New Stadium The "Where we're at, and what's next?" Stadium Thread

[Emilio]

I thought it would be good (particularly for the benefit of less regular visitors to the Forum) to have a thread that clarifies where things currently stand with the stadium development and what happens next, allowing for people to find answers all in one place, without having to sift through the noise of anti-NIMBYism and politics in the main stadium thread (which very much has its own merits).

We do have a Digest thread for the stadium development, but that's more for specific updates, and not something members can post on.

Please let's try an keep this on topic, and keep the discussions about particular individuals and politics on the other thread.

So, that said, here's my understanding of where things currently stand (those in the know, please correct me where I'm wrong):


PLANNING PERMISSION & S106

Currently, we have been granted planning permission by Cherwell District Council (CDC) to build the stadium at the Triangle site. This was granted pending S106 agreements, which, from my understanding, means agreements between the club and CDC on things such as dedication to community contributions (financial and other benefits). This S106 was agreed upon on 26th Feb 2026.

JUDICIAL REVIEW

After a 6-week window, on 9th April 2026 NIMBY group Friends of Stratfield Break (FoSB) lodged a request for Judicial Review (JR). What this means, is they have lodged a complaint against CDC, claiming they did not follow all the correct rules and regulations when granting the planning permission.* If a JR takes place, CDC will have to prove to a judge that they followed correct procedure.

Currently, their request for a JR is being assessed to see whether it has indeed got legs, or whether it would just be a waste of everybody's time to have a JR if what they are complaining about has indeed been done by the book.



*My understanding is that FoSB's claim is specifically directed to claims of insufficient consideration of evidence regarding the impact to local wildlife (particularly the fact the woodland next to the stadium site as not designated as "ancient woodland"), and insufficient traffic congestion modelling. Others will know this in more detail, so do please correct me.

 

[Emilio]

So my main questions currently are:

If the JR is raised against CDC, why has the club lawyered up? Is it a sort of trickle-down "well we did right by what we were told by them, so now ask them to prove they did their job correctly?" case?


Given the JR application was submitted on the 9th of April, when can we expect to hear a response as to whether it will go ahead?

 

[Billyox]

The club has lawyered up because it has been named as a interested party along with occ m. The JR may formally be against CDC as the decision-maker, but the club is the beneficiary of the planning permission. If the claim succeeded, it is the club’s stadium permission, timetable and project that would be directly affected.
So “interested party”. That means it can put in evidence, make submissions, support CDC’s defence and protect its own position. It is not a sign that the club thinks CDC got it wrong. It is just basic legal common sense. You do not sit quietly while someone tries to unwind the permission your entire project depends on.
On timing, the 9tg April date is when the claim was submitted. The important clock is usually service of the claim and then the defendants/interested parties have time to file their Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, normally 21 days. After that, a judge considers permission on the papers.
So realistically, the club probably along side cdc asked to expedites the case (N463) we are probably looking at weeks rather than months before we hear whether permission is refused or granted. If refused on the papers, the claimant can still ask for an oral renewal hearing, which drags it out further.

Could of just asked or dropped a dm on the main thread

 

[Emilio]

The club has lawyered up because it has been named as a interested party along with occ m. The JR may formally be against CDC as the decision-maker, but the club is the beneficiary of the planning permission. If the claim succeeded, it is the club’s stadium permission, timetable and project that would be directly affected.
So “interested party”. That means it can put in evidence, make submissions, support CDC’s defence and protect its own position. It is not a sign that the club thinks CDC got it wrong. It is just basic legal common sense. You do not sit quietly while someone tries to unwind the permission your entire project depends on.
On timing, the 9tg April date is when the claim was submitted. The important clock is usually service of the claim and then the defendants/interested parties have time to file their Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, normally 21 days. After that, a judge considers permission on the papers.
So realistically, the club probably along side cdc asked to expedites the case (N463) we are probably looking at weeks rather than months before we hear whether permission is refused or granted. If refused on the papers, the claimant can still ask for an oral renewal hearing, which drags it out further.

