Dear Mrs Oliver

Thank you for raising your further objections by email below.

I have sent this to the relevant officers dealing with the application.

Kind regards

Vicki Bates

(She/Her)

Assistant Director – Legal & Democratic Governance

Monitoring Officer

(Legal, Democratic and Electoral Services and Information Governance)

Corporate and Support Services

Legal Department

Stockport Council

Room 325
Town Hall

Edward Street
Stockport
SK1 3XE

Direct:  0161 474 3219 / 07815 715 625

***Please note that if you receive this email from me outside of usual office hours I do not expect a response from you***

From: Sheila Oliver <sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com>
Sent: 13 November 2024 17:32
To: Vicki Bates <vicki.bates@stockport.gov.uk>; Emma Curle <emma.curle@stockport.gov.uk>; Damian Eaton <damian.eaton@stockport.gov.uk>; Michael Cullen <michael.cullen@stockport.gov.uk>; enquiries <enquiries@lisasmart.org.uk>; Cllr Rachel Bresnahan <cllr.rachel.bresnahan@stockport.gov.uk>; Cllr Angie Clark <cllr.angie.clark@stockport.gov.uk>; Cllr Mark Roberts <cllr.mark.roberts@stockport.gov.uk>; Cllr Sue Thorpe <cllr.sue.thorpe@stockport.gov.uk>; Cllr Rosemary Barratt <Cllr.R.Barratt@stockport.gov.uk>; Cllr Joe Barratt <Cllr.Joe.Barratt@stockport.gov.uk>
Subject: Protected wildlife land at Padden Brook, Romiley

You don’t often get email from sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com. Learn why this is important

Dear Chief Executive, Head of Planning, Monitoring Officer, MP Lisa Smart, Werneth Councillors, Democratic Services

Please accept this further objection to planning application : DC/093873 Type: TWTT Address: 1 -35 Padden Brook Romiley Stockport SK6 3AS Decision: Decision Date: Proposal: T1-crown lift canopy to 5m T2-sycamore lift canopy to 5m T3-ash fell (dieback) T4-sycamore lift canopy to 5m T5-sycamore lift canopy to 5m and clear street lamp T6-sycamore lift canopy to 5m T7-sycamore fell (included fork,undermining wall) T8-oak lift canopy to 5m and clear lines T9-sycamore fell (just outside tpo line) T10-sycamore lift canopy to 5m T11-sycamore lift canopy to 5m T12-ash fell (rot pockets at base) T13-sycamore lift canopy to 5m T14-oak lift canopy to 5m and clear lines T15-sycamore lift canopy to 5m T16-ash fell (dieback) T18-group of ash saplings fell(potential problems with footpath) T19-group of mixed saplings fell (causing problems with neighbours fence)

The land is a Local Wildlife Site, as per the council, and also Amenity land (please see the attached Img755).  No housing can be built on the land without a public inquiry; no rubbish can be dumped on it due to its status.  I have sought further advice and wish to add to my previous objection:-

  1. There are five trees the new landowner has asked to fell.  There is no disease on either T7 or T9 – these trees are healthy and should remain.  You have to ask yourself the question why is he  wanting to fell perfectly good trees that have been there for many decades?
  2. T12 with rot pockets at the base does not mean this tree is dead and it should be saved.
  3. T3 and T16 with Ash die back would have to be at least 50% diseased to warrant felling.
  4. T18 and T19 where there are allegedly problems with the footpath – no-one has used this footpath for decades apart from a footpath-oriented person who uses it once in a Preston Guild purely for the purpose of keeping it open.
  5. This stretch of woodland is  a very important stretch along the peak forest canal route which hundreds of people cycle, walk, and enjoy these trees on a daily basis.  It has been protected Amenity land since 1963.   “Amenity land, such as open spaces in housing developments or community green spaces, often has legal protections to prevent it from being developed or used in ways that harm its intended recreational or environmental value. The main legal protections for amenity land include:
  1. Planning Restrictions: Local authorities may designate amenity land as protected green space, limiting or prohibiting development. Any changes usually need planning permission, which is rarely granted for land meant for public enjoyment.
  2. Covenants: These are legal promises tied to the land, often written into property deeds. A covenant might restrict the land’s use to only recreational purposes, preventing it from being used for building or commercial activity.
  3. Protective Zoning: Local planning frameworks may classify amenity land under specific zones that emphasize conservation, which helps preserve its recreational or aesthetic value.
  4. Local or National Regulations: In some cases, amenity land falls under broader environmental or community protection laws, making it harder to repurpose.

These protections aim to maintain amenity land for the benefit of local communities and the environment, making it difficult to develop or change its use without significant legal approval.”

  1. According to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990  3.2 states that no person should cut down, top, lop, uproot or wilfully damage or destroy perfectly good trees or cause or permit the cutting down, topping, lopping or wilful damage or destruction of the trees, so the ball is firmly in Stockport council’s court to say no to this.
  2. The neighbour’s fence – no-one here is worried about their fence.  They are all deeply distressed at the destruction of the wildlife, untouched since the 1960s, that the new landowner has caused.
  3. There is an official complaint submitted about Councillors Smart, Clark & Roberts.  They have been told virtually from day 1 that this is protected land.  I repeatedly went to their office but each time it was as if they were hearing about the problems for the first time.  This went on for two months and they did nothing.  A thin, hatchet faced woman at the LibDem office slammed the door in my face.  Smart deleted emails unread (attached Img 756).  They called the police on me for peaceful protest and the police were disgusted with them.  They can’t decide this application with a complaint relating to this land hanging over them.
  4. I am awaiting an internal review of the Council’s refusal to answer a EIR request.  I simply wish to know what the new landowner was told about the protected nature of the land and when he was told it.  Apparently, to answer this question would be a breach of his privacy.  How utterly ridiculous.  We need to await that response to judge the damage he did to protected land in full knowledge of the status of the land.

So, to recap.  No housing can be built on the land without a public inquiry.  The landowner should have consulted Stockport Council before he started to clear the site due to the presence of badgers, dormice etc.  He used vibrating machinery within 20 metres of a protected species. I have photographic evidence.  He said if local people didn’t leave him in peace, he would destroy the protected species area.  I have witnesses to that fact.  He has dumped rubbish on the site.

Yours

Sheila Oliver
Local Authority Specialist Researcher
Citizens 2022 Committee