|
Post by headingtonutd on Jan 13, 2017 13:00:53 GMT
A joined up approach with the right people coordinating individual councils and the University this could well be a future development for the whole of Oxfordshire and many many sports. The County Council would need to lead this with the buy in from Oxford City, Cherwell, West Oxfordshire and SODC. With the news that housing is being considered for many acres in and around this area, I'm sure it could gain support, however it would as I said before need the right people involved not just those who follow United. You are spot on, old friend. I'm afraid that the City Council will never be in favour of it, because they want to keep the FC within their domain. But given that they will then have the possibility of fulfilling much more of their housing quota, really they are in no position to complain. The district councils are hardly going to volunteer to take more quota off them whilst they refuse to give permission to build over a derelict stadium! I don't disagree with a lot of what you say Charlie and I like most I suspect (including OUFC I would hazard although we all know he is big enough and ugly enough to answer for himself) would love to see us in a fabulous stadium at WE with all the associated community benefits if it could be done but I do disagree with some reasoning. Will removing the stadium alone really fulfil that much more of the quota? The stadium itself is a relatively small plot of land in development terms and given that it it surrounded by car parking for the established businesses it's not really ideal. Surely the argument could be made that development could take place further back in the site, from the overflow carpark and beyond to much greater effect and the ground could still stay?
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Jan 13, 2017 13:14:48 GMT
You are spot on, old friend. I'm afraid that the City Council will never be in favour of it, because they want to keep the FC within their domain. But given that they will then have the possibility of fulfilling much more of their housing quota, really they are in no position to complain. The district councils are hardly going to volunteer to take more quota off them whilst they refuse to give permission to build over a derelict stadium! I don't disagree with a lot of what you say Charlie and I like most I suspect (including OUFC I would hazard although we all know he is big enough and ugly enough to answer for himself) would love to see us in a fabulous stadium at WE with all the associated community benefits if it could be done but I do disagree with some reasoning. Will removing the stadium alone really fulfil that much more of the quota? The stadium itself is a relatively small plot of land in development terms and given that it it surrounded by car parking for the established businesses it's not really ideal. Surely the argument could be made that development could take place further back in the site, from the overflow carpark and beyond to much greater effect and the ground could still stay? How much parking would be needed for the other businesses? I reckon only the car park between the Complex and the Fence End. So that leaves the East Stand car park, the bit outside the Main Stand as well as the Stadium and overflow car park.
|
|
|
Post by headingtonutd on Jan 13, 2017 13:28:56 GMT
I don't disagree with a lot of what you say Charlie and I like most I suspect (including OUFC I would hazard although we all know he is big enough and ugly enough to answer for himself) would love to see us in a fabulous stadium at WE with all the associated community benefits if it could be done but I do disagree with some reasoning. Will removing the stadium alone really fulfil that much more of the quota? The stadium itself is a relatively small plot of land in development terms and given that it it surrounded by car parking for the established businesses it's not really ideal. Surely the argument could be made that development could take place further back in the site, from the overflow carpark and beyond to much greater effect and the ground could still stay? How much parking would be needed for the other businesses? I reckon only the car park between the Complex and the Fence End. So that leaves the East Stand car park, the bit outside the Main Stand as well as the Stadium and overflow car park. Quite possibly so but my point is that the majority of development could go on without the stadium being moved, especially if the council is willing to open up more land to the rear. Again I don't doubt the extra land taken up by the stadium would help and I stand to be corrected by those who have put a lot more of their time and effort into this than I have, but it seems to me the stadium land is not necessarily pivotal to the development of the overall site. Again i'd say, WE is a mouth watering prospect that warrants investigation but I also think that Grenoble Rd currently offers our best and quickest route to uniting the ground with the club/supporters.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jan 13, 2017 13:31:23 GMT
