Oxfordshire County Council recently replied to my email questioning their willingness to accept repeated amendments to the planning application to build on Wicklesham Quarry. This has spun out the application for twenty months and resulted in repeated consultations in which local people consider their objections are being ignored. Numerous scheduled Committee dates have been cancelled as more and more amendments have been submitted, and County Council planners have become hooked into negotiations with the applicants which have prejudiced the application process.
Since outline planning consent is for ‘development in principle’ these spurious amendments have acted as a distraction from the key issues: national policy and planning law- which in this case clearly indicate that this application must be refused.
The recent email from OCC Environment and Planning Directors seeks to justify the Council’s actions and refers to Paragraph 39 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):
"Paragraph 39 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires that Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. I consider that the council is therefore acting in accordance with national planning policy in considering the further amendments made to the planning application."(italics added)
I have pointed out in my reply to the Directors that this reference omits the last sentence of Paragraph 39:
‘Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.’
It seems clear from this misuse of the NPPF that officers do regard the application as ‘sustainable development’ and ‘acceptable in principle’. If so, they have seriously misdirected themselves. I have written to the Directors to point out that the NPPF explains the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ with regard to neighbourhood plans at Paragraph 13:
‘The application of the presumption has implications for the way communities engage in neighbourhood planning. Neighbourhood plans should support the delivery of strategic policies contained in local plans or spatial development strategies; and should shape and direct development that is outside of these strategic policies.'
I have stated that since Faringdon Neighbourhood Plan is clearly in conflict with the strategic policies of the Local Plan - specifically with regard to Policy 4.5B on which the applicants seek to rely- this application cannot be regarded as 'sustainable development. The NPPF Paragraph 13 explicitly precludes it.
The location of Wicklesham Quarry is outside the development boundary, which is a Local Plan strategic policy, and therefore the location is not acceptable in principle, as Paragraph 13 makes clear. The development boundary of Faringdon is on the northern side of the A420, and Wicklesham Quarry lies wholly to the south of the A420 on the MidVale Ridge.
I reminded the Directors that the High Court has ruled on this conflict, as quoted in letters to former Director, Rachel Wileman, and in objections to previous consultations. To sum up, it is clear from: -
- the NPPF Paragraph 13;
- the High Court ruling on Faringdon Neighbourhood Plan;
- and Local Plan Policy CP4
that this development proposal is not, and cannot be considered either as 'sustainable development' or acceptable in principle.
This is not the only error the County Council has made with regard to the ‘presumption’. I have reminded them that Paragraph 11 of the NPPF means that there is no 'presumption in favour of sustainable development' in relation to a nationally designated site - a SSSI.
Paragraph 11 states:- 'For decision-taking this means:
c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay;
unless:
i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance7 provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed;
(7) The policies referred to are those in this Framework (rather than those in development plans) relating to: habitats sites (and those sites listed in paragraph 194) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest;'
I reminded the County Council that the whole of Wicklesham Quarry is a Site of Special Scientific interest, and many objections have been submitted on this ground, including by the Geological Society and the Palaeontological Association, the UK's leading science bodies. Natural England has confirmed in writing that almost the whole site would be de-listed if it were to be built on.
Since we do not wish the County Council to misdirect itself on matters of national policy or planning law, I pointed out that Paragraph 3 of the National Planning Policy Framework usefully states:
‘The Framework should be read as a whole (including its footnotes and annexes).'
and Paragraph 48 states:
‘Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Decisions on applications should be made as quickly as possible, and within statutory timescales unless a longer period has been agreed by the applicant in writing.'
CONSULTATION RESPONSES
A further fifteen detailed and knowledgeable responses from members of the public can be found on the planning website (link below). All but one are heavily critical of the proposal. They point out serious omissions and misrepresentations by the applicants, including the fact that objective reports and surveys of Wicklesham quarry’s biodiversity have simply been left out of the Ecology Report by unchartered ecologist, Mr David Broom. They object on the grounds of the failure of the Neighbourhood Plan to meet many of the ‘basic conditions’ and its contradictions with national policy (the NPPF). Many refer to the history of conflict between Faringdon Council and the Vale of White Horse District Council – in which Wicklesham Quarry has been repeatedly rejected for use as employment land.
People have also pointed out that the Local Plan has been through Review in 2021 and is therefore more recent than the unlawfully adopted* Faringdon neighbourhood plan. These represent a very strong response from local people to which Council Officers will have to listen.
*Planning Practice Guidance states:
(i) ‘A draft neighbourhood plan or Order must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the development plan in force if it is to meet the basic conditions.’ Para 009
(ii) ‘Only a draft neighbourhood Plan or Order that meets each of a set of basic conditions can be put to a referendum and be made’. Para 065
MW.0151/23 - 5th consultation redacted responses
https://myeplanning.oxfordshire.gov.uk/Planning/Display/MW.0151/23#undefined