New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Planning

Scotchegg said:
As frustrating as all of this is, planning applications follow a structured legal process. Planning can not be declined simply because one or two councillors are against it for personal or political reasons. They are expected to follow due process, and any deviation from that on either side could then be taken to a judicial review.
Click to expand...
True.

Not so true when it comes to the matter or the lease.
 
Scotchegg said:
I agree with holding public servants to account for their actions, but I would advise that we as fans need to act with caution moving forward.

The club have themselves raised concerns about the delays in the Heads of Terms being agrees, and we should hold the councillors to account for not what they agreed to. But a targeted and personal campaign is likely to be counter productive and more damaging to the application.

As frustrating as all of this is, planning applications follow a structured legal process. Planning can not be declined simply because one or two councillors are against it for personal or political reasons. They are expected to follow due process, and any deviation from that on either side could then be taken to a judicial review.

It is outside of our normal remit, but @OUSP will happily forward any guidance from the club on how best to proceed, and Im sure @OxVox are also monitoring the situation closely.

The best thing we can all do is to support the planning application and get others to fo the same. Email the relevant people at OCC to challenge to delays with agreeing HoTs. And contact all candidates in the local elections and coming general election to ensure they are under no doubt how strong the support is for the stadium and the survival of our club.
Click to expand...
There is no genuine reason to delay heads of terms, these have been agreed and settled already, the fact they haven’t been signed is just proving the councillors involved to be what they are, two faced liars. No point in beating around the bush about it. HOT should have been signed by now. They were agreed, they have no reason not to sign them. It was agreed at the meeting how best to progress. They ALL agreed on that with amendments. They are breaking their word and it needs to be publicly shown they are basically going against public opinion & their own recommendations.

Planning is another matter entirely. It may get rejected, it may go through, but they’ve all agreed to let it get that far. The fact they are holding it up is criminal.
 
If and a big if at that, that all this can be proved that the OCC are being very slow and laboured showing their neglect for our club and we don’t get the ground, I think they will be made to look like pariahs all over the country as the national press will pick this up.
Imagine the headline in one or two of our national papers “ Club dies because of Nimbies “ and then the story naming these councillors imagine the embarrassment.
 
bazzer9461 said:
If and a big if at that, that all this can be proved that the OCC are being very slow and laboured showing their neglect for our club and we don’t get the ground, I think they will be made to look like pariahs all over the country as the national press will pick this up.
Imagine the headline in one or two of our national papers “ Club dies because of Nimbies “ and then the story naming these councillors imagine the embarrassment.
Click to expand...
This decision should not be swayed by party politics. It's not about a low traffic neighborhood, widening a footpath, or installing traffic lights at a roundabout. This is about a 130-year-old football club, the county's only professional football club, an entire community, and a £150 million investment. An investment that will benefit not just you and me, but all of Oxfordshire—the very people who elected these councillors to represent us. Party policy should have no role in this matter.
 
Not sure I share the same confidence as Bazzer and others that this would be the political suicide of the Greens and Lib Dems. As has been pointed out, OUFC have been shafted by local politicians in the past and that registers as barely a footnote in history.

I did actually get a few responses from Councillor Dan Levy to my earlier referenced email. I won't paste everything in here, as he responded to me about three times (so fair play on that front). The shortened version of what he said though was:

- There are substantial reasons not to agree the Heads of Terms proposed by the club. They are not in line with the discussions had with the club to date. I am not at liberty to go into detail, but suggest that the line being put out by the club is not by any means the whole position.
- Nothing has changed from the position as agreed by Cabinet, that the lease will go ahead subject to agreement on the lease terms, and the club's compliance with the conditions laid down by the County Council, which include the club getting planning permission for the stadium.
- The Heads of Terms are an irrelevance to the club getting planning permission from Cherwell DC. The Cabinet's position is unchanged from that of the September meeting and follow up letter in October giving more details.
- We did set out a set of conditions which are in the public domain, and relate to travel plans, support of local sports clubs in both Kidlington and Blackbird Leys, biodiversity and net zero, etc. As well as getting planning permission.
- If the club meets those conditions and if the contract is one which is equitable and secures the long term future of the OUFC as a footballing entity then yes we will enter the lease. I am sure no fan wants the football club to be susceptible to an owner who might not have the wellbeing of the club at heart - you have been through that in the past, as have many other clubs.

As Unification has said above, it does feel like something has shifted in recent months, with the councillor indicating that the change has come from OUFC. I pointed out to the councillor that from an OUFC fans' perspective, the only difference we can see is that a once supportive cabinet has now been replaced with a less supportive cabinet as control has gone to the Greens and Lib Dems. If the councillor is telling the truth, and OUFC have moved the goalposts with the proposed HoT then the cabinet should publicly explain this, and OUFC fans can shift their focus onto applying pressure on the club for more information. Until then, everyone will assume it is the Lib Dems and Greens causing the hold up.
 
