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 by Sheila OliverPosted 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.

The contamination was stockpiled – it shouldn’t have been – it should have been investigated in situ.
Lord Goddard – Secret Meeting to hand over another £750,000 of your money
Sale of Fir Tree School Land
“Vexatious” to even mention this apparently.
Question to the Elusive Mr Khan
Councillor Derbyshire says this is “vexatious”
Stockport Council lies to Secretary of State about objections to CPO received
I am still waiting…..
And on with the details of dodgyness
“Obvious concern over funding” but Majothi considers mentioning this “vexatious”
Majothi branded me “vexatious” for raising this matter
FOI Issues
And still Hill refuses to respond over the £344 map requested of me
And the “irregularities” continue
“Obvious concern over funding” but it was “vexatious” of me to raise this issue!
Aspirations continue to exceed budget provision, but I was “vexatious” for mentioning this. Dodgy!
Goddard, Weldon, Khan, Scullion et al – covering up fraud
My “vexatious” decision – a scandal
All Executive councillors made fully aware constantly of the dodgy goings on
Why this Council is liable for massive mesothelioma damages claims
As Built Health and Safety Files
Capita – never heard from Neil Atkinson again
Will they bother to monitor the dangerous landfill gases on the school site? Will they ‘eck as like!
Dodgy consultation exercise – do the LibDems ever do anything else?
The “fair” vexatious policy with no appeal process
Useless waste of space – Stunell
An answer, of sorts, but why from the Enforcement Section?
Stunell provided with evidence of fraud by his political cohorts
Does Council Solicitor Khan ever reply to anybody?
Strange that!
They won’t allow anyone to ask questions about Vale View
Lord Goddard. The Reason The North Reddish School was not advertised publicly!
Executive Councillors banning questions about road safety as vexatious as of 21/10/13
Lack of school places to cost us £81m, so why deliberately build Vale View School too small
Lack of school places to cost us £81m, so why deliberately build Vale View School too small
Questions for Executive Council Meeting 17/12
Vale View Lighning Protection System
A Councillor who killed someone with her car feels a question about road safety is “vexatious”
Alarm at rising costs of toxic waste dump school
LibDem Dodgyness
Councillor Paul Victor Kraus Porgess
Follow the money!
April 2008 the £5.5m school is now £9.94m
Council tells Secretary of State Harcourt Street was not open space, what was it then?
Brand new school needs safety remedial work and it is vexatious to ask about it!
Sigh, Khan again – glad he is going
Mr Majothi’s line manager, Mr Adrian Moores, wants a quiet life
Traffic problems at Vale View
SMBC’s planning solution to the traffic problems at Vale View can’t be implemented due to dodgy actions by SMBC
Lies about the Vale View Public Playing Fields
Gas venting the the primary school – let’s not bother eh?
Internal Council auditor happy for £millions to go AWOL
Incompetence and worse regarding traffic planning for primary school
More LibDem dodgyness
LibDem dodgyness abounds!
Clear as mud – School Organisation Committee
What we paid for Vale View School – February 2014
Only “vexatious” where no public interest can be demonstrated
Adrian Moores – not me guv
The primary school site was entirely contaminated and SMBC knew that.
Did Steve Houston ever respond? Guess.
Stockport’s Finance Director never replied to this either
Mr Steve Houston, Director of Finance SMBC
Discrepancy of several £m, but vexatious to question it
The culprits who ignore children’s safety.
Incompetence of the Senior Highways Officer
“GMGU considers the site safe to develop” but it wasn’t.
Why wasn’t the Executive Cllr for Finance questioning this? Why just me?
Even one fibre of asbestos (but not at the toxic waste dump school)
Never trust a LibDem with children’s safety
Vexatious to dare question LibDems re safety
BAM Construction at toxic waste dump school
BS 10175 not complied with
Experts who messed up left in charge
Forced to look for contamination properly, but they didn’t deal with it properly
Eventually they were forced to look for contamination properly
No safety issues to be allowed for the proposed primary school
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – then funded by councils
Asset Management Plan for Vale View – pie in the sky
Contamination Report
FOIA Code of Practice
Whopping lies by Stockport Council Director
The school was going at the top of the site – all the contamination trial pits were dug at the bottom.
