Calls are growing for an investigation into Oxfordshire County Council’s mishandling of a planning application in which the future of Faringdon’s world-famous Site of Special Scientific Interest is at stake. No decision has been issued since the fiasco of the planning meeting on 19 January. THE FIRST STEP IS TO REGISTER YOUR COMPLAINT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE – PLEASE SEE CONTACT DETAILS & SUGGESTIONS BELOW. Officers erroneously “reassured” Councillors that a 29,570 sq m major development - on a protected site that the District Council has repeatedly rejected - could be justified by a non-strategic neighbourhood plan policy, and told them “not to think about” proposals for 2,500 houses on the rest of Wicklesham Farm, which rely on creating a precedent by building a huge unplanned development on Wicklesham Quarry - outside the town.
These statements added to the travesties of the Report itself, which
- told Councillors Faringdon was in the South East Vale;
- withheld crucial information about Wicklesham’s planning history;
- failed to include a mandatory Biodiversity Report on the CTA site, and Survey and Assessment of the SSSI;
- withheld from Councillors the fact that the Geological Society and the Palaeontological Association had objected to the development; and
- failed to take account of National Policy for valued landscape.
Councillors were told that a 29,570 sq m development on top of a Site of Special Scientific Interest would “not damage the conservation interests” of the site, and would result in a 10 percent INCREASE in biodiversity! In fact, Natural England’s Chief Scientist Directorate has confirmed that almost the whole site would be de-notified if it was built on, and Wicklesham Quarry would be removed from the Conservation Target Area.
COUNTY COUNCILLORS’ EMPTY ASSURANCES: “ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WILL BE RIGOROUSLY ASSESSED”
In 2023 local people objected to the County Council’s decision not to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment into a proposal that would substantially obliterate Wicklesham Quarry - a SSSI and Conservation Target Area located in the National Character Area of the Midvale Ridge. Assurances given at the time by County Councillors Geoff Saul and Bethia Thomas turned out to be completely hollow. Councillor Bethia Thomas told local people: “environmental impacts will of course be rigorously assessed through any future planning application by the County Council’s planning team. The application would need to be accompanied by environmental information and subject to consultation with statutory environmental bodies as well as residents and other interested parties.”
NONE OF IT WAS TRUE! WHAT HAVE THESE TWO COUNCILLORS DONE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEIR ASSURANCES TURNED OUT TO BE COMPLETELY FALSE?
(1) The applicants failed to submit “required” environmental documents listed in the County Council’s Validation List: (i) TVERC’S BIODIVERSITY REPORT FOR WICKLESHAM QUARRY – which records over 30 Priority Species, and (ii) a mandatory SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST;
(2) The Case Officer FAILED TO REPORT NATURAL ENGLAND’S ADVICE that the development would have “significant environmental impacts” that "should be fully considered”.
(3) Not only did the Officer take no steps to consider these impacts, he told Councillors that there was “no objection” to building on the SSSI, and “therefore concluded” that the development was consistent with Local Plan Policy CP46.
(4) The officer failed to report to Councillors several hundred detailed objections, including those of the Geological Society and Paleontological Association, and a report by a Fellow of the Geological Society, the late Professor Keith Jeffery – merely referring dismissively in the Report to “individuals claiming expertise”.
NO ASSESSMENT OF LOCAL PLAN CP46 WAS EVER CARRIED OUT, AND THERE WAS NO “RIGOROUS ASSESSMENT” – OR ANY ASSESSMENT AT ALL – OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS!
“THIS IS THE LAST STRAW” - CALLS FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO MALADMINISTRATION
Oxfordshire County Council is in breach of its legal duty under s.28 G(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and in breach of its legal duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 to “further the general biodiversity objective”.
Paper policies claiming to satisfy legal obligations are a cynical gesture when no attempt is made to implement them. YET AGAIN Oxfordshire County Council has demonstrated shameful indifference towards environmental protection. THE LAST STRAW for many people has been the realisation that environmental reports required by the Validation List were missing from the application - because the applicants decided they did not want to submit them!
