Stockport Council & Other News

Thank you for your e-mail. This acknowledgement has been triggered electronically as I have not yet had a chance to read your message.

I am receiving hundreds of emails a day, and it will take a short while for me to set up my parliamentary office. I do apologise if it takes some time to get back to you. I will aim prioritise the most urgent enquiries first.


IF YOU ARE A CONSTITUENT IN THE HAZEL GROVE CONSTITUENCY: Please make sure you have included your full name and address, or reply to this email with it, as parliamentary protocol means I can only take up issues on behalf of my constituents.

IF YOU ARE NOT A CONSTITUENT: Please contact your own local MP. You can find out who they are here: http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/


With best wishes
LISA SMART MP

From Subject Received
Lisa Smart Re: Landowner at Padden Brook cutting branches from protected trees today and using chainsaw near protected species 11/10/2024 27 KB
Lisa Smart RE: External: Please make this an official complaint if you are not going to reply regarding the apparent illegal planning permission at Hatherlow Sunday School 09/10/2024 29 KB
Lisa Smart Re: For the avoidance of doubt – Amenity land Padden Brook 22/09/2024 27 KB
Lisa Smart RE: External: Please make this an official complaint if you are not going to reply regarding the apparent illegal planning permission at Hatherlow Sunday School 20/09/2024 28 KB
Lisa Smart RE: External: As top legal banana at SMBC, you should know this already , but just in case… + FOIA and EIR request 19/09/2024 28 KB
Lisa Smart Re: FW: Official complaint – legally protected amenity land at Padden Brook 18/09/2024 27 KB
Lisa Smart Re: Official complaint – legally protected amenity land at Padden Brook 18/09/2024 27 KB
Lisa Smart Re: Please make this an offical complaint if you are not going to reply regarding the apparent illegal planning permission at Hatherlow Sunday School 16/09/2024 27 KB
Lisa Smart Re: Official Complaint 14/09/2024 27 KB

Environmental Information Request
Reference: EIR 101007834786

Dear Applicant,

Please consider this as our formal response to your information request which was logged under the above reference number and treated as a request made under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) 2004.

EIR Requests:

101007834786

Dear FoI Officer

This response is a complete fabrication, possibly to facilitate planning corruption like at Vale View School and Offerton Precinct.  Not your fault, of course.

Please let me know which council officer gave that response and upon which evidence it was based.

I can prove the response is untrue and shall take to Twitter with the evidence to further the case that the Stockport LibDems are  very much at ease with corruption.

How has this lovely, protected, Local Nature Site been improved by the destruction and dumping of rubbish on it?  This is another blatant lie.

101007774896

Dear FoI Officer

I don’t believe I put in the question “instructed by the landowner”

Is the response still the same?  On Day 1  asked Cllr Angela Clark to look into the issue of the instability of the land, with a witness. It is now day 219 and no response has been received from her (ever actually)  Clarification please – has the council requested any such investigation be carried out?

Our Response:

Refusal under Regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) and section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA:

After careful consideration, we are writing to inform you that your requests for information relating to the Padden Brook site have been refused. To the extent that the request is for non-environmental information, it is vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA and to the extent that the request is for environmental information, it is manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR

In reaching this decision, we have taken into account the guidance provided by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and the ICO decision notice FS_503163771. Requests can be manifestly unreasonable for one or more of a wide range of reasons, including the burden of dealing with the request, the applicant’s motive, and any harassment or distress caused to staff. The ICO decision notice FS504640002 and the tribunal decision in Dransfield v Information Commissioner (EA-2103-0237)1 further support this approach.

Your requests appear to be of a similar nature to other requests you have submitted on the subject of “Padden Brook” and considered part of a campaign against the Council rather than to provide information in the public interest. The Council has previously advised in response to your requests that there is nothing taking place at the site of Padden Brook that the Council needs to take action on. We note that you may not agree with this, however the position of the Council remains the same following several visits to the site by Council officers.

Our records indicate we have received at least 6 requests for information regarding “Padden Brook” the nature and context of your requests also suggest that they are intended to cause disruption rather than contributing to public understanding or accountability. This aligns with the criteria for manifestly unreasonable requests as outlined in the ICO guidance. In addition to these requests, the Council has also received in excess of 160 emails from yourself on the subject of Padden Brook since August 2024.

