New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Planning

The mighty Aldo said:
Don’t quite get the logic here.

It could be argued that although the Greens won this ward with 1010 votes and their argument was vote Green vote anti stadium, the rest add up 1302 votes.

So if she is claiming a vote for the Greens is anti stadium,logic suggest every other vote must be for the stadium
Click to expand...
The opposition have not used logic once in their arguments.

Using that pathetic poll as "proof" is equally ridiculous.
 
The mighty Aldo said:
Don’t quite get the logic here.

It could be argued that although the Greens won this ward with 1010 votes and their argument was vote Green vote anti stadium, the rest add up 1302 votes.

So if she is claiming a vote for the Greens is anti stadium,logic suggest every other vote must be for the stadium
Click to expand...
she is using the parish poll there not the election result

i much prefer this poll

www.bbc.co.uk

Oxford United: New stadium in Kidlington backed in consultation

A total of 80% of respondents say they are in favour of the plans going ahead near Kidlington.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
Last edited:
Billyox said:
she is using the parish poll there not the election result

i much prefer this poll

www.bbc.co.uk

Oxford United: New stadium in Kidlington backed in consultation

A total of 80% of respondents say they are in favour of the plans going ahead near Kidlington.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
People tend to forget that the "consultation poll" was primarily undertaken as a requirement of planning legislation and although it has no reference to the current plans, the planning officer should consider that it carries some weight.

The "parish poll" was called to ask whether KPC should support the building of a stadium, which only served to convey a sentiment to the parish council. It has nothing to do with the planning application or anything contained therein and accordingly it ought carry no weight into the decision making process.
 
The planning permission would be very difficult to justify turning down and would lead to a very expensive challenge for the council I would imagine.

My main concern with the results yesterday is the fact the councils have no overall control and will likely be slow in reaching decisions when time is critical.
 
Oxymoron said:
People tend to forget that the "consultation poll" was primarily undertaken as a requirement of planning legislation and although it has no reference to the current plans, the planning officer should consider that it carries some weight.

The "parish poll" was called to ask whether KPC should support the building of a stadium, which only served to convey a sentiment to the parish council. It has nothing to do with the planning application or anything contained therein and accordingly it ought carry no weight into the decision making process.
Click to expand...
And it also meant nothing as KPC have no jurisdiction over the The Triangle
 
Robie said:
The planning permission would be very difficult to justify turning down and would lead to a very expensive challenge for the council I would imagine.

My main concern with the results yesterday is the fact the councils have no overall control and will likely be slow in reaching decisions when time is critical.
Click to expand...
This is why I was trying to establish

a) whether the planning committee needs to reflect the political makeup of the district council (I think it does, but not entirely sure), and

b). If the planning application is decided on a majority committee rather than unanimous decision. (I would think that would be the case, surely?).

If so, on what basis do we think a vociferous but clear minority group against the proposal would have greater sway than a majority group?

It's also worth remembering that comments on planning proposals are invariably in opposition to the proposals, rather than in support. The stadium application is almost unique in the level of supportive comments....THREE times as many as are opposed isn't it?

Again, I'd like to understand why it is we fear that the minority will be paid attention and the majority ignored?
 
OX14 said:
It only matters if she is on the planning committee to decide. Anyone on there who isn't neutral on the subject will be removed or if they aren't the club have an easy route to challenge the decision. Trust the process.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but that just isn't correct. There is a massive difference between someone who is neutral and someone who is predetermined and it is the latter that needs to be proven for an individual to be ineligible to take part.

Predetermined means you can not in any way be swayed and have already made your decision. I think it will be very difficult for Ian Middleton to say he hasn't made a decision given how much he likes to post anti-stadium messages but many others (even if they don't want a stadium) could state that they are prepared to look at the evidence even if they have previously stated they are concerned about it. It is a very high bar to prove that someone is predetermined.
 
Wallop said:
I'm sorry but that just isn't correct. There is a massive difference between someone who is neutral and someone who is predetermined and it is the latter that needs to be proven for an individual to be ineligible to take part.

Predetermined means you can not in any way be swayed and have already made your decision. I think it will be very difficult for Ian Middleton to say he hasn't made a decision given how much he likes to post anti-stadium messages but many others (even if they don't want a stadium) could state that they are prepared to look at the evidence even if they have previously stated they are concerned about it. It is a very high bar to prove that someone is predetermined.
Click to expand...

It's not a very high bar when these individuals have come out on social media and during their campaign that they are against the stadium. This is 2024 not 1994.
 
OX14 said:
It's not a very high bar when these individuals have come out on social media and during their campaign that they are against the stadium. This is 2024 not 1994.
Click to expand...
ok - believe what you want to but a lot of councillors language has been very carefully chosen and for good reasons.

Even IM started at 'cautiously neutral' and I suspect he would maintain that stance if questioned now.
 
Wallop said:
I'm sorry but that just isn't correct. There is a massive difference between someone who is neutral and someone who is predetermined and it is the latter that needs to be proven for an individual to be ineligible to take part.

Predetermined means you can not in any way be swayed and have already made your decision. I think it will be very difficult for Ian Middleton to say he hasn't made a decision given how much he likes to post anti-stadium messages but many others (even if they don't want a stadium) could state that they are prepared to look at the evidence even if they have previously stated they are concerned about it. It is a very high bar to prove that someone is predetermined.
Click to expand...
Exactly this.

We need more neutral councillors. Better still, we need cautiously neutral ones, not predetermined ones.
 
Views from Christchurch should be valid. A proper college of the university after all 😌.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
General New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Land Deal
722 723 724
Replies
14K
Views
935K
Northstandboy
Northstandboy
brightonyellow
  • Locked
General New Stadium Plans - Stratfield Brake
304 305 306
Replies
6K
Views
416K
ljs
L
MarkG
What will happen to the Kassam stadium?
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Concretebob
C
OUSP
Call to Action Stadium Planning
Replies
4
Views
750
OUSP
OUSP
OUFCwaffle
Study: New stadium location of safe standing model.
Replies
14
Views
1K
ljs
L
Back
Top Bottom