Recent objections indicate many people’s frustration with documents that are full of inaccuracies, missing data and obvious misrepresentations - DESCRIBED BELOW. The applicants seek to downplay the quarry's well-documented biodiversity, ignore the presence of the aquifer, deny the regular flooding with which local people are familiar, and pretend that a tiny number of people (around 250) will occupy a 29,570 sqm development - in order to minimise the REAL impacts of traffic on our local roads. Below are grounds you may want to consider for further objections. They Include the relevant policies and Government Guidance Frameworks to which you may wish to draw the attention of Oxfordshire County Council. Citing and quoting policies is definitely helpful and effective (but not essential)! Please submit objections by 17th July. MORE TO FOLLOW SOON!

1) UPDATED APPLICATION FORM (April 2025)  

• CURRENT USE - Applicant states: Restored former quarry (subject to aftercare conditions) -    WRONG ANSWER!

Wicklesham Quarry is agricultural land in agricultural use, in accordance with planning conditions. It is NOT ‘subject to aftercare conditions’. The 5 year Aftercare Condition was lifted in July 2024. Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (OMWLP) Para.4.75 states:

4.75 'Proposals for restoration, aftercare and after-use should be submitted with applications for mineral working, should include provision for long-term maintenance of the after-use and enhancement of the environment and should accord with District Local Plan policies, including environmental protection, countryside and access enhancement and noise management. Proposals for restoration should demonstrate that local communities have been consulted on options for after use. Restoration schemes should identify the intended after-use(s) and clearly set out the stages and design of the restoration.'

Government Guidance: Minerals (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/minerals#Restoration-and-aftercare-of-minerals 

'Mineral planning authorities should secure the restoration and aftercare of a site through imposition of suitable planning conditions and, where necessary, through planning obligations.'  Para 041

‘The exact planning conditions should be framed with the intended after-use in mind, and will vary according to the: 1. characteristics of the individual site; 2. intended after-use; 3. type of mineral to be worked; 4. method of working;  5. timescale of the working; 6. general character of, and planning policies for the area.’   Para 042

• Wicklesham Quarry’s planning conditions, agreed by the applicant, are for afteruse for agriculture. MAFF ALC Classification (ALC CR00390) shows that 45% of Wicklesham Quarry is Grade 3A, constituting BMV agricultural land. (BMV = 'best & most versatile')

OMWLP Core Policy M10: ‘Mineral workings shall be restored to an after-use that is appropriate to the location [and] must take into account: the characteristics of the site prior to mineral working; the character of the surrounding landscape and enhancement of the local landscape character; the restoration of best and most versatile land. Planning permission will not be granted unless satisfactory proposals have been made for the restoration, aftercare and afteruse of the site.’

• Restoration, aftercare and afteruse ‘should accord with District Local Plan policies’ (OMWLP Para 4.75, above).  Wicklesham Quarry, as part of Wicklesham Lodge Farm, is ‘open countryside’, outside the development boundary of Faringdon. It is NOT a ‘brownfield site’ as stated by Faringdon Council, or a’ former industrial quarry’ – it is agricultural land. Local Plan policies do not support urban development in this location, and the District Council has repeatedly rejected Wicklesham Quarry as a strategic employment site, including in the examination of the 2031 Local Plan.

• ASSESSMENT OF FLOOD RISK -  IS THE SITE WITHIN AN AREA AT RISK OF FLOODING?    Applicant states ‘No’   - Another WRONG ANSWER!

Wicklesham Quarry floods regularly and extensively. The last period of flooding lasted from mid-December 2024 to May 2025.

Local Plan Core Policy 32: ‘The risk and impact of flooding will be minimised through: directing new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding’.

• IS YOUR PROPOSAL WITHIN 20 METRES OF A WATER COURSE?                 Applicant states ‘No’   -   WRONG ANSWER - yet again!

An aquifer or ‘underground river’ lies beneath Wicklesham Quarry, as shown in the flood map (above) submitted by the Vale of White Horse District Council in December 2023. The Applicant’s Ground Conditions (1) Report states:

“The nearest watercourse is indicated to be an underground river located in the south of the site”

“Running Sands were also observed within SuDS2 from 1.0m located in the eastern extent of the site. This may be associated with the underground river indicated to be present in this area of the site.” (p.22);

‘there is a river indicated to be present beneath the site’ (p.25)

OMWLP Policy C4:  ‘Proposals for minerals and waste development will need to demonstrate that there would be no unacceptable adverse impact on or risk to: The quantity or quality of surface or groundwater resources required for habitats, wildlife and human activities; The flow of groundwater at or in the vicinity of the site.’

OMWLP Policy C3:  'Minerals and waste development will, wherever possible, take place in areas with the lowest probability of flooding.'

• TVERC’s Biodiversity Report for Wicklesham Quarry records over 30 Priority Species, including many birds, amphibians and terrestrial mammals which depend on the Quarry’s ponds and fluctuating water bodies. ‘Aquifer-fed fluctuating water bodies’ are a Priority Habitat.

• BIODIVERSITY AND GEOLOGICAL CONSERVATION. IS THERE A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF THE FOLLOWING BEING AFFECTED ADVERSELY OR CONSERVED AND ENHANCED WITHIN THE APPLICATION SITE OR IN LAND ADJACENT TO OR NEAR THE APPLICATION SITE?

a) Protected and priority species? Applicant states ‘Yes’.  (At last- a correct answer!)