Also would need Cherwell on board and they seem less keen. cpre also kicked up last time it was even mentioned I love you, OUFC, but you are bizarre sometimes. Since when did CPRE have any call over anything? Jesus, they hated the idea of Water Eaton station. If that had been you in charge of Chiltern Railways you would have just packed up your bags and said 'Oh well, that' that! I was a nice idea while it lasted.' I really, really do not understand why you are so against us having land and finance provided for an amazing new stadium. It' rather like Osborne pre-referendum. You seem so determined to pour cold water all over an obviously popular idea that you will dredge up any old reason you can find, getting increasingly desperate as you go. 'Cherwell seem less keen'. Ok, so what are you honestly, really expecting? Them to give planning permission prior to it happening, without having spoken to their local voters? Really? Meanwhile, you entirely skate over all the obvious dreadful issues with the current site barely even bothering to address serious issues such as transport, parking, capacity for expansion etc. I really, really would like to understand why you are so biased. What is the point? So you agree with both point I made, that both are not keen(which were my only points) and then spout 3 pages of crap about how I'm against it and fail to recognise the issues with the current site. Clam down deer. All I said was both of those two parties were not keen on it. I didn't say cpre would be able to stop it, I didn't say Cherwell couldn't be talked round. I'm not pouring cold water on anything (although U seem to need some to cool u down). I would love nothing more than to have that sort of facility with oufc at the heart of it. People question ian hudspeths track record on delivering these sort of grand ideas and, it's being negative and pouring cold water on it . Yet when ever bob price is mentioned over his plans for the Kassam, you do exactly that even offering to eat ur ox hat as it's nothing more than hot air .
|
|
|
Post by minime on Jan 13, 2017 15:57:17 GMT
Imo, Dig deeper than the political bluff and it is a genuine attempt to get the saga of the current stadium out in the open. At the very least it may give it a sense of urgency. Or it could be his way of giving OUFC the heads up that OCC are in discussions with FK about possible land developments
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Jan 13, 2017 15:57:38 GMT
I love you, OUFC, but you are bizarre sometimes. Since when did CPRE have any call over anything? Jesus, they hated the idea of Water Eaton station. If that had been you in charge of Chiltern Railways you would have just packed up your bags and said 'Oh well, that' that! I was a nice idea while it lasted.' I really, really do not understand why you are so against us having land and finance provided for an amazing new stadium. It' rather like Osborne pre-referendum. You seem so determined to pour cold water all over an obviously popular idea that you will dredge up any old reason you can find, getting increasingly desperate as you go. 'Cherwell seem less keen'. Ok, so what are you honestly, really expecting? Them to give planning permission prior to it happening, without having spoken to their local voters? Really? Meanwhile, you entirely skate over all the obvious dreadful issues with the current site barely even bothering to address serious issues such as transport, parking, capacity for expansion etc. I really, really would like to understand why you are so biased. What is the point? So you agree with both point I made, that both are not keen(which were my only points) and then spout 3 pages of crap about how I'm against it and fail to recognise the issues with the current site. Clam down deer. All I said was both of those two parties were not keen on it. I didn't say cpre would be able to stop it, I didn't say Cherwell couldn't be talked round. I'm not pouring cold water on anything (although U seem to need some to cool u down). I would love nothing more than to have that sort of facility with oufc at the heart of it. People question ian hudspeths track record on delivering these sort of grand ideas and, it's being negative and pouring cold water on it . Yet when ever bob price is mentioned over his plans for the Kassam, you do exactly that even offering to eat ur ox hat as it's nothing more than hot air . There is no point in having a discussion with someone who is intellectually dishonest. You were clearly using spurious arguments to pour cold water over it, so either try to stand up the spurious arguments or just accept the criticism and explain WHY you have that motive. In short, grow a pair and engage honestly. If you think that CPRE is a serious issue then fine - say so, and why. If not, then accept that the issue you raised was spurious. I would deny that Hudspeth has promised great things for OUFC and failed to deliver. The only person who has done that is Bob Price, who promised Ian Lenagan that he would help finance he purchase of the KassStad and then did not follow through. So it is fair enough for me to question any scheme that depends on Bob Price's promises. The man - as Darryl himself has noted - has never done ANYTHING for OUFC. And the City Council has consistently failed the club, not least over its dealings with Firoz Kassam. If OxVox manage to get him to change that track record, then that will allay my fears and I will be happy to say that I was overly cynical. But your sly digs at Hudspeth are extraordinarily unjustified. I sat with him as a co-Trustee of the YCT and the guy was solid gold - really helpful, un-egotistical and a realist to his fingertips. When he says that it is in the interests of the whole county (that he leads) for OUFC to be relocated to a gleaming new site that would have the best transport links of any stadium in the country, he deserves better than to have two bit keyboard warriors, from within the enterprise he is trying to help, try to make his aspirations for the club seem un-realisable. With friends like you....
