How to object to the OUFC Planning Application in 2025:  Key Points

These Key Points are a summary of the material planning considerations which the council should consider.  You don’t have to read them all!  Look at the main headings below.  Choose points that you think are important and build them into your own response using your own words. Please ensure you read our general guidance in conjuction with these points.

 

If you are very limited for time please just pick out a few points and write about those.  Transport proposals including road closures and biodiversity are probably the key issues. 

 

DOCUMENTS

You don’t need to read any planning documents but if you choose to we provide some suggestions on our Links to Documents page.

 

SITE MASTERPLAN

You can see the scale of the proposal on the Site Masterplan

 

GUIDANCE ON THE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT, TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AND TRAVEL PLANS

Key elements of the Transport Strategy

 

ESA Chapter 10 on Transport lists the key elements of the updated Transport Strategy, and includes information on the Traffic Management Plan.  This includes the following traffic management measures:

 

1.      Controlled Parking Zones; 

2.      ‘Manage/discourage’ parking at Oxford Parkway;

3.      Road closures;

4.      Variable Messaging System.  

 

We consider these in turn below. 

 

1.      Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ)

 

Controlled Parking Zone – up to  2km (or 1.2 miles) from the stadium. 

 

  • How will 2km be measured?
  • What does up to 2km mean?
  • Exactly what roads are included?
  • How will such a huge area and so many ‘000s of households be properly enforced?
  • There are already complaints around Oxford, including around the Kassam Stadium, that there is no effective enforcement.
  • What about roads just outside the CPZ?  E.g. High St, Lyne Rd, The Moors, etc are not covered.
  • Is a fine enough to be an effective deterrent, or will it just be seen as a parking ‘charge’?
  • Will other, more effective measures be used e.g. wheel clamping?
  • Will measures be enforced all the time or just on match days with high ticket sales?
  • Why isn’t Wolvercote included in the zone?  (This matters for enforcement).
  • Why aren’t any measures to prevent supporter parking in Cutteslowe Park included?

 

2.      The plan to ‘manage/discourage’ supporter parking at Oxford Parkway just won’t work!

 

Supporter parking at Oxford Parkway is not permitted by the owners of the car parks, but even so it’s likely to be where most supporters will try and park!  OUFC’s ‘plan’ to manage/discourage parking at Oxford Parkway is totally unrealistic.  See plan below with our comments in red text: 

 

Oxford Parkway parking will be managed/discouraged by:

 

• Tickets and travel information will state that there is no match day parking at Oxford Parkway and options will be given for other travel choices

It will still be the car park of choice for supporters because it is so close to the proposed stadium!

  

• The erection of ‘No match day parking’ signage

As above!

  

• Marshals enforcing the no match day parking

How will they do this in practice?  How can they know who is a supporter and who isn’t?  How will they turn supporter cars back without causing danger or chaos?

 

 

• Marshals (and barriers) will be located at car park egresses to protect cars leaving Oxford Parkway* for at least a 45-minute after the whistle (timing to be trialled) to prioritise bus services and protect pedestrian safety

[* The original document says "parking" but we think they meant to put "Parkway"]

What about non-supporters who want to leave the car park during this time?  It won’ t be possible for marshals to segregate non-supporters to allow them to leave before the 45 minutes is up.  It could take supporters 45 minutes to get to the car park anyway. 

 

Also, OUFC’ has detailed plans for ‘early attraction’ and ‘retention’ to get fans to stay on-site for longer:  this will dovetail conveniently with leaving the car park a bit later anyway!

 

• Chiltern Rail will be using the car park to queue rail passengers, therefore significantly reducing available car parking 

This won’t prevent supporters from parking in the rest of the car park or the Park & Ride car park!

  

• Chiltern Rail has agreed to charge a high price for car parking on match day. The price will be determined through trialling different prices. Rail users will be able to purchase a normal priced car parking from the ticket office with a rail ticket.

Rail users will have the inconvenience of queueing to buy a parking ticket.  This is contra to the Oxfordshire Transport Strategy which encourages use of public transport. 

