• *** Guest, YF World Cup prediction league launched, Click here *****
  • Further New Features Are Available - Click To Update

New Stadium The Triangle - Planning (S106 Agreed)

Billyox said:
“Expedition is not automatic. The parties asking for it have to justify it. In this case, the obvious argument is that the JR is holding up a major consented development, creating serious uncertainty for the club, the council and the wider community. Given the unusual service delay, it would be entirely reasonable for Cherwell, Oxford United and OCC to ask the court to get the case moving quickly.”
Click to expand...
Difficult to think of stronger grounds for an expedited hearing than this, seems we have a good case.
 
Billyox said:
Now this is out in the open, i can explain the delay.
Friends of Stratfield Brake filed their judicial review on 9 April. Normally, once a claim is filed, the claimant has 7 days to serve it on the defendant, Cherwell District Council, and the interested parties, Oxford United and Oxfordshire County Council.
That did not happen.
In fact, it appears the claim was not served for several weeks and was only served around mid-May. That is why Cherwell, Oxford United and OCC have only just submitted their acknowledgements of service.
The key point is this: if that delay had been the fault of the claimant, in normal circumstances the claim would have been at serious risk of being thrown out. So the only reasonable conclusion is that the delay was caused by an administrative issue at the court, rather than by FoSB themselves.
That is why the case has continued despite the long gap between filing and service.
Click to expand...

Now I'm not an expert in this field but it was my understanding that the claimant (Leigh Day/FoSB) is responsible for serving the papers not only to the court but also to the defendant (CDC) and interested parties (OUFC and others?) and they must also inform the court that they have served papers in the time prescribed by law.

I'll have to presume that their are copious amounts of red tape to get through once the filing and serving of papers happens, but it's difficult to see from my uneducated viewpoint where the court can cock up when the onus is on the claimants to ensure the procedures have been followed.
 
Oxymoron said:
Now I'm not an expert in this field but it was my understanding that the claimant (Leigh Day/FoSB) is responsible for serving the papers not only to the court but also to the defendant (CDC) and interested parties (OUFC and others?) and they must also inform the court that they have served papers in the time prescribed by law.

I'll have to presume that their are copious amounts of red tape to get through once the filing and serving of papers happens, but it's difficult to see from my uneducated viewpoint where the court can cock up when the onus is on the claimants to ensure the procedures have been followed.
Click to expand...
Is there any good reason why CDC and the club weren't all over the administrator here asking where the paperwork had got to?
 
Basically when you file a judicial review you hand over your documents and your documents are stamped/ sealed the court then puts them in to a self addressed envelope and hands them back to the claimant to serve on the defendant

If you file electronically then you get a email of the stamped/sealed documents to then serve on the defendant

I dont know how fosb filed the jr but it would appear neither happened
 
Billyox said:
Basically when you file a judicial review you hand over your documents and your documents are stamped/ sealed the court then puts them in to a self addressed envelope and hands them back to the claimant to serve on the defendant

If you file electronically then you get a email of the stamped/sealed documents to then serve on the defendant

I dont know how fosb filed the jr but it would appear neither happened
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the solicitor representing you do this?
 
Are the documents relating to the specifics of the JR claim made public at any point? Don’t come on much, so might have missed that. Apologies if so.
 
Benox said:
Are the documents relating to the specifics of the JR claim made public at any point? Don’t come on much, so might have missed that. Apologies if so.
Click to expand...
Possible but might have to wait until after
There are 2 grounds
Ancient woodland
And
Road closures

Road closures will be chucked out almost immediately as not a ground for a jr
 
Looking at the dataset on Natural England’s website the woodland hasn’t been added to NE’s inventory.

Given that planning was given on August 14th 2025 and it is now June 8th 2026 how can CDC be judged to acted illegally in this aspect?

This attempt at securing a JR by FoSB looks both highly frivolous and vexatious.
 
West Oxon U’s said:
Looking at the dataset on Natural England’s website the woodland hasn’t been added to NE’s inventory.

Given that planning was given on August 14th 2025 and it is now June 8th 2026 how can CDC be judged to acted illegally in this aspect?

This attempt at securing a JR by FoSB looks both highly frivolous and vexatious.
Click to expand...
FoSB are trying to build a judicial review ground out of uncertainty. But uncertainty was not ignored. It was considered. Natural England changed from an initial stronger view to a later inconclusive view. Cherwell recorded that latest position. Cherwell said it was still taking a precautionary approach. Natural England did not maintain an objection. The final formal planning decision was made with the ancient woodland issue squarely in front of officers and members.

FoSB’s ancient woodland ground looks less like a legal knockout and more like a disagreement dressed up as one. They say Natural England told Cherwell to take a precautionary approach, but the Natural England documents do not appear to say that in those words.
They say Cherwell failed to treat the issue properly, but Cherwell’s own update says it did take a precautionary approach. They rely on “could be ancient woodland”, but Natural England’s later and more relevant position was that the evidence was contradictory, inconclusive and not strong enough to add Stratfield Brake east to the Ancient Woodland Inventory. They point to NPPF 193(c), but that policy is not triggered simply because campaigners believe a woodland might be ancient. It depends on the decision-maker’s lawful assessment of the evidence.
In short: FoSB have a campaign argument. What they need is a legal error. On the ancient woodland material, that looks like a much harder hill to climb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar Threads

OUFCwaffle
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
New Stadium POLL: Planning Application for The Triangle
Replies
4
Views
3K
Frustrated Yellow
Frustrated Yellow
Fanatica
Stand Names @ The Triangle
6 7 8
Replies
223
Views
17K
Gregortheox
Gregortheox
FAB Admin
General Triangle Campaign Info
Replies
18
Views
5K
chuckbert
chuckbert
BarrySpang
  • Locked
New Stadium New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Land Deal
481 482 483
Replies
14K
Views
1M
Northstandboy
Northstandboy
Northstandboy
  • Locked
14/08/25: CDC Planning meeting - Decison time LIVE
66 67 68
Replies
2K
Views
108K
Carpy
Carpy
Back
Top Bottom