OnlyOneUnited said:
Not sure I share the same confidence as Bazzer and others that this would be the political suicide of the Greens and Lib Dems. As has been pointed out, OUFC have been shafted by local politicians in the past and that registers as barely a footnote in history.

I did actually get a few responses from Councillor Dan Levy to my earlier referenced email. I won't paste everything in here, as he responded to me about three times (so fair play on that front). The shortened version of what he said though was:

- There are substantial reasons not to agree the Heads of Terms proposed by the club. They are not in line with the discussions had with the club to date. I am not at liberty to go into detail, but suggest that the line being put out by the club is not by any means the whole position.
- Nothing has changed from the position as agreed by Cabinet, that the lease will go ahead subject to agreement on the lease terms, and the club's compliance with the conditions laid down by the County Council, which include the club getting planning permission for the stadium.
- The Heads of Terms are an irrelevance to the club getting planning permission from Cherwell DC. The Cabinet's position is unchanged from that of the September meeting and follow up letter in October giving more details.
- We did set out a set of conditions which are in the public domain, and relate to travel plans, support of local sports clubs in both Kidlington and Blackbird Leys, biodiversity and net zero, etc. As well as getting planning permission.
- If the club meets those conditions and if the contract is one which is equitable and secures the long term future of the OUFC as a footballing entity then yes we will enter the lease. I am sure no fan wants the football club to be susceptible to an owner who might not have the wellbeing of the club at heart - you have been through that in the past, as have many other clubs.

As Unification has said above, it does feel like something has shifted in recent months, with the councillor indicating that the change has come from OUFC. I pointed out to the councillor that from an OUFC fans' perspective, the only difference we can see is that a once supportive cabinet has now been replaced with a less supportive cabinet as control has gone to the Greens and Lib Dems. If the councillor is telling the truth, and OUFC have moved the goalposts with the proposed HoT then the cabinet should publicly explain this, and OUFC fans can shift their focus onto applying pressure on the club for more information. Until then, everyone will assume it is the Lib Dems and Greens causing the hold up.
Click to expand...

Good post on this and great to see a (albeit abridged and redacted) reply explaining the reasons why the HoT has not been signed.

We as a fanbase can occasionally be blind to see that someone else is to blame for the hold-ups. Sometimes that's true since the wheels of local government can trundle away slowly, but perhaps on this occasion, the club may well be culpable too. Is there a step they have missed, a change in what they want or something else?

The opening bullet there is a concerning one. 'Substantial reasons' and 'the line being put out by the club is not by any means the whole position'. Hmm. That does not sound promising.

Let's remember that relations between us and TW, GF and AB did cool a bit after the fans' forum but they may well come hot again if the club is behind the recent delays and not just OCC.
 
oxfordclarion.uk

OUFC’s new stadium: what do the consultation responses say?

“If you don’t want to know the scores, look away now.” The planning application for Oxford United’s new stadium at the Triangle, near Kidlington, is open for consultation. Responses are still being received, but at the time of going to press – not yet full time, but well into
oxfordclarion.uk oxfordclarion.uk

Someone has done some work on the responses gained so far.

Not a lot we didn’t already know but a good read regardless. It’s infinitely better written than anything in the OM too.
 
Yes, the suggestion from Dan Levy is that OUFC are to blame for the delays to signing the HoT. We also have recent updates from ColinB and others that the funding model for the build has changed in recent months. Clearly it is in the interests of the politicians to blame OUFC and then hide behind commercial confidentiality to not have to explain themselves, but this alternative explanation is possible....

The problem is that with communication from OUFC P**s poor, and communication from OCC P**s poor, we as fans do not know who is to blame and therefore any concerted campaign is relatively pointless. At the moment I certainly do not trust the Greens or Lib Dems, but then I also do not fully trust the club's owners.

And one thing is for sure, the lease itself needs to contain as many protective covenants etc as possible to protect OUFC (and not the current owners of OUFC) from another Kassam situation. In this aspect we are relying on OCC to protect the club.

We are between a rock and a hard place!
 
unification said:
oxfordclarion.uk

OUFC’s new stadium: what do the consultation responses say?

“If you don’t want to know the scores, look away now.” The planning application for Oxford United’s new stadium at the Triangle, near Kidlington, is open for consultation. Responses are still being received, but at the time of going to press – not yet full time, but well into
oxfordclarion.uk oxfordclarion.uk

Someone has done some work on the responses gained so far.

