The Vale District Council, specialist County Council officers (for landscape and biodiversity etc), Parish Councils, District Councillors - and even Faringdon Council, the authors of the disastrous policy to turn Wicklesham Quarry SSSI into an industrial estate - have objected to the application for a vast industrial infrastructure project at Faringdon’s most important site for geo and biodiversity. You can read their comments on the County Council’s website, documents section. https://myeplanning.oxfordshire.gov.uk/Planning/Display/MW.0151/23/

Members of the public, scientists and professional bodies have also made an unprecedented number of knowledgeable and detailed objections. All these ‘unofficial’ comments have been clumsily merged into a single document (over 180 pages long), with names redacted. Oxfordshire County Council has ignored emails from local residents protesting about being ‘redacted’, and I have submitted a formal complaint on the grounds that they have not followed their own published policies set out in the Statement of Community Involvement, and changed the rules mid-process against the interests of the public. This is yet another example of a planning authority failing to take the public’s right to information, consultation and transparency seriously. 

As we wait for the Case Officer’s report on the planning application, below is a selection from many comments relating to Wicklesham Quarry’s exceptional geological importance, and how it would be damaged by the planning proposal.

• Rep 18    Professor Keith Jeffery, elected Fellow of the Geological Society (& Faringdon resident) ‘objects violently’ to the proposal. He states that Wicklesham Quarry, listed in 1950, is ‘one of the oldest’ SSSIs in the country, and is internationally famous for the ‘uniqueness’ of its fossils and geomorphology. The first collection of Faringdon fossils by Lhuyd in 1699 was sponsored by ‘no less than Sir Isaac Newton’. Professor Jeffery also cites geologist Gideon Mantell*, whose published work was highly influential in the debate on the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. Professor Jeffery states that any structures covering the base would prevent future research and damage the quarry’s interpretation and educational value, by obscuring the 3-dimensional relationship between the strata at the sides of the quarry and the surrounding landscape. 

* Gideon Mantell, born in 1790, was an obstetrician and palaeontogologist who discovered many of the first important fossils ever known, including the Iguanodon. His cousin, George Mantell, was apothecary, obstetrician and surgeon for Faringdon workhouse, and almost certainly introduced Gideon Mantell to Faringdon’s unique fossils. You can read about George Mantell and Faringdon Workhouse on the website of Faringdon and District Archaeological and Historical Society: https://www.fdahs.org.uk/

• Rep 223  The Geological Society itself states ‘this development could damage, obscure or destroy a number of significant geological features in the area’ and ‘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 ‘kindly request that you consider the potential impact of the proposed development on the geoconservation of this internationally important Oxfordshire site.’
• Natural England’s response confirms the fact that the base of the quarry (claimed to have no geological interest) contains scientific resources. They state: ‘if significant excavations are made into the quarry floor or faces, a portion of the arisings removed should be put aside and reserved for scientific study and fossil collecting activities.’ Natural England has requested that ‘a more detailed assessment of the geodiversity present on the site and its conservation be undertaken. The geoconservation measures proposed to mitigate any impacts of the development must be clearly detailed within a geological site management plan.‘
• The County Council’s Landscape Report also refers to the negative impacts on the SSSI: ‘The context of the rock faces, despite being retained will also fundamentally change in character.‘ (p.5)

Professor Jeffery’s submission reminds us why the SSSI listing of Wicklesham & Coxwell Pits states that the site is ‘of great historical importance’ and 'one of Britain's richest palaeontological localities'. It is a major landmark in the history of science. To understand the geomorphology of the site the walls of the quarry need to be visible in relation to each other and to the surrounding landscape, where a river cut a channel through the fossilised reef on the edge of the shore. This unique set of conditions has never been recorded anywhere else. It is also clear that the base of the quarry- which is part of the SSSI - contains important fossil material that has not been studied. If it is built on, it will be lost forever. If that does not amount to ‘damage’ to the SSSI, what does? The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Guidelines (2004) state that no permanent structures should be permitted within a SSSI of this class (ED). We agree! 

While we wait for further news and possibly new submissions by the applicants, the Campaign to Protect Wicklesham Quarry from Development will browse the hundreds of documents and submissions in order to highlight further issues of interest for updates for Wicklesham's supporters - of whom there are now almost 4,000! Please forward these updates to your friends and contacts locally, & post them on social media, and help me to grow local support for Wicklesham Quarry SSSI.

The range of adverse comments submitted – on landscape, biodiversity, location, inappropriate development, lack of justification, impacts on the environment, unsustainable traffic burden, local infrastructure- is already enormous, but if the applicants submit new documents the public will be able to submit further comments. I will keep you posted. 

Before the application can be tabled for committee the Officer’s Report will be made available. The earliest possible planning committee date is 26th February, assuming the applicants have come up with some answers to the numerous queries and objections.

Keep watching Wicklesham Quarry!

Please get in touch if you have any queries or comments or want further sources of information: email protectwicklesham @gmail.com