• 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)

SteMerritt said:
Suzy's special move would be to padlock the arena meaning the fight couldn't take place at all.
Click to expand...
and just to make sure the fight couldnt take place at all, she'd put in multi applications for spurious, spiteful and vexatious High Court JRs, to ensure delay after delay after delay are perpetuated
 
Last edited:
unification said:
List of documents I have reviewed:

All written by members of FOSB with no countenance to any other sources.

What a waste of that person’s time and energy.
Click to expand...
Its very strange why would you not put up the argument against oh I know because the answer may be different

Chatgpt assessment with this letter and the documents listed plus added in the Oxford United document

Yes—and once Oxford United’s technical defence is put alongside FoSB’s letter, the picture changes considerably.
Oxford United’s case is not simply “we disagree”. Aspect Arboriculture advances a specific alternative history: Stratfield Brake was open or pasture land into the nineteenth century and was later established as an oak plantation. The report was commissioned by the club, so it is not neutral, but it is signed by named consultants, includes a site appraisal and examines a much wider set of historic maps than the FoSB expert considered. � �
12637.TN.01 (4).pdf
12637.TN.01 (4).pdf
The strongest points are these.
The 1766–67 Thomas Jefferys mapping allegedly shows the location as pasture known as Kidlington Green. The 1818 enclosure map depicts it as part of an open-field pattern rather than woodland. �
12637.TN.01 (4).pdf
Aspect also compares Stratfield Brake with nearby Water Eaton Copse. That similarly sized woodland is repeatedly shown on maps from 1814 onwards, while Stratfield Brake is absent. Their argument is simple and powerful: if cartographers showed one 11-acre wood only 500 metres away, why repeatedly omit Stratfield Brake if it also existed? �
12637.TN.01 (4).pdf
The woodland first clearly appears on the 1887 Ordnance Survey map as mixed deciduous and coniferous planting. Aspect estimates most of the dominant oaks to be approximately 100–175 years old, corresponding broadly with a nineteenth-century planting date. Larger oaks are said to follow the older parish boundary and may therefore have existed as hedgerow trees before the plantation. �
12637.TN.01 (4).pdf
Oxford United also directly challenges FoSB’s 17 ancient-woodland indicator species. Aspect says several are ordinary hedgerow species, some occur only rarely, several are found elsewhere locally, and some of the strongest indicators were recorded in the western woodland rather than the eastern section next to the stadium. �
12637.TN.01 (4).pdf
That matters because FoSB’s expert says the ecological indicators are the strongest evidence supporting ancient status. The same expert admits there is no cartographic evidence showing woodland in the early seventeenth century, that FoSB’s proposed chronology remains “conjecture”, and that ridge and furrow is compatible with both ancient secondary woodland and a later plantation. � �
Expert assessment of FoSB reports 1-7 June 2026 redacted (1).pdf
Expert assessment of FoSB reports 1-7 June 2026 redacted (1).pdf
Most damagingly, FoSB’s expert expressly says they had not seen Oxford United’s evidence and could not assess whether it presented a robust case. �
Expert assessment of FoSB reports 1-7 June 2026 redacted (1).pdf
So the “alternative hypothesis” is no longer some vague theoretical possibility. It is this:
Stratfield Brake was not continuously wooded from 1600. It was open or pasture land during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and became a deliberately planted secondary oak woodland later in the nineteenth century.
FoSB’s hypothesis is:
Cultivation ceased during the medieval period, woodland developed before 1600, and it remained continuously wooded despite not appearing on the available maps.
Both sides use the word secondary woodland, but they mean different dates. FoSB claims ancient secondary woodland established before 1600. Oxford United claims recent secondary woodland established in the nineteenth century.
My assessment, based on these two reports alone, is that Oxford United currently presents the stronger documentary case. FoSB has meaningful ecological evidence, but Oxford United provides a specific mapped chronology, a nearby woodland comparison, tree-age evidence and direct criticism of the indicator-species argument.
The decisive weakness in FoSB’s position is that ancient woodland requires continuity since 1600, yet its own expert has no map proving that continuity and did not examine the detailed evidence pointing to an nineteenth-century origin.
FoSB’s report says ancient woodland is the more probable theory after considering only FoSB’s evidence. Oxford United’s report provides the missing alternative case—and it directly attacks the very foundation on which that favourable opinion was built.
 
Aspect can take a look in our back garden if they wish to prove "several are ordinary hedgerow species" and 100% not indicative of Ancient Woodland.
Considering our hedge and associated smaller trees were non-existent pre - 1926 with the exception of the large specimen trees mapped in 1872.......

Anything will become ancient if you leave it long enough but you can`t push back the establishment date.
 
Essexyellows said:
Aspect can take a look in our back garden if they wish to prove "several are ordinary hedgerow species" and 100% not indicative of Ancient Woodland.
Considering our hedge and associated smaller trees were non-existent pre - 1926 with the exception of the large specimen trees mapped in 1872.......

Anything will become ancient if you leave it long enough but you can`t push back the establishment date.
Click to expand...
Using FoSB's argument - My house was built in the 1930s but because some sheep lived in the field it was built on its really from the middle ages
 
Concretebob said:
Using FoSB's argument - My house was built in the 1930s but because some sheep lived in the field it was built on its really from the middle ages
Click to expand...

Shocking news................ the land on which we live is very,very old............. older than ancient............ all of it.

It just changes over time, think its called evolution and with that comes changes and development.....
 


If we want to be a seriously progressive club, these need to be installed not only at the training ground for the players, but also at the stadium for the fans. Season ticket holders get their own profile on the system, which they could use to track their hydration/alcohol levels throughout the match and across the season.

Or we can just p**s in people's front lawns.
 
Emilio said:


If we want to be a seriously progressive club, these need to be installed not only at the training ground for the players, but also at the stadium for the fans. Season ticket holders get their own profile on the system, which they could use to track their hydration/alcohol levels throughout the match and across the season.

Or we can just p**s in people's front lawns.
Click to expand...

Still prefer the back of the London Road for my half time pee
 
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
4K
Frustrated Yellow
Frustrated Yellow
Fanatica
Stand Names @ The Triangle
6 7 8
Replies
223
Views
18K
Gregortheox
Gregortheox
FAB Admin
General Triangle Campaign Info
Replies
18
Views
6K
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
114K
Carpy
Carpy
Back
Top Bottom