• Further New Features Are Available - Click To Update
  • Join OxVox

    The forum would encourage all members to consider joining OxVox during this important moment in our history. See here for more information.

New Stadium The Triangle - Planning (S106 Agreed)

One of the good things about being either the Yellows or the U's is that it gives you more options (along with Oxford and United) to avoid repetition when writing match reports/previews! If we could come up with another couple of potential nicknames (that aren't s**t) I would be grateful

We didn't come up with it but I can't help thinking about The Angry Crabs without smiling.
 
FoSB are not actually arguing whether the woodland is or is not ancient woodland. Their argument appears to be that Cherwell District Council failed to take a precautionary approach, allegedly as advised by Natural England.
The problem for FoSB is that I have yet to find any Natural England document which actually says CDC must take that precautionary approach in the way FoSB are claiming.
In any event, CDC clearly have taken a precautionary approach. The s106 includes a Woodland Management Plan, and Ridge have also designed in protective measures. That includes a buffer zone along the woodland edge. Yes, it is not a full 15 metres in every location, but that is because the woodland has not been confirmed as ancient woodland, so the full ancient woodland buffer requirement does not automatically apply.
On top of that, two ponds have been placed along that edge, which adds further protection and separation between the development and the woodland.
So FoSB’s argument looks weak. They are trying to turn an “inconclusive” ancient woodland issue into a failure by CDC, when the evidence shows CDC and the applicant have treated the woodland carefully and built precautionary protection into the scheme anyway.
And that your honour is why this JR claim should be dismissed!

It’s amazing that this could get down to actual wording rather than actual actions and due diligent considerations taken.

I just find it weird that a choice of words months ago can hold such impact rather than logic!!

Do we think the words ‘precautionary approach’ was deliberate?
 
Last edited:
And that your honour is why this JR claim should be dismissed!

It’s amazing that this could get down to actual wording rather than actual actions and due diligent considerations taken.

I just find it weird that a choice of words months ago can hold such impact rather than logic!!

Do we think the words ‘precautionary approach’ was deliberate?
You clearly haven’t had much experience of the legal system in the commercial and contracting area.
 
This email is quite revealing.
For months we've been told that Cherwell District Council failed to take a precautionary approach to the ancient woodland issue. Yet here we have Friends of Stratfield Brake themselves acknowledging two important facts.
First, they accept that Natural England's designation process is separate from the planning process.
Second, and more importantly, they state:
"It is clear from the above that CDC, as the LPA, is responsible for deciding whether or not the development will result in the loss or deterioration of the ancient woodland."
In other words, FoSB accepted that the decision rested with Cherwell District Council as the Local Planning Authority.
What's also interesting is that this email came after CDC had already confirmed that, until Natural England informed them otherwise, they would be treating the woodland as ancient and assessing the application accordingly.
So the claim that CDC ignored the issue or failed to consider it becomes much harder to sustain. The council was aware of the issue, considered the evidence, applied the precautionary approach and then exercised its planning judgement.

1000056364.webp
 
View attachment 35669
Strange then Steve that this donation has never been added to the go fund me account
I had quite a run in with him earlier and then pointed out he had got so many things wrong
He has yet to reply, he did mention Yellows Forum though so I suspect he reads these pages avidly
Edit
Looks like Steve has taken his posts down
 
Last edited:
I had quite a run in with him earlier and then pointed out he had got so many things wrong
He has yet to reply, he did mention Yellows Forum though so I suspect he reads these pages avidly
Edit
Looks like Steve has taken his posts down
No no he hasn't taken his posts down hes finally blocked you
None of your posts were abusive
1000056388.webp
 
It is all very frustrating - near where I live Manston Airport revival went through an arduous losing JCR and Appeal on said negative result which the applicants lost. The impetus behind this however was not from an eco perspective as you may think but an alternative land development plan so they say.
 
No no he hasn't taken his posts down hes finally blocked you
None of your posts were abusive
View attachment 35671
This what I posted , only stating the truth

Steve Hill
There you go again distorting what people say. I said the club weren’t involved and you say they were.
Yellows Forum may be involved but not OUFC
If anyone on this whole debate has embarrassed themselves is you.
You said OUFC could stay at the Kassam they couldn’t
You said the train station at Kidlington isn’t big enough and yet 18000 people used it for the Wembley Final.
You live nowhere near the stadium and yet you talk as if you are a resident.
You block anyone who disagrees with you just like your chum that arsewipe Middleton.
You just make up stuff as you go along and you have yet to be right. You said this would get thrown out and yet CDC voted 14-1.
You know and I know that the majority of Kidlington residents don’t give a monkeys about the stadium. In fact the stadium is around a mile away from the centre of the village/town.
Why don’t you just toddle off and find another project to oppose.
 
‘Graham North you’re just abusive’ followed by ‘Screw you Graham’ - ok, makes sense.
I don’t think I was abusive at all
If I was going to be abusive and I know you read these threads Steve I would say

“Steve, you are a cad, you acuse me of being abusive and yet you want to “screw me” , you are not a gentleman, sir, and I challenge you to a duel of keepy uppy at dawn.

I choose @Billyox as my seconder, I assume you will have Mr Middleton as yours.

Good day sir, until tomorrow at dawn
 
I don’t think I was abusive at all
If I was going to be abusive and I know you read these threads Steve I would say

“Steve, you are a cad, you acuse me of being abusive and yet you want to “screw me” , you are not a gentleman, sir, and I challenge you to a duel of keepy uppy at dawn.

I choose @Billyox as my seconder, I assume you will have Mr Middleton as yours.

Good day sir, until tomorrow at dawn
Will this take place on the centre circle of the triangle
 
View attachment 35672
This is an outrageous claim by Steve to say oufc supporters tried to rig a parish poll
being blocked on social media by Blossom Hill isnt that much of an exclusive club

hes blocked so many people on various platforms Im surprised there are any left to benefit from his inciteful , merlot fuelled, pontifications, that invariably are completely wrong.
As he himself has ( on a rare occasion at that) rightly pointed out that the internet has a long memory. His claims of Parkway Station being too small , claims of meeting all manner of key individuals( including the Breeze Block owner) regarding Stadium on the Triangle, claim that CDC would reject planning permission along with other solid gold gems such as earning £1k an hour and assertion that he would fund any legal challenge against the stadium being built are just some of the countless own goals he has scored, all which he made on various internet platforms
 
Back
Top Bottom