We have sent a Freedom of Information request to Oxfordshire County Council’s Deputy Director for Strategy and Infrastructure Planning, asking for full details of all emails, letters and telephone calls between Oxfordshire County Council and Faringdon Council regarding Wicklesham Quarry. We have also asked how the County Council will monitor and ensure that Grundon Ltd carries out Wicklesham’s restoration plan, and for a clear, unambiguous statement of the County Council’s position in relation to the quarry’s planning conditions and future. This week we thanked Oxfordshire County Council for reaffirming its responsibility as Minerals Planning Authority to “provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards”. Wicklesham Quarry’s restoration, the County Council said, “is of primary importance for the environment and constitutes an imperative reason of overriding public interest”. So is that the end of Faringdon Neighbourhood Plan’s flawed policy to allocate the quarry for industrial use? Maybe not… Not until we accused Grundon Ltd of abuse of process did Oxfordshire County Council move to end Grundon’s annual applications to delay- or avoid - restoring Wicklesham Quarry. SIX applications have been made- each promising to restore the quarry within 12 months - none of which have been honoured. Years of officially-sanctioned delays, in an obvious attempt to avoid meeting planning conditions, have raised deep public disquiet about the County Council’s role in the landowner’s seven year campaign to develop Wicklesham Quarry. Contradictions between the County Council’s legal obligations, planning decisions and strategic policies; and the appearance of involvement with a private landowner involving a neighbourhood plan that is clearly legally flawed – constitute troubling circumstances for democratic accountability. • Why has the County Council failed to point out that Wicklesham Quarry’s planning conditions are a ‘county matter’, and thus ‘excluded development’ from neighbourhood planning provisions under the Localism Act? • Why did the County Council “sign off” a policy to turn Wicklesham quarry into a 20 acre industrial warehousing site in 2014? • Why did a County Council Officer attend meetings with Wicklesham Quarry ‘stakeholders’ who double as Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group members, from which the public were excluded? • Why did Deputy Director Mr Hindle claim in November 2015 that the County Council did “not know the motives of the applicant” (i.e. Grundon Ltd), when the minutes of the same 2014 ‘Stakeholders Meeting’ record the statement: “It would be ridiculous to go to the expense of restoring the site, only for it to be ripped up for employment building purposes”. • What exactly does the Deputy Director mean by the statement: “If another application, determined on its merits, was granted permission and implemented, it would override the current permission whether restoration was achieved or not.” Either Wicklesham’s restoration is of “primary importance for the environment” and “overriding public interest” or it is not! Wicklesham’s planning conditions, the NPPF and Minerals and Waste Policy all state that Wicklesham MUST BE RESTORED. These are not mere words, Mr Hindle! It seems clear to us that the County Council has, over many years, offered explicit support and encouragement for a project that is completely contrary to its legal obligations and strategic policies as Minerals and Waste Authority, as well as being in breach of the Basic Conditions of a neighbourhood plan, and not in conformity with the Local Plan. We await the County Council's response to our FOI request as we consider the appropriate response to these circumstances.