Blog Image

Stockport Council News

It is not vexatious under the FOIA to act in the public interest.

Andrew Webb, CYPD, Anwar Majothi, Barry Khan, Common Purpose, Eamonn Boylan, Environmental vandalism, Exasperated residents, Fir Tree Primary School, Freedom of Information, Ged Lucas, Information Commissioner, LibDem Councillor Mark Hunter, LibDem Councillors, Lisa Smart LibDem PPC, More loss of green space, North Reddish Primary School, Senior council officers, SMBC Complaints Dept, SMBC FOI, Steve Houston, SMBC, Stockport Council Meetings, Stunell MP, Vale View School, Vicki Bates, Monitoring Officer, Stockport Council Posted on Tue, July 08, 2025 08:53

Dear Ms Bates

Below is detailed some of the contact I have had with Stockport Council regarding the still gassing, toxic waste dump primary school, over an aquifer draining into a fishing pond, deliberately built too small causing a loss to the council taxpayer, creating a lethal traffic situation leading to the police complaining immediately it opened, illegally developing a recreation ground, ignoring a 625,000 pound Sport England planning condition and from which circa 6 million pounds went AWOL.

Below is my evidence that at all times I was acting in the public interest.  Acting in the public interest is never vexatious.  You don’t have to read them all – pick some at random and you will see they were all valid requests.  Perhaps you could supply me with any evidence you have that I was acting with vexatious intent.

To ban council questions under the FOIA was done purely to cover up council fraud and abuses.  The questions weren’t asked under the FOIA.

so they could build housing on the site

and it turned out to be brown asbestos, particularly lethal which has been left on the site, and it is vexatious of me to say this

Yours

Sheila Oliver

Local Authority Specialist Researcher
Citizens 2022 Committee

From: Vicki Bates (Legal) [mailto:vicki.bates@stockport.gov.uk]
Sent: 07 July 2025 20:03
To: ‘Sheila Oliver’
Cc: Data Protection
Subject: RE: External: You could well be struck off due to your actions with regards to the planning corruption at the still gassing toxic waste dump school

Dear Mrs Oliver

Thank you for your further email.

As per my email just now to you and the ICO – please could you confirm what questions you were prevented from asking at committee/council meetings?

You will recall that your questions around Vale View Primary were deemed vexatious through both the FOI legislation and the council’s Unacceptable Actions by Complainants Policy.

I am now on leave until 21 July 2025 and your emails will not be responded to during that time.

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: 04 July 2025 09:14
To: Vicki Bates (Legal) <vicki.bates@stockport.gov.uk>
Cc: Leader <leader@stockport.gov.uk>; Michael Cullen <michael.cullen@stockport.gov.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>; enquiries <enquiries@lisasmart.org.uk>; Liz Sykes <liz.sykes@stockport.gov.uk>
Subject: External: You could well be struck off due to your actions with regards to the planning corruption at the still gassing toxic waste dump school

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

Many times I gave you evidence of multi £m planning corruption regarding the Vale View School.  You blocked access to documents.  I told you it was illegal to block council meeting questions under the FOIA. I kept every shred of evidence over 20 years.

You need to make sure you start to act within the law regarding Padden Brook, despite the desired corruption of other parties within the council on this matter.

I am very annoyed.  Don’t annoy me any further.

Sheila

Law Society (SRA) Record

I found Victoria Alice Bates (likely the same as “Vicki Bates”) registered as an In‑House Solicitor at Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council:

This confirms she is a qualified solicitor, meeting the statutory requirement for her role as Monitoring Officer.



I doubt Vicki Bates, Monitoring Officer, will comply with this. Padden Brook and Hatherlow Sunday School prove the point.

Environmental vandalism, Exasperated residents, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, LibDem Councillors, Lisa Smart LibDem PPC, More loss of green space, Padden Brook, Senior council officers, SMBC FOI Posted on Mon, July 07, 2025 07:16

When Stockport Council agreed in November 2024 to “tackle developer blight on the community,” it likely referred to a set of policy changes, enforcement efforts, and planning reforms aimed at addressing the negative effects caused by developers who:

  • Leave land or buildings unused after demolition or partial construction,
  • Fail to complete developments in a timely manner,
  • Disregard planning conditions, such as green space or community facilities,
  • Neglect property maintenance, causing visual and social decline in neighbourhoods.

