New Stadium The Triangle - Planning (S106 Submitted)

[SteMerritt]

New Stadium Project - Key Details
​

Planning Portal: Planning Application - 24/00539/F Stadium News Digest Thread: Click Here. Latest from Club:​

Latest from CDC: APPROVAL GRANTED S106 Draft Submitted Kassam License Extension: OUFC Communication Target SoS Decision Date: SoS Go-Ahead Given 15th Oct​

SoS Decision - No Call In​

 

[Billyox]

Not true.
I think that the club need to get the S106 completed as soon as possible and then see where we are on the plan
The club shouid do everything possible to not ground share even if it means swapping a couple of the home games for away games at the start.

I know kassam said no more extensions but im sure depending on how far down the line kassam is with his own plans we maybe able to stay there for a few extra weeks
Some of the rent agreements with Vue etc dont end til 2029

 

[Bicester Yellow]

Not true.
I think that the club need to get the S106 completed as soon as possible and then see where we are on the plan
The club shouid do everything possible to not ground share even if it means swapping a couple of the home games for away games at the start.

I think they do too and would like to see it done within the next week or so really.

I don’t want to ground share, but I think it’s increasingly likely we will, even for a short period of time or they may extend at the Kassam for a few months.

It’s only my opinion but I can’t see it being ready for when we initially leave the Grenoble Road.

 

[Bicester Yellow]

I know kassam said no more extensions but im sure depending on how far down the line kassam is with his own plans we maybe able to stay there for a few extra weeks
Some of the rent agreements with Vue etc dont end til 2029

May happen more than a groundshare but I can’t see us needing one or the other for a short time.

 

[Sarge]

I know these things take time, and that CDC do appear to over drag their heels on seemingly everything ( compounded by certain councils from the Kidlington area dillying and dallying)- however I for one am getting seriously frustrated by the ridiculous amount of time its taking to agree the S106, and also the lack of any coherant updates on the process and its likely conclusion, from OUFC SMT too

Its been suggested mid November, the end of November, Early December, Mid December, End of December, Mid January ( which is more or less where we are now- give or take a day or so), and it seems End of January is the latest possible conclusion- and who knows how much longer after that?.

What is actually happening? What is behind delay after delay after delay?

 

[Maurice Earp]

Yes, I know that. I was asking Maurice because he's upset at the timescale, so I was wondering if he knew better

I'm not upset just expressing my frustrations AND no, I don't know anything.

 

[Billyox]

I know these things take time, and that CDC do appear to over drag their heels on seemingly everything ( compounded by certain councils from the Kidlington area dillying and dallying)- however I for one am getting seriously frustrated by the ridiculous amount of time its taking to agree the S106, and also the lack of any coherant updates on the process and its likely conclusion, from OUFC SMT too

Its been suggested mid November, the end of November, Early December, Mid December, End of December, Mid January ( which is more or less where we are now- give or take a day or so), and it seems End of January is the latest possible conclusion- and who knows how much longer after that?.

What is actually happening? What is behind delay after delay after delay?

Its not a delay s106 just takes time

Ouf Section 106 isn’t slow because anyone’s dragging their feet it’s slow because it’s unusually complex.
In simple terms:
A normal S106 is one council + one developer.
This one involves Cherwell District Council, Oxfordshire County Council, and Chiltern Railways.
On top of that, OCC isn’t just a consultee it also owns part of the land.
So OCC is wearing three hats at once:
highways authority, landowner, and legal party to the agreement.
Each organisation has different legal powers, different priorities, and different financial interests, and every clause has to work for all of them before anything can be signed off.
That’s why it takes time.
Not incompetence. Not obstruction.
Just a genuinely complicated, multi-party legal agreement that has to be watertight.