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Jan 13, 2017 16:02:35 GMT
How much parking would be needed for the other businesses? I reckon only the car park between the Complex and the Fence End. So that leaves the East Stand car park, the bit outside the Main Stand as well as the Stadium and overflow car park. Quite possibly so but my point is that the majority of development could go on without the stadium being moved, especially if the council is willing to open up more land to the rear. Again I don't doubt the extra land taken up by the stadium would help and I stand to be corrected by those who have put a lot more of their time and effort into this than I have, but it seems to me the stadium land is not necessarily pivotal to the development of the overall site. Again i'd say, WE is a mouth watering prospect that warrants investigation but I also think that Grenoble Rd currently offers our best and quickest route to uniting the ground with the club/supporters. Ahem. Uniting A ground, rather than THE ground. It is my view that when people actually get around to doing the serious math of that stadium's sustainability as a 20,000 capacity stadium in the Championship (especially if Firoz develops some of the surrounds, as he has suggested) they will understand that it is solving one problem to create another. Actually, one might then still be able to solve the second problem thru having solved the first one, but really the two problems can be solved at once.
|
|
|
Post by backonthecoupon on Jan 13, 2017 16:35:30 GMT
It does sound like its too late for WE for us though, doesn't it. Which is disappointing to put it mildly.
|
|
|
Post by headingtonutd on Jan 13, 2017 16:37:11 GMT
Quite possibly so but my point is that the majority of development could go on without the stadium being moved, especially if the council is willing to open up more land to the rear. Again I don't doubt the extra land taken up by the stadium would help and I stand to be corrected by those who have put a lot more of their time and effort into this than I have, but it seems to me the stadium land is not necessarily pivotal to the development of the overall site. Again i'd say, WE is a mouth watering prospect that warrants investigation but I also think that Grenoble Rd currently offers our best and quickest route to uniting the ground with the club/supporters. Ahem. Uniting A ground, rather than THE ground. It is my view that when people actually get around to doing the serious math of that stadium's sustainability as a 20,000 capacity stadium in the Championship (especially if Firoz develops some of the surrounds, as he has suggested) they will understand that it is solving one problem to create another. Actually, one might then still be able to solve the second problem thru having solved the first one, but really the two problems can be solved at once. Pedant Yes agreed, 'A' ground. I also agree there are problems with Grenoble Rd but I don't think they are insurmountable. The ground was designed to be extended and given the extra housing potential in the area you could well end up with a sizeable population within walking distance of the ground. Add in the development of the station at the science park and quite a few of those problems start to drop away. Neither option will be perfect whatever way we go and my view all along has been that the option OxVox is pursuing now does not preclude us from making that move later down the line, and on our own terms.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jan 13, 2017 16:38:09 GMT
So you agree with both point I made, that both are not keen(which were my only points) and then spout 3 pages of crap about how I'm against it and fail to recognise the issues with the current site. Clam down deer. All I said was both of those two parties were not keen on it. I didn't say cpre would be able to stop it, I didn't say Cherwell couldn't be talked round. I'm not pouring cold water on anything (although U seem to need some to cool u down). I would love nothing more than to have that sort of facility with oufc at the heart of it. People question ian hudspeths track record on delivering these sort of grand ideas and, it's being negative and pouring cold water on it . Yet when ever bob price is mentioned over his plans for the Kassam, you do exactly that even offering to eat ur ox hat as it's nothing more than hot air . There is no point in having a discussion with someone who is intellectually dishonest. You were clearly using spurious arguments to pour cold water over it, so either try to stand up the spurious arguments or just accept the criticism and explain WHY you have that motive. In short, grow a pair and engage honestly. If you think that CPRE is a serious issue then fine - say so, and why. If not, then accept that the issue you raised was spurious. I would deny that Hudspeth has promised great things for OUFC and failed to deliver. The only person who has done that is Bob Price, who