As press interest grows around the legal challenge to Faringdon Neighbourhood Plan (FNP) which will be heard on 14-15 June in the High Court, the Oxford Mail quotes Councillor Roger Cox as saying "This judicial review is merely a review of the process and I am certain that the Vale has followed the correct procedures in this case." Let me correct you, Councillor Cox: this Judicial Review is about POLICY not 'process', and concerns the FNP’s failure to meet the 'basic conditions' of a neighbourhood plan. My claim - which Mrs Justice Lang judged 'merits full consideration' by the High Court - contains four grounds relating to the policy to turn Wicklesham Quarry into an industrial/ logistics site. These are the basic conditions that the plan FAILS to meet, with explanations below each: - 1) 'having due regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance from the Secretary of state, it is appropriate to make the order'; * by wrongly describing Wicklesham quarry as a 'brownfield' site, the neighbourhood plan misapplies the Core Planning Principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This is much more than an inconsequential, technical error- because it also means the FNP fails comprehensively to consider national policies that DO apply to a former mineral working. 2) The FNP 'makes provision for development that is excluded development'- i.e., a 'county matter'; * neighbourhood plans cannot make policies for former mineral workings that are subject to Restoration Conditions & Aftercare Conditions - because these conditions (& any alternative land use) are a 'county matter', and are ‘excluded’ from neighbourhood plans under the Localism Act. 3) '.. is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area of the authority (or any part of that area)'; * the policy is not in ‘general conformity’ with strategic policies of the Minerals & Waste Local Plan, or of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan for: location of development, landscape, biodiversity or geodiversity. 4) 'the making of the order does not breach, and is otherwise compatible with, EU obligations'; * the FNP's Sustainability Appraisal fails (a) to include key information regarding Wicklesham Quarry's importance for biodiversity, landscape, & amenity, and (b) to examine reasonable alternatives. Objections on almost all these grounds have been made to Faringdon Council since 2014, and ignored. In our view, the policy to facilitate planning permission for the owner of Wicklesham Quarry was the central aim of this neighbourhood plan, which was seen by Faringdon Council as a way to ‘beat’ the Vale’s repeated rejections since 2008 of proposals to industrialise this unique site. The local ‘stakeholders’ involved in the FNP, i.e., Wicklesham’s owners and land agent, have long avoided carrying out the restoration, and the FNP Minutes record the statement “that it would be ridiculous to go to the expense of restoring the site, only for it to be ripped up for employment building purposes”. Even after local people's efforts to keep a spotlight on Wicklesham Quarry resulted in an order to Grundon Ltd by Oxfordshire County Council to carry out the long-delayed Restoration Scheme by 30th September 2016, Wicklesham’s land agent sought a meeting to request that this order be lifted – in view of the landowner’s expectation of obtaining planning permission! If Councillor Cox – who made the decision to adopt Faringdon Neighbourhood Plan - is in any doubt about the grounds of the Judicial Review, he might wish to consult the Vale's Legal Department for clarification: democratic.services@southandvale.gov.uk, or alternatively, the Leader of the Council, Mathew Barber: matthew.barber@whitehorsedc.gov.uk.