💥 What “Developer Blight” Typically Includes

In practical terms, “developer blight” refers to:

  • Eyesores like unfinished buildings or derelict lots,
  • Broken planning promises (e.g., missing schools, parks, or sports facilities),
  • Long delays between planning approval and actual delivery,
  • Neglect of social, environmental or heritage considerations,
  • Disruption to local residents during extended development phases.

🛠️ What Tackling It Could Mean in Practice

Here’s how a council like Stockport might act on this pledge:

1. Stronger Enforcement

  • Use of Section 215 Notices (Town and Country Planning Act) to compel developers to tidy up unsightly land or buildings.
  • Increased planning condition monitoring, with fines or stop notices for non-compliance.
  • Naming developers who breach terms (“rogue developer” policies).

2. Developer Bonds or Deposits

  • Require performance bonds—money held in escrow until projects are completed to agreed standards.
  • Penalise developers financially for excessive delays or abandonment.

3. Tighter Planning Agreements (Section 106)

  • Stricter legal obligations on developers to deliver agreed community benefits (e.g., playgrounds, green infrastructure, affordable housing).
  • Deadlines for each stage of delivery built into contracts.

4. Public-Private Accountability

  • Publicly tracking developers’ performance on planning portals or dashboards.
  • More regular updates to councillors and residents about major schemes.

5. Reclaim or Repurpose Land

  • Use Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) to take back unused sites and bring them into productive public or community use.
  • Work with housing associations or community land trusts to develop stalled plots.

6. Community Empowerment

  • Increased rights for residents to report breaches or delays.
  • Transparency about developer contributions and planning gain spending.

🧭 Why This Matters in Stockport

Stockport has a history of controversy over:

  • Missing community sports facilities promised in development agreements,
  • Contaminated land (e.g., Harcourt Street/brickworks sites),
  • Allegations of vexatious treatment of residents raising planning concerns,
  • Delays and incomplete delivery in urban regeneration projects.

This motion could signal a shift toward greater accountability and pro-resident enforcement.


🔍 Summary

Tackling “developer blight” means confronting practices that harm local environments and trust—by holding developers to account and protecting community interests. It’s a blend of enforcement, transparency, policy tightening, and possibly reclaiming neglected sites.

Here’s the exact motion passed at the Council Meeting on 21 November 2024 regarding tackling developer blight:


🗳️ Motion Details

“The council calls for more powers to tackle the neglect and blight on our communities caused by private developers. We believe amendments to the laws relating to compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) and blighted land are required, to:

  • Give councils greater powers to take over ownership of derelict land and property which has become a blight on the local community;
  • Make CPOs cheaper to administer, simpler to implement and faster to progress;
  • Change the emphasis with CPOs, the legal requirement should be placed on a site’s owner to demonstrate progression of a scheme, thereby reducing the costs to local authorities;
  • Consider increased taxation to tackle problems where blight and anti‑social behaviour occur, the government could enable the funds raised to be used to facilitate construction of new homes;
  • Enable councils to convert affected land into community assets, which they can retain, or dispose of for the construction of housing.

The motion also asked the Chief Executive to write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Mayor of Greater Manchester highlighting:


🛠️ What This Means in Practice

Here’s how the Council aims to translate this motion into action:

  1. Stronger CPO powers – The Council is pushing for legal reform to make compulsory purchase quicker, cheaper, and easier for publicly neglected or derelict private sites.
  2. Responsibility shift onto developers – If developers don’t actively progress construction, they must legally demonstrate why, or face faster CPOs initiated by the Council.
  3. Tax incentives or penalties – Exploring taxation, potentially on unused or unsightly sites, with proceeds channelled into community-led development or housing projects.
  4. Community reuse schemes – Councils could take control of blighted sites to convert them into public assets (parks, community centres) or lay groundwork for affordable homes.
  5. Advocacy at regional/national level – By formally writing to ministers and the Mayor, the Council is seeking broader legislative and funding powers to support these measures.

🔍 Why It Matters for Stockport

Stockport has encountered several problematic developments:

  • Contaminated or derelict sites, like the Harcourt Street brickworks plot.
  • Unfulfilled planning obligations, e.g. missing community sports facilities.
  • Abandoned construction sites, creating prolonged disruption or visual deterioration.

This motion empowers the Council to proactively address these issues—demanding both:

  • Immediate action via local CPOs, enforcement, and accountability, and
  • Systemic reform by lobbying for expanded legal tools and funding.

