Planning Department
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council


3rd July 2025

Objection to Proposed Development on Protected Amenity Land / Local Wildlife Site – Padden Brook, SK6

Dear Ms Bates

I write to object to any proposed development on the land at Padden Brook, which is subject to both freehold and leasehold titles registered to John and Alison Hall.

I object on the basis that:

  1. The land remains subject to restrictive leasehold covenants that limit development; and
  2. The land is formally designated as both Protected Amenity Land and a Local Wildlife Site (LWS) under Stockport planning policy, meaning any development would be contrary to the Local Plan and its strategic objectives.

1. Leasehold restrictions remain in force

The leasehold title is still registered and has not, to my knowledge, been surrendered or merged. The assertion that the lease is unenforceable due to common ownership is mistaken. Unless a formal merger has occurred, which would require registration and appropriate documentation, the lease remains a valid and legally binding interest.

Notably, the lease prohibits the erection of any buildings other than specified residential dwellings of a minimum value and requires landlord consent and plan approval prior to construction. These covenants clearly reflect an intent to strictly limit development and preserve the character of the land.

2. Planning policy: Environmental designations must be upheld

The land is designated as both Protected Amenity Land and a Local Wildlife Site (LWS) under Stockport’s Local Plan and associated Policies Map. These designations carry real planning weight.

Under Strategic Objective 4 of the emerging Local Plan, the Council commits to:

“Conserve and enhance our landscapes and natural environment and ensure residents have access to quality green and open space.”

Protected Amenity Land is assessed based on its landscape, ecological, and recreational value. Once designated, it is allocated for protection under planning policy and must not be built upon without exceptional justification. No such justification has been provided in this case.

Local Wildlife Sites, as identified by Stockport Council and Greater Manchester Ecology Unit, are non-statutory but locally significant biodiversity assets. Planning decisions must take them into account, and any development that risks loss of habitat or ecological value conflicts with national guidance (e.g. NPPF paragraphs 174–180).

In short, development on this site would be incompatible with the local and national policy framework that exists to protect valued open space and biodiversity.

3. Combined weight of legal and policy protections

The coexistence of leasehold development restrictions and the land’s formal designation as protected open space presents a clear and coherent intention that this land is not suitable for development. To permit construction would not only risk a breach of legal covenant but would also undermine the strategic priorities of the Borough.

Conclusion

In light of the above, I respectfully request that any application be refused. The proposed development would:

  • Violate enforceable leasehold covenants;
  • Contravene the site’s designation as Protected Amenity Land and Local Wildlife Site;
  • Undermine Stockport’s stated environmental and planning objectives.

Please confirm receipt of this objection, and do not hesitate to contact me should any further information be required.

Yours sincerely

Sheila Oliver

From: Vicki Bates (Legal) [mailto:vicki.bates@stockport.gov.uk]
Sent: 03 July 2025 07:35
To: ‘sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com’
Cc: Emma Curle
Subject: Covenant on Padden Brook

Dear Mrs Oliver

Please find attached, and below, some information on the covenant on Padden Brook.  The photographs of the lease document that you sent to me were incomplete so we have obtained the attached in order to assist in explaining the situation to you.  These documents are all publicly available at the land registry.

Attached are the freehold and leasehold titles of the land shown shaded green below which are both owned by John and Alison Hall.  They acquired both titles on 14 June 2024.  Copies of the title registers and plans are attached

We have also downloaded a complete copy of the lease and this is also attached. 

The lease provides that if the tenant does erect buildings on the property, that it will comply with the provisions of the Schedule to the lease.  The schedule includes restrictions such as the below:

  • No buildings are to be erected other than dwellinghouses with suitable outbuildings of a clear yearly letting value of at least £35 each
  • No dwellinghouse or outbuilding is to be erected unless the plans and specfication have been approved by the landlord
  • The tenant cannot build any messuage, dwelinghouse, building or other erection without obtaining the prior written consent of the landlord

The schedule then goes on to set out some provisions that the tenant would need to comply with were buildings to be constructed on the land.

You have previously stated that because of the lease, the landowner cannot build on the land.  However this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal position and the lease.   These are the covenants in a lease, and it is only the landlord of the lease who would be able to enforce the covenants against the tenant.  You will note that it is the same individuals who are the current landlords and the tenants of the lease.

I hope this assists you in understanding the correct position.   The above explanation relates to the lease only and of course the landowner would need to apply for planning permission if they wanted to build on the land.

Kind regards

Vicki Bates

(She/Her)

Assistant Director – Legal & Democratic Governance

Monitoring Officer

Corporate and Support Services

Legal Department

Stockport Council

Room 325
Town Hall

Edward Street
Stockport
SK1 3XE