In light of the Judge's decisions in the Judicial Review, supporters have a choice to make. Please email protectwicklesham@gmail.com with your views. The decision must be made this weekend. There are 2 options: - (1) We wait five years during which the landowner must fully implement the agricultural Aftercare Scheme, and use active vigilance to try to ensure that the planning conditions- which include environmental protection of the Quarry’s Priority Habitats and European Protected Species - are honoured. If a planning application comes forward subsequently, it can be opposed on a number of grounds, for example: * No “demonstrable need” for the site has been shown. * The site is outside the settlement boundary and is not a ‘brownfield site’, as assumed in the neighbourhood plan’s flawed allocation policy. (It will be farmland in agricultural use.) * A B2/B8 industrial estate is incompatible with, and would damage the character and appearance of, the Corallian Ridge, under Policy NE7. * There is no precedent or need for B2/B8 development in the Western Vale outside settlement boundaries, and it is in conflict with the Vale’s Strategy for the Western Vale. * The Quarry is part of West Oxfordshire Heights Conservation Target Area. Its rare geology is linked to the rare biodiversity of the Wicklesham tetrad. B2/B8 use of this CTA & SSSI is in conflict with the aims of Oxfordshire Biodiversity Action Plan. It is the only site that combines these characteristics in the CTA. * The quality and extent of the 31 acre SSSI would be harmed. Under JNCC Guidelines no permanent alterations should be made to a SSSI of this class. * An industrial estate would introduce noise, artificial light, and air pollution into a peaceful rural area and damage its amenity value for local people. Wicklesham Quarry is surrounded by bridleways and footpaths used by local walkers and riding schools. * The policy is in conflict with National Planning Policy Framework policies on the sustainable use of minerals; efficient use of land; respecting the character of different areas and the beauty of the countryside; and the restoration and conservation of biodiversity. * B2/ B8 use, involving roads, heavy vehicles, industrial activities, run-off etc is incompatible with conserving the water bodies and stream which are Priority Habitats for the breeding colonies of Great Crested Newts, which form part of Oxfordshire County Council’s Restoration and Aftercare Schemes. * Minerals extraction sites with planning conditions for specified after-use, do not and should not create development opportunities for landowners. It is against DEFRA policies to prevent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land and conserve and restore local landscapes. It is against the public interest and acceptability of mineral working for land not to be restored in accordance with the surrounding landscape and land use. (2) We seek permission to overturn the judgment in the Court of Appeal. The advantage of a successful Appeal would be that the policy would be quashed, and highly unlikely ever to be resurrected. It would bring closure to this disastrous policy. The Judgment found that the policy failed to meet the basic conditions in two respects, but did not offer a remedy. (i) The neighbourhood plan did not have regard to national policy, wrongly believing that the quarry was a ‘brownfield’ site. Second, the policy was in conflict with the Local Plan because it was outside the settlement boundary. The judge failed to consider that each of these failures of the basic conditions increases the adverse effects of the other. We would argue that failing to offer a remedy to failures to meet the basic conditions that exacerbate each other was wrong. Furthermore, the examiner had no discretion to pass a neighbourhood plan that fails to meet the basic conditions: the plan cannot lawfully be sent to referendum unless it meets the basic conditions. An Appeal would involve further areas where we disagree with the judgment, including (but not limited to) - (ii) The policy is excluded development because it makes provision for a ‘county matter’. The judge misinterpreted Schedule 1 (1) h- the meaning of ‘conflict with or prejudice compliance with’ and failed to take into account evidence regarding both aspects of the relevant section. In addition, he interpreted the policy to mean that it could not take effect for five years- an interpretation that was not justified by the text of the policy, and could not effectively be enforced- but would require further legal action. I strongly agree with my legal team that the policy is excluded development and cannot be included in a neighbourhood plan. Other elements of the judgment (not described here) will also be appealed. There are reasons to believe an Appeal could be successful, and that it is legally justified, warranted and desirable. As the judgment stands it is unsatisfactory and contradictory in several respects, and potentially sets highly undesirable precedents. If supporters want to take the case to Appeal, I shall need pledges of financial support to make this possible – by the weekend. The Application must be made within 21 days of judgment (7th July). The case would only be allowed to go forward if the Court of Appeal applied a further costs capping order under the Aarhus Convention of £5,000. This will not be known until the application is made. I am very happy to talk it over with anyone who has any questions or wants further information. Please get in touch by email: protectwicklesham@gmail.com. If I do not hear from supporters that there is strong backing to make an Appeal, the default position will be that we remain in the uncertain situation of (1), and our hopes of protecting Wicklesham Quarry from Development will depend on the development control stage of a planning application in 5 years’ time or more. Sincere thanks to everyone who has supported and continues to support this important campaign!