A long-standing local campaigner has written to the Leader of Stockport Council raising renewed concerns about planning governance, transparency, and enforcement, particularly in relation to Padden Brook.
In an email copied to politicians across parties, Sheila Oliver says she is in the process of disclosing historic correspondence dating back to 2007 which she believes highlights serious failings in planning decision-making. She says the material spans many years and involves communications with senior figures at local and national level.
Ms Oliver also raises concerns about the Council’s response to formal complaints and statutory requests. She claims that recent Freedom of Information and Environmental Information Regulation requests have gone unanswered, including correspondence addressed to the Council’s Monitoring Officer.
In the email, Ms Oliver asks the Council Leader to investigate whether a residential property at 1a Magda Road, off Dialstone Lane, has the necessary planning permission. She says she has been unable to locate any relevant consent on the public planning register and has requested clarification.
Ms Oliver states that she has previously provided evidence relating to planning concerns to senior Liberal Democrat figures, including Sir Ed Davey and Tim Farron, but says no action was taken.
Calling for greater accountability, she has asked the Council Leader to review planning enforcement at Padden Brook, examine the handling of statutory information requests, and take steps to restore public confidence in the Council’s planning processes.
So by May 2006 the Council is admitting the scheme is £2.40 million over the available funding.
Yours
Mrs Sheila Oliver
Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner
Vicki Bates maintained I was being vexatious for raising this matter. Should she still be in post? In October 2005 the new school was to have cost 5.5 million pounds. By 15th May 2006 it was 2.4 million pounds over budget. They shut me up by claiming my questions were vexatious. They weren’t – they were uncovering fraud and incompetence.
The Council stated it was cheaper to use the Harcourt Street site than the Fir Tree site. Please may I see the documentary evidence of this fact from the very start of this process. There must surely be documentary evidence as this claim was made by the Council.
At the Fir Tree site there would be no traffic regulation orders/work – £130,000, no CPO costs £70,000, no drainage costs – £75,000, no Services to install – £231,000, no contamination costs – goodness knows how many millions that could be, no Sport England costs – £600,000, no village green costs, no footpath diversion inquiry costs, no outreach costs.
As I understand it the Council has a legal duty to consider alternatives which might present better value to the Council taxpayer. Please provide evidence that a proper evaluation of the costs of putting the school on the Fir Tree site have been carried out.
Please give the email below from Goddard to your solicitor. He has committed an offence against you with regards to Data Protection. Although you sent me the authority to act on your behalf and I sent it to the Council, the Freedom of Information Officer emailed me yesterday to say she couldn’t open the attachment, therefore Goddard had seen no authorisation for your details to be disclosed to me. Mike, this is another brick in the wall.
Plus