Blog Image

Stockport Council News

Will the dodgy LibDems comply with this?

LibDem Councillor Mark Hunter, LibDem Councillors, Padden Brook Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Sat, April 26, 2025 14:32

Given their past behaviour, I very much doubt it.

Public Question to the Cabinet

I refer to your public question that you submitted to the 10 December 2024 meeting of the Cabinet which was as follows:-

“Regarding the Local Wildlife Site and Amenity land at Padden Brook Romiley, were the land to be released for housing what legal process would need to be completed before the land could be released for this or any other purpose?”

As you were not in attendance, it was agreed that a written response would be provided.

I have now been passed the following response which I have been asked to circulate to you:-

Dear Mrs Oliver

For the allocation of the land on the proposals map of the adopted development plan to change, this would need to take place via the process of reviewing the local plan.   It should however be noted that the allocation of the land on a proposals map does not prevent a landowner (or other party) applying for planning permission for an alternative use of the land.   Regards

Cllr Mark Hunter

Leader of the Council

Public Question to the Cabinet

I refer to your public question that you submitted to the 5 November 2024 meeting of the Council Meeting which was as follows:-

“Please could Councillor Hunter confirm that the land at Padden Brook mentioned in the Refusal of Planning Permission J492 dated 28th May 1974 is Amenity land as stated therein? “

As you were not in attendance, it was agreed that a written response would be provided.

I have now been passed the following response which I have been asked to circulate to you:-

Dear Mrs Oliver

Thank you for your question regarding Padden Brook and the refusal of planning permission in 1974.  I am aware that you have recently raised a number of similar questions to officers from across the council and have already been provided with a response.

The land at Padden Brook includes an area of woodland which is defined as a Local Wildlife Site on the proposals map of the adopted development plan.  It is clear from the reference given in the refusal of planning permission in 1974 that this land was originally identified as an area of amenity which would serve the wider residential development that was implemented.

Regards
Cllr Mark Hunter

Leader of the Council



LibDem Liar council leader Mark Hunter

LibDem Councillor Mark Hunter, LibDem Councillors, Padden Brook Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Sat, April 26, 2025 14:26

LibDem councillor leader Mark Hunter claimed Stockport Council can’t act on wildlife crime.

A council can act on wildlife crime — but usually only to a certain extent.

In the UK (and many other places), local councils have responsibilities like:

  • Enforcing by-laws about parks, public spaces, and nature reserves they manage.
  • Supporting or working with the police, Natural England, the Environment Agency, or the RSPCA when wildlife crime happens locally.
  • Investigating complaints about habitat destruction, illegal trapping, poisoning, or disturbance to protected species — especially when linked to planning permissions or land management.
  • Issuing fines or taking other action if local rules are broken (for example, disturbing nesting birds in a council nature reserve).
  • Public Question to the Council Meeting
  • I refer to your public question that you submitted to the 3 April 2025 meeting of the Council Meeting which was as follows:-
  • Temporary in planning terms is 28 days.  When will the scruffy trailer dumped on visual amenity land/Local Wildlife Site at Padden Brook be removed?  Local people have been asking the LibDems about this for many, many months and only received an incorrect answer in response tweezered out of them.
  • As you were not in attendance, it was agreed that a written response would be provided.
  • I have now been passed the following response which I have been asked to circulate to you:-
  • As previously advised by officers from the planning service, the trailer is on site to assist the landowner with clearance of detritus and we are advised that it will be removed once these works are completed.  The trailer is not development requiring planning permission and is not covered by the 28 day temporary permission, as this relates to the use of land.
  • We remain satisfied that the response you have been provided is correct.
  •                 Cllr Angie Clark and Cllr Mark Roberts

Public Question to the Council Meeting

I refer to your public question that you submitted to the 1 October 2024 meeting of the Council Meeting which was as follows:-

“I identified important trees on the Padden Brook site.  I asked people to contact their local councillors to protect them.  The councillors will have sent an email to the relevant officer, and the trees now have Woodland Tree Protection Orders on them.

“I identified that the land there is Amenity land and its wildlife cannot be disturbed,  partly due to the unique nature of the land which has been not disturbed since the late 1960s.  I informed the Council Leader, Monitoring Officer, Chief Executive and Cllrs Smart, Clark and Roberts that the land was being massacred.   All of these people simply stood by and let it happen.  Amongst other important wildlife we have lost dormice.