This answer meant that a survey should have been carried out by a licensed ecologist. NO SURVEY was carried out. (The applicant’s unlicenced ecologist is not permitted to carry out Protected Species surveys.) The 2013 Enzygo Report (which formed part of the Restoration Scheme planning conditions) demonstrates that Wicklesham’s ponds were a breeding habitat for Great Crested Newts, a European Protected Species. TVERC’s Biodiversity Report for Wicklesham Quarry recorded over 30 Priority Species, as noted above. This evidence should have triggered Priority Species surveys.

2) MISSING DATA: BIODIVERSITY

• Essential biodiversity data is missing from the applicant’s Ecology Report and Biodiversity net gain calculations, including : -

Enzygo 2013 GCN Refresher Survey; Officer’s Monitoring Reports 2022 and 2023; TVERC’s Biodiversity Report for Wicklesham Quarry; the Restoration Scheme including two Priority Habitat ponds.

• Much of what is claimed as future ‘enhancement’ is already present on site, as evidenced by the Monitoring Officer’s Reports in 2022 and 2023. Permanent and fluctuating ponds, wild flower rich grassland, paths and field margins etc. are part of the Biodiversity Baseline- NOT enhancements.

The applicant’s Landscape and Ecological Mitigation Plan (June 2025) refers  to ‘new open space around the perimeter of the site, providing a protective buffer’ and states that ‘areas of wildflower rich grassland with a traditional hay meadow character, native hedgerows with trees, a circular walking route’ will be ‘retained and enhanced’. All these are already present. None of this represents ecological enhancement as a result of development.

OCC Officer’s Monitoring Report 2022 states:

 ‘Field margins have been entered into a 5-year Countryside Stewardship Scheme on the 1st January 2021 which include the quarry faces, Pond 3 and a strip between the quarry walls and agricultural crops sown over the bulk of the restored quarry. The scheme has been selected to be wholly compatible with access requirements for the SSSI as well as providing pathways that are regularly ‘topped’ to short grass, making them ideal for owls patrolling their hunting grounds.’

 ‘Pond 3 has been included in the Countryside Stewardship Scheme Agreement as a “Successional area and scrub” and in the middle of the willow scrub it can be seen how the alternation between flood and dry has caused multi stemmed plants with root formation where the presence of water fluctuates.’

The Report describes two ‘undesignated ponds’, Pond 2, south of the drainage ditch, and an ‘unclassified pond’ at the foot of the haul road into the site, which is ‘entirely self-populating, probably holds water the year round and should be left alone.’

BIODIVERSITY BASELINE

The objective records of (1) the 2022 Officer’s Monitoring Report, (2) the 2013 Enzygo GCN Refresher Survey, and (3) TVERC’s Biodiversity Report should be included in the biodiversity baseline of Wicklesham Quarry.

In addition, the two ponds that formed part of the Restoration Scheme were breeding habitat for a European Protected species. These ponds (which should be fully restored) are part of the biodiversity baseline, as BBOWT has stated.

• The applicant has consistently down-played, denied and under-stated Wicklesham Quarry’s importance for biodiversity, leaving out objective reports, evidence and data on habitats and species, and misrepresenting as so-called ‘net gain’ habitats and features that are already present on the site. The presence of the aquifer has been completely ignored. The aquifer-fed fluctuating water bodies are a principal feature of Wicklesham Quarry’s ecology and Priority Habitats.

3) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

The applicant fails to give any calculation to demonstrate the possible number of employees. A calculation based on the HCA Employment Densities Guide 2015 (used by VOWHDC) should have been included. This is essential for assessing the potential impacts of traffic.

The applicant’s ‘Trip Generation’ Table 2.1 implies that 29,570 sqm GIA will accommodate around 250 employees. This is highly unconvincing, suggesting a total of 35 people on average in each 3 storey building. This does not correspond to the HCA Employment Densities Guide 2015 or the land-employment ratio used by Cambridge Econometrics. Either the applicants assume a grossly inefficient use of floor space, for reasons that are not explained, or else they seek to downplay the quantity of traffic that the development would generate by using misleading figures.

A total GIA of 29,570sqm – 15% = NIA 25,134. If the assumed total of employees is 250 (based on Table 2.1), this allows a total of 100 sqm per employee. This is a highly inaccurate and unconvincing estimate of floorspace in relation to any of the intended employment sectors.

The HCA Employment Densities Guide 2015 gives the following standard measurements of sq m floorspace per employee across different sectors:

B1 professional services                  12 sqm

R&D                                           40 -60 sqm

Industrial/ manufacturing         36 sqm (GIA)

B8 Regional distribution           77 sqm  (GEA)

• None of the above figures is anywhere near that suggested (indirectly) by the applicant of 100 sqm per employee. Therefore the suggested trip generation table cannot be relied on as a realistic estimate of traffic generated. The applicants grossly understate the realistic level of traffic that a development of this size would generate, for obvious reasons.

Remember- the present consultation ends on 17 July. A further update on grounds for objection will be produced by early next week.

Please get in touch if you want ANY REPORT mentioned here. I cannot insert links to pdfs here but ALL the documents referred to are available! Please email me at protectwicklesham@gmail.com