LibDems are bounced by Contaminated Land Protection Officer into carrying out more investigations at the site.
Three planning applications refused in 1974 due to contamination, but LibDems don’t care
LibDems put kids’ primary school on toxic waste
Rachel Roswell is fine with the financial issues. Should she have been?
Rising School Costs
Capital receipts of £6,679,000 shrink to £1.6m
Why are we still paying architects fees of £130,000 after the school has opened?
Suddenly they find the extra millions – where from?
The stalling tactics the LibDems employ
They choose a figure of £1450m2
I tried to question the errant £2.4m to no avail
“Obvious concern over funding”
Costs then rise to £10m. Why? Vexatious to ask apparently.
Oct 05 £5.5m, December 05, £7.5m Why? Vexatious to mention it apparently
Fraud Act 2006
LibDem Corruption in Planning??
Asbestos and damages liability
209 trial pits and 104 boreholes at the Adswood Sister Site
Sister sites treated so differently
July 2006 cost of school £2.4m over available funding
They didn’t bother to investigate under the football pitch, so have not complied with BS 10175
Gas boreholes deliberately sunk not over the actual old tip
The old tip – just where the school was put
Excellent local MP even mentions the contamination on the site in Parliament
Birchfield Drive – Is this in store for North Reddish too?
I have written to the Chair and Board of Sport England
Money spent on Vale View School so far
Majothi needs to set the record straight
Sustainable drainage system Vale View School
Famous Alan Dransfield on Khan’s case
Anyone who asks about the toxic waste dump school is deemed “vexatious”
Further snippets
Lord Goddard. Letter to Eamonn Boylan, Chief Executive, Stockport Council
Lord Goddard. No for sale sign
Andrew Gwynne looking into why Harcourt Street Recreation Ground land is being fenced off
Drainage, Harcourt Street Field
Contamination report
What the Council should be doing on FOI
Lib Dem Councillors do listen to the public? No, they don’t
Roberts says I am vexatious to raise this issue. Why?
They never listen, they just bulldoze through illegalities
Dodgy, dodgy, dodgy
Hill never provided evidence that other village green applicants were asked to pay £344 for a £5 map, like I was
Refusing to accept a village green application – not legal!
How did SMBC get away will oppression and illegality to this degree?
Sigh, yet more LibDem dodgyness
Documenting the dodgyness
More dirty tricks from Stockport Council endangering the lives of young children
Dirty tricks regarding the compulsory purchase of the Harcourt Street land
Dirty tricks by SMBC regarding the village green application
Lord Goddard. Please don’t knock down our nursery

so they could build housing on the site

Fraud by false representation
No response from Majothi over failure to comply with fraud policy
Still ignoring the Fraud and Financial Irregularities Policy
Risk Register – more evidence of corruption
Defamation of people who stand up to them; well it’s better than being imprisoned which can also happen
Fraud and Financial Irregularities Policy
Corruption in planning – public hostility to this dangerous proposal
“Vexatious” to have asked how they propose to monitor the landfill gas from a school site?
Dodgy consultation exercise (another one!)
In the end they were £6million short, as I predicted
How Stockport Silences Dissent
Worried about contamination and missing £ms? Don’t be vexatious.
My Appeal to Mr John Schulz (stoney ground)
No public open space is safe in LibDem Stockport
Compare and contrast how SMBC treats contamination when they do and when they don’t stand to make money
Eventually I forced an explanation out of them for the massive rise in costs
£5.5m to £9.9m and it is vexatious to ask why
The more sensitive contamination receptors (but not kids of non-LibDem voting parents eh)?
Is there going to be ongoing monitoring for the toxic waste dump school? Don’t be vexatious Sheila
I’m banned from asking about longterm financial implications. Vexatious
Why didn’t they just do proper contamination investigations at the outset?