Furthermore, we have considered the ICO’s decision notices and guidance on the application of section 14(1) of the FOIA and Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR in cases where requests are received that may contain an unreasonable tone or offensive language. Such requests, which are part of a pattern of persistent and unreasonable behaviour intended to cause disruption or divert Council resources, can be deemed manifestly unreasonable or vexatious.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) advises the following:

“….In some cases it will be easy to recognize that a request is manifestly unreasonable. For example, the tone or content of the request might be so objectionable that it would be unreasonable to expect your authority to tolerate it, no matter how legitimate the purpose of the requester or substantial the value of the requested information. Such as where threats have been made against employees, or offensive language used..”

Whether regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR has been applied based on the cost or burden alone or for wider reasons, it is subject to a public interest test.

Public Interest

Even after an exception has been engaged and we deem it to be manifestly unreasonable, we can only apply the exception if the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Factors in favour of releasing the information

Public interest in transparency – there is a general public interest in releasing information to contribute to a greater awareness of matters, a free exchange of views and more effective participation by the public in environmental decision-making.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council is committed to transparency. Disclosing the requested information would comply with this commitment.

Factors in favour of withholding the information

Complying with the requests would put a strain on the Council’s resources and make it more difficult for the Council to deliver its core services due to the time it would take to comply with these numerous request.

We believe that it is in the public’s interest to deliver core services to the fullest potential. Preparing a response to the requests would have an impact on the Service Area and greatly reduce its effectiveness.

Conclusion

Given these considerations, we have determined that responding to your requests would place an undue burden on Council resources and is not justified in terms of the public interest. We have concluded that the public interest in refusing your requests outweighs the interest in its disclosure.

Statement under Section 17(6) of FOIA

Please be advised that further requests for information relating to the Padden Brook site will not be responded to in accordance with section 17(6) of the FOIA.

Appeal Process

If you are dissatisfied with this decision, you have the right to appeal. You can submit an appeal in writing to the Information Governance Team within 40 working days of receiving this refusal notice. Please include the grounds for your appeal and any supporting evidence. The appeal will be reviewed by a senior officer who was not involved in the original decision. You will receive a response to your appeal within 20 working days.

Following the completion of an internal review, if you are dissatisfied with the outcome, you can appeal to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) via the following contact points:

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Home | ICO

0303 123 1113 

Good morning Mrs Oliver

The acknowledgment from the FOI team regarding your request for an internal review was sent to you on 7 May at 15.43.

Kind regards

Vicki Bates

(She/Her)

Assistant Director – 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 May 2025 07:38
To: Vicki Bates (Legal) <vicki.bates@stockport.gov.uk>
Cc: 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>; edward.davey.mp@parliament.uk; layla.moran.mp@parliament.uk; daisy.cooper.mp@parliament.uk; Zoe Allan <zoe.allan@stockport.gov.uk>; Emma Curle <emma.curle@stockport.gov.uk>; Michael Cullen <michael.cullen@stockport.gov.uk>; FOI VERINT <foi@stockport.gov.uk>; info@reformparty.uk
Subject: External: You haven’t yet confirmed the internal review of your second branding of me as vexatious.

Dear Ms Bates

I am Tweeting this up in addition to the other website pages about Padden Brook, which are being viewed a lot every day and for a sustained period of time.  Someone out there is gathering evidence I suspect.  393 views yesterday in addition to 112 for the toxic waste dump primary school corruption.  If anyone needs me to change anything on the Padden Brook page, please let me know with supporting evidence.  Ed Davey is going to look into bent Reform Councils.  Pot/kettle.

https://sheilaoliver.org/is-it-libdem-planning-corruption-again-.html

I need to you to confirm that I have requested an internal review.  Remember when I complained bitterly and repeatedly about the local councillors and you pretended you had received no complaint from me.