“Will the landowner be charged with wildlife crime?  We, the people of Romiley, really respect nature.  It is a shame that Stockport Council doesn’t.”

As you were not in attendance, it was agreed that a written response would be provided.

I have now been passed the following response which I have been asked to circulate to you:-

Dear Mrs Oliver

Thank you for your question to the council meeting on 1 October 2024.

Any decision to charge the landowner with wildlife crime would be a matter for Greater Manchester Police and not Stockport Council.

Regards
Cllr Mark Hunter

Leader of the Council



Cllr Angela Clark, Cllr Mark Roberts & Cllr Rachel Bresnahan.

LibDem Councillors, Padden Brook Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Tue, April 22, 2025 15:45

“The surrounding micro-woodland will be just the sort of area important to improve in the forthcoming SMBC Nature Recovery Strategy and so public access to appreciate it will also be important”. These LibDem buffoons stood idly by whilst it was destroyed.

Lazy and useless LibDem Councillors. They only deliver their political leaflets. They do nothing for local people.

Profile image for Councillor Angie Clark

Profile image for Councillor Rachel Bresnahan

Dear Mrs Oliver,

Public Question to the Council Meeting

I refer to your public question that you submitted to the 3 April 2025 meeting of the Council Meeting which was as follows:-

Temporary in planning terms is 28 days.  When will the scruffy trailer dumped on visual amenity land/Local Wildlife Site at Padden Brook be removed?  Local people have been asking the LibDems about this for many, many months and only received an incorrect answer in response tweezered out of them.

As you were not in attendance, it was agreed that a written response would be provided.

I have now been passed the following response which I have been asked to circulate to you:-

As previously advised by officers from the planning service, the trailer is on site to assist the landowner with clearance of detritus and we are advised that it will be removed once these works are completed.  The trailer is not development requiring planning permission and is not covered by the 28 day temporary permission, as this relates to the use of land.

We remain satisfied that the response you have been provided is correct.

                Cllr Angie Clark and Cllr Mark Roberts

Local Wildlife Site / Protected Amenity Land Considerations

Local Plans may have specific policies requiring additional scrutiny.

Activities that could harm biodiversity or visual amenity might still be controlled or restricted, even if they don’t need planning permission per se.

If the works involve heavy clearance, vehicle access, or risk to protected species/habitats, that could trigger the need for consent under environmental regulations, even if planning permission isn’t required.

Padden Brook


Padden Brook

LibDem Councillor Mark Hunter, LibDem Councillors, Lisa Smart LibDem PPC, Padden Brook, Senior council officers, Stockport Council Meetings Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Mon, April 21, 2025 11:02

This protected amenity land/Local Wildlife Site, untouched since the 1960s, has been allowed to be destroyed by senior council officers Vicki Bates, Monitoring Officer, Michael Cullen, Chief Executive and Emma Curle, Head of Planning. The Local LibDem MP, Lisa Smart, and local councillors Angela Clark, Mark Roberts and Rachel Bresnahan – all lazy and useless – were begged for 220 days to act. They did nothing.

When they did finally respond the reply was all lies. The land was being improved and the rubbish was being tidied up. A planning application was allowed to proceed deliberately giving a false location. This sort of thing is fine in LibDem run Stockport. The LibDem Leader, Mark Hunter, in reply to a council meeting claimed the council couldn’t act on wildlife crime. He lied.

If housing is built on that site, it will signify corruption reigns supreme at Stockport Council, yet again. I shall be contacting the police if that happens. There are so many instances of Stockport Council’s planning corruption on this website already, most notably the appalling case of the still-gassing toxic waste dump school where lethal brown asbestos fibres were deliberately left in situ.

The protected land before it was improved and tidied up.

This is the planning refusal which confirms the land is protected amenity land.

Protected amenity land refers to land that has been designated or set aside for public benefit, often for recreational, environmental, or visual purposes.

