Blog Image

Stockport Council News

Padden Brook

LibDem Councillor Mark Hunter, LibDem Councillors, Lisa Smart LibDem PPC, 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.”



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 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



My complaint to the Lords Standards Commissioner regarding Lord Goddard

LibDem Councillors, Lisa Smart LibDem PPC Posted on Thu, October 03, 2024 16:29

Dear Lords Standards

I wish to draw your attention to the actions of Lord Goddard when he was Leader of Stockport Council.  I understand that you may not be able to act on events prior to his becoming a Lord but this may apply:-

“If the complaint is about something that happened before their elevation, the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards may not have jurisdiction to investigate it, unless the behaviour has ongoing consequences or impacts their conduct as a peer.”  I believe it is unsuitable for him to contribute to the legal process in this country, given he has done so much to undermine both it and the resources of the police/courts/CPS and probation service.

The issue is regarding sick, innocent Mr Parnell RIP, who adopted two young girls who had had a terrible time with their birth parents.  At first they were getting excellent help from After Adoption, set up by the family of Lord James Timpson.  That help stopped, but Stockport Council was given a large amount of money from After Adoption to carry on this service – £60,000 I believe.  After 10 years of asking Stockport Council for counselling for his daughters, Mr Parnell stood on the Town Hall steps, sometimes night and day, until he got help for his family.  After a while the  Council started having him arrested for crimes such as using the town hall loo, which he had written permission from the Chief Executive to do, trying to leave a council meeting before the end, or the ludicrous assault with a sneeze.  The Council had CCTV showing this hadn’t happened, but Goddard and the Council refused to allow it to be shown at his magistrates’ trial.

Mr Parnell was arrested several times a day sometimes for offences such as trying to ask a council meeting question. I used to beg the councillors and police to stop.   The Bobbies sometimes listened; the councillors never did.  These are documents from some of his arrests/custodies/imprisonments:-

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

Lord Goddard and this LibDem Executive Councillors are shown in the Council Log asking if they can stop him protesting:-

Goddard sent me the email below and a CPS copy of Mr Parnell’s bail notice.  How did he get hold of a CPS copy of a bail notice and why send it to me?  At the time Stockport Council wouldn’t accept Mr Parnell’s letter of authority to act on his behalf. Did Goddard commit a Data Protection offence?

The John  Smith mentioned in the Council log above was a LibDem Executive Councillor and former Greater Manchester policeman and Council law enforcement officer.  It would appear that he was also a paedophile:

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

There were actually 2 out of 8 Stockport LibDem Executive Councillors who were caught paedophiles:

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/sex-case-councillor-in-jail-threat-1165951

Mr Parnell was constantly being told to call the police to his daughters, who were going off the rails.  He couldn’t understand why he was being told to do that when he was trying his best to help them.  I assume the paedophile Smith, being a former policeman and GM Police having a justifiably appalling reputation, would have had access to the girls following their arrest.  Mr Parnell never had his daughters arrested.

Mr Parnell was constantly in custody, under arrest or in prison.  He was a sick man yet he wasn’t allowed to attend a medical appointment and was not allowed to contact his solicitor without their permission:

The Chair of the Magistrates, Shan Alexander,  was also a LibDem Executive Councillor and herself narrowly escaped a prison sentence :

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/ex-mayor-pleads-guilty-over-crash-936629

Mr Parnell had Barrett’s Oesophagus, a pre-cancerous condition made worse by stress.  He was crying when he told me he had an operation booked for Stage 4 cancer at the  Christie Hospital in Manchester, but he was being taken to court on the same day by Goddard’s council for council tax arrears he didn’t owe.  He told me if he didn’t attend court they would take him back to prison, despite the fact that they knew he had terminal cancer.  On the day his operation was cancelled due to lack of a surgeon, he attended court and the case was thrown out in 10 minutes.

I suppose you will tell me that you can’t act, but Goddard having orchestrated the above, is not a suitable person to hold any public office.  I attach an email from Greater Manchester Police sent to me following Mr Parnell’s death at 58 admitting he had been completely innocent.

