Local people planning to submit objections by 30th May have been asking: ‘Why do the applicant’s documents fail to include TVERC’s Biodiversity Report, which is a requirement of Oxfordshire County Council’s Validation List for planning applications?’ There is only one conclusion- if Wicklesham’s true biodiversity was acknowledged, it would trigger legally compulsory surveys for numerous Priority Species and Habitats. The Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre (TVERC) Report for Wicklesham Quarry lists more than 30 Priority Species, protected under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC s41) – yet the applicants' ecologist claims that Wicklesham Quarry has ‘few existing features at the proposed development site that are of biodiversity conservation interest’ and that ‘as pond basins have remained dry for several years this has rendered the proposed development site unsuitable for the maintenance of a viable breeding Great Crested Newt population'. (That’s the same newts shown above and in previous updates, who emerged from hibernation in substantial numbers between March and April this year.)
Over the past few months, Wicklesham Quarry has been continuously flooded across much of its area, an event that occurs twice in most years and lasts weeks or months at a time. The flooding results from the underground river or aquifer rising. The aquifer or ‘underground river’ is referred to 3 times in the applicants’ Ground Conditions 1 Report, and the impacts of flooding are illustrated in the flood map submitted by the District Council – but ecologist Mr David Broom chose to ignore it completely. Mr Broom is NOT a Chartered Ecologist with CIEEM, nor does he appear to be licensed to carry out Protected Species Surveys.
Many of Wicklesham Quarry’s Priority Species are dependent on the Quarry’s ‘aquifer-fed fluctuating water bodies’, which are an important and rare Priority Habitat. Among the Priority Species listed in TVERC’s Report are 16 species of birds, plus amphibians, dragonflies, bats, as well as mammals such as water voles and otters. Four out of five recorded terrestrial mammals are s41 Priority Species, and 14 bird species are on DEFRA’s Red List. (Drop me an email and I will email you the Report issued in December 2024)
You can read a summary list of TVERC’s Priority Species recorded within 1km of Wicklesham Quarry here: https://www.change.org/p/the-vale-of-white-horse-district-council-and-secretary-of-state-michael-gove-protect-wicklesham-quarry-from-development/u/33115970
Even more worrying in all this, however, is the County Council's willingness to accept such a flagrantly deceptive report by the applicants - with none of the supposedly 'required information' listed in the Validation List- and actually lift their objection on the grounds of Biodiversity. This represents a major breach of public trust.
The Validation List for planning applications on Oxfordshire County Council’s planning website (link below) states:
‘Where a planning application does not include information listed in Part Two: Local information requirements, that the Council considers should be provided, then the application will be treated as invalid’.
‘Consideration of the conservation of biodiversity when determining a planning application includes:
- designated sites and non-designated sites;
- legally protected species;
- habitats and species of principal importance for biodiversity (priority species and habitats); and
- habitats and species with plans in Oxfordshire’s Biodiversity Action Plan, Conservation Target Areas and Oxfordshire’s Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) (due for adoption in Autumn 2025).
The application must consider if such a site, species or habitat, is present and the applicant should normally submit a Survey and Assessment. Information and guidance on when a Survey and Assessment is required to validate an application is provided in Appendices 1 to 4.’
Under Biodiversity Assessment (p.15-17) the Validation List states:
‘If impacts to biodiversity are indicated by the requirements, and supporting information is NOT supplied to the Planning Authority, then the application will not be validated. If the application is not subject to the exemptions to biodiversity net gain requirements, as set out nationally, and the supporting information set out below is not provided, the application will not be validated.’
The Validation List states:
Ecology Reports – Information Required
'Ecology reports submitted as part of a planning application must include a data search from the Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre (TVERC) …
Submitting a desk study including data from TVERC will avoid unnecessary and costly delays to processing the planning application and ensures the application complies with the National Planning Policy Framework and the NBN Gateways.’
The questions local people are now asking are: -
- Why have Council Officers FAILED to observe the County Council’s Validation List requirements?
- Why have the applicants been permitted to submit three amendments- salami-slicing bits off the same design – when it has been clear from the start that this application is fundamentally in conflict with the Local Plan?
- Is this application EVEN LEGAL- since it fails to include so much ‘legally required’ information?
Taking into account the Case Officer’s pre-application opinion; officers’ refusal to require the applicants to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment, and the fact that the County Council has actually lifted its objection on the grounds of biodiversity – without TVERC’s objective evidence, or Assessments or Surveys of Priority Species or Habitats –
Oxfordshire County Council has now lost the trust of many local people, who regard the repeated consultations as merely a hollow exercise. In an attempt to get answers on some of these matters I requested a meeting with County Council Officers.
- No one at the County Council responded to my request for a meeting.
- I have not received a response to my request for the rules governing amendments to planning applications.
It appears as though County Council Officers have decided that THE RULES DON'T APPLY to these applicants.
Nevertheless, I would URGE you NOT TO GIVE UP, but SUBMIT your objections on biodiversity, Priority Species and Habitats, Wicklesham's unique SSSI, as well as all the other reasons that matter to you – some of which were summarised in the last update (link below). You may wish to include your own comments on the legitimacy of the planning process itself.
WICKLESHAM QUARRY IS DEPENDING ON YOU! So far, every consultation has demonstrated overwhelming rejection of this proposal- so LET’S DO IT AGAIN.
In the next couple of days I will post an update on the impacts on the road network – a subject of deep concern to everyone in Faringdon and across the Western Vale.
CARRY ON OBJCTING!
Link to Oxfordshire County Council's Validation List: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/sites/default/files/file/planning-planning-policy/ProposedLocalListSPBMH.pdf