Here’s a general overview of the legal position:

⚖️ Definition

Amenity land is land that enhances the value or enjoyment of a property or the environment, usually by providing open space, greenery, or visual relief. It often includes:

  • Grass verges
  • Public green spaces
  • Land around housing estates
  • Village greens
  • Play areas or parkland

🔒 Protected Status

Land can be protected in several ways, including:

  1. Planning Conditions or Section 106 Agreements
    • When planning permission is granted, conditions may be imposed requiring some land to remain open for amenity use.
    • Section 106 agreements (in the UK) can legally bind developers to preserve amenity spaces.
  2. Designation as Public Open Space
    • Local councils may designate land as public open space through local development plans. This designation limits development and ensures access and environmental protection.
  3. Statutory Protections
    • In the UK, land may be registered as a village green under the Commons Act 2006. Once registered, development is highly restricted.
    • Green belt land and land protected under environmental laws (e.g., SSSI, AONB) may also include amenity value and have additional layers of protection.
  4. Restrictive Covenants
    • Some land is subject to legal covenants that restrict development or use to preserve amenity for nearby residents.
  5. Ownership by Local Authorities or Charitable Trusts
    • Many amenity spaces are held by councils or trusts for the benefit of the public. These bodies may have legal obligations not to dispose of or develop the land.

🚧 Development on Amenity Land

Development or change of use on protected amenity land is typically subject to:

  • Strict planning controls – applications will likely face opposition and must demonstrate community benefit or exceptional justification.
  • Public consultation – especially if the land is publicly owned or widely used.
  • Judicial review or legal challenge – if the decision to develop is deemed unlawful or procedurally unfair.

🏛️ Case Law & Precedents (UK examples)

Some notable legal principles include:

  • Courts have generally upheld protections for land that has been used as open space or is under statutory trust.
  • In cases like Oxfordshire CC v Oxford City Council [2006], the courts confirmed strong protections for village greens.

✅ Key Takeaways

  • Protected amenity land has legal safeguards against inappropriate development.
  • Protections can stem from planning law, environmental law, local policy, or private legal agreements.
  • Attempting to develop such land usually requires extensive legal and planning justification and public engagement.

There is a covenant on the land:

I have a copy of a lease dated 24th of June 1964 between Hathelow Investments Ltd of 452 Manchester Road, Heaton Chapel (the Lessor) and Winchover Ltd of 5 New Brown Street, Manchester (the Lessee).

The Lease stated at 2. “The Lessee will not at any time without the previous consent in writing of the Lessor erect or suffer to be erected on the said land any mesuage  dwellinghouse building or other erection.”



Seniors protection from Scammers

Advice Helplines Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Thu, March 27, 2025 16:21
Protect Your Retirement: How Seniors Safeguard Against Online Scammers


LibDem paedophilia, multi £m planning corruption, human rights abuses & wildlife crime at Stockport

Uncategorised Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Thu, March 20, 2025 13:32

Human Rights abuses
https://www.sheilaoliver.org/mr-parnell-rip.html

LibDem Lord Goddard and this paedophile LibDem Executive Councillor and ex-Greater Manchester policeman repeatedly/maliciously imprisoned the sick, innocent, fiercely protective dad of 2 lovely young girls until he died aged 58.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/former-stockport-councillor-facing-10-10723666

https://www.sheilaoliver.org/custodies,-arrests,-imprisonment-1.html

A sick, innocent man, dead at 58, not allowed to attend a medical appointment and arrested for trying to ask council meeting questions.

Imprisoned for alleged assault with a sneeze, they had CCTV showing hadn’t happened. They refused to allow this CCTV footage to be shown at his trial, but it was shown at his 3 day appeal at Manchester Crown Court.

===================================================================

Multi £m planning corruption and endangering primary school children by exposing them to brown asbestos fibres.
https://www.sheilaoliver.org/toxic-waste-dump-school-.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0rCPnP5H9o

Councillors have a legal obligation to investigate financial irregularities when brought to their attention. Instead they say: “No Comment” like organised crime group villains.

===================================================================

Paedophilia
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/sex-case-councillor-in-jail-threat-1165951
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/former-stockport-councillor-facing-10-10723666

Wildlife Crime

On protected amenity land/Local Wildlife site the LibDems MP Smart & lickspittle councillors Clark/Roberts/Bresnahan have allowed destruction of said land – habitat of owls, dormice & bats. They ignore local people regarding this, but are happy to deliver their political leaflets in the area.