 

[Sarge]

I know kassam said no more extensions but im sure depending on how far down the line kassam is with his own plans we maybe able to stay there for a few extra weeks
Some of the rent agreements with Vue etc dont end til 2029

If that particular scenario was to manifest itself, heres hoping those who have decades of experience are able to put those said decades of experiece into practice, to deal with the very likely nightmare scenario of selling STs for a month or so at the Breeze Block, then subsequently (smoothly) transferring them to the larger New Stadium on The Triangle. Which i think will prove to be an absolute logistical nightmare.

IMO the S106 needs to be agreed and signed off ASAP

 

[Foley]

Its not a delay s106 just takes time

Ouf Section 106 isn’t slow because anyone’s dragging their feet it’s slow because it’s unusually complex.
In simple terms:
A normal S106 is one council + one developer.
This one involves Cherwell District Council, Oxfordshire County Council, and Chiltern Railways.
On top of that, OCC isn’t just a consultee it also owns part of the land.
So OCC is wearing three hats at once:
highways authority, landowner, and legal party to the agreement.
Each organisation has different legal powers, different priorities, and different financial interests, and every clause has to work for all of them before anything can be signed off.
That’s why it takes time.
Not incompetence. Not obstruction.
Just a genuinely complicated, multi-party legal agreement that has to be watertight.

I think that Sarge has a point is so far as the timescale given always seem to be extended.
So naturally this makes fans nervous.
It is clearly very complicated, but the end of the year was a givrn timescale then the middle of January ( which hopefully will be achieved, but nobody has heard anything).
Let's hope we hear soon.

 

[Sarge]

Its not a delay s106 just takes time

Ouf Section 106 isn’t slow because anyone’s dragging their feet it’s slow because it’s unusually complex.
In simple terms:
A normal S106 is one council + one developer.
This one involves Cherwell District Council, Oxfordshire County Council, and Chiltern Railways.
On top of that, OCC isn’t just a consultee it also owns part of the land.
So OCC is wearing three hats at once:
highways authority, landowner, and legal party to the agreement.
Each organisation has different legal powers, different priorities, and different financial interests, and every clause has to work for all of them before anything can be signed off.
That’s why it takes time.
Not incompetence. Not obstruction.
Just a genuinely complicated, multi-party legal agreement that has to be watertight.

cheers for explaining and clarifying @Billyox - Im a smidgen less frustrated with the S106 long drawn out process, for now

would it be worth emailing those involved in the S106 process telling them the frustration their dilly dallying is causing?

 

[OUFCwaffle]

It also fits very nicely into the definition of grey belt

Personally I'd class greenbelt as woodlands, nature reserves, parks, floodplains, other areas of natural beauty. Farmland is far from pristine biodiversity and fair game should the land owner want to develop it.

 

[Billyox]

cheers for explaining and clarifying @Billyox - Im a smidgen less frustrated with the S106 long drawn out process, for now

would it be worth emailing those involved in the S106 process telling them the frustration their dilly dallying is causing?

Given how quickly the first draft of the S106 was produced, it’s clear this already has top priority across all parties involved.
That matters, because this isn’t a box-ticking exercise. A Section 106 sets out huge financial and legal obligations that will shape the club’s future for decades, not months.
Once it’s signed, it’s binding. You can’t casually fix it later.
So every clause has to be:
legally watertight
financially sustainable
fair to the club as well as the councils
Rushing this would be reckless. Getting it right matters far more than getting it fast.

 

[Sarge]

Given how quickly the first draft of the S106 was produced, it’s clear this already has top priority across all parties involved.
That matters, because this isn’t a box-ticking exercise. A Section 106 sets out huge financial and legal obligations that will shape the club’s future for decades, not months.
Once it’s signed, it’s binding. You can’t casually fix it later.
So every clause has to be:
legally watertight
financially sustainable
fair to the club as well as the councils
Rushing this would be reckless. Getting it right matters far more than getting it fast.

cheers @Billyox - I really wish that the SMT, on behalf of the club, would communicate informative explanations such as that (and updates)

 

[OUFCwaffle]

Worst case we could build three stands and finish the rest later

 

[Billyox]

Think of it like this we had all the delays to make sure the application was watertight and robust to firstly get it through planning and to protect it from a jr

The s106 is now being made watertight and robust to protect the future of the club

Short time pain long time gain

 

[Stranger]

Personally I'd class greenbelt as woodlands, nature reserves, parks, floodplains, other areas of natural beauty. Farmland is far from pristine biodiversity and fair game should the land owner want to develop it.

