Oxford UnitedFans have described the granting of planning permission for Oxford United’s proposed new 16,000-seat stadium as a “great result”.
Cherwell District Council’s planning committee gave the green light to the purpose-built ground, to be built on land known as the Triangle, near Kidlington, after a four-hour meeting on Thursday.
Local MP Callum Miller said it was “milestone” and called on the club to deliver on its commitment to reducing car journeys to the site.
Opponents of the stadium had objected to the development on green belt land and raised concerns about traffic congestion.
The club currently plays at the Kassam Stadium and its owner, Firoka Group, has agreed the U’s can play there for two more seasons.
The seven-hectare (17-acre) site will be located south of Kidlington roundabout, west of Banbury Road, east of Frieze Way and near Oxford Parkway Station.
The new stadium development proposals also include a hotel, restaurant and community plaza.
Oxford United fans and local residents were among those who attended the meeting, which was also watched live online by more than 6,000 people.
In total, 14 councillors voted for the proposal, three abstained, and one voted against.
BBC Radio Oxford sport editor Jerome Sale, who was at the meeting, said it had been “emotionally charged”.
“Some impassioned pleas were made. Whether you agreed with the decision or not, you could definitely see this was being forensically challenged at every turn,” he said.
“There are plenty more hurdles to pass before football is played – but it does feel last night was hugely significant.”
Liberal Democrat MP, Mr Miller said it was “very exciting news” for the club and its fans.
“I’m delighted for them this milestone has been reached,” he continued.
He said this club’s travel plan would be “key” to the success of the stadium.
“Now we have the decision, the club can engage in that in detail and deliver on that commitment to massively reduce the number of car journeys bringing fans to home games,” he added.
Labour MP for Oxford East Anneliese Dodds said the club’s current set-up was “unviable”.
She continued: “It’s not sustainable. We don’t have a fourth stand. The women can’t play here.
“This situation, sadly, could not continue.
“So I’m pleased that now we will have a brighter future for the club with more stability. Finally.”
‘A proper stadium’
Paul Peros, of supporters group OxVox, said he was “incredibly happy” at the council vote.
“It was drawn out and painful at times but it was a process which needed to have gone through,” he said.
“It’s a great result. There has been an incredible of amount of work by the club, by the supporters – its been a team effort.”
Among those who spoke at the meeting was club steward Roland Clements, known as Roly, who was concerned about the future of the club if it did not get the stadium.
Speaking after the vote, he described the club and its fans as “a big family community”.
“Kassam is not really a stadium – it’s only got three sides,” he continued.
“That’s what all the fans want – a proper stadium we can call home – that’s all that matters.”
Discussing the plans, councillors raised concerns about transport, finances and the environmental impact of the new ground.
Green Party councillor Ian Middleton said he was “disappointed” by the outcome, and believed it would have a “devastating” impact on the community.
“We always said we wouldn’t support building on green belt unless there was local support,” he said.
Adrian Sutton, from Friends of Stratfield Brake, said during the meeting his group objected on “three critical grounds: greenbelt policy, public safety and ecological harm”.
He said: “The need to relocate is unproven, public safety has not been considered and the application does not take the precautionary approach required by Natural England.”
There will now be an option to extend the deal to play at the Kassam Stadium for another year, which was conditional on planning permission for the club’s proposed new stadium being granted.
The application will now be referred to the Secretary of State because it goes against the district council’s development plan and is on the green belt.
