Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr Lesley McLean and Cllr Tony Worgan.

There were none.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 13 April 2026 and 12 May 2026, for the Chair to sign them as a correct record and to receive information arising from them.

The minutes of the meetings held on 13 April 2026 and 12 May 2026 were approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

Members of the public who wish to speak on an item on the agenda at this meeting, or present a petition, can attend the meeting in person or ‘virtually’ through an online connection.

Requests to present a petition must be submitted no later than 9am ten working days before the meeting.

Requests to speak must be submitted no later than 9am three working days before the meeting.

Requests should be submitted to committeesdemocraticservices@oxfordshire.gov.uk

If you are speaking ‘virtually’, you may submit a written statement of your presentation to ensure that if the technology fails, then your views can still be taken into account. A written copy of your statement can be provided no later than 9am on the day of the meeting. Written submissions should be no longer than 1 A4 sheet.

5. Update on Former Wicklesham Quarry, Faringdon, SN7 7PH

Richard Tamplin

6. Land at Thrupp Farm, Radley, Abingdon, Oxfordshire Grid (Ref: SU 51539 97065)

Roger Thomas

Andrew Coker

Craig Woolhouse

Chris Henderson (Radley Parish Council)

Nick Dunn (Agent)

James Lodge (Applicant)

Report by Planning Development Manager and Director of Law & Governance and Monitoring Officer

An update and proposed amendment to the resolution of the Planning and Regulation Committee on 19 January 2026 on the former Wicklesham Quarry, Faringdon, further to advice from the Highways Authority.

Officers therefore RECOMMEND that the resolution of the Committee be amended to state as follows:

That subject to further consideration of satisfactory highway treatments for crossing the A420 by highways officers, with the applicant and planning officers; which would come back to the Chair for consideration and a 25m buffer zone on the SSSI and subject to a Section 106 agreement to cover the matters outlined in Annex 2, planning permission for MW.0151/23 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Director of Economy and Place, to include those set out in Annex 1.

The Chair introduced the item to the meeting and invited the Planning Development Manager and Solicitor to present a report updating the Committee on matters arising from its previous resolution to approve planning application MW.0151/23 for development at the former Wicklesham Quarry.

Officers reminded the Committee that, at its meeting on 19 January 2026, planning permission had been approved subject to further consideration of highway crossing arrangements on the A420, a 25-metre buffer zone to the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and completion of a Section 106 agreement.

Officers explained that further work had since been undertaken regarding the highway arrangements and the implementation of the Committee's previous resolution, with highways officers advising that a Traffic Regulation Order was not required for a crossing across the A420.

Richard Tamplin addressed the Committee and raised concerns regarding the lawfulness of the previous decision-making process and the legal status of the application. He questioned whether the Committee had acted ultra vires when granting planning permission in January 2026 and argued that the development should have been treated as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development, whilst also raising concerns regarding the screening opinion previously issued by the County Council and the wider legal basis for proceeding with the application.

Officers noted that the Council had exercised its delegated powers correctly when issuing the screening opinion and that whilst a third party had sought a screening direction from the Secretary of State, such a direction was not received.

Members discussed the proposed highway crossing arrangements and the relationship between the development and the adjacent SSSI. Members noted that officers had continued discussions with highways colleagues and the applicant regarding the most appropriate crossing solution.

The Chair proposed that the recommendation to amend the resolution of the Committee as set out below be approved. The Deputy Chair seconded the proposal.

That subject to further consideration of satisfactory highway treatments for crossing the A420 by highways officers, with the applicant and planning officers; which would come back to the Chair for consideration and a 25m buffer zone on the SSSI and subject to a Section 106 agreement to cover the matters outlined in Annex 2, planning permission for MW.0151/23 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Director of Economy and Place, to include those set out in Annex 1.

RESOLVED: That subject to further consideration of satisfactory highway treatments for crossing the A420 by highways officers, with the applicant and planning officers; which would come back to the Chair for consideration and a 25m buffer zone on the SSSI and subject to a Section 106 agreement to cover the matters outlined in Annex 2, planning permission for MW.0151/23 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Director of Economy and Place, to include those set out in Annex 1, by a majority vote.