Kind regards

Sheila

EIR Internal Review Request Reference: IR 101007866729 Request Reference: EIR 101007834786 Dear Applicant, We have received and logged your request for an internal review following our response to your information request which was treated as a request submitted under the Environmental Information Regulation (EIR) 2004. Please quote your reference number in any correspondence. In accordance with Regulation 11 of the EIR 2004, we will carry out an internal review of the request to determine whether we have complied with the requirements of the regulations. In accordance with Chapter XII, Section 63, of the Code of Practice on the discharge of the obligations of public authorities under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, we will aim to respond to your internal review request within 40 working days from the day of receipt. We look forward to being in contact with you again in the near future in response to your request for an internal review. Kind regards, Freedom of Information Officer Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Dear Mrs Oliver

Thank you for your email – apologies for the slight delay; I have been on leave.

Emma Curle or myself or one of Emma’s team will come back to you as soon as possible.

Kind regards

Vicki Bates

(She/Her)

Assistant Director – 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: 21 May 2025 18:56
To: Vicki Bates (Legal) <vicki.bates@stockport.gov.uk>; Michael Cullen <michael.cullen@stockport.gov.uk>; Emma Curle <emma.curle@stockport.gov.uk>
Cc: Leader <leader@stockport.gov.uk>; Zoe Allan <zoe.allan@stockport.gov.uk>; Cllr Angie Clark <cllr.angie.clark@stockport.gov.uk>; Cllr Mark Roberts <cllr.mark.roberts@stockport.gov.uk>; Cllr Rachel Bresnahan <cllr.rachel.bresnahan@stockport.gov.uk>; info@reformparty.uk
Subject: Subject: Urgent Inquiry Regarding Planning Application for Tree Works – Concerns Over Process and Transparency

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

Subject: Urgent Inquiry Regarding Planning Application for Tree Works – Concerns Over Process and Transparency

Dear Monitoring Officer,

I am writing to formally raise concerns regarding a planning application related to the felling or removal of trees, which was previously withdrawn due to an incorrect location being submitted, but is now reportedly due to be decided shortly.

To date, I am unable to locate any current or resubmitted version of this application on the council’s online planning portal. As a concerned resident, I am extremely alarmed that such a decision may be taken without proper public visibility, consultation, or transparency, particularly given the serious nature of tree works and the issues surrounding the original misrepresentation of the site location.

Could you please urgently clarify the following:

1. What is the current status of this application? Has a new or revised application been validly submitted?
2. Why is there no public listing of this application on the planning portal if a decision is imminent?
3. Has public consultation occurred in accordance with statutory planning procedure?
4. Given the circumstances, will the council defer or suspend the decision until due process is fully followed?

If the application is being processed or decided in the absence of proper publication and public consultation, I respectfully request that it be withdrawn or postponed until such procedures are correctly undertaken. I also wish to register my formal objection to any decision being made under these conditions.

I would appreciate a prompt response given the reported timing of the decision.  I am copying this email to Reform, as I am trying to keep them updated on all the wrongdoing at Stockport Council.  I may, of course, have the wrong end of the stick, but I can’t see any planning application currently for Howard Close, SK6.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila

Not the excellent, pleasant and helpful Greta Gleeson, though. What is she doing at Stockport Council? She will never fit in.

Tue 24/06/2025 09:28

Dear Ms Oliver,

Apologies if this email is duplication or for the time it has taken to respond.

I am afraid that land at Padden Brook is not owned by the Council and therefore we would not hold any records for this land.

I appreciate that the information you require is needed to the Land Registry, but they should be able to provide advice on any privately owned land and a link to their website is as follows:

HM Land Registry – GOV.UK

Kind regards,

Estates

---

From: Greta Gleeson <greta.gleeson@stockport.gov.uk>
Sent: 11 March 2025 12:54
To: Estate & Asset Management CSS <EstateMGMT@stockport.gov.uk>
Cc: sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com <sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com>
Subject: Query

Hi,

Ms Sheila Oliver has called into reception to request how she finds a reference number for Padden Brook in SK6 (Bromley) so that she can register a covenant with the land registry. It is protected amenity land and local wildlife site and it has a covenant on it and she needs to register it with the land registry and therefore requires a reference from the council. The o/s ref is sj93519071. Please could you reply directly to Ms Oliver at sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com.

Regards,

Greta Gleeson

Civic Visitor Experience Manager

Stopford House

Place Directorate

Stockport SMBC