As May 1st elections* for County Councillors are fast approaching, many residents want to know who Faringdon’s councillors represent - local people, or the developers who have the backing of Faringdon Council?

Ever since Faringdon’s Councillors failed to submit a public response to the third consultation - but apparently did so on the quiet - that question has been in the minds of residents of Faringdon and the Western Vale.

The application for a vast commercial/ industrial development at Wicklesham Quarry SSSI - the town’s most important site for bio- and geodiversity – will, if passed, fundamentally change Faringdon and the western Vale. The intention of the owners of Wicklesham Lodge Farm is that the whole farm will follow, becoming a huge development site that will DOUBLE the size of Faringdon south of the A420. You can see the Vale’s map of the call for land in an earlier update: https://www.change.org/p/the-vale-of-white-horse-district-council-and-secretary-of-state-michael-gove-protect-wicklesham-quarry-from-development/u/32098402 

And yet- as the town faces its most serious risk - no one actually knows where the loyalties of Faringdon's elected councillors lie!

Bethia Thomas, a former Faringdon town councillor, who is now both a County Councillor and District Councillor for Faringdon- has stated that she responded “informally” to planning officers in the last consultation. No one knows whether she objects to the proposed development or supports it. She has also failed to explain why - as a public representative- she did not make her views known publicly. 

Before local Wicklesham supporters cast their votes on May 1st they think it is time she came clean: does Ms Thomas support the proposed development or not? Has she unequivocally objected to the proposal? And what exactly did her ‘informal’ comments to the planning consultation contain?

Before you decide who you want to represent you, you might like to drop Faringdon’s councillors an email to ask them these straightforward questions.

Bethia.Thomas@whitehorsedc.gov.uk

lucy.edwards@whitehorsedc.gov.uk

Faringdon council is supporting Wicklesham’s owners and developer Spencer Cooper AGAINST the town, after local people made their overwhelming opposition to this development clear. Ms Thomas has close links to Faringdon Council.

Ms Thomas’s initial objection to the proposal included criticisms of the Campaign to Protect Wicklesham Quarry, which, she said, made it “difficult to navigate the facts”. (We must be failing in our mission!!) She also claimed there was local support for the development. If so, it has not been reflected in public submissions to the 3 consultations- which are overwhelmingly highly critical. Her second comment in June 2024 said there was a need for “further improvements” in the application. In other words, it was NOT an objection. Her third comments to planning officers were never made public on the planning page. People have since been asking what exactly they were, and why were they not made publicly. Now local people want to know.

Ms Thomas- who is Leader of the Vale of White Horse District Council- has consistently failed to admit that Faringdon neighbourhood plan is in conflict with the Strategic Policies of the Local Plan. When I wrote to her and quoted the High Court Ruling that underscored that fact, I received a sarcastic response. The High Court ruling 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.”

In other words, Faringdon neighbourhood plan failed to meet the ‘basic conditions’ – because of policy 4.5B to turn Wicklesham Quarry into employment land. 

THE LOCAL PLAN

Residents of Faringdon and the Western Vale are entitled to be represented by councillors who support and defend the Local Plan. The Adopted Policies Map (above) shows the strategic policies for Faringdon. It does NOT include a 33,500 sq m development on top of Wicklesham Quarry SSSI.

The development proposal:

• is outside the development boundary – Core Policy 4
• undermines the town’s existing strategic employment land allocation – Core Policy 6
• Will destroy a Site of Special Scientific Interest and Conservation Target Area - Core Policy 46

It also conflicts with district-wide strategic policies for landscape (Core Policy 44), biodiversity (Core Policy 46), the Spatial Strategy (SO3) for sustainable development and the Settlement Hierarchy (Core Policy 3).

The Local Plan’s Spatial Strategy seeks to focus large-scale employment development in the Science Vale. It therefore includes provision for housing, roads, infrastructure and redeveloping brownfield land at Didcot.

Is Ms Thomas seriously claiming she has never heard of any of these strategic policies? Or does she think they do not apply to Faringdon?

Faringdon is NOT part of the Science Vale, and there should be no question as to whether Ms Thomas, as Leader of the Vale of White Horse District Council, supports and upholds the Local Plan.

Before you decide who YOU want to represent Faringdon in the May elections, you may want to ask Faringdon's councillors for some straight answers:

• Did they OBJECT to the development proposal at Wicklesham Quarry SSSI at the third consultation? 
• Will they publicly post their “informal” comments so everyone can read them?
• Do they support the strategic policies of the Local Plan, including the Sub-Area Strategy for the Western Vale?

Bethia.Thomas@whitehorsedc.gov.uk

lucy.edwards@whitehorsedc.gov.uk

*County Council elections will be held on May 1 2025 ; District Council elections will be held in 2027

Please share the answers you receive: protectwicklesham@gmail.com