Grounds for an investigation are summarised below. To start this process REGISTER YOUR COMPLAINT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE attached to an email to: standards.monitoringofficer@oxfordshire.gov.uk, and copied to Robin.Rogers@oxfordshire.gov.uk; Liz.Leffman@oxfordshire.gov.uk; Diana.Lugova@oxfordshire.gov.uk and Bethia.Thomas@oxfordshire.gov.uk.
Include your name and address and keep a record of your submission and all correspondence. Below are some issues you may want to include.
Dear Sirs,
I wish to make a complaint regarding Oxfordshire County Council’s mishandling of planning application MW.0151/23, and to call for a full investigation into the conduct of Oxfordshire County Council. The grounds of my complaint are as follows: -
1. Failure to determine a planning application (MW.0151/23) in accordance with s.38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 by resolving to approve a major strategic development on an unallocated site in conflict with the Spatial Strategy and Strategic Policies of the Local Plan;
2. Failure to meet the duties of a public authority under s.40 (1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 “to further the general biodiversity objective” - by waiving compulsory requirements of the County Council’s Validation List for planning applications and not requiring an applicant to submit a Biodiversity Report by the Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre relating to a Conservation Target Area location with over 30 notified Priority Species;
3. Failure to meet the duties of a s.28 authority under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981- by waiving compulsory requirements of the County Council’s Validation List for planning applications and not requiring an applicant to submit a required Survey and Assessment of a Site of Special Scientific Interest;
4. Misdirecting Councillors by: -
4.1 Stating erroneously that a neighbourhood plan was “part of the Local Plan”
4.2 Instructing councillors to give “full weight” to a neighbourhood plan policy that the High Court ruled was “unarguably in conflict” with strategic policies of the Local Plan and failed to meet the Basic Conditions of a neighbourhood plan in breach of Town and & Country Planning Act 1990 Schedule 4B paragraph 8;*
5. Failure to give Councillors accurate and relevant information pertinent to a planning application, including:-
5.1 Relevant planning history demonstrating the District Council’s rejection of the site for strategic employment use in the current Local Plan;
5.2 Draft 2041 South and Vale Local Plan - spatial strategy for Faringdon - demonstrating the District Council’s continuing refusal to permit development of the site for employment use.
5.3 Claiming that Faringdon is in the South East Vale.
5.3 Claiming there was “no objection” by Natural England to building on a SSSI – while withholding Natural England’s advice that “significant environmental impacts” "should be fully considered”.
6. Failure to have regard to national policy by not taking account of:
6.1 Harmful impacts on the valued landscape of the Midvale Ridge National Character Area (NPPF paragraph 187)
6.2 Harmful impacts on a nationally designated site (NPPF paragraph 193)
6.3 Harmful impacts on habitats and biodiversity (NPPF paragraph 187)
6.4 Meaning of sustainable development for neighbourhood planning (NPPF paragraph 13)
7. Failure to give conscientious consideration to the content (including evidence) of several hundred responses to planning consultations, including those of expert scientific bodies, in accordance with Gunning Principle (4).
* Because of the breach of the 1990 Act a ruling was given by the High Court against the Vale of White Hose District Council in 2017. Council Officers also failed to advise Councillors of this fact.
DON’T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT!! PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR COMPLAINT TO OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE AND YOUR COMPLAINT CAN HELP INFLUENCE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.
WE PAY OUR COUNCILS TO WORK ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC AND IN THE INTERESTS OF PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT - NOT TO PULL THE WOOL OVER COUNCILLORS’ EYES, BEND THE RULES FOR DEVELOPERS, AND TRASH OUR MOST IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL SITES WITHOUT A SECOND THOUGHT. PLEASE HELP ME TO CALL FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION INTO THIS TRAVESTY.
Please keep in touch, and send your comments, views and questions to: protectwicklesham@gmail.com This campaign works with you, for you, and because of you!