Dear Mrs Oliver
Emma Curle, our Chief Planning Officer has prepared the below response to you. Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding to your email regarding your interpretation of what amenity lands means which has been due to annual leave and other work commitments.
Amenity (and amenity land) is a broad concept and one which is not formally defined in planning legislation or guidance.
The development plan does not allocate any land as ‘amenity land’ although, of course, land that is allocated in various other ways (such as, for instance, strategic or local open space) may have amenity value. You have provided quotes from a number of documents, officers have sought to establish where these quotes have been taken from, they do not appear to have been taken from anything that has been published by the council (in its role as local planning authority) and is not something that is recognisably from national planning policy or planning practice guidance. I would therefore assist if you could provide the Council with the source of these quotes please?
The woodland that runs along the western side of Padden Brook is defined as a Local Wildlife Site by the local plan. As such any development proposals would be subject to ‘saved’ Unitary Development Plan review policy NE1.2 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance and the wider area is defined as predominantly residential land. The link to that can be found here Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review (May 2006) – Policies which still apply from 1st April 2011 onwards (post Core Strategy adoption)
The explanation to NE1.2 sets out that the substantive nature conservation value of Local Wildlife Sites arises from their displaying of locally distinctive criteria including a combination of ecological, social, recreational, educational and aesthetic interest. It could be taken from that that a Local Wildlife Site can have amenity value and might be considered to be ‘amenity land’ but there is nothing specific to that effect in the policy wording.
It is clear from the reference you have provided to the 1974 refusal, that the land was originally identified as an amenity area as part of the wider residential development that was granted planning permission in the early 1960s. The planning permission has not been revoked, but this does not mean that a subsequent planning application for an alternative use could not be made, nor does it mean that works not requiring planning permission cannot be carried out in the area that are not development. Should the landowner wish to pursue an application for planning permission, that application would be considered against policies of the adopted development plan, national planning policy and other relevant material planning considerations.
I note your concerns regarding the impact on wildlife on the site, this is a matter for GMP and I understand that the matter has been directed to them to investigate but that they do not consider any crime has been committed. If any impact on wildlife relates to a planning consent (or lack of) then the council’s enforcement team can investigate if a breach of control has taken place and take action (e.g. issue a stop notice or a enforcement notice to outline what remediation works/planning consents are required). There has been no enforcement action required or undertaken and so it is not a matter for the council.
If the matter falls outside planning legislation, which this does, it would be an issue for the police to investigate. Natural England (as the statutory wildlife licensing body) also have an enforcement team to investigate protected species licensing issues, but ultimately it would be the police who would take any prosecution action.
Council officers in the Neighbourhoods team have visited the site on many occasions recently and no work has been undertaken by the landowner that should not have been.
In your latest email (attached) you reference restrictions that might be placed on amenity land, I am again unsure of this source, but can advise that there are no such restrictions in place on this land.
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: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 5:43 PM
To: Vicki Bates <vicki.bates@stockport.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: External: Please make this an offical complaint if you are not going to reply regarding the apparent illegal planning permission at Hatherlow Sunday School
Dear Ms Bates
It is protected amenity land according to council documents. He was not allowed to destroy it. I can’t believe I am having to explain this to you for the umpteenth time.
“A landowner can engage in reasonable land management, but they must comply with wildlife protection laws, respect protected habitats, and seek permissions for significant changes to the landscape. Interventions that harm protected species or habitats can result in legal penalties, and special care is required when dealing with invasive species or during bird nesting season.”
Let’s take this complaint out of your hands – you are not competent.
Yours
Sheila
From: Vicki Bates [mailto:vicki.bates@stockport.gov.uk]
Sent: 18 September 2024 17:18
To: Sheila Oliver
Subject: RE: External: Please make this an offical complaint if you are not going to reply regarding the apparent illegal planning permission at Hatherlow Sunday School
Dear Mrs Oliver
Further to my earlier emails on Hatherlow and on Padden Brook I write to confirm as follows:
- that the decision in relation to Hatherlow as taken legally; and
- I am awaiting instructions in relation to your points raised regarding amenity land. In the interim I can confirm that officers have attended the site on numerous occasions recently and confirmed that the owner is not doing anything which he is not entitled to do.
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: Monday, September 16, 2024 8:47 AM
To: Vicki Bates <vicki.bates@stockport.gov.uk>; Leader <leader@stockport.gov.uk>; Michael Cullen <michael.cullen@stockport.gov.uk>; enquiries <enquiries@lisasmart.org.uk>; lisa.smart.mp <lisa.smart.mp@parliament.uk>; Cllr Angie Clark <cllr.angie.clark@stockport.gov.uk>; Cllr Mark Roberts <cllr.mark.roberts@stockport.gov.uk>; Cllr Lisa Smart <cllr.lisa.smart@stockport.gov.uk>
Cc: James Almond <james@almond-pubs.co.uk>
Subject: External: Please make this an offical complaint if you are not going to reply regarding the apparent illegal planning permission at Hatherlow Sunday School
| You don’t often get email from sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com. Learn why this is important |
Dear Ms Bates
Let’s not prevaricate around the bush. If you have no intention of responding regarding Hatherlow Sunday School, I wish this to be recognised as a formal complaint, then I can complain to the Local Authority Ombudsman.
The same with my requests regarding the protected amenity land at Padden Brook. If you don’t intend to respond in any way, please consider this a formal complaint.
The same with the multi £m planning corruption surrounding the Vale View School, the financial irregularities of c £6m, the offence under the Fraud Act of deliberately building the school too small, the developing of the recreation ground without a public inquiry, the non-existent Sport England £625k planning condition etc. It made me smile as the Stockport LibDems tried to have me arrested last week for peaceful protest, when in light of them having ignored planning corruption by their LibDem political cohorts for years, they may well face criminal charges themselves.
So, responses to the first two to avoid official complaints to the Local Authority Ombudsman and the third one is an official complaint.
Yours
Sheila
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jAiCoVda1k