Kind regards

Sheila



No reply to this yet as of 8/4/24

Lisa Smart LibDem PPC, SMBC FOI, Vale View School Posted on Mon, April 08, 2024 10:10

Councillor Lisa Smart/Councillor Angela Clark
Stockport Town Hall
Edward Street
Stockport
SK1 3XE
By Recorded Delivery

Thursday, 01 February 2024

Dear Councillor Smart/Clark

You undertook at the full council meeting at Stockport Town Hall on 4th October 2023 to represent me.  My questions have been erroneously branded as being vexatious by Stockport Council from the last time it was under Liberal Democrat control.  It was claimed that I had been rude and offensive.  The Information Commissioner decided that I had not been rude and offensive, but was asking too many questions.   I have that evidence, as does Stockport Council.  The Council has no evidence of my ever having been rude or offensive.   I need you to examine the relevant evidence yourself and decide if the questions were rude, offensive, wasting councillor/officer time or in the interests of public safety or the public purse.  I draw your attention to the relevant government advice, which was in place at the time these questions were first raised:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/armchair-auditors-are-here-to-stay

Your reply to me, when it was finally extracted from you, was ludicrous to say the least.  Because this took place in a different part of Stockport you can’t help me?  You promised to represent me – I live in your ward.  The offences were committed by LibDem Executive councillors, some of whom are now back in control of the council.

Financial Irregularities (Part 1)

I was branded vexatious by then LibDem run Stockport Council for raising the issue of financial irregularities.  In October 2005 the Vale View School was said to be costing £5.5million, by December 2005 it had gone up to £7.5 million.  By July 2006 the costs had risen to £8.2million, £2.40 million over budget.  It then rose shortly afterwards to £10 million Why was it considered vexatious of me to raise these matters?

I look forward to your reply.  I shall send this by snail mail as well, so you can’t claim you haven’t received it.

We don’t need another MP happy to turn a blind eye to the corruption of their political cohorts.

Yours

Sheila Oliver



Are LibDem Councillors Smart/Clark willfully blind to LibDem corruption?

LibDem Councillors, Lisa Smart LibDem PPC, North Reddish Primary School, SMBC FOI, Vale View School, Vicki Bates, Monitoring Officer, Stockport Council Posted on Sat, December 02, 2023 07:45

They promised in the full council meeting of 4th of October that they would represent me. No response yet to this letter to them.

Councillor Lisa Smart/Councillor Angela Clark
Stockport Town Hall
Edward Street
Stockport
SK1 3XE

Date 10/10/2023

Dear Councillor Smart/Clark

You undertook at the full council meeting at Stockport Town Hall on 4th October 2023 to represent me.  My questions have been erroneously branded as being vexatious by Stockport Council from the last time it was under Liberal Democrat control.  It was claimed that I had been rude and offensive.  The Information Commissioner decided that I had not been rude and offensive, but was asking too many questions.   I have that evidence, as does Stockport Council.  The Council has no evidence of my ever having been rude or offensive.   I need you to examine the relevant evidence yourself and decide if the questions were rude, offensive, wasting councillor/officer time or in the interests of public safety or the public purse.  I draw your attention to the relevant government advice, which was in place at the time these questions were first raised:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/armchair-auditors-are-here-to-stay

It is an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 to act deliberately to cause someone (in this instance the council taxpayer) a loss.

Section 2 – Fraud by False Representation It is an offence to commit fraud by false representation. The representation must be made dishonestly. The person must make the representation with the intention of making a gain or causing loss or risk of loss to another.

  1.  You are building the Vale View School too small deliberately, I told Stockport Council.  Your question is vexatious and you are wasting our valuable time with your constant questions, they replied.

My question to the full council meeting – deemed vexatious.

  • But the Council knew in April 2006 that the school was being built too small, so why was my council meeting question on the subject deemed vexatious in February 2008?
  • The birthrate in the area was rising sharply.

The Council stated in the minutes of a meeting on 26th April 2006 that 555 pupils needed a place at Vale View School, so the above FOI response would appear to be incorrect – also an offence to give an untrue response.

  • On 10th of March 2006 the Council knew the school was being built too small.  “I stress the need for confidentiality.”
  • After the school opened it was admitted that a share of 81 million pounds would have to be spent on school places including North Reddish.

I look forward to your decision as to whether this was well-researched questioning about which nothing was done, or my being a nuisance to busy and important council officers and councillors.  It is a simple matter for you to read through this evidence.  There will be no need to drag this out over weeks and months and I look forward to your response with interest.

Yours

Sheila Oliver

c.c. Councillor David Meller

Town Hall

Stockport

SK1 3XE



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



Having caused the problems for local people over years, the LibDems then try to take the Credit.

LibDem Councillors, Lisa Smart LibDem PPC, Offerton Precinct Posted on Mon, May 10, 2021 17:26

Meikle, Stunneybuns, Smart and Goddard. Their brass neck is astounding.



Cllr Lisa Smart pointing at a pothole.

Lisa Smart LibDem PPC Posted on Mon, May 10, 2021 16:56


Next »