 

But worse, it could be a long queue full of supporters who have bought any old cheap rail ticket so that they can buy a cheap rail user parking ticket!

  

(The above is an extract from Traffic Management, Section 5.6, page 57 of the Transport Assessment Addendum (December 2024)).

 

 

3.      Road closures

Traffic modelling has been done on the basis of 30 minutes closure, 10 minutes set up, 5 minutes to take down i.e. 45 minutes in total.  The diagram below shows road closures on ‘high’ ticket sales match days:

 

 

·         Road closures are described as for ‘at least 30 minutes’.  This is too open-ended.  What length are road closures expected for? 

·         Pedestrian modelling showed that the stadium COULD (not WOULD) be cleared from Oxford Road within 30 minutes.  But this was before it was decided that buses and emergency vehicles would be allowed to pass through the road closures.  Why hasn’t the traffic modelling taken movement of buses and emergency vehicles into account?

·         Why isn’t there an accurate estimate of how long it will take to get supporters across the Oxford Road?

·         No traffic modelling has been done to look at the impact of longer road closures.

o   If road closures are longer for some reason, what will the impact will be?

o   Why hasn’t any modelling been done for longer periods (i.e. sensitivity analysis)?

o   The shortest possible road closure of 30 minutes (which is based on getting the maximum number of people into and out of the stadium in a short period of time) conflicts with OUFC’s long list of measures to attract supporters to the stadium early and to keep them there after matches?  i.e. the ‘early attraction’ and ‘retention measures

o   Why hasn’t modelling been done for the 12.30 Saturday kick offs when the roads are busier than Saturday afternoons? 

·         The transport assessment conclusion is that, with mitigation measures, road closures ‘are not considered to cause a severe impact’.  However, there are still delays of up to 15 minutes on some roads.  Please use your experience of local traffic to question the ‘not a severe impact’ conclusion.

Variable Messaging System (i.e. a network of electronic displays of information for drivers and pedestrians)

The variable messaging system (VMS) is a key component of the traffic management but the details of who will develop it and who will fund it (OUFC/OCC?) and where exactly it will go have not been determined.  Details such as this must be established as part of the planning process not as an afterthought.

 

GUIDANCE ON OTHER TRANSPORT RELATED MATTERS

The difference between traffic management on match days with ‘high’ ticket sales and match days with lower ticket sales

There are two extremes of traffic management:

 

1.      For match days with a ‘high’ level of ticket sales the Match Day Travel Plan will be implemented  It  will include road closures and other measures as above. 

2.      For any other event with a large number of people/supporters, the level of management is not clear.

 

A plan for management of events with a lot of visitors, but which doesn’t meet the ‘high’ ticket sales criteria, falls between the two extremes is not specified.

 

·         How are ‘high’ ticket sales defined?

·         How often will there be ‘high’ ticket sales?

·         As a profit-making organisation OUFC will want to avoid the cost of the traffic management plan if possible.  Can it therefore be trusted to be the decision maker on  what constitutes ‘high’ ticket sales?

·         If ticket sales fall just below ‘high’ but there will still be a lot of supporters, what traffic management measures will be in place and will it be sufficient?

o   How will ‘no parking’ by supporters at Oxford Parkway be enforced?

o   Would the Controlled Parking Zones be enforced?

o   How will traffic and pedestrians be managed?

o   Will the Variable Messaging System be in use?

·         What about other events in the future that will involve full capacity of the stadium but aren’t match days?

 

Making the planning future-proof

OUFC says: In terms of events, it is not proposed that the Stadium will host concerts”. 

 

We believe concerts are a dead cert for the future if the stadium is built.

 

Assuming that there won’t be concerts greatly simplifies the traffic modelling etc for the club!  But the Travel Plan should include planning for other large events where the traffic movement patterns and use of public transport will be completely different from match days.  This must be considered as part of the planning process.