The official definition of Green Belt includes agricultural land

 

[FatOldSun]

1. The Core Definition​

To be classified as grey belt, a site must be located within the Green Belt and meet at least one of these two conditions:

• Previously Developed Land (PDL): This includes "brownfield" sites such as disused car parks, old petrol stations, or former industrial units.
• Limited Contribution: Other land that does not strongly contribute to the primary purposes of the Green Belt. Specifically, it must not perform a "strong" role in:
  • Checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.
  • Preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another.
  • Preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

2. The Exclusion Test

Even if land is "ugly" or under-utilised, it is excluded from being classified as grey belt if it is subject to high-level national protections. These include:

• Environmental protections: National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), or Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
• Heritage & Risk: Scheduled monuments, areas of high flood risk (Zone 3), or ancient woodland.

 

[FatOldSun]

1. The Core Definition​

To be classified as grey belt, a site must be located within the Green Belt and meet at least one of these two conditions:

• Previously Developed Land (PDL): This includes "brownfield" sites such as disused car parks, old petrol stations, or former industrial units.
• Limited Contribution: Other land that does notstrongly contribute to the primary purposes of the Green Belt. Specifically, it must not perform a "strong" role in:
  • Checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.
  • Preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another.
  • Preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

2. The Exclusion Test

Even if land is "ugly" or under-utilised, it is excluded from being classified as grey belt if it is subject to high-level national protections. These include:

• Environmental protections: National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), or Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
• Heritage & Risk: Scheduled monuments, areas of high flood risk (Zone 3), or ancient woodland.

I'm sure the argument will be that it does perform a role in checking the unrestricted sprawl. Whether it's strong enough is another question.

 

[The Mighty Aldo]

Its not a delay s106 just takes time

Ouf Section 106 isn’t slow because anyone’s dragging their feet it’s slow because it’s unusually complex.
In simple terms:
A normal S106 is one council + one developer.
This one involves Cherwell District Council, Oxfordshire County Council, and Chiltern Railways.
On top of that, OCC isn’t just a consultee it also owns part of the land.
So OCC is wearing three hats at once:
highways authority, landowner, and legal party to the agreement.
Each organisation has different legal powers, different priorities, and different financial interests, and every clause has to work for all of them before anything can be signed off.
That’s why it takes time.
Not incompetence. Not obstruction.
Just a genuinely complicated, multi-party legal agreement that has to be watertight.

Billy
I think around mid December you had a post showing a Draft 106. Many people including me thought great, just a few things to tweak and we’re there. We of course have no idea how these things work( a few maybe on here but not many)

It looks like quite a few things have to be tweaked but the main thing is we know we can’t be far away now.

He said hopefully

 

[Colin B]

We had a confirmed construction timescale of 18/24 months for the 18,000 capacity stadium (with TWO integrated hotels and all the other things at the Triangle) that we looked at for the land north of Oxford Parkway. This was dependent on how much of the stadium fabric could be pre-fabricated.

It didn't include the lead in events that are required, as the time of year that you start, and therefore finish construction is a factor with when these can be staged. For example, if you finish in April, you'll have no problem with the lead in events. If you finish in July, then it's a problem.

Should be the same for the Triangle.

 

[Billyox]

Billy
I think around mid December you had a post showing a Draft 106. Many people including me thought great, just a few things to tweak and we’re there. We of course have no idea how these things work( a few maybe on here but not many)

It looks like quite a few things have to be tweaked but the main thing is we know we can’t be far away now.