✅ Next Steps

  • The Chief Executive’s letter to government and regional bodies will establish Stockport’s formal position and request legislative backing.
  • Keep an eye out for Council updates or press releases, which might mention:
    • New CPOs initiated,
    • Enforcement actions (e.g., Section 215 notices),
    • Budgeting for site conversions or community asset projects.
  • Follow any upcoming consultations or local plans, where public engagement will shape how these powers are applied.


Lisa Smart and Angela Clark – not fit to hold public office.

Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, LibDem Councillors, Lisa Smart LibDem PPC, Polluted Land, SMBC FOI, Vale View School Posted on Sat, July 05, 2025 14:12

If a councillor becomes aware of financial irregularities at their council, they have a legal and ethical duty to act promptly and responsibly. Here’s what they must and should do:


1. Report it Immediately

The councillor must report the issue through appropriate channels:

a. Internal Reporting

  • Chief Finance Officer (Section 151 Officer) – Legally responsible for the council’s financial integrity under the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
  • Monitoring Officer – Responsible for ensuring legality and ethical conduct under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
  • Head of Internal Audit – If one exists, they can investigate potential fraud or irregularities.

b. External Reporting (if internal route is ineffective or inappropriate)

  • External Auditor (e.g. Grant Thornton, Mazars): Councillors can raise concerns with the body appointed to audit the council.
  • Local Government Ombudsman – For concerns involving maladministration.
  • Police – If there is evidence of fraud or criminal wrongdoing.
  • National Fraud Initiative (in the UK) or relevant anti-corruption bodies.

2. Follow Whistleblowing Procedures

  • Use the council’s whistleblowing policy. Most councils have formal processes in place to protect those reporting wrongdoing.
  • Councillors are typically protected under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) if they raise concerns in good faith.

3. Maintain Confidentiality

  • Do not share the details publicly unless formally permitted.
  • Avoid accusations without evidence—focus on facts, not speculation.

4. Document Everything

  • Keep written records of what was seen/heard, when, and any steps taken.
  • This helps in case of future investigations or legal scrutiny.

5. Seek Legal or Ethical Advice (if needed)

  • From the council’s Monitoring Officer or an independent legal adviser.
  • Local Government Association (LGA) or Standards Committees may also offer support.

⚖️ Why It Matters:

Councillors have a fiduciary duty to protect public funds and uphold integrity in public service. Failure to act on financial irregularities can lead to:

  • Personal liability (in cases of gross negligence)
  • Breach of the councillor Code of Conduct
  • Reputational damage or loss of office


The only kind of response I ever got from my lazy, useless LibDem MP Lisa Smart

Environmental vandalism, Exasperated residents, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, LibDem Councillor Mark Hunter, LibDem Councillors, Lisa Smart LibDem PPC, Padden Brook, Senior council officers, SMBC FOI Posted on Sat, July 05, 2025 10:37

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 offical 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: Padden Brook landowner again trying to stop me feeding the badgers on the publc footpath. He means to kill them 20/09/2024 27 KB
Lisa Smart 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 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



Layla Moran not bothered at all about LibDem planning corruption and abuses. She should be.

LibDem Councillors, Lisa Smart LibDem PPC, Senior council officers Posted on Sat, July 05, 2025 10:29