 

Evacuation of the stadium

The documentation says that the stadium can be evacuated within the prescribed timescales but it is not clear where people will evacuate to.  The roads couldn’t be closed quickly enough to provide an evacuation area so we anticipate a potential scenario where the roads are closed for the duration of matches.  Clarity is needed on this:  please ask about it.

 

BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN (BNG) PROPOSALS

·         We wrote to Cherwell District Council on 4 November 2024 to explain how it is not fulfilling its legal responsibilities in respect of protected species, specifically bats.  The council must establish the presence and extent of bats in the area (not just on the site) to determine how they might be affected before planning permission is granted.  Please remind the council of their responsibilities!  (Our letter is Public Consultation response no. 2960 on the planning portal if you want to read it). 

·         Oxfordshire County Council has said a 3.5m wide path must be built along the Stratfield Brake side of Frieze Way.  Approx 1.2km of hedgerow etc will be lost but there is no mention of how a BNG of 10% will be achieved or of the impact on bats, which often feed along treelines.

·         Frieze Way will also be lit at night (is currently dark).  This will also impact bats and other wildlife in the area of the Stratfield Brake Nature Reserve yet this has not been mentioned in the planning application. 

·         A lot of hedgerow around the Triangle will also be lost.  Remaining hedgerow will be fragmented reducing its biodiversity value.

·         Thanks to our work, BBOWT, Dr Judy Webb and others, OUFC has concluded that it isn’t possible to achieve 10% BNG gain without some off-site mitigation.  This is less favourable that the on-site mitigation that they originally said could be achieved (they made a big mistake on tree girths/diameters!).

·         We believe that OUFC should not be allowed to choose off-site mitigation and, in line with the mitigation hierarchy, should reduce the footprint of the hotel and stadium instead.

·         Some BNG is still proposed on site.  However, as before much of it is in the ‘garden’ area at the northern tip of the site which is also the fan zone on match days and open to the public (including dogs) the rest of the time.  This garden area is very roughly the same size as the Kidlington Roundabout.  It simply will not survive the winter footfall of up to 16,000 fans.  This is totally unrealistic and is a major flaw in the BNG plan.

·         Habitat management plans have been provided but they are useless in the context of ‘000s of fans in the small ‘garden’ area. 

·         Areas of green roof, green walls, rain gardens and amenity planting do not compensate for the loss of the current ecology on the site.  As an example none of these features would provide foraging opportunities for bats, or equivalent habitats for invertebrates.

·         OUFC continues to understate the existing biodiversity of the site and to overstate the impact of its proposed mitigation.

·         OUFC claim that some small, fragmented areas of the site would be fenced off, therefore not be subject to footfall and that some of the rare plants will be transplanted there.  This is unrealistic for a small site which is going to have so many people on it at one time. 

·         Dr Judy Webb has said that translocation from the south to the north of the site is unlikely to be successful because the rare plants favour the wetter conditions to the south.  (Dr Webb’s reports are on our website here.)

·         OUFC is still claiming that the pitch will contribute to BNG, even though it has artificial fibres in it and is largely enclosed.  This is unacceptable. 

·         OUFC is still claiming that the Willow Coppice is an arable crop which greatly understates its biodiversity value and conflicts with the planning officer’s view that this classification of the coppice should be reconsidered.  This is unacceptable.

·         There is evidence from Dr Judy Webb that the Priority Deciduous Woodland to the south of the site is in fact Ancient Woodland.  It still requires more protection than is currently planned, including an appropriate buffer zone for its entire length. 

·         This strip of woodland is included in the proposed Nature Recovery Network for Oxfordshire by Thames Valley Environmental Record Centre (TVERC) as part of a ‘Core Zone’  i.e. of the ‘highest nature value’, existing wildlife areas.

·         OUFC was asked to provide a buffer for the Priority Deciduous Woodland to the south of the site but it has not done so.  Instead OUFC has retained a design with two ‘pinch points’ i.e. an access road and part of the car park, both of which may damage the woodland.  Both will be lit and will impact bats. 