promised Ian Lenagan that he would help finance he purchase of the KassStad and then did not follow through. So it is fair enough for me to question any scheme that depends on Bob Price's promises. The man - as Darryl himself has noted - has never done ANYTHING for OUFC. And the City Council has consistently failed the club, not least over its dealings with Firoz Kassam. If OxVox manage to get him to change that track record, then that will allay my fears and I will be happy to say that I was overly cynical. But your sly digs at Hudspeth are extraordinarily unjustified. I sat with him as a co-Trustee of the YCT and the guy was solid gold - really helpful, un-egotistical and a realist to his fingertips. When he says that it is in the interests of the whole county (that he leads) for OUFC to be relocated to a gleaming new site that would have the best transport links of any stadium in the country, he deserves better than to have two bit keyboard warriors, from within the enterprise he is trying to help, try to make his aspirations for the club seem un-realisable. With friends like you.... Again ur putting words in my mouth to suit your own ramblings , I wasn't doing anything to poor cold water on the subject, I would be as happy as you were if we move to water eaton, I was just pointing out that those to parties have in the past not been keen on it, nothing more, show me where I said either were "serious issues"? That again is you shit stirring . And if u read what I actually said rather than going off on your usual rant u will see that I also never said Ian hudspeth had promised oufc anything, again u assuming that's what I've said so that I can rant for a little longer. I was pointing out like other have said in this thread that he has other great ideas, like a tram system that have never even got close to happening. Show me where I have had a go at him that he deserves better ? U seem to think u have some moral hi ground where as if water eaton happens I will be sat at home p*ssed off, well you have a jolly good chuckle to yourself on that one, as like I said if in 5 years were playing in a new state of the art stadium as will be as happy as any oufc fan I will find, will it be easy - no. Will there be issues to get over - yes. The cpre and Cherwell council not being keen on it, to name two minor ones. What's your role with the community trust by the way, you seem to have avoided any questions on it lately, and not used it as often in your posts to show how itk you are ?
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Jan 13, 2017 18:03:30 GMT
Ahem. Uniting A ground, rather than THE ground. It is my view that when people actually get around to doing the serious math of that stadium's sustainability as a 20,000 capacity stadium in the Championship (especially if Firoz develops some of the surrounds, as he has suggested) they will understand that it is solving one problem to create another. Actually, one might then still be able to solve the second problem thru having solved the first one, but really the two problems can be solved at once. Pedant Yes agreed, 'A' ground. I also agree there are problems with Grenoble Rd but I don't think they are insurmountable. The ground was designed to be extended and given the extra housing potential in the area you could well end up with a sizeable population within walking distance of the ground. Add in the development of the station at the science park and quite a few of those problems start to drop away. Neither option will be perfect whatever way we go and my view all along has been that the option OxVox is pursuing now does not preclude us from making that move later down the line, and on our own terms. Very well put! Not the pedant point, obviously..... And I would add that though I do not support the conclusion that OxVox came to regarding the options for the stadium situation (I think that they were pretty determined to find in favour of buying the Kassam Stadium, after initial conversations with Bob Price, who is parti pris), I do support the work they are doing, as they are at least doing the hard yards in terms of making that option viable (or non-viable) rather than just a vague aspiration aired every year or two. I think that the Water Eaton option would indeed be the 'perfect' one, but it comes with the asterisk of planning. I remember when I first floated it, people questioned whether the site would get any planning at all. I told them that I firmly believed that it would, for all sorts of reasons. Now, the same people say "Aha, but now they're going to build houses there". Since the planning barrier for housing is higher than for a community sports ground, I would just point out that I have been proved entirely right in that the green belt is going to be waived on that site! And if the football club had spent the last two years pursuing the Water Eaton community stadium agenda with the County Council then we would be in a strong position now. For some