Could of just asked or dropped a dm on the main thread

Thanks for that. It's good to know about the oral renewal hearing too, hadn't realised that was an option! I was hoping a simple turning down of the current JR application would have been the final obstacle from the opposing party.

I thought it would be better to keep the information easily/quickly accessible in a separate thread, and legible for all, rather than in a DM.

Other than the "ancient woodland" debacle, which seems to have to do with some last-minute letter submission, what exactly is the FoSB claim against? I understand it's to do with traffic, but they can't just endlessly appeal because they are unhappy about temporary road redirections directly pre/post matches. What is it they are claiming CDC hasn't properly considered/followed procedure on here?

 

[Billyox]

. A Judicial Review is much narrower. They cannot simply say they dislike the stadium, dislike road closures, or think traffic will be inconvenient. They have to show CDC acted unlawfully in the way it reached the decision.
The likely grounds appear to be around two main areas.
First, traffic/highways. They may argue CDC failed to properly assess the matchday traffic arrangements, road closures, diversions, mitigation, or the impact on local roads. But disagreement with the highways judgment is not enough. CDC had transport assessments, addendum work, highways consultation, a Match Day Travel Plan, officer reports, conditions and S106 controls. The court will not re-run the traffic debate.


Second, the “ancient woodland” issue. They may argue CDC failed to properly deal with late evidence, should have paused, reconsulted, sought more advice, or applied a more precautionary approach. But again, the court is not there to decide whether Sb east is ancient woodland. The question is whether CDC handled the issue lawfully.

 

[yellowbow]

The opposition are purely relying on drawing this out and delaying things to a point where the building period becomes impossible, meaning the owners pull out and the club dies.

That is their sole strategy and it’s such shame that the ridiculous laws in this country allow such a vindictive and nasty strategy to be allowed.

 

[sideshowrob]

When FoSB claim that there was insuffient traffic conjestion modelling they mean that the CDC planning officers ignored the 'independent' report that was written at the behest of Ian Middleton to suit his biased narrative, rather than the independent professional modelling software that CDC used which is approved for use with national planning regulations.

 

[SamLongSlidingTackle]

I thought it would be good (particularly for the benefit of less regular visitors to the Forum) to have a thread that clarifies where things currently stand with the stadium development and what happens next, allowing for people to find answers all in one place, without having to sift through the noise of anti-NIMBYism and politics in the main stadium thread (which very much has its own merits).

We do have a Digest thread for the stadium development, but that's more for specific updates, and not something members can post on.

Please let's try an keep this on topic, and keep the discussions about particular individuals and politics on the other thread.

So, that said, here's my understanding of where things currently stand (those in the know, please correct me where I'm wrong):


PLANNING PERMISSION & S106

Currently, we have been granted planning permission by Cherwell District Council (CDC) to build the stadium at the Triangle site. This was granted pending S106 agreements, which, from my understanding, means agreements between the club and CDC on things such as dedication to community contributions (financial and other benefits). This S106 was agreed upon on 26th Feb 2026.

JUDICIAL REVIEW

After a 6-week window, on 9th April 2026 NIMBY group Friends of Stratfield Break (FoSB) lodged a request for Judicial Review (JR). What this means, is they have lodged a complaint against CDC, claiming they did not follow all the correct rules and regulations when granting the planning permission.* If a JR takes place, CDC will have to prove to a judge that they followed correct procedure.

Currently, their request for a JR is being assessed to see whether it has indeed got legs, or whether it would just be a waste of everybody's time to have a JR if what they are complaining about has indeed been done by the book.



*My understanding is that FoSB's claim is specifically directed to claims of insufficient consideration of evidence regarding the impact to local wildlife (particularly the fact the woodland next to the stadium site as not designated as "ancient woodland"), and insufficient traffic congestion modelling. Others will know this in more detail, so do please correct me.