·         Destruction of woodland can occur by development near or immediately adjacent as a result of hydrology change, light pollution, noise pollution, too much public access and trampling of flora, litter, flower-picking/digging, fires destroying trees or deadwood.  The buffer requested by Cherwell, but not provided by OUFC, is important!

·         OUFC has concluded, we believe incorrectly, that the lighting, noise and encroachment of the stadium onto the woodland won’t have an impact on bats which have been recorded on the site mainly along the edge of the woodland. 

·         Bats, including rare species, use the site, particularly the southern area by the woodland.  This woodland contains many bat roosting opportunities and a full roosting survey should have been carried out. 

·         The bat roosting survey on the site was only carried out from ground level and may well have missed roosts. 

 

TREES

Impact on trees

·         The arboriculture report states: “The proposal will result in the total loss of 8 trees, 5 groups, 2 hedgerows (outgrown) and the partial loss of 3 groups. This includes 1 ‘A’ category tree (high value), 2 ‘B’ category trees and 1 group (moderate), 2 C category trees, 7 groups and 2 hedgerows (low) and 3 ‘U’ category trees”.  We should not be losing a Category A tree nor the two trees that have been considered worthy of Tree Protection Orders.

·         Two oaks with Tree Protection Orders (TPOs) are planned for removal to allow access.  These have bat roosting potential and are protected by TPOs for a reason and should therefore remain. OUFC says it has considered these trees but the design factors and the competing needs of development mean that successful retention during construction and integration in the long-term is unrealistic. We disagree!  The design should work around these trees to ensure their retention. 

·         While OUFC’s arboricultural report might consider that these oaks with Tree Preservation Orders are not in their prime, that is insufficient justification for their removal and downgrading on this basis should not be entertained.  As they age, the trees will provide even more value from a biodiversity perspective.  Rot holes and deadwood are normal in trees and home to many animal and fungal species.  It is normal for oaks to go stag headed (ie with dead branches) in the crown and reduce their canopy. They can live on for 100s of years.  Reducing the canopy is a strategy to reduce transpirational losses, it does not mean they are in poor condition and about to die.

·         The Section 41 NERC protected and biodiverse woodland (aka the Priority Deciduous Woodland) to the south of the development will be adversely affected by pollution, light, noise etc.

·         The woodland’s valuable habitat is not sufficiently recognised by the arboricultural Report.  It is important that no deadwood is removed.

·         Measures to ‘deter’ access are totally inadequate.  Large numbers of people onsite will inevitably lead to overspill into the woodland.  The planned deterrent to entering the woodland will be a hedgerow (as yet to be planted), scrub planting and attenuation features.  This will be ineffective with 16,000 people onsite.

 

LANDSCAPE IMPACT

·         Images of the proposed stadium have been produced which show it as similar in height to the lampposts and overhead power lines.  This is very misleading!  The stadium will be approx. 25m high, similar to the Red Hall on Oxford North.  Please ask for realistic images. 

·         The size and scale of the proposed stadium is not in keeping with the surrounding landscape and its Green Belt location.

·         We say:  The stadium, at nearly 25m high, and covering most of the site, would dominate the landscape.  It would transform an area that is currently not really apparent and be an overbearing feature in what will be a largely residential area.  It would also urbanise the last remaining Green Belt gap between Kidlington and Oxford and  impact the setting of the Stratfield Brake Nature Reserve. 

·         There will be permanent and significant adverse effects on the surrounding landscape.

 

COMMUNITY BENEFITS

·         OUFC has indicated that it will provide funding for the maintenance of Stratfield Brake but this is unquantified in length or value.  The amount is redacted in the Collaboration Agreement and when we asked in a meeting with OUFC, how much it would contribute the development director said it was being negotiated and was confidential.  Clarity is needed around claims of community benefits and how commitments would be enforced. 

 

ECONOMIC BENEFITS

  • The area around the proposed site does not need additional employment opportunities of the type likely to be offered by this development. Local businesses have closed in Kidlington due to lack of staffing.
  • The effect of regular road closures and overloaded Park & Rides is likely to outweigh any possible economic benefits for both Kidlington and Oxford.