reason, the club set its face against the project - probably committing the age -old mistake of believing that shurely there must be an easy deal to be done with Firoz, right? - and thus the momentum went out of it all. However, all is not lost. The people of Kidlington and surrounds will not want 3000 more people living there, and may well support a community sports facility once they have got their heads around the fact that the site of the old grain silo is not going to be preserved for posterity. And then there is the landowner. There is no chance of a compulsory purchase order for housing, so his views are critical. People might well be surprised to find that he feels somewhat torn - to put it mildly - at the thought of a new town being built just the other side of his garden and a relief road going through his property. So there is plenty to play for, and I think that it is perfectly possible to be simultaneously supportive of OxVox whilst also supporting those who want to push for the "perfect" scenario. As you have rightly pointed out, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive goals, and the latter may be easier to achieve if you have sorted out the former.
|
|
|
Post by followtheox (the original) on Jan 13, 2017 19:12:23 GMT
Did he mention putting in trams or an overhead rail link to shuttle everyone to this stadium. He has grand ideas but that's where it ends I like his words but am troubled by his lack of basic research before going public which makes me wonder if it is just words. There is a 50 metre pool in Wycombe which is between London and Birmingham.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Jan 13, 2017 19:48:26 GMT
Did he mention putting in trams or an overhead rail link to shuttle everyone to this stadium. He has grand ideas but that's where it ends I like his words but am troubled by his lack of basic research before going public which makes me wonder if it is just words. There is a 50 metre pool in Wycombe which is between London and Birmingham. I don't think that the idea of community sports park is an especially 'grand idea'. It's common sense. We are a huge, and growing county which has very few sports facilities. For those who say 'Go to Wycombe for swimming, Swindon for Ice rink etc' I say, fine, but would it not be better to have these facilities within easy reach of our community, and why should other areas have these things when this wealthy, populated county does not? It strikes me as eminently reasonable for the head of the County Council to have a view on this, as - unlike the district councils and the OCC - he has to look strategically at the county as a whole. What he calls for is an open, honest debate about what is best for the county and its inhabitants. That does not seem to me a ridiculous request, yet most of the posts on here do not focus on the meat of the discussion, but minutiae. 'ah, but the CPRE wouldn't like it'! What? Like they're keen on a housing estate on green belt? Come on, let's grow up. This is a serious topic, and merits serious discussion. I can see clearly why what OxVox is working on would be beneficial. And I support the sheer endeavour that has gone in and is still going on. Let's also support Hudspeth's call for a debate. What is the downside?
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jan 13, 2017 19:54:48 GMT
There is no down side, but what's the point of a debate when u just shout down anyone u brings anything up that doesn't go along with it ?
Again you say cpre won't like it the same as they won't like housing, yet when I say exactly that same point, it's an "agenda against ih and WE" Care to answer any of my questions charlie , like where I actually said any of the things U spun round ? Or if are you still involved with ih on the community trust.
|
|
|
Post by old on Jan 13, 2017 20:23:31 GMT
I never thought the day would come when I would agree 100% with Gobby Charlie, but on this issue I now find myself in total agreement. There is massive objection from the residents of Kidlington and the surrounding areas to the building of houses on this site. Meetings have been held and a fight will be on. The problem with the plans supported by Mr Price will see the end of Kidlington as a stand alone community, they will be amalgamated with Oxford. I believe if given the option to have a sports complex over a massive housing estate, the sporting option would come out top. Again my thoughts on IH are less than favourable (yes I to know him on a personal level) than Charlie's, however he is right to throw this idea into the debate. It would make far more sense for the future of OUFC than staying at GR with the issues that have been highlighted by both Charlie and Ian H. Two years ago WE was not really an option, but with the changes in planning etc, it is now a serious alternative IF all stakeholders could put aside their personal objections and explore the real benefits for the residents and council tax payers of Oxfordshire.
