Blog Image

Stockport Council News

Why did LibDem cllrs Roberts & Clark lie?

Environmental vandalism, LibDem Councillor Mark Hunter, LibDem Councillors, Lisa Smart LibDem PPC, Padden Brook Posted on Wed, May 14, 2025 14:26

This Local Wildlife Site/protected amenity land has not been improved or tidied up. Why would Cllr Mark Roberts or Cllr Angela Clark lie through their teeth and say it has?

Are they taking kickbacks to put housing on this protected site? This was how it looked before it was improved and tidied up.

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.

In the UK, disturbing amenity land with a chainsaw could be an offence depending on the specific circumstances, including the ownership of the land, local regulations, and the nature of the disturbance. Here are some key considerations:

1. Ownership and Permission

  • Private Land: If the amenity land is privately owned, using a chainsaw without the landowner’s permission could be considered trespassing and criminal damage.
  • Public Land: If the land is publicly owned (e.g., managed by the local council or government), using a chainsaw without authorization could lead to legal consequences, especially if it damages property or disrupts the public’s enjoyment of the land.

2. Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs)

  • Many trees, particularly those in conservation areas or on amenity land, may be protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). Cutting down, lopping, or damaging these trees with a chainsaw without permission is an offence. Breaching a TPO can lead to a fine of up to £20,000.

3. Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  • If the disturbance affects wildlife, such as nesting birds, bats, or other protected species, you may be in violation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This legislation protects many species, and disturbing or destroying their habitats could result in criminal charges.

4. Noise Nuisance

  • Using a chainsaw in a way that causes excessive noise could also breach local noise regulations, leading to complaints and potential fines. This could be considered antisocial behaviour if it significantly disrupts the peace of nearby residents.

5. Environmental Damage

  • Any action that causes environmental damage (e.g., pollution or harm to natural features) on amenity land could lead to prosecution under environmental protection laws.


Will the dodgy LibDems comply with this?

LibDem Councillor Mark Hunter, LibDem Councillors, Padden Brook Posted 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 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



Padden Brook

LibDem Councillor Mark Hunter, LibDem Councillors, Lisa Smart LibDem PPC, Padden Brook, Senior council officers, Stockport Council Meetings Posted 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.”



Yippee, the LibDems are not taking back control of Stockport. Faces like smacked bottoms though ;o)

LibDem Councillor Mark Hunter, Lisa Smart LibDem PPC, Uncategorised Posted on Thu, May 20, 2021 19:29

http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=140&MId=28004&Ver=4



We are not lucky in our Chief Constables in Greater Manchester. Fahy should hang his head in shame at what he allowed the LibDem councillors to get away with.

Andrew Webb, CYPD, Anwar Majothi, Eamonn Boylan, Ged Lucas, LibDem Councillor Mark Hunter, LibDem Councillors, Stunell MP, Sue Derbyshire, Town Hall Protester Posted on Wed, May 19, 2021 17:10


Mr Parnell wanted…

Andrew Webb, CYPD, Anwar Majothi, Barry Khan, Eamonn Boylan, Ged Lucas, LibDem Councillor Mark Hunter, LibDem Councillors, Stunell MP, Sue Derbyshire, Town Hall Protester, Uncategorised Posted on Tue, May 18, 2021 13:47

His legal right to counselling for his lovely young daughters who had had a terrible time with their birth parents. They were getting counselling, but despite Stockport Council having received of £600,000 to fund such services, their counselling from After Adoption was stopped.

Mr Parnell asked for a decade for help for his daughters (well this is normal for Stockport) without any response. So he decided to stand on the town hall steps, sometimes night and day, until the councillors/council officers did what they were paid large sums of money for and which he had a legal right to. They continued to simply ignore him. His lovely daughters were more and more in need of help. Sometimes young people who have had a difficult life take longer to grow up.



Why am I posting all this up? Because many of the very same LibDem councillors were plotting to seize back control of Stockport Council.

LibDem Councillor Mark Hunter, LibDem Councillors Posted on Sat, May 15, 2021 07:55


Next »