The latest public consultation until 30 May on the proposal for a massive industrial/ commercial development has left Wicklesham supporters- who are already suffering from consultation fatigue - wondering what to do. Should I respond once again? What is there left to say?

The proposal is the same enormous, crowded development of seven huge, unsightly blocks with fenced waste areas all around the visible outside of the buildings. The illustrations seek to conceal the fact that what would be seen from outside is the BACKS of these buildings.

Almost the whole of the quarry would be obliterated. The plans do not preserve the large ponds that formed part of the Restoration Scheme (shown above). The road around the edge (see the last update) leaves a strip 2 metres wide in front of the preserved sections of the quarry faces.

The buildings height is reduced to around 12 metres. The overall footprint is stated as 29,573 sq m (gross internal area). You can see the application documents here: https://myeplanning.oxfordshire.gov.uk/Planning/Display/MW.0151/23/

Natural England has stated that, if the quarry were built on, almost the whole SSSI would be de-listed. In view of Wicklesham Quarry’s international reputation, unique fossil record, and extraordinary history – this would be a source of lasting shame to the UK’s reputation both for science and conservation. It would also be in conflict with Local Plan CP46, NPPF Para 193*and OCC CS M10.

• POSSIBLE OPTIONS FOR SUPPORTERS

Does this height alteration have any impact on your earlier objections? If it does not, list your objections briefly. By responding, however briefly, a CLEAR MESSAGE is sent to Oxfordshire County Council: WICKLESHAM’S SUPPORTERS ARE STILL HERE AND WE STILL OBJECT!

• WHAT OBJECTIONS ARE UNAFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED HEIGHT REDUCTION?

1. Inappropriate urban development in an area of high landscape value – the National Character Area of the Midvale Ridge (LP Core Policy 44, OCC CS M10, NPPF 187).
2. Outside the development boundary of Faringdon -a strategic policy- and in conflict with the Local Plan (LP CP4, NPPF 13, PPG 004).
3. In conflict with the Strategic Objectives of the Local Plan. The Vale of White Horse District Council definitively rejected the evidence of Faringdon Council’s Neighbourhood Plan in 2016 in the Matter 10 Hearings on the 2031 Local Plan (SO3, SO6).
4. The High Court ruled in 2017 that Faringdon Neighbourhood Plan was ‘in manifest conflict’ with Policy GS2 and failed to meet the ‘basic conditions’ because of policy 4.5B involving Wicklesham Quarry (PPG 065, LP CP4).
5. This development would permanently damage the Site of Special Scientific Interest, which is the WHOLE of Wicklesham Quarry including the base. Natural England states that almost the whole of the SSSI would be de-listed if it were built on. The UK’s leading scientific bodies have objected to the proposal (CP46, OCC CS M10, NPPF Para 193).
6. It would permanently damage or destroy the habitat of Wicklesham’s European Protected Species (Great Crested Newts) and the exceptional biodiversity recorded by TVERC (CP46, NPPF paras 188, 192).
7. It would cause permanent damage to West Oxfordshire Heights Conservation Target Area, and the quarry’s Priority Habitat of ‘aquifer-fed fluctuating water bodies’ on which much of its biodiversity depends (CP 46, OCC CS M10, NPPF para 188, 192).
8. This is not a ‘local development’. It is a major strategic development that undermines the spatial strategy and objectives of the 2031 Local Plan  & is in conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF Para 13, PPG 004, SO3, SO6).
9. Unsustainable impacts on the local road network (OCC CS M10, A420 Route Strategy, SO3, SO4)
10. In conflict with the aims of planning conditions for restoration, aftercare and planned afteruse of Wicklesham Quarry for agriculture in keeping with the surrounding landscape (OCC CS M.10, NPPF Para 223).
11. Contrary to Faringdon Council's claim that it is a 'brownfield site' (FNP Basic Conditions Statement) and the applicant's description of a 'former industrial quarry', Wicklesham is FULLY RESTORED AGRICULTUAL LAND.

(If anyone wants a list (in brief) of the policies cited above, please drop me an email.)

• SOUTH AND VALE JOINT LOCAL PLAN 2041

This is currently undergoing examination. However it is a relevant consideration to which some weight can be attached. The 2041 Local Plan leaves no doubt that this proposal would be decisively ruled out. 

Strategy for Faringdon (Policy SP5) states:

‘Neighbourhood development plan reviews are expected to, and the council will support development proposals that:

c) provide new employment opportunities and improve the building stock within existing employment sites and brownfield sites within the built-up area’.

 ‘This policy should be read alongside Policy SP1 (Spatial strategy), to make sure that any specific growth or infrastructure needs for Faringdon are planned for holistically, having regard to other strategies and evidence supporting the Joint Local Plan (or published following its adoption).’ (Para 5.28)

In short, Faringdon Council cannot ignore or seek to re-write the spatial strategy, nor can it choose to ignore the strategies and evidence that underpin the Local Plan. Faringdon Council IS NOT a Local Planning Authority and it does NOT have the the power to compete with the Local Plan.

• THE ISSUE OF ‘CONFLICT WITH THE LOCAL PLAN’

The examiners of the 2041 Local Plan have asked the question:

“Are any made or emerging Neighbourhood Plan policies in conflict with the strategic policies of the Joint Local Plan, and how is the LPA addressing that issue?”

In a submission to the Examination hearings I have raised the ongoing problem of Faringdon Council’s Neighbourhood Plan Policy 4.5B, and the fact that, following the High Court Ruling AGAINST the Vale of White Horse District Council, the Council failed to take steps to remove the policy from the Development Plan. I have also listed all the policies that Policy 4.5B conflicts with- starting with SP5- Strategy for Faringdon.

I am hopeful this process will ensure that Policy 4.5B is firmly relegated to the dustbin, where it belongs. The sooner the better!

A further update will be posted at the end of the week on

BIODIVERSITY and

IMPACTS ON THE ROAD NETWORK

THESE ARE KEY AREAS FOR NEW OBJECCTIONS. Since October 2024 County Council Officers lifted their objections on both these issues. Our objections can point out WHERE THEY WENT WRONG!

REMEMBER, YOU CAN SUBMIT YOUR OBJECTIONS IN STAGES- ONE BY ONE. THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO IN ALL AT ONCE. BUT THE DEADLINE IS 30 MAY- ONLY 10 DAYS AWAY! 

* NPPF Para 193(b):

‘development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest’

Please get in touch with any comments and queries: protectwicklesham@gmail.com