|
|
|
Post by followtheox (the original) on Jan 13, 2017 20:24:21 GMT
I like his words but am troubled by his lack of basic research before going public which makes me wonder if it is just words. There is a 50 metre pool in Wycombe which is between London and Birmingham. I don't think that the idea of community sports park is an especially 'grand idea'. It's common sense. We are a huge, and growing county which has very few sports facilities. For those who say 'Go to Wycombe for swimming, Swindon for Ice rink etc' I say, fine, but would it not be better to have these facilities within easy reach of our community, and why should other areas have these things when this wealthy, populated county does not? It strikes me as eminently reasonable for the head of the County Council to have a view on this, as - unlike the district councils and the OCC - he has to look strategically at the county as a whole. What he calls for is an open, honest debate about what is best for the county and its inhabitants. That does not seem to me a ridiculous request, yet most of the posts on here do not focus on the meat of the discussion, but minutiae. 'ah, but the CPRE wouldn't like it'! What? Like they're keen on a housing estate on green belt? Come on, let's grow up. This is a serious topic, and merits serious discussion. I can see clearly why what OxVox is working on would be beneficial. And I support the sheer endeavour that has gone in and is still going on. Let's also support Hudspeth's call for a debate. What is the downside? I agree with you. I think Oxford would benefit greatly from his proposal that was not my point. I question the competence of a public figure making public statements without doing basic research that is all. The fact there is a pool in Wycombe does not mean there shouldn't be one in Oxford in my view, Wycombe is miles away.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Jan 14, 2017 0:06:27 GMT
I never thought the day would come when I would agree 100% with Gobby Charlie, but on this issue I now find myself in total agreement. There is massive objection from the residents of Kidlington and the surrounding areas to the building of houses on this site. Meetings have been held and a fight will be on. The problem with the plans supported by Mr Price will see the end of Kidlington as a stand alone community, they will be amalgamated with Oxford. I believe if given the option to have a sports complex over a massive housing estate, the sporting option would come out top. Again my thoughts on IH are less than favourable (yes I to know him on a personal level) than Charlie's, however he is right to throw this idea into the debate. It would make far more sense for the future of OUFC than staying at GR with the issues that have been highlighted by both Charlie and Ian H. Two years ago WE was not really an option, but with the changes in planning etc, it is now a serious alternative IF all stakeholders could put aside their personal objections and explore the real benefits for the residents and council tax payers of Oxfordshire. Without being overly melodramatic about it, the idea of you and I being at one on anything is a remarkable moment. As most members of this forum would attest. And, given how much shit we've both received on here, it probably makes the idea seem doubly un-attractive to most! Seriously, though, I understand the pov of proponents of 'stick with what we've got (or don't have)' it's a stadium, right? But what I have been arguing for some time is that both football and Oxfordshire demographics are moving fast in our favour. You can see this in our more or less relentless base crowd growth, which matches population growth (compare current crowds with when we were in the Championship) And for OUFC fully to capitalise on these inexorable trends, I think, requires a bold, strategic approach. Or at least merits an attempt at one.
|
|
|
Post by jimmycarterxi on Jan 14, 2017 0:51:57 GMT
Pie in the sky from Hudspeth - one of the worst Councillors ever to grace Oxford. Look at his past record in fanciful ideas and also on delivering any project that he has been involved in. A complete Walter Mitty type - if we are relying in anyway on him, then in the words of Private Fraser, we're Doomed! Agreed, the man is a complete dreamer!!! Few years back he wanted to build some kind of bus route underneath the high street into oxford
|
|
|
Post by ox4eva on Jan 14, 2017 6:48:24 GMT
Its ok getting the odd sound bite from the council showing tacit support. But that probably because they are being asked by the media so they have to say that.
