This is an URGENT APPEAL to ALL WICKLESHAM SUPPORTERS TO JOIN WITH LOCAL PEOPLE AND PLEASE SUBMIT AN OBJECTION to the planning proposal by midnight 21st AUGUST on the County Council Planning website (Application ref. MW.0151/23: https://myeplanning.oxfordshire.gov.uk/Planning/Display/MW.0151/23#undefined
PLEASE HELP US! OPEN YOUR STATEMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING WORDS:
‘DEAR OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, I AM ONE OF MORE THAN 4,800 PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THE CAMPAIGN TO PROTECT WICKLESHAM QUARRY FROM DEVELOPMENT. I OBJECT TO APPLICATION MW.0151/23 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS…’ (suggestions further below)
Oxfordshire County Council claims they are facilitating ‘sustainable development’ by accepting amendments to this application for almost TWO YEARS– in spite of the fact that this proposal is in conflict with the Local Plan, the National Planning Policy Framework, and a High Court ruling in 2017 stated the policy (4.5B) was ‘in manifest conflict’ with the strategic policies of the Local Plan and that Faringdon Neighbourhood Plan ‘failed to meet the basic conditions’.
IF County Council Officers support the creation of over 29,000 square metres of industrial- commercial development on top of one of the UK’s most unique and historic Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Natural England has confirmed that almost the whole 29 acre SSSI would be de-listed. It would mean the end of new scientific research on the Faringdon Sponge Gravels, which scientists have studied since the seventeenth century. Opposition has come from earth scientists, a UNESCO Adviser on Geoheritage, and both the Geological Society and Palaeontological Association. We have proved that “Wicklesham Pitt” is the original source of ‘Faringdon fossils’ illustrated and named in the first Catalogue of English Fossils by Edward Lhwyd (1699), sponsored by Sir Isaac Newton. Loss of access for new research on the unique ‘Faringdon fossils’, which Professor Mark Wilson has called ‘scientifically priceless’* would cause lasting damage to the UK’s reputation for science and conservation.
Wicklesham Quarry SSSI lies in the open landscape of the Midvale Ridge, a National Character Area, and is a Conservation Target Area (CTA) with over 30 documented Priority Species and an underlying aquifer. YET- over the past eight months Oxfordshire County Council Officers have DROPPED THEIR OBJECTIONS to the proposal. We believe they have been ordered to… READ ON.
- BIODIVERSITY OFFICER –– dropped objection in December 2024!
-Although the applicant’s Ecology Report FAILS to include TVERC’s Biodiversity Report which lists over 30 Priority Species; FAILS to refer to the aquifer-fed fluctuating water bodies (a Priority Habitat), on which many species of birds, amphibians and insects depend, and FAILS to acknowledge Monitoring Officer’s Reports which record at least one undocumented pond. No Priority Species Surveys have been carried out. WE BELIEVE THE APPLICATION FAILS TO MEET OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL’S VALIDATION LIST which you can read about 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/33558442
WE POINTED OUT (1) the Ground Conditions Report refers to the aquifer several times and it is shown in a diagram submitted by the District Council; (2) We sent photographs of the quarry continuously flooded between December 2024 and April 2025. (3) We sent photographs of the newt population – including GCNs - emerging from winter hibernation in large numbers, and (4) We sent the County Council TVERC’s Biodiversity Report which SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANTS.
- HIGHWAYS OFFICER – dropped objection in March 2025!
- Although Principal Transport Engineer, Ian Marshall, had stated “THESE ARE TRAFFIC SENSITIVE ROADS AND ANY INCREASE IS LIKELY TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON TRAFFIC FLOW”. He stated a signal junction ‘in the immediate vicinity of the busy Park road roundabout ‘WILL BLOCK THE ROUNDABOUT CAUSING SERIOUS CONGESTION.’ The location of the access was ‘TOO CLOSE TO THE ROUNDABOUT’ and a ‘REASON FOR OBJECTION’. Yet this junction was in exactly the same place when Highways Officers LIFTED their objection!!
WE POINTED OUT that UNBELIEVABLY (1) the applicant has FAILED to DEMONSTRATE ANY TRAFFIC CALCULATION BASED ON ACTUAL FLOORSPACE. We believe workers' vehicle numbers could be 1,000 per day, creating roughly 2,300 extra vehicle journeys per day (including service/ haulage vehicles).
The applicant’s documents admit that EVERY JUNCTION on the A420 is predicted to fail or is already failing- Coxwell Road, Fernham Road, Park Road and London Road – even after long overdue ‘improvements’ of the A420 Route Strategy are carried out- IF THEY EVER ARE. This would have massive knock-on effects for the town of Faringdon and surrounding villages.
