(Above: west end of Wicklesham Quarrry pemanently under water from the aquifer, before restoration)
After EIGHT sets of documents over two and a half years- the applicants’ biodiversity documents have been judged inadequate once again!
However, instead of REJECTING the latest attempt to deny and downplay Wicklesham Quarry’s importance for biodiversity, OCC’s Biodiversity Officer, Jack Wheeler, has again stated ‘More information needed’. Are you kidding??
After two and half years, REJECTION of this application is long overdue.
As soon as the last consultation closed, another one opened, in what has become an unmitigated FARCE. The applicant’s previous cover letter with the 7th set of documents promised these were the FINAL documents. But having had their latest biodiversity fictions rejected – four weeks later they submitted more. Why are Council Officers incapable of consigning this application to the bin, where it belongs?
In December 2024 Mr Wheeler actually LIFTED his objection on the grounds of biodiversity, in spite of clear evidence that the applicant had comprehensively concealed the true biodiversity of Wicklesham Quarry. In response, we sent photographs of: -
- the healthy newt population (including Great Crested Newts- a Priority Species),
- extensive flooding across the quarry, which lasted from mid-December ’24 to April 2025.
- the flood map which shows the aquifer beneath the quarry
We also sent Mr Wheeler: -
- TVERC's Biodiversity Report – which makes it clear that numerous species of birds, insects, amphibians and mammals depend on the quarry’s various water resources;
- the applicant’s Ground Conditions Report, which refers three times to the aquifer close to the surface of the ground beneath the whole quarry- which the applicant STILL seeks to deny!
BBOWT has objected to the applicant’s biodiversity documents FOUR times –pointing out that the RESTORATION SCHEME – which includes two out of four of Wicklesham’s permanent ponds as they were in 2014 - is the legally enforceable biodiversity baseline. (The Enzygo Survey of Wicklesham's ponds forms part of the Restoration Scheme.)
However, it was not until the Vale’s Ecology Officer submitted a scathing objection that Mr Wheeler finally started to take notice. It seems the evidence of the public, authoritative reports, and BBOWT's objections, a statutory consultee, counted for little until the District Council suddenly began to raise objections. I wonder why??
- Disrespect for Statutory Consultees, members of the public and National Science Bodies
It has become increasingly evident that OCC Officers filter out most of the responses they receive in planning consultations. Local people are complaining that their objections- which run into hundreds – have been ignored and treated with disrespect – redacted and merged together (often very badly) into single anonymous documents full of errors. Even the objections of expert national scientific bodies such as the Geological Society, the Palaeontological Association, and a UNESCO Advisor have been treated the same way.
- Anyone looking at the planning website would have no idea that HUNDREDS of substantive objections- (and barely a handful of favourable comments) have been submitted.
Our objections cover numerous substantive planning issues – any or all of which should have led to the application being rejected TWO YEARS AGO. For example-
- The High Court ruled in 2017 that Faringdon Neighbourhood Plan failed to meet the ‘basic conditions’, because of policy 4.5B relating to Wicklesham Quarry;
- The proposal is in conflict with strategic policies of the Local Plan: CP 46 (the SSSI); CP4 (development boundary); CP6, CP15 (Strategic Employment Sites). These policies are shown on the Adopted Polices Map, 2019.
- The proposal is for a major, strategic development (29,500 square metres)- which is OUTSIDE the remit of a neighbourhood plan;
- The site has been repeatedly rejected by the District Council for employment use, including in the 2016 Examination of the Local Plan;
- The applicant’s documents do not meet Oxfordshire County Council’s Validation List: no TVERC Biodiversity Report was submitted; no Priority Species surveys were carried out. (See below*)
- The application makes patently false statements: it claims the proposed development is NOT ‘within 20 metres of a water course’ – when it is RIGHT ON TOP OF ONE; and that the Quarry is NOT ‘within an area at risk of flooding’. Ha ha!! (See photo above)
- The proposal is for a major urban extension of Faringdon on an unallocated site in an area of high landscape value: the MidVale ridge, and would permanently damage the character and appearance of the landscape.
- The proposal seeks to set a precedent and create a justification for urban development south of the A420. The applicant has submitted the whole of Wicklesham Farm for development- an area that would double the size of Faringdon.
- Wicklesham Quarry is NOT a brownfield site – as Faringdon Council misrepresented it in the Basic Conditions Statement of the neighbourhood plan.
These are just SOME of numerous substantive objections that have been made. WHY IS OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL NOT LISTENING TO LOCAL PEOPLE?
*The Validation List for planning applications on Oxfordshire County Council’s planning website 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.’
You can read the update on this here:
If you would like a copy of ANY of the documents referred to above: (e.g. The Enzygo Report, or TVERC Biodiversity Report) please get in touch: protectwicklesham@gmail.com