Thank you for this. There’s too much discussion between my visits to the new stadium thread to understand what’s going on and the stage we are at.
Could your first post be updated as we go along and also linked in the new stadium thread?
Thanks

 

[Sarge]

The opposition are purely relying on drawing this out and delaying things to a point where the building period becomes impossible, meaning the owners pull out and the club dies.

That is their sole strategy and it’s such shame that the ridiculous laws in this country allow such a vindictive and nasty strategy to be allowed.

exactly this

 

[Emilio]

Thank you for this. There’s too much discussion between my visits to the new stadium thread to understand what’s going on and the stage we are at.
Could your first post be updated as we go along and also linked in the new stadium thread?
Thanks

I will do my best to keep it updated as soon as I'm aware of any developments, though as my finger is not necessarily on the pulse, it might take a day or so from the news coming in

 

[SteMerritt]

Should anything of note happen, I'll get the digest thread on it as well.

 

[karakoram]

Should anything of note happen, I'll get the digest thread on it as well.

It does appear to me that there is delay after delay after delay and now ground sharing is inevitable

 

[Billyox]

It does appear to me that there is delay after delay after delay and now ground sharing is inevitable

There has only been one delay
What we have now is normal standard procedure

 

[Emilio]

It does appear to me that there is delay after delay after delay and now ground sharing is inevitable

Personally, I suspect that this may be the case, at least for part of the 2008/2009 season (though there are some people who are adamant that this is still an absolutely feasible timeframe). Grant Ferguson (now former chairman) said we have various options in place, and presumably that includes having spoken to a range of nearby clubs regarding a share.

I am, of course, no expert whatsoever in this matter.

 

[Marked Ox]

Personally, I suspect that this may be the case, at least for part of the 2008/2009 season (though there are some people who are adamant that this is still an absolutely feasible timeframe). Grant Ferguson (now former chairman) said we have various options in place, and presumably that includes having spoken to a range of nearby clubs regarding a share.

I am, of course, no expert whatsoever in this matter.

Could be that we have to play a lot of away games at the start of the season, rather than a ground share.

 

[Emilio]

Could be that we have to play a lot of away games at the start of the season, rather than a ground share.

Also a possibility. Didn't Spurs do that, or am I thinking about someone else?

 

[Marked Ox]

Not sure if Spurs did as the opening was delayed apparently. Definitely played at Wembley for a season.

I'm sure it has happened but don't know for how long the arrangement lasted.

 

[Oxymoron]

You can request that your first (and possibly second) fixture of the season be made "away" but fixture sequencing rules would probably prevent any more.

IIRC, Coventry had to postpone a number of their opening fixtures after the Commonwealth Games caused damage to the pitch - but that only became an issue after the fixtures were published; a different scenario to a prearranged non-availability.

 

[karakoram]

There has only been one delay
What we have now is normal standard procedure

Yes but even after building work is started that may not be an end to any delays, when was the last big
project completed on time? This is England after all. I know this sounds like pessimism but I'm afraid
it may turn into realism.

 

[Briggsy]

Yes but even after building work is started that may not be an end to any delays, when was the last big
project completed on time? This is England after all. I know this sounds like pessimism but I'm afraid
it may turn into realism.

This is private, though, so hopefully wouldn't get held up so much.

 

[Emilio]

Update 6th July 2026:

The club have released a statement saying that FoSB's appeal for a Judicial Review (JR) has been turned down. The Judge believes the claims regarding the nearby woodland and traffic system had no valid grounds, and therefore the stadium construction should be able to proceed.

FoSB have decided to request an oral renewal hearing. They will be allowed about an hour to present an argument in person to convince the judge that an error was made in the decision to throw the JR. Cherwell District Council and OUFC can have representation there should they please, but will not be expected to defend their case.

If FoSB do manage to persuade the judge, then a JR will take place. If not, then this is the end of the road for FoSB's appeal against the planning permission that was granted by CDC to OUFC, and the club can proceed with building the stadium.

The club's statement says they hope this will take place within a month.

@Oxymoron has explained it quite well in this post on the larger stadium thread.

Please return to that thread for discussions, though I will add the most FAQs I come across onto here too.