The insurers of the LibDems and ICO should pay these potentially huge costs.

Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, Insurance payments, LibDem Councillors, Lisa Smart LibDem PPC, North Reddish Primary School, Polluted Land, Senior council officers, Town Hall Protester, Vale View School Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Sat, January 11, 2025 07:33

Drazen Jaksic
Chief Executive
Zurich Insurance UK
Head Office
70 Mark Lane
London
EC3R 7NQ

Thursday, 09 January 2025

Dear Drazen Jaksic

Insurers of Stockport Council

Please listen to what I am saying.  Many years ago Stockport Council, ruled almost entirely by the LibDems, put a new primary school on a still gassing toxic waste dump – a former Jackson’s Brickyard – which you may know had appalling contamination histories.  The council refused three planning applications in the 1970s because the site was too toxic to build on.  It was decided to put a new primary school on that site, although there was another, more popular, safer site available with room for expansion.  The LibDem councillors chose to sell that off for housing and use the toxic site instead, which they tried to pretend was clean.  There was more planning corruption/fraud involved than you could shake a stick at, which is all clearly documented here:-

https://www.sheilaoliver.org/toxic-waste-dump-school-.html

When I started exposing their planning corruption they had to shut me up, so they told the Information Commissioner that I was vexatious.  I had to try for years to get them to remove the contamination, which they did after a fashion, but the brown asbestos fibres were left on the site.  There are reference points on the video proving this is that site:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0rCPnP5H9o

The school opened in 2011.  Mesothelioma cases, as I understand it, usually take 25 years to develop.  Apart from the school children, the area is very built up.  The brown asbestos fibres they disturbed will have travelled.  When I pointed out migrant labour was removing lethal brown asbestos fibres using a bin bag and stick and that they didn’t understand their task as they took their own respirators off, I was told I was vexatious.  I have the documentary evidence.

When I gave evidence to the Information Commissioner subsequently that I had been correct in every respect, they refused to remove the vexatious branding.

So, I assume you may face potentially huge mesothelioma claims in the future.  I think the insurers of the LibDems and the Information Commissioner will have to pay towards any settlements.  I couldn’t go to the police about the corruption because of the close connection between Greater Manchester Police and Stockport Council, which is shown in the second case of corruption, which might also leave you with huge damages claims.

https://www.sheilaoliver.org/mr-parnell-rip.html

This paedophile –

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/former-stockport-councillor-facing-10-10723666

Lord Goddard and the Stockport LibDem councillors repeatedly/maliciously imprisoned this sick, innocent, fiercely protective father of 2 lovely young girls until he died aged 58.  The same people as were involved with the toxic waste dump primary school.  Two of them, Wendy Meikle and Shan Alexander are still Executive Councillors even today.  What on earth may they be currently up to?  Mr Parnell’s and his family’s life were destroyed, all because he tried to protect his adopted daughters from the above paedophile.  I begged every LibDem Lord, MP, senior official every day to stop what was being done to him.  I said they were kicking him into his grave, which they were.  Not a single response was received from anyone.

My suggestions going forward? Have some sort of contact point for people undergoing these abuses which might leave local authority insurers with huge claims in the future.  Nip the abuses in the bud when they start.  It wouldn’t cost much to set up or run, and the potential savings for your industry could be huge.

There is, of course, the case of Mrs Luba Macpherson and Sunderland Council.  No-one did their job.  No-one listened to a concerned mother worried about her daughter.  How much might that claim cost your industry?

I shall cc this to the rogues at Stockport Council.  If they wish to dispute matters they can, but I have a very large amount of documentary evidence

I hope you listen; I really do

Yours sincerely

Sheila Oliver
Local Authority Specialist Researcher
Citizens 2022 Committee

c.c. Mr John Edwards
Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Wilmslow
Cheshire

c.c LibDems
Stockport Council

c.c. Edward Davey
LibDem Leader



Drunk vs Drowsy vs Distracted Driving

Advice Helplines Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Mon, October 28, 2024 15:41

Drunk Driving vs. Drowsy Driving vs. Distracted Driving | Meirowitz & Wasserberg



Next »