When local people forced them, they did half-hearted contamination investigations
Local people forced them to do contamination investigations
School site contamination investigations did not comply with BS10175
If the lying LibDems had complied with BS 10175, they would have found the contamination at the outset.
Safety Standards Tank Under LibDems
Majothi said this was “vexatious”
Offence under the Fraud Act 2006
“Vexatious” to ask why there are no replacement playing fields.
Mr Majothi says “vexatious” to ask this too
Mr Majothi, who branded me “vexatious”
Back in 2006 they knew the school would be too small. Why build it then?
Slapped on the legs by Herr von Schulz
“Sports facilities for community use”. Where are they then?
More traffic problems for residents, but they don’t vote LibDem, so who cares?
Traffic problems for residents, but “vexatious” to mention it
Meeting with Cllr Weldon and Donna Sager to show them school site contaminated
It is even in the newspaper, but “vexatious” of me to mention it and it still is
I had told him so many times about the financial irregularities he called me “vexatious”
Bigger, cheaper school years down the line
£6.9m was to come from the sale of redundant land. In the end only £1.6m did
It is impossible to raise financial irregularities at Stockport Council
Former Leader Lord Goddard says I have failed to provide details. I had done so dozens of times
“Obvious concern over funding”, but I am still “vexatious” for raising the matter
By March 2008 the cost was £10m. Why? Vexatious to ask
5 months later the cost is £8.2m. Why? Vexatious to ask
£5.5m to £7.5m in 2 months. Why? Vexatious to ask
Vexatious to question missing millions of pounds
A hugely expensive, ugly and unsafe primary school
The Toxic Waste Dump School Risk Register
Project Manager of dodgy development investigates herself and declares it “vexatious” to mention.
It is our missing £5m, so why can’t I question the Stockport LibDem Executive?
Suddenly the £2.4m shortfall has disappeared. How? It is “vexatious” to ask
Informing Secretary of State Pickles
And yet more architects fees for NPS for the shoddy school
But I paid NPS architects fees for the Vale View School in 2010 too.
I keep paying NPS architects fees. Why?
Stockport Council Audit Cttee made aware of financial irregularities regarding the school – did nothing though
Costs rise from £5.5m to £10m over 2 pages of a document, yet it is “vexatious” to question this.
There won’t be traffic gridlock, Mrs Oliver. There is traffic gridlock say the police.
School costs risen from £5.5m to £9.94m but vexatious to question it.
Tney knew all along it was too small, so why spend £10m on it?
How much do I pay Steve Houston a year to turn a blind eye to financial irregularities?
Steve Houston should have replied in 10 working days regarding financial irregularities – still waiting 5 years later
No Fraud and Financial Irregularity Policy under Mr Steve Houston
Project Manager telling me there was no concern over funding – Donna Sager
But the school land isn’t selling, I said. Don’t be vexatious they replied and they still do.
£1.8m to be found from prudential borrowing for the school
May 2008 the school is now £9.94m and the £2.4m shortfall has disappeared. How?
Stockport Council’s Fraud and Corruption Policy – not in use
By May 2006 the cost was £8.2m. Why, I asked. Don’t be vexatious, they replied
Don’t ever question the actions of a LibDem
Costs rise from £5.5m to £10m over a few months. Why?
Financial irregularity of £201,750.
Definition of Fraud
Why the hell did the dodgy LibDems go ahead with this scheme? Kerchinnnng.
The Council knew all along about the contamination but tried to pretend it wasn’t there
They did better contamination investigations 30 yrs ago than the corrupt LibDems did for a primary school
In fact, when I showed them this video of the non-removal of brown asbestos they said I was “vexatious”.
At the Adswood site they were worried about asbestos, but not at the primary school site
At the Adswood toxic dump they were worried about Carbon Dioxide – not at the primary school site though.
At a sister site at the same time
In 2004 the local MP and local people made them do contamination investigations – they did one borehole
They knew the land was contaminated but thought they could get away with it.
