SIGNING THE PETITON ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH TO STOP THIS!! Please submit your comments by the deadline of 15 JUNE. You can read the documents and upload your response HERE: https://myeplanning.oxfordshire.gov.uk/Planning/Display/MW.0151/23/#undefined
This update concerns OBJECTIONS to the applicants’ ‘justification’ for the development in planning law (Revised Planning, Design and Access Statement Part (3), pp50-55).
The relevant plans are (1) Faringdon Neighbourhood Plan (Parish Council), (2) The Local Plan (District Council), (3) the Minerals and Waste Plan (County Council) and (4) the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
* Plans at all levels should reflect and complement each other: they should not ‘conflict’. A Neighbourhood Plan should not be in competition or conflict with the strategic policies of a Local Plan, or try to override them – as is the case with Faringdon Neighbourhood Plan. This requirement is a ‘Basic Condition’ of a neighbourhood plan.
LOCAL & STRATEGIC POLICIES
A Neighbourhood Plan is about ‘local’ development. ‘Strategic’ policies are the remit of the District Council & involve decision making at a higher level. They are found in the VOWHDC Local Plan Part One. Strategic policies must be based on objective evidence and are subject to public examination.
* Strategic policies include development boundaries; site allocations for major development (housing and employment land); and geographical policies for different kinds of development: urban and countryside.
OBJECTIONS
1) The applicants rely on Faringdon Neighbourhood Plan (FNP) policy 4.5B to justify a proposal that is in conflict with strategic policies of the Local Plan.
Wicklesham Quarry is outside the development boundary of Faringdon in open countryside. The High Court ruled in 2017 that the Neighbourhood Plan was in conflict with the strategic policies of the Local Plan. The judgment states:
“Neither the examiner nor the District Council were lawfully satisfied that the FNP satisfied the basic condition that the making of the plan was in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan.”
The judge awarded this ground of the Judicial Review to us AGAINST the Vale of White Horse District Council. Policy 4.5B fails to meet the ‘basic conditions’.
2) The proposal is in conflict with the strategic policies of the Local Plan for a second reason:
it is a major, strategic development - many times larger than anything intended for local needs.
The National Planning Policy Framework (Annex 2. Glossary) defines ‘non-strategic policies’ as ‘Policies contained in a neighbourhood plan, or those policies in a local plan that are not strategic policies.’
Wicklesham Quarry has not been allocated as a strategic employment site in the Local Plan. In fact, it has been REPEATEDLY REJECTED BY THE DISTRICT COUNCIL AS A STRATEGIC EMPLOYMENT SITE (see below).
3) Neighbourhood Plans cannot have policies for county matters: they are ‘excluded development’ under the Localism Act 2011, Schedule 9, Part 2, 38B(b), 1(b). Oxfordshire County Council has decided that this application is a ‘county matter’, because Wicklesham Quarry is under County Council planning conditions for five years agricultural aftercare.
Since the existing County Council planning conditions have not been lifted, the Neighbourhood Plan policy must be wholly disregarded.
4) The proposal is in conflict with Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (OMWLP), and the National Planning Policy Framework:
(OMWLP) Part One- Core Strategy
Policy M10: Restoration of mineral workings - states: -
“Mineral workings shall be restored to a high standard and in a timely and phased manner to an after-use that is appropriate to the location and delivers a net gain in biodiversity. The restoration and after-use of mineral workings must take into account:
- the characteristics of the site prior to mineral working;
- the character of the surrounding landscape and the enhancement of local landscape character; the amenity of local communities, including opportunities to enhance green infrastructure provision and provide for local amenity uses and recreation;
- the capacity of the local transport network;
- any environmental enhancement objectives for the area;
- the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity appropriate to the local area, supporting the establishment of a coherent and resilient ecological network through the landscape-scale creation of priority habitat;
- the conservation and enhancement of geodiversity”
The proposal is in conflict with Policy M10 with regard to ALL the above criteria:
The site and surrounding landscape of the Midvale Ridge are open countryside in agricultural use- as when the planning conditions for restoration were applied.
The area is an important local amenity for local people, surrounded by public footpaths, a bridleway, with a tranquil environment, rich biodiversity and far-reaching views. It is used by walkers, runners and horse riders on a daily basis. The Quarry itself contains a public footpath.
Wicklesham tetrad (2km X 2km) was surveyed in 2000 and had eleven plant species classified as ‘rare’. (C. D. Preston, D. A. Pearman & T. D. Dines, eds. (2002): New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora. Oxford University Press. Supported by DEFRA)
Wicklesham Quarry is part of West Oxfordshire Heights Conservation Target Area (CTA), and supports Priority Habitat and a European Protected Species.