He said hopefully

It’s a rough framework that sets out proposed payments and obligations so everyone knows what’s on the table. Once that’s issued, the real work begins.
Every clause then has to be legally checked, financially costed, and negotiated between multiple parties. Small wording changes can mean millions of pounds or long-term commitments that last decades.
The councils focus on enforceability.
The club focuses on long-term sustainability.

I really dont think we are far away now

 

[sideshowrob]

Think of it like this we had all the delays to make sure the application was watertight and robust to firstly get it through planning and to protect it from a jr

The s106 is now being made watertight and robust to protect the future of the club

Short time pain long time gain

Billy - please could you post the the draft s106 list again?

 

[Billyox]

Billy - please could you post the the draft s106 list again?

https://planningregister.cherwell.gov.uk/Document/Download?module=PLA&recordNumber=158919&planId=2383101&imageId=11065&isPlan=False&fileName=s.106%20Agreement%20-%20OUFC%20-%20Kassam%20Stadium%20%2823.10.2025%29%20FIRST%20DRAFT.pdf

 

[OUFCGav]

Does anyone know the implications of the Land behind the Moors development will have on Stratfield Brake?

Presumably if the Cricket club moves there it'll have serious implications for the viability of Stratfield Brake

Stratfield Brake already has serious viability concerns. There needs to be lots of work done on the ground, especially around drainage. There isn't the money to do it. The sports clubs are looking elsewhere.

 

[Chrisox]

Stratfield Brake already has serious viability concerns. There needs to be lots of work done on the ground, especially around drainage. There isn't the money to do it. The sports clubs are looking elsewhere.

The big problem with drainage at Stratfield brake is on Cricket side because they never put any drainage in when the place was built there was no plan to have the kids football in the winter.

 

[bazzer9461]

It’s a rough framework that sets out proposed payments and obligations so everyone knows what’s on the table. Once that’s issued, the real work begins.
Every clause then has to be legally checked, financially costed, and negotiated between multiple parties. Small wording changes can mean millions of pounds or long-term commitments that last decades.
The councils focus on enforceability.
The club focuses on long-term sustainability.

I really dont think we are far away now

Could the delay in the S106 be down to pressure from KPC tempting to muscle in for more with them causing a delay? Because you did say Jonathan Clarke said something to you that led you to believe anytime now.
It just does seem like we’ve had the planning dead on and this seems to be dragging on now,

 

[Oxymoron]

I don't believe KPC have any input to the S106. They can shout, scream and stamp their feet about what they want or need, but the agreement has nothing to do with them.

If only they had tried to engage constructively earlier in the process....

 

[Sarge]

Stratfield Brake already has serious viability concerns. There needs to be lots of work done on the ground, especially around drainage. There isn't the money to do it. The sports clubs are looking elsewhere.

Stattfield Brake sports ground also has a serious problem with dog walkers failing to clear up after their pets

if only there was a local councillor for Kidlington who had expertise in ensuring dog poo went in the correct receptacles, ....oh, apparently there is such a councillor who is a Kidlington councillor, I wonder why he hasnt, as yet, used his skills in that field to help clear up Stratfield brake sports pitches?

 

[Concretebob]

Could the delay in the S106 be down to pressure from KPC tempting to muscle in for more with them causing a delay? Because you did say Jonathan Clarke said something to you that led you to believe anytime now.
It just does seem like we’ve had the planning dead on and this seems to be dragging on now,

They have no say in the S106. Their councillors are far too preoccupied being dog mess collecting heroes these days.

 

[West Oxon U’s]

 

[Billyox]

Could the delay in the S106 be down to pressure from KPC tempting to muscle in for more with them causing a delay? Because you did say Jonathan Clarke said something to you that led you to believe anytime now.
It just does seem like we’ve had the planning dead on and this seems to be dragging on now,

Let's get one thing clear
There is no delay no one is delaying anything.

Kpc have very little say on this they asked once it was rejected by cdc.