Cllr Diana Lugova stepped down from the Chair at this stage and viewed the Committee from the public gallery but did not participate in the debate or vote.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44/26

Report by Planning Development Manager

Application for determination of the conditions to which a planning permission is to be subject (Permission numbers DD1 and DD2).  

It is RECOMMENDED that the Committee weigh the loss of irreplaceable and priority habitats, the relevant development plan and national policy framework, the EIA reasoned conclusion, the statutory ROMP compensation provisions and the financial implications for the Council. Having done so, and having reached a reasoned conclusion on the significant effects of the development on the environment, the committee should determine the application by selecting either option a) or option b) below:

a)    Application no. MW.0041/23 for determination of the conditions to which a planning permission is to be subject (Permission numbers DD1 and DD2) be APPROVED subject to the conditions set out in Annex 4 but omitting the following condition: 

No development shall take place in areas of irreplaceable, or priority habitats as recorded in ES Appendix C Ecological Impact Assessment V2 or Radley Gravel Pits Local Wildlife Site; OR

b)    Application no. MW.0041/23 for determination of the conditions to which a planning permission is to be subject (Permission numbers DD1 and DD2) be APPROVED subject to the conditions set out in Annex 4 including the following condition: 

No development shall take place in areas of irreplaceable, or priority habitats as recorded in ES Appendix C Ecological Impact Assessment V2 or Radley Gravel Pits Local Wildlife Site.

The Chair introduced the item to the meeting and invited the Planning Development Manager to introduce the application for the determination of the conditions to which a planning permission is to be subject (Permission numbers DD1 and DD2).

The Chair noted that the Committee might need to take legal advice during the Committee, which would be legally privileged. In such circumstances, the Chair stated that he would propose for the Committee go into private session to allow legal advice to be sought.

The Planning Development Manager advised that the central issue for the Committee was whether the proposed conditions should include a restriction preventing development within areas of irreplaceable and priority habitat. Members were reminded that the Committee had previously received Counsel's advice indicating that the conditions could lawfully be determined and that the legal advice provided to the Council remained unchanged.

Officers noted that following the resolution of the Committee in February 2026, the Secretary of State had declined to call-in the application and therefore, the decision had been referred back to the Committee for determination.

Officers reported that additional correspondence had been received from Gregory Jones KC, submitted on behalf of a local resident through solicitors. Members were advised that they were entitled to consider that opinion but should note that it had been prepared for a party opposed to the proposal. Officers advised that, while the Committee could choose to defer determination to obtain a further Counsel's opinion, any additional legal advice would represent another opinion rather than a definitive resolution of the legal issues. Officers therefore continued to advise that the Committee could lawfully determine the application on the basis of the advice already before it.

The Planning Development Manager presented maps and photographs of the areas that would be affected by the application.

The Chair then invited speakers to address the Committee and noted that members may ask questions of clarification after they had finished.

Roger Thomas addressed the Committee on behalf of local objectors. He argued that Members were being presented with an unacceptable choice between allowing the loss of priority and irreplaceable habitat or risking significant compensation liability. He referred to the legal opinion of Gregory Jones KC, which, in his view, provided a strong basis for concluding that the mineral permissions had expired in 2016. He urged the Committee either to reject the application or defer consideration to allow officers to provide a full response to the KC's opinion before a decision was made.

Andrew Coker spoke on behalf of residents of Thrupp Lane and others who used and valued the local landscape. He criticised the handling of the matter over a prolonged period and argued that the original purpose of the ROMP legislation had been to provide certainty rather than extend long-standing uncertainty. He supported obtaining further independent legal advice in light of the Gregory Jones KC opinion and urged the Committee to seek a definitive resolution to the matter.

Craig Woolhouse, speaking on behalf of the Radley Lakes Trust, outlined  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45/26