Not a lot we didn’t already know but a good read regardless. It’s infinitely better written than anything in the OM too.
Click to expand...
its actually a very good piece take note oxford fail
 
OnlyOneUnited said:
- There are substantial reasons not to agree the Heads of Terms proposed by the club. They are not in line with the discussions had with the club to date. I am not at liberty to go into detail, but suggest that the line being put out by the club is not by any means the whole position.
- Nothing has changed from the position as agreed by Cabinet, that the lease will go ahead subject to agreement on the lease terms, and the club's compliance with the conditions laid down by the County Council, which include the club getting planning permission for the stadium.
- The Heads of Terms are an irrelevance to the club getting planning permission from Cherwell DC. The Cabinet's position is unchanged from that of the September meeting and follow up letter in October giving more details.
- We did set out a set of conditions which are in the public domain, and relate to travel plans, support of local sports clubs in both Kidlington and Blackbird Leys, biodiversity and net zero, etc. As well as getting planning permission.
- If the club meets those conditions and if the contract is one which is equitable and secures the long term future of the OUFC as a footballing entity then yes we will enter the lease. I am sure no fan wants the football club to be susceptible to an owner who might not have the wellbeing of the club at heart - you have been through that in the past, as have many other clubs.
Click to expand...
Pleasing to note that some of us are getting a response from councillors.
What is of concern here is that the blame for the delay is being shifted back onto the club. Does OCC have anything to gain by delaying? Other than our own conspiracy theory that it is motivated by certain individuals, the answer is probably, no. So, the club needs to clarify this position stated by by Councillor Levy and, it needs to do so promptly.
Also of concern are the comments relating to the owners of OUFC. Has something changed in the relationship between club and owners? Has the guarantee of the club's position relevant to the stadium changed?

A statement from the Board and Owners is now required to clarify the situation.

And, why does it take emails from supporters to get any information on the progress, or lack thereof, in getting the new stadium sorted?
 
OnlyOneUnited said:
Yes, the suggestion from Dan Levy is that OUFC are to blame for the delays to signing the HoT. We also have recent updates from ColinB and others that the funding model for the build has changed in recent months. Clearly it is in the interests of the politicians to blame OUFC and then hide behind commercial confidentiality to not have to explain themselves, but this alternative explanation is possible....

The problem is that with communication from OUFC P**s poor, and communication from OCC P**s poor, we as fans do not know who is to blame and therefore any concerted campaign is relatively pointless. At the moment I certainly do not trust the Greens or Lib Dems, but then I also do not fully trust the club's owners.

And one thing is for sure, the lease itself needs to contain as many protective covenants etc as possible to protect OUFC (and not the current owners of OUFC) from another Kassam situation. In this aspect we are relying on OCC to protect the club.

We are between a rock and a hard place!
Click to expand...

And being given the mushroom treatment too …
 
I am as frustrated as anyone regarding the delay, however holding a protest or march, would be the wrong way to go at the present time. All that would do is to hand FoSB a golden bullet. The time to hold a protest is after the planning process has ended and we know the result. Neither the club, Oxvox or OUSP would have any control over those taking part and it only needs a few Antis to get involved and you can imagine the headlines. Scotters is right, just let the planning process take its coarse and await the outcome. That’s how I see it.
 
Dillon said:
I am as frustrated as anyone regarding the delay, however holding a protest or march, would be the wrong way to go at the present time. All that would do is to hand FoSB a golden bullet. The time to hold a protest is after the planning process has ended and we know the result. Neither the club, Oxvox or OUSP would have any control over those taking part and it only needs a few Antis to get involved and you can imagine the headlines. Scotters is right, just let the planning process take its coarse and await the outcome. That’s how I see it.
Click to expand...
But any CLLr on the planning committee with a predetermined view ie Cllr Mawson will be dealt with. OUFC lawyers are well aware and will deal with the possibility of them being present on the planning committee.
 
Another response from Dan Levy:

- We are in a pre-election period, and the statements I can put out are very constrained under election law. I would love to be able to do so.
- You could ask the club for a copy of the proposed Heads of Terms that they want us to sign. I expect they will say no, but I would not be at all against OUFC fans and other residents seeing them.

As above, it is hard to know if this is top quality deflection from a politician, or if this is genuine. I am aware that pre-election there are rules over what can and can't be said, but I do not think that covers politicians campaigning for/against certain positions. So with my pro-OUFC hat on I would say that if Councillor Levy really cared that much, the Lib Dems would be talking about it in their election material, stating that they are pro-stadium and looking to hold the OUFC ownership to account. The fact they aren't indicates that they are fence-sitting ahead of an election so that they cannot be held directly accountable and so that they can go whichever way the wind blows post election.

As has become a theme though, with better communication from OUFC and by being more transparent with us fans rather than the vague statement released a few weeks ago, we would have more ammunition to hold people like Councillor Levy to account.

@OxVox @Paul P it would be good to know if you have seen the HoT referenced and if so, whether you believe it represents a shifting of the goalposts from OUFC or not? If you have not seen it, is it something you should be asking to see, as suggested by the councillor?
 
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
926K
Northstandboy
Northstandboy
brightonyellow
  • Locked
General New Stadium Plans - Stratfield Brake
304 305 306
Replies
6K
Views
413K
ljs
L
MarkG
What will happen to the Kassam stadium?
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
stokeu
stokeu
OUSP
Call to Action Stadium Planning
Replies
4
Views
605
OUSP
OUSP
OUFCwaffle
Study: New stadium location of safe standing model.
Replies
14
Views
1K
ljs
L
Back
Top Bottom