening behaviour and down right lies.
No sane politician is going to be swayed by such antics in their decision making on the planning committee. That part of the process is governed in law. Some may see the election results as negative, I am more inclined to believe that common sense and due process will prevail.
 
We’ve very rarely been in this kind of situation where we have successfully agreed heads of terms for the leasing of land (on Green Belt no less), of having successfully worked with Planning Officers to submit a comprehensive and impressive planning application, and have demonstrated - repeatedly - a majority support from residents across the County.
This bit is all you really need to carry forward. The plans were submitted later than the optimal time and there are many reasons why that may or may not have happened but at any time in the process, the applicant can ask the planning department for advice and opinion on their scheme. I cannot imagine that the proposal which was ultimately lodged with CDC had not already been seen by the planning office in draft form at least a couple of times prior to February and changes made in the light of their responses.

That doesn't make it a given but it does remove any major obstacles that could preclude approval.
 
This bit is all you really need to carry forward. The plans were submitted later than the optimal time and there are many reasons why that may or may not have happened but at any time in the process, the applicant can ask the planning department for advice and opinion on their scheme. I cannot imagine that the proposal which was ultimately lodged with CDC had not already been seen by the planning office in draft form at least a couple of times prior to February and changes made in the light of their responses.

That doesn't make it a given but it does remove any major obstacles that could preclude approval.

I remember talking to someone very close to the project late last year. I asked when planning would be submitted and their words were "when it's impossible to turn down."

They said that the worst thing anyone could do at that stage was to rush things and miss a detail that was small but critical to the plans being approved. Having plans rejected would cost far more time and money than holding them back until they were ready.

And I'm sure you're right that numerous conversations have been taking place between the club and the planning office throughout this period. It is the responsible thing for both parties to do.

Still no guarantees, but plenty to be positive about.
 
I remember talking to someone very close to the project late last year. I asked when planning would be submitted and their words were "when it's impossible to turn down."

They said that the worst thing anyone could do at that stage was to rush things and miss a detail that was small but critical to the plans being approved. Having plans rejected would cost far more time and money than holding them back until they were ready.

And I'm sure you're right that numerous conversations have been taking place between the club and the planning office throughout this period. It is the responsible thing for both parties to do.

Still no guarantees, but plenty to be positive about.
If CDC reject the plans because they "do not like it" they'll be shooting themselves in the foot financially speaking.
 
I remember talking to someone very close to the project late last year. I asked when planning would be submitted and their words were "when it's impossible to turn down."

They said that the worst thing anyone could do at that stage was to rush things and miss a detail that was small but critical to the plans being approved. Having plans rejected would cost far more time and money than holding them back until they were ready.

And I'm sure you're right that numerous conversations have been taking place between the club and the planning office throughout this period. It is the responsible thing for both parties to do.

Still no guarantees, but plenty to be positive about.
Also hence the reason the bridge hasn't gone in yet. Get it right first time is better than rushing and getting it badly wrong
 
I understand why people might be feeling a little despondent--lots of you have worked so hard to encourage people to get out and vote (and I suspect you've been quite successful in that aim). So it's a shame that those efforts don't seem to have borne fruit.

However, as several have pointed out, hatred of the Tories was always likely to have played a bigger role in the way people voted than any feelings, one way or the other, about the new stadium.

Second, knowing the general anti-Tory mood and knowing the the Tories have been quite vocal about being in favour of the stadium, it probably didn't make a lot of sense for the LibDems to be anything but either fence-sitters or to make their anti-stadium feelings be known.

Third, and most important, when push comes to shove, we're talking about the construction of many and much-needed houses once we're out of the Kassam, we're talking about the creation of many jobs as the stadium is being built and thereafter, we're talking about bringing a world-class stadium to the county (with others paying for it), and making far more people happy as a result than the relatively few NIMBYs who are going to be mightily pissed off when the go-ahead is given for construction to begin. These fence-sitters will be more than happy to come down in favour of the stadium and start extolling all the benefits that will accrue to the good people of Oxfordshire in general, and to those of Kidlington specifically.

Keep the faith and COYYs tomorrow and Wednesday.
Also, I don’t think granting planning permission for the stadium will actually cost votes for whoever is in power at the time, including Green or Lib Dem.
The people who object will either still vote for these parties, or revert to type and vote for there traditional Parties once planning has been approved or denied.
The only way a governing party will lose votes is by turning this project down.
 
Didn't take long.

Green Party predetermination?


Don’t quite get the logic here.

It could be argued that although the Greens won this ward with 1010 votes and their argument was vote Green vote anti stadium, the rest add up 1302 votes.

So if she is claiming a vote for the Greens is anti stadium,logic suggest every other vote must be for the stadium
 
Back
Top Bottom