We were telling the LibDem Executive the site for the school was contaminated
They decided not to look for contamination under the football pitch – most of the site
Chidren shouldn’t be exposed to over 0.5% v/v carbon dioxide for more than 8 hours according to Stockport Council’s experts
Stockport LibDems put new primary on sister toxic waste dump site to this one
£6.9m was to come from capital receipts, in the end only £1.6m did
“Obvious concern over funding” and how much goes before the Project Board
September 2007 they say it will cost £8.5m but by March 2008 it is £9.93m. Why?
I tried really hard
And the corrupt LibDems at Stockport wouldn’t listen
The toxic waste dump site contractors only needed liability insurance of £5m – the same as you need for a market stall
Deadly brown asbestos left in situ and it is “vexatious” to mention this to corrupt LibDems
Concern that the lower level of the tip had not been tested, but not at the primary school site
Concern about the longterm safety of the gases? Not at the primary school toxic waste dump site
Landfill gases being vented out in play areas – no danger of that at the primary school then…
Risk to site users – why take the risk and build a primary school there then?
There remains a danger to building users – why take the risk for a primary school?
This second contamination report found 50% of toxic hotspots – all ignored
Most of the investigation points are not where the toxic waste was known to be
The school went directly over the rubbish infilled claypits
Some of the serious issues raised with Stockport Council over the toxic waste dump school.
GMGU are not experts – why use them then?
Bent Council fails to inform planning committee not to decide application
GMGU complied with national standards on contamination investigation? No, they didn’t or they would have found it the first time
Still, vexatious to mention asbestos to the corrupt LibDem run council

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

Sports facilities available for community use.” Where are they?
Never trust a LibDem with your loved green spaces
The existing formal sports facilities will be retained. Where are they?
Any loss of public open space would have to be compensated elsewhere. Where? None has been provided.
Vital local open space removed illegally in this built up area
The pitch was to be up and running before the school opened.
Again, who trousered the money because there are no facilities there?
Ensuring the recreational facilities at the new school are enhanced significantly for the community.
The site was local open space, so there should have been a public inquiry before its development
There should have been a replacement public football pitch. Where is it?
Stockport LibDems claim it is “vexatious” of me to raise drainage issues
Raising financial irregularities repeatedly with LibDems
“Vexatious” to look into LibDem planning corruption
Council knew primary school site was an old tip, so why no contamination investigations initially?
My complaint to the ghastly Mr Majothi – all ignored
£200k spent on drainage for this project? Corrupt LibDems claim so
No doubt the corrupt Stockport LibDem Executive Councillors will consider this request “vexatious”.
Illegally applying political pressure on councillors to put primary school on still gassing former toxic waste dump
Vexatious to ask corrupt LibDem councillors about drainage issues
Is Stockport Council’s Head of Freedom of Information operating in a corrupt manner?
Jill Barlow at Stockport – blocking information pertaining to fraud
Again, no political pressure put on councillors, no siree
But the boreholes weren’t situated in accordance with national guidelines
LibDems, stroppy or what?
Ex LibDem Councillor Mark Weldon
Midland Rd site/Vale View School
Lethal Stockport LibDems
Stockport LibDems put new school on sister site to this contaminated one
Vicki Bates, Monitoring Officer Stockport Council, says asking questions about missing community facilities is “vexatious”.
Is Vicki Bates, Monitoring Officer at Stockport Council, guilty of offences under the Fraud Act 2006?
Vicki Bates, Stockport Council Monitoring Officer, at ease with financial corruption.
LibDem planning corruption at Stockport – Monitoring Officer fine with this.
Vicki Bates, Stockport Council Monitoring Officer – contamination questions are “vexatious”.
Further attempts to shut me up.
LibDem Executive Councillor Weldon was informed of everything all along and completely ignored all the documentary evidence. Could he, should he run a whelk stand?
Other former Jackson’s brickworks in our area had problems. Of no concern to our very complacent LibDem councillors involved though.
