I have sent the following email to members of Oxfordshire County Council's Planning and Regulation Committee, following today's meeting. Only one Councillor voted to refuse the variation of planning conditions - a qualified hydrologist... although others abstained. Dear Councillor, I feel compelled to write to you as I was extremely disturbed by the misleading impression given in answers to elected members' questions in today's Planning and Regulation Committee. The most serious was the repeated misrepresentation of 'groundwater', which used correctly, refers to the water table - NOT to surface water. Enzygo's 2013 Report (attached) makes it clear that the quarry's true ponds were supported primarily by 'groundwater', i.e. the water table, a statement I cited. Yet the Officer present today sought to explain the ponds drying up by stating that it was due to re-levelling the base of the quarry, and stated that the ponds were supported by surface water drainage (run-off) created by rainfall. He informed Councillors that altering the ground levels might potentially result in them re-filling with water. This gravely misrepresents the facts and may have influenced Councillors' votes. These were true ponds- not drainage ditches or ephemeral water bodies resulting from rainfall. Their stable positions in the quarry over many years relate to the bedrock at the base of the quarry, which in these locations was exposed by mineral extraction. While the water table naturally rises and falls throughout the year, the only things that could cause ponds fed by groundwater to dry up completely- as has happened here - is either (1) a permanent fall in the water table, or (2) they have been filled in. A number of councillors were clearly troubled by the evidence I presented of deliberate damage if not destruction of Wicklesham's ponds (which was recorded as such by Mr Bill Stewart-Jones). I believe some voted to pass this application in the belief that their vote might help the restoration of the ponds. If so, this is certainly not the case. The Restoration Scheme required the importation of "up to 2,000 loads of soil" (Monitoring Report 5 Oct 2016), and the endogenous topsoil bunds were laid over the imported soil- thus raising the level of the base by around a metre. This should automatically have resulted in lowering the level of the ponds by an additional metre. Yet it is abundantly clear from the photographs that the (now dry) ground level of the ponds has been raised to almost match the ground level around them. This can only have been done by filling them with soil or other material. Having passed this application, the question of planning conditions remains. Once again I would urge Councillors in the strongest possible terms to insist on the original Restoration Scheme for the ponds being carried out, and that the true ponds (1 and 3) are dredged to remove all the soil to their previous level (i.e., the quarry base) and to allow them to naturally refill from groundwater. This is the only way they will be restored and will survive, in accordance with planning conditions and the law. I do not believe that elected members wish to accept responsibility for the current atrocious and unlawful situation, nor do I believe that you would wish Council Officers to issue a completion certificate in the present circumstances. Please do not permit the destruction of Wicklesham Quarry SSSI's fragile and important biodiversity. Thank you once again for considering this matter. Kind Regards, Dr Anna Hoare Attachments: Enzygo Report 2013 Monitoring Officer's Report 5 Oct 2016 A.E. Hoare -Presentation to Planning & Regulation Committee (02.07.18)