Email sent – 13 May 2008 18:55

Dear FoI Officer

Regarding point 4. below, some of the land was/is playing fields. If Sport England is giving the community rights to it in the new development, then they had rights to it before/currently and point 4. is wrong. Local people would not be trespassing on the land – it would be their right to go on it. So, in accordance with the UDP the replacement open space at the college should be open to the public.

I really don’t think the college would win a trespass case in court given the above.

Kind regards



Thursday, April 24, 2008 12:33 PM

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing further to your request for information below.

For ease, your questions have been addressed in corresponding number order:

1. The application was advertised as a departure in the Stockport Express between 7th and 28th April 2007. Responses to this advertisement and the consultation exercise in general were given due consideration when the application was considered by the Victoria Area Committee and the Planning & Highways Committee.

Upon full consideration, the proposed development was not considered to be contrary to the UDP and as such, there was no requirement for it to be referred to the Secretary of State. The reasoning behind this is provided in the analysis of the application which is contained in the attached committee report.

2. This is explained in the attached report but there is no net loss of open space.

3. The response of the EA is explained in the attached report and the permission will include a condition to ensure that appropriate remediation of contamination is undertaken as part of the development.

4. The allocation of land as public open space in the UDP should not be confused with ownership. The UDP allocation is to protect open space for recreational and amenity purposes from a planning perspective; however much allocated open space is in private ownership (clubs, educational establishments etc.). Land can therefore fulfil an open space function in planning terms, yet remain in private ownership and therefore be subject to trespass. In this particular case the issue was not a substantive planning consideration.


Clare Naven
FoI Officer