The proposal ASSUMES that substantial highways alterations will need to be made- the A420 widened, lanes doubled around Park Road roundabout, and a dual southbound lane between Stanford Road (A417) and Park Road roundabouts. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT ANY OF THESE ROAD CHANGES WOULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN! Highways Officers have failed to respond to questions on this.
- LANDSCAPE OFFICER – dropped objection in June 2025!
The Landscape Officer’s only idea is to try to HIDE the huge, appalling buildings by thick layers of tall trees! -Although WE POINTED OUT that Wicklesham Quarry lies wholly outside Faringdon’s development boundary in open countryside on the Midvale Ridge - a landscape prized for long distance views, peaceful footpaths and bridleways- as shown above, and exceptional wildlife. These views and the character of the landscape would be permanently destroyed. The Landscape Strategy for the Draft South and Vale 2041 Local Plan describes Policy NH6, which states that ‘landscapes, countryside and rural areas will be protected from harmful development’.
PLEASE HELP US! WE URGENTLY NEED ALL WICKLESHAM’S SUPPORTERS TO OBJECT TO THIS PROPOSAL BEFORE MIDNIGHT 21ST AUGUST. Some points you may wish to emphasise (there are many more in earlier updates):
- Faringdon Neighbourhood Plan is in conflict with the strategic policies of the Local Plan, and the District Council’s decision to send it to referendum was UNLAWFUL because: ‘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.’ PPG Para 065
- The High Court ruled AGAINST the Vale of White Horse District Council in 2017 and stated policy 4.5B relating to Wicklesham Quarry was ‘in manifest conflict’ with policy GS2 to prevent development in the countryside, and that: “Neither the examiner nor the District Council were lawfully satisfied that the FNP satisfied the basic condition that the making of the plan was in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan.” (This was one of four grounds of the Judicial Review. We were not awarded a remedy BECAUSE the District Council had, by that time, UNLAWFULLY sent it to referendum and adopted it.)
- This proposal has an ulterior purpose: it seeks to justify doubling the size of Faringdon south of the A420, on land which the applicants have put forward for development. If passed, the applicants will pursue their REAL aim to build on the WHOLE OF WICKLESHAM FARM- using Wicklesham Quarry as justification.
- This is NOT a ‘LOCAL DEVELOPMENT’. It is a major strategic development of a size and scale that only the Local Planning Authority (the Vale of White Horse District Council) can authorize through the process set out in the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act.
- This proposal is NOT ‘SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Paragraph 13 states: ‘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.'
- The NPPF Paragraph 11 states there is NO ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ regarding a nationally designated site – a SSSI –where ‘policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed’.
- The Vale of White Horse District Council has repeatedly REJECTED Wicklesham Quarry for employment use, in 2 Employment Land Reviews (URS Ltd 2008, 2013), the Preferred Options Report (2014) and the 2031 Local Plan Examination (Matter 10). A neighbourhood plan is not an instrument for individuals to pursue private profit, and cannot be used to overturn the strategic policies of a Local Plan. This is the illegitimate aim of these landowners in complicity with Faringdon Council.
- Complicity between Faringdon Council and Wicklesham Farm’s developer- landowners has already deliberately created excess ‘employment land’ allocations with disastrous consequences for the town. A planning application was made in 2015 for a retail park on the 4&20 site, which was designated as employment land in 2005 following ‘pressure’ by Faringdon Council. (Faringdon Council did not object to this 'out of town' retail park.) In 2015 the owner of both Wicklesham Farm (with financial interests in the quarry) and the 4&20 site was also a member of the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group, and was responsible for Policy 4.5B. In brief, there has been a long- lasting employment land scam involving the the same local landowners and Faringdon Council, for which Faringdon has paid a heavy price.
- The Draft South and Vale 2041 Joint Local Plan RULES OUT any attempt to use Wicklesham Quarry for industry or commercial use. Policy SP5- A Strategy for Faringdon states: ‘1) 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.’
- Wicklesham Quarry SSSI is NOT and NEVER WAS ‘brownfield land’, as Faringdon Neighbourhood Plan dishonestly describes it in the ‘Basic Conditions Statement’. Furthermore, a Neighbourhood Plan CANNOT allocate a Site of Special Scientific interest as ‘employment land’, in conflict with National Policy and with Strategic Policy CP46.
PLEASE HELP US. I AM SURE YOU CAN SEE EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST.
WE URGENTLY NEED EVERY WICKLESHAM SUPPORTER TO SUBMIT AN OBJECTION BEFORE MIDNIGHT 21ST AUGUST, WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIVE LOCALLY. WE MUST MAKE SURE COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING OFFICERS UNDERSTAND THE STRENGTH OF PUBLIC FEELING FOR WICKLESHAM QUARRY!
Thank you for your support! Keep in touch by email: protectwicklesham@gmail.com