From Subject Received Size
MORAN, Layla Not read: If you have any objections to this web post, please let me know with supporting evidence 27/05/2025 23 KB
MORAN, Layla Not read: If you have any objections to this web post, please let me know with supporting evidence 27/05/2025 23 KB
MORAN, Layla Not read: If you have any objections to this web post, please let me know with supporting evidence 27/05/2025 23 KB
MORAN, Layla Not read: If you have any objections to this web post, please let me know with supporting evidence 27/05/2025 23 KB
MORAN, Layla Not read: If you have any objections to this web post, please let me know with supporting evidence 27/05/2025 23 KB
MORAN, Layla Not read: If you have any objections to this web post, please let me know with supporting evidence 27/05/2025 23 KB
MORAN, Layla Not read: If you have any objections to this web post, please let me know with supporting evidence 27/05/2025 23 KB
MORAN, Layla Not read: If you have any objections to this web post, please let me know with supporting evidence 27/05/2025 23 KB
MORAN, Layla Not read: If you have any objections to this web post, please let me know with supporting evidence 27/05/2025 23 KB
MORAN, Layla Not read: If you have any objections to this web post, please let me know with supporting evidence 27/05/2025 23 KB
MORAN, Layla Not read: If you have any objections to this web post, please let me know with supporting evidence 27/05/2025 23 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: Now look what you have made me do (Part 3) 07/05/2025 34 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: “Vexatious” for mentionng Padden Brook? Now look what you have made me do (Part 2). 04/05/2025 35 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: EIR Response – 101007834786 LibDem planning corruption (again) 03/05/2025 35 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: EIR Response – 101007834786 02/05/2025 35 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: 826 visits to my Padden Brook website page, mainly from the UK, yesterday alone 28/04/2025 35 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: Now look what you have made me do. 27/04/2025 34 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: Public Question to the Council Meeting 22/04/2025 37 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: Public Question to the Council Meeting 22/04/2025 37 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: Padden Brook and the Chinese Embassy (Tee Hee) 13/04/2025 34 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: Cabinet Meeting – Public Question 11/04/2025 35 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: Cabinet Meeting – Public Question 10/04/2025 35 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: So incensed am I at the deliberate destruction of Padden Brook, I am now sending evidence of corruption, paedophilia and human rights abuses to every LibDem political foe 04/04/2025 35 KB
MORAN, Layla Read: This is why I am making a fuss 03/04/2025 22 KB
MORAN, Layla Not read: This is why I am making a fuss 03/04/2025 22 KB
MORAN, Layla Not read: This is why I am making a fuss 03/04/2025 22 KB
MORAN, Layla Not read: This is why I am making a fuss 03/04/2025 22 KB
MORAN, Layla Not read: This is why I am making a fuss 03/04/2025 22 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: This is why I am making a fuss 03/04/2025 34 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: EIR Response – 101007832800 02/04/2025 34 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: EIR Response – 101007832800 02/04/2025 34 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: EIR Response – 101007832800 02/04/2025 34 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: Tree destruction application still says Padden Brook Mews and not Howard Close 01/04/2025 35 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: Padden Brook false location deliberately put on application 31/03/2025 35 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: Padden Brook false location deliberately put on application 31/03/2025 34 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: Just a reminder of what the bent Romiley LibDems have allowed to be destroyed 27/03/2025 35 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: EIR Response – 101007784833 27/03/2025 34 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: Question for the next cabinet meeting 27/03/2025 34 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: Question for the next Werneth Area Committee 27/03/2025 34 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: A further potential threat to parking for The Spread 25/03/2025 34 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: This is not Padden Brook Mews, this is Howard Close 25/03/2025 34 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: Padden Brook (again) 24/03/2025 34 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: Padden Brook (again) sigh 24/03/2025 34 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: Response to question submitted to Werneth Area Committee 21/03/2025 36 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: Sorry to bother you again 18/03/2025 34 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: Cutting of branches of protected trees in bird nesting season 14/03/2025 34 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: EIR request Padden Brook 05/03/2025 34 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: External: RE: Complaint about councillors 05/03/2025 35 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: The landowner claims he is going to build housing 04/03/2025 34 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: Complaint about councillors 04/03/2025 34 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: I told dozy Cllr Angela Clark on day 1 she should look into this bulldozing of unstable land holding up 24 houses, and the council is responsible for the upkeep of the road they are on. We are now on day 202 and nothing has been done. 04/03/2025 36 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: I am not getting any representation from my LibDem councillors. May I reduce my council tax accordingly 01/03/2025 35 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: FoI request 23/02/2025 34 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: Could you please inform Angela Clark/Mark Roberts of this 21/02/2025 34 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: Bulldozing close to badgers on legally protected amenity land 21/02/2025 34 KB
MORAN, Layla RE: Not read: Potentially huge liability claim against Stockport Council 09/01/2025 35 KB



Stockport Council again screams vexatious to cover up their planning corruption.

Environmental vandalism, Exasperated residents, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, LibDem Councillor Mark Hunter, LibDem Councillors, Lisa Smart LibDem PPC, Padden Brook, Senior council officers, SMBC FOI Posted on Sat, July 05, 2025 09:37

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 



Liz Sykes claimed I was vexatious. Not a conscientious council officer then.

Environmental vandalism, Exasperated residents, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, LibDem Councillor Mark Hunter, LibDem Councillors, Lisa Smart LibDem PPC, More loss of green space, Padden Brook, Senior council officers Posted on Sat, July 05, 2025 09:25
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


A developer citing a false location circa a quarter of a mile away is no problem for Monitoring Officer at Stockport Vicki Bates. It should have been.

Environmental vandalism, Exasperated residents, Information Commissioner, LibDem Councillor Mark Hunter, LibDem Councillors, Lisa Smart LibDem PPC, Padden Brook, Senior council officers, SMBC FOI Posted on Sat, July 05, 2025 09:19

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



Next »