Would they actually support the idea materially or financially ?
I doubt it!
|
|
|
Post by old on Jan 14, 2017 8:34:20 GMT
Its ok getting the odd sound bite from the council showing tacit support. But that probably because they are being asked by the media so they have to say that. Would they actually support the idea materially or financially ? I doubt it! I think you will find that the media picked this up from the statement that IH had written on his blog. It does not concern me as to what IH has said in the past, it's the fact that what he is saying about this issue makes complete sense. The issue will be the stakeholders. Will cross party and cross council be able to work together for the good of the whole of Oxfordshire or will they just stay parochial? Have they the forward thinking ability to put aside personal thoughts and come together as one for the future development of a world class sporting venue in which the children of today can look forward to a better future? i hope so, as Charlie and IH state, this is our last chance to get it right.
|
|
|
Post by ox4eva on Jan 14, 2017 9:45:22 GMT
Its ok getting the odd sound bite from the council showing tacit support. But that probably because they are being asked by the media so they have to say that. Would they actually support the idea materially or financially ? I doubt it! I think you will find that the media picked this up from the statement that IH had written on his blog. It does not concern me as to what IH has said in the past, it's the fact that what he is saying about this issue makes complete sense. The issue will be the stakeholders. Will cross party and cross council be able to work together for the good of the whole of Oxfordshire or will they just stay parochial? Have they the forward thinking ability to put aside personal thoughts and come together as one for the future development of a world class sporting venue in which the children of today can look forward to a better future? i hope so, as Charlie and IH state, this is our last chance to get it right. Agreed, I just don't think the councils will come through although I would be ecstatic if I am completely wrong!
|
|
|
Post by old on Jan 14, 2017 11:22:05 GMT
I think you will find that the media picked this up from the statement that IH had written on his blog. It does not concern me as to what IH has said in the past, it's the fact that what he is saying about this issue makes complete sense. The issue will be the stakeholders. Will cross party and cross council be able to work together for the good of the whole of Oxfordshire or will they just stay parochial? Have they the forward thinking ability to put aside personal thoughts and come together as one for the future development of a world class sporting venue in which the children of today can look forward to a better future? i hope so, as Charlie and IH state, this is our last chance to get it right. Agreed, I just don't think the councils will come through although I would be ecstatic if I am completely wrong! This is where residents can lobby their councillor to ensure they listen to the electorate. If 2016 taught us anything it certainly told those in office beware of not consulting and listening to the voting electorate and their wishes.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jan 14, 2017 11:37:04 GMT
Agreed, I just don't think the councils will come through although I would be ecstatic if I am completely wrong! This is where residents can lobby their councillor to ensure they listen to the electorate. If 2016 taught us anything it certainly told those in office beware of not consulting and listening to the voting electorate and their wishes. I may be reading this wrong but from a quick look through the Cherwell local plan website, it seems to read that applications have to be in , in January ? Is that correct, or is that just for housing , i know that not related to what I've quoted but I feel I will probably get a more sensible answer from you, with out being accused of trying to scupper the deal
|
|
|
Post by old on Jan 14, 2017 16:44:10 GMT
This is where residents can lobby their councillor to ensure they listen to the electorate. If 2016 taught us anything it certainly told those in office beware of not consulting and listening to the voting electorate and their wishes. I may be reading this wrong but from a quick look through the Cherwell local plan website, it seems to read that applications have to be in , in January ? Is that correct, or is that just for housing , i know that not related to what I've quoted but I feel I will probably get a more sensible answer from you, with out being accused of trying to scupper the deal Deadlines are set, however people power has never been more relevant than it is now. With pressure from the electorate and the good council taxpayers of Oxfordshire, I'm sure this need not be the end.
|
|