A former Jackson’s brickyard with still gassing, rubbish infilled claypits pre 1970 when no records of what was tipped were kept is a “lovely place to build a school” according to now defenestrated LibDem Councillor Mark Weldon.
They suggested planting prickly bushes to keep primary school children away from lethal contamination. To speak out against this ludicrous option was and is “vexatious” according to LibDem councillors.
It was “vexatious” to ask the suspect Stockport LibDems why contamination investigations had not complied with the required British Standard.
It was “vexatious” to ask the iffy Stockport LibDems why carbon dioxide levels of 14.7%v/v were accepted by them despite their own council guidelines of 0.5%v/v.
When I started asking questions about their suspect planning, the LibDems had to try to shut me up.
You will see from the previous post why the LibDem councillors hated my freedom of information requests -they exposed their dodgy dealing.
The LibDems hadn’t had proper contamination investigations carried out this second time, as there were no investigations on the football pitch, which covered most of the site and was where the new school was going.
LibDem strange behaviour at the still-gassing, toxic waste dump primary school.
Obvious concern over funding – Donna Sagar (DS)to look at other possible funding sources, but she and the LibDem Executive councillors were still claiming my questions on the subject were “vexatious”, and their pals at the Information Commission were not inclined to back down.
Cost in February 2006 £7.5 – £8m. Funds available £5.8m plus another possible £600k.
Strangely, Stockport Council have and do allow me to ask FOIA questions on any subject except the corruption pit that is the toxic waste dump primary school.
Should this proposed school be reconsidered, I asked, in view of the spiraling costs and the fact that no consideration has been given to contamination remediation costs?
Why has the cost of the proposed school gone from £5.5m to £7.5m in just two months, I asked.
The Stockport LibDems and the missing millions of pounds.
The LibDems disturbed brown asbestos fibres (using the bin bag and stick, high tech method of dealing with this lethal substance), and exposed all these people living round about to danger.
LibDem Councillor Weldon sits young children down on a site he knows to be contaminated with lead, arsenic and brown asbestos for a photo op with him. And then he digs into the contamination.
LibDem Councillor Porgess wrote to the Stockport Express citing his standing as a Chartered Chemist to rubbish my assertion that the site was contaminated.
After all my efforts to get the contamination removed, I fell at the last fence.
The Environment Agency told them to do more contamination investigations, which even then they didn’t do.
They were the children of non-LibDem voting parents, so who cared?
I tried so hard to make them understand what a contaminated site this was for the school. Not once did they listen.
Traffic lunacy at the very outset for the new toxic waste dump primary school.
Drainage problems at the new toxic dump primary school site.
Missing Sports Facilities – £650,000 Sport England planning condition ignored.
School not big enough – “stress the need for confidentiality”.
An offence under the Fraud Act 2006 to act to deliberately cause someone (the council taxpayer) a loss. Why build the new school knowingly too small?
Stockport Council knew at the time the birthrate was rising sharply in the area, so why did they deliberately build a school too small
I asked a council meeting question on the subject. Refused as “vexatious” under the Freedom of Information Act, but the question was not asked under the FOIA.
There was a brief window of opportunity when the LibDem Council did respond to FOIA questions on the subject of the toxic waste dump school.
New toxic waste dump school deliberately built too small, an offence under the Fraud Act 2006.
Nobody sees anything untoward.
Financial Procedure Rules – quite clear how they should behave.
I kept trying – no-one involved in this project at Stockport Council could claim ignorance
But, it turned out they couldn’t sell the redundant land.
So, they intended to close two schools in North Reddish, the Fir Tree and North Reddish School, sell the land off for building and build a new school on an old tip which in the intervening decades had grassed over and become important local public space.
I tried to bring the financial irregularities to the notice of the Audit Committee, but they had a majority of LibDems so couldn’t have cared any less.
Rise in cost of the new school from £5.5m to £10m (plus ignored contamination remediation costs) explained in a back of a fag packet document.
