The New Stadium

brinyhoof

Am I the only one struggling to get their head round the news re: the OCC survey results? I read an Ox Mail piece that sounded positive regards meeting the environmental objectives but have also read more negative things e.g. poor response levels from OUFC supporters, support for the NIMBYs, etc.

If anyone can enlighten me I would be grateful, cheers!

JonnyBiscuits

The county council has published its report into the public engagement as part of the papers for a Scrutiny Committee meeitng next week, ahead of the Cabinet meeting that will make the decision. This is the report: https://mycouncil.oxfordshire.gov.uk/documents/s67108/Annex%203%20Phase%20Two%20Public%20Engagement%20Report.pdf

Haven't had a chance to look at it in detail yet, but around 5,400 people responded, and 53% of them were OUFC fans.

I'm supposed to be in a work meeting at lunchtime today to get an update from the county council folks who ran the consultation, but frustratingly I've had another, more important meeting scheduled that clashes with it.

JonnyBiscuits

Having had a very brief skim, it seems that, extremely broadly speaking, most audiences (including non-OUFC supporters) think OUFC have met the seven priorities apart from people who live within two miles of the stadium.

So the opinions of people within two miles of the site are outliers compared with everyone else, which IMO just makes them look like NIMBYs with a distorted view.

JonnyBiscuits

Cabinet is recommended to:

b) Agree to proceed with a freehold sale of the land located to the east of
Frieze Way / south of Kidlington roundabout known as the Triangle,
based on the heads of terms which are being negotiated with Oxford
United Football Club (OUFC).

They're saying they would SELL us the land (subject to approval from the Cabinet, obvs) rather than lease it.

That's HUGE news.

JonnyBiscuits

Officers believe that a freehold transfer is the best option based on offering
best value, limiting financial risk, and removing ongoing management
responsibilities for the council. The view of officers is that the costs and
complexities of a leased arrangement do little to help the council meet its
objectives of achieving community benefit and mitigating long-term financial
risk.

TrevorAylottsHeadband

Wow. That is big news. I wonder how this affects the financial planning from the club's side as they will now need to factor in the up-front purchase cost? Not a huge deal in the overall scheme of things, bearing in mind this is going to be a £100m+ project anyway…

JonnyBiscuits

TrevorAylottsHeadband Yeah... couldn't even begin to guess what that land would be worth. Ultimately tho, OCC have said that if we don't get planning permission, the land won't be sold to anyone else, so from their perspective it's either money in the bank or nothing which presumably helps our negotiating position.

TrevorAylottsHeadband

JonnyBiscuits I think that's going to be a key point; there will have to be an agreement in place whereby the club isn't committed to the land purchase until they get planning permission.

brinyhoof

Includes video link for the cabinet meeting if anyone needs it: https://mycouncil.oxfordshire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=115&MId=7100

JonnyBiscuits

Fitting that this point was raised by somebody who is himself, a nuclear weapon.

TrevorAylottsHeadband

JonnyBiscuits I do risk management for a living, and this point is utter nonsense. The likelihood of an incident occurring when weapons are being moved at all is very very small. Factor in the likelihood of that happening a) within 600m of the stadium, and b) on a matchday, makes such an incident less likely than you winning the lottery two weeks running.

oxblogger

TrevorAylottsHeadband Imagine winning the lottery two weeks running, going to a game to celebrate your good fortune, then being killed in a nuclear explosion when a truck crashes outside.

TrevorAylottsHeadband

A really good input from Cllr Pete Sudbury (Greens). Balanced, measured, and sensible. He wouldn't stop the process from moving forward, but raises the proper concerns about the green agenda in relation to the stadium development.

Bspittles

The only responses I'm seeing on Twitter are from fans, nothing at all from local residents. I suspect their feelings have been overstated by the scheme's opponents.

Bspittles

oxblogger At least no lightning was twice involved…

JonnyBiscuits

Not really been following but it looks like we're heading back to a lease rather than a sale.

brinyhoof

JonnyBiscuits yeah, they are breaking to agree on the wording. And if a leasehold were to change to freehold in the future, could this decision be delegated rather than have to return to cabinet.

TrevorAylottsHeadband

Yep. Wording is for a leasehold agreement. Dependent on planning consent, a net zero plan from the club, and detailed commitment from the club to comply with the seven priorities.

brinyhoof

Seems as though a sale of the land is no longer an option. Leasehold framed as allowing OCC to better ensure OUFC stick to commitments. Restricted covenant will ensure the land can only be used for sports/stadium.

Good news then!

JonnyBiscuits

Great news.

Side note that doesn't really affect us, but it's disappointing nobody in local government seems to make confident decisions anymore - as shown here lots of fudging with caveats and conditions around the decision (most of which seem, on the surface of it to be pretty meaningless). Presumably they've done that to show they've rubbed their chin and given it all a good think and really listened hard to what they were told by all audiences etc. etc. etc.

Just have the courage of your convictions, you're never going to please everyone, so stop trying.

« Previous Page Next Page »