Oxfordshire County Council has ignored appeals by numerous local residents for a fully transparent planning process, in accordance with its published policies, and has posted the ‘redacted’ comments of local residents and at least one expert body - the Geological Society- on the planning website. Leaving out names and addresses, the comments have been merged into a single anonymous document 188 pages long, called Mw015123 Redacted Representations December 2023. You can find it under the ‘Documents’ TAB of the planning application, about 1/3 of the way down the page: - https://myeplanning.oxfordshire.gov.uk/Planning/Display/MW.0151/23/#undefined
The copied and pasted pdf contains numerous typing, punctuation and formatting errors (such as reformatting footnotes and sticking them in the middle of text) that make some comments hard to follow. As such, it is not a true representation of the comments submitted, nor can we be certain that comments have not been edited or omitted completely. Two hundred and forty two comments are currently part of the document, and all but a handful are overwhelmingly critical. Below are a few extracts. Each quotation is from a separate comment:
“What was once a rural area of natural beauty is quickly turning into a congested and overwhelmed urban spot. The local area cannot cope with anymore. If we lose Wicklesham, this countryside and the local towns and villages will lose a part of their character. This cannot be allowed to happen”.
“I strongly object to further developments along the A420 which do not have any solutions to the serious problems they will bring.”
“I am deeply concerned by the language used in this application particularly regarding the data centre. I am left baffled as to whether it is, or isn't to be included in this planning application? Does this mean it could be slipped in after an initial planning approval?”
“NO NO NO PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THIS HUGE, UNNECESSARY, UNSIGHTLY AND UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.”
“The area in question clearly provides an important habitat for a vast variety of wildlife species. I worry that what we're taking away here can never be put back and we are damaging our environment for all the wonderful wildlife and our children for the sake of financial gain… I don't think that gain will have the same reach for the local community (human and otherwise) as the privileges that we all already enjoy in the unspoilt countryside that surrounds us. I think it is important that we stop here with these developments and only consider the ones that enhance the town, the natural environment and all the beings, human and otherwise, that inhabit it.”
“This type of development should be sited on an existing brown field site. I am totally against using conservation areas for industrial development when perfectly suitable brown field sites exist. There is no valid justification for it to be there and to be so substantial. OCC need to call out the inconsistencies and contradictions in the planning documents and robustly challenge the reasoning. If Clarkson can't build a restaurant in an AONB, then you can't allow a massive development on an SSSI.”
“I am writing with solid objection to the Wicklesham Quarry proposal in all its forms. From the destruction of one of the most important SSSI’s in the country through to the disingenuous suggested employment benefits, crass disregard of huge and inevitable traffic congestion and outright deceit shown by the Parish Council, developer, and landowner towards Faringdon’s residents leading up to the application. This proposal has raised the heckles of very many residents like I have never known before, so should this proposal not be thrown out entirely, [it] will leave a damning reputation on all those involved for generations to come.”
“1. Why the general secrecy surrounding this application, which has already been withdrawn once ?
2. Why the lack of clarity about exactly WHAT is proposed? On a specific point: DATA CENTRE ~ 'References' to this have apparently been omitted; but this does not make clear whether the building of a CENTRE itself has been withdrawn.
3. The inevitable increase in traffic at this critical point of the A420 would not only affect ease of entry into the town but add to the (regular) number of traffic incidents on the A420.
4. Why has no local public consultation been carried out?
5. The proposed development is apparently in conflict with the LOCAL PLAN so what is the point of having a settled and pre-discussed PLAN?
6. Environmental concerns (conservation target area, protected species, special scientific interest): these are so obvious.
7. So, is the Quarry 'brownfield land' or not?”
“It beggars belief that the residents of Faringdon are having to fight to save Wicklesham Quarry SSSI from this outrageous planning application! It should never have even got this far. A SSSI that should now be left in its natural state. The land owner has made huge sums of money from renting the land to Grundons. In its natural state it could be a huge benefit to the town.”
“This application is without merit. The area is in a rural setting and has an area of SSSI. It's just another speculative attempt at over development that is blighting our town.”
“The height, scale, character and appearance of the proposed development is totally out of keeping with the area and the impact on the site which is of special scientific interest is unacceptable. The proposal is contrary to the strategic policies of the Local Plan and the Faringdon Neighbourhood Plan cannot be used to ignore this. The permission for the quarrying was accompanied by a requirement to restore the land to its previous state after the quarrying was finished. This was entirely sensible and appropriate and should be followed through on now.”
“Faringdon cannot sustain a heavier load of traffic on the A420 nor within the town as living on London Street the congestion on the A420 means we are subject to a fast stream of traffic using our road as a rat run…The proposed buildings will dominate views from Folly Hill and Galley Hill and we moved here specifically for the aesthetic setting - Faringdon already suffers from lack of tourists despite the proximity to Burford and other thriving tourist towns in the area from which Faringdon would benefit far more than industrial units. If this application goes ahead I will move out of the town.”
As well as more than two hundred passionate, concerned, despairing and angry responses from local residents, there is also a REDACTED response from the Geological Society:
“Specifically in relation to Wicklesham Quarry, the loss of this special site of scientific interest would also mean a loss of access for researchers, students and interested public to a unique environment containing an internationally unique fossilised faunal assemblage and palaeogeomorphological environment. The Geological Society has a long history of engaging in geoconservation initiatives. It has taken the lead internationally in requiring authors contributing to its scientific publications to confirm that all geological sampling has been conducted ethically. It has been involved in the development of an explicit code and policy for ethical sampling which addresses sampling ethics beyond statutory protection. The Geological Society aims to help conserve the diverse geology and rich geological and geomorphological heritage of the United Kingdom, and to pass it in good order to future generations for their investigation, education and enjoyment. As such, we sincerely hope that our concerns around the protection and conservation of this important and geologically significant site will be heard by the Council and Developers.”
This demonstrates precisely WHY the practice of ‘redacting’ responses is unacceptable. The status of the Geological Society, the most authoritative body in the country with a right to speak on behalf of Wicklesham Quarry SSSI, has been undermined by removing the Society’s name and address from its response. By picking and choosing whose name is allowed to appear, the County Council has graded some responses as more important than others and censored the planning consultation. Furthermore, by merging over 240 separate responses into a single, carelessly produced document of 188 pages, no one using the website can easily find the response they want to read.
We would remind Oxfordshire County Council of its Statement of Community Involvement regarding planning processes. On Page 23 is Table 2: Information Available on County Council Website. Under the heading ‘What the County Council will additionally publish on the website for every application’, it states: ‘consultation responses as they are received.’ Clearly that is not what has happened here.
Together with the ‘legal’ statement that respondents ‘Accepted’ in order to post their comments – which when challenged, the County Council actually ALTERED - it seems clear that Oxfordshire County Council has no intention of adhering to its own published polices.
Because I do NOT consent to being ‘REDACTED’, please note that my responses are listed as 13a, 13b, 13c and 13d. These include two letters written separately to Director Rachel Wileman. (Don’t be distracted by footnotes placed in the middle of paragraphs.)
If you would like me to publish your name and the reference allocated to your response, drop me an email to protectwicklesham@gmail.com.