Not only was there a financial irregularity of £4.5m (the rising cost of the school) but also another financial irregularity of over £220k in their explanation of that rise.
Because I was/still am banned from asking questions on the subject, I resorted to asking the Finance Executive councillor in the council car park. Fortunately, he had some degree of honesty.
And another council meeting question refused under the Freedom of Information Act, although not asked under that.
Yet another council meeting question refused under the Freedom of Information Act, although it was a council meeting question and not asked under that.
Described as shoddy by the Planning Committee and by local people as looking like a prison block, and far dearer than a later built and bigger school – why, I asked? Don’t be vexatious they replied, and they still do.
Here it is in black and white. Why was I “vexatious” (not me but my questions as they always say) to question this massive rise in costs. No-one should trust a LibDem councillor with their money or their children’s safety.
Public open space since 1976, so why did the Stockport LibDem councillors illegally develop it?
Where is the football pitch? We need honest councillors and council officers. How much was paid for this which does’t exist? “Vexatious” to mention that though.
If Stockport Council is admitting to the traffic problems, then my questions were not “vexatious”. We need an honestly-run council at Stockport.
An outside consultant, Rob Peters of GVA Grimley Fiendisch, suggests putting political pressure on councillors to pass a new primary school on a still gassing toxic waste dump, and no-one bats an eyelash.
It actually did diddly squat for the area – quite the reverse of improving it.
Apart from anything else, it was against the Town Plan. Where are the sports facilities available for community use? All lies.
How on earth did the toxic waste dump school get through the planning process at Stockport, given it was across-the-board unsafe and broke countless planning regulations?
It was public open space – why develop it illegally?
Look at how built-up the area is from which the LibDem councillors and senior council officers illegally took public open space.
Public Open Space means nothing to the LibDem councillors.
The toxic waste dump site was public open space, so why didn’t they act legally and hold a public inquiry into its development?
After the school opened the Council admitted the problems, but my questions on the matter were still deemed “vexatious” – someone who lost a child in a road accident.
After the school opened, the police complained about the dangerous traffic situation, but my raising this issue is still deemed to have been “vexatious”.
Local people and I repeatedly raised the traffic issues at the planning stage.
A mum whose child died in a road traffic accident is pillioried for “vexatious” questions for raising road safety issues around primary school. Beyond offensive LibDems.
Andrew Stunell MP, junior Department of Communities and Local Government minister in the Coalition government, himself investigated the LibDem shenanigans of his political cohorts regarding the toxic waste dump school and found they had done nothing wrong.
Why didn’t I go to the police regarding the toxic waste dump school fraud? Because of what was going on with Stockport LibDems/Stockport Council and the police, Crown Prosecution Service and Magistrates Court regarding sick, innocent Mr Parnell RIP.
Offence under the Fraud Act 2006 to block access to documents pertaining to fraud.
Must just be open space – it can’t be built on say the Council’s own officers who built on it.
LibDem Executive Councillors can and do just ignore recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee – why have a Scrutiny Committee then?
After the Chief Executive, John Schulz, said I had been so rude and offensive I must never contact any council employee again, and then retracted when I threatened to sue him, I was then allowed to read out my own questions in council meetings, which weren’t answered as they were “vexatious”.
What consideration was given to the concerns of local people regarding the loss of public open space?
No Plan B was necessary for a primary school on a still gassing toxic waste dump massively over-budget. Why not? Should this man have run a whelk stand?
Local people took the matter to the scrutiny committee, who made recommendations for the Executive Committee (all LibDems) who just ignored everything
More proof this was public open space and vitally important to local people. Why did the LibDem councillors develop it illegally.
No reply to this yet as of 8/4/24
Why on earth did they say this was being vexatious?

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 by Sheila OliverPosted 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 by Sheila OliverPosted 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 by Sheila OliverPosted 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 by Sheila OliverPosted 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 by Sheila OliverPosted 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 by Sheila OliverPosted 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 by Sheila OliverPosted 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 »