The WHOLE 29 ACRE SITE, including the BASE, is an internationally famous Site of Special Scientific Interest- the ONLY known site of the unique Faringdon Sponge Gravels, which at this location are around 50 METRES deep (2008 British Geological Survey Report RR/08/03 ISBN 0 85272 623 5).
5) National Planning Policy Framework para 127 (e) states that Minerals Planning Authorities should:
“provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity, to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions.”
The planning conditions for restoration and aftercare of Wicklesham Quarry were applied to ensure the land would return to an appropriate use, consistent with the sustainable use of minerals.
National Planning Policy Framework para 11 –
The applicants cite Para 11, the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ – however, this does not apply to Sites of Special Scientific Interest, where:-
‘the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area’.
SPURIOUS LEGITIMACY: THE LOCAL SCANDAL OF FARINGDON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
The applicant’s ‘principle of development’ tries to give spurious legitimacy to an aim that has been at the centre of widespread local perceptions of complicity, deception and cover-up for the past ten years.
Over the past ten years public awareness of the involvement between Wicklesham’s owners and Faringdon Council has increased, and more than 4,270 people have signed the online petition to PROTECT WICKLESHAM QUARRY FROM DEVELOPMENT. People have questioned WHY a council would make a neighbourhood plan with a policy for industrial development on the town’s most important environmental site - a Site of Special Scientific interest of international importance.
The misuse of a neighbourhood plan to help a landowner get planning permission for a site that has been repeatedly turned down for inclusion in the Local Plan since 2008, has involved false statements, omissions of key environmental information, and bogus data and claims regarding local employment. The Neighbourhood Plan: -
- claims Wicklesham Quarry is a brownfield site. IT IS NOT. This claim (repeatedly challenged) is still in the neighbourhood plan’s ‘Basic Conditions Statement’: no correction statement has ever been issued;
- omits to tell local people that Wicklesham Quarry is part of West Oxfordshire Heights Conservation Target Area, and has Priority Habitat and a European Protected Species;
- Uses false claims and bogus figures from a document titled Our Faringdon Our Future* in order to instil fear in local people, by telling them Faringdon would become a ‘dormitory town’ UNLESS Wicklesham Quarry is used for industrial development.
You can read about the ridiculous claims made in Our Faringdon Our Future here:
Faringdon Council knew of the obligation of the Neighbourhood Plan to be ‘in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan’. They chose to ignore it, and are STILL in denial that their appalling and shameful policy is in breach of the ‘basic conditions’ - even after the judge’s ruling in the Judicial Review quoted above.* The longer they persist, the more this local scandal continues to grow.
Wicklesham Quarry was rejected in employment land reviews by URS Ltd in 2008 and 2013; it was rejected by the Vale of White Horse District Council in 2009 and 2016. It scored WORST out of ten sites compared for sustainable employment use in the Neighbourhood Plan Sustainability Appraisal. The aim of this neighbourhood plan was deliberately to flout the Local Plan and to try to override its strategic policies.
* The legal quagmire of the Judicial Review
The reason Faringdon Council believes it can ignore the High Court judgment is because the judge failed to order the neighbourhood plan or policy to be quashed, in spite of ruling (see above) that it was in breach of the ‘basic conditions’ and in conflict with the strategic policies of the Local Plan. That is because the Vale of White Horse District Council, who knew an application for Judicial Review had been made, went ahead with the referendum anyway and adopted the Neighbourhood Plan before the case was heard. (Our case challenged the Vale’s decision to send the Neighbourhood Plan to referendum, on the grounds that it was unlawful.)
This meant- according to legal opinion- that we would have to apply for a SECOND Judicial Review against the adoption of the Neighbourhood Plan. The judge declined to rule on this argument, and instead, awarded the case against us, including costs- even though we had won on one ground, which should have decided the case in our favour. WHAT A MESS! (The key summary points of the judgment are on the main page of the online petition.)
Our financial resources did not allow us to appeal or to apply to the High Court for a second time. However- this does not invalidate the judgment itself. The judge rejected three grounds of our case and found in favour of one: that the neighbourhood plan was not in conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan and failed to meet the ‘basic conditions’- BECAUSE OF POLICY 4.5b. The ruling is quoted above.
Please get in touch with any comments or queries: protectwicklesham@gmail.com