Why are planning officers continuing to accept dozens of revised documents and ‘new’ applications for ‘outline’ permission, which is supposed to be about ‘development IN PRINCIPLE’?
The decision whether to allow minor amendments to applications is up to officers. However, in this case there have been THREE ‘major’ amendments- requiring NEW application forms and NEW sets of documents- for what is an OUTLINE planning proposal. This makes no sense.
In our view, planning officers should EITHER have required the applicants to submit a full planning application in the first place, OR the application should have been determined as originally submitted – in which case it would have been rejected. The proposal has been widely condemned, by FOUR local parish councils, hundreds of local residents, by the Landscape Officer, BBOWT and even by the Geological Society and the Palaeontological Association. The only support came from Faringdon Council, whose Neighbourhood Plan was ruled by the High Court in 2017 to be “in manifest conflict” with the 2011 Local Plan Strategic Policy GS2 (Development in the countryside). The Neighbourhood Plan “failed to meet the basic conditions” and therefore it is not an admissible justification for any development – of any scale - at Wicklesham Quarry SSSI.
ALL the applicants’ documents, including the recent ones, show the same plan (above) for seven enormous blocks filling Wicklesham Quarry SSSI, and each ‘amendment’ involves slicing 2 or 3 metres off the height. It is probably what the applicants intended to do all along- but it makes NO difference to the many reasons that have been given as to WHY this proposal, which is in conflict with the Local Plan, is UNACCEPTABLE.
The applicants have repeatedly paper- bombed planning officers with documents, some hundreds of pages long, in an obvious attempt to intimidate them into backing down. Each time an officer has objected, another document has been fired at them by the applicants.
Why have planning officers continued to allow this?
I have written to ask County Council planning officers for a meeting to obtain clarification, but received no response. I have also asked for the County Council’s Standing Orders on making amendments to planning applications and when NEW applications are required – and received no response.
We believe that any ‘NEW’ application for outline planning permission should have been submitted to the Vale of White Horse District Council. The applicant’s NEW application form WRONGLY states that Wicklesham Quarry is subject to an agricultural aftercare condition, i.e., a ‘county matter’. IT IS NOT. Wicklesham Quarry is farmland, and there has been no agricultural aftercare condition since June 2024, as confirmed by Mr David Periam.
The current consultation continues until 30 May. I shall be posting updates on issues you may wish to include in your objections in the coming week.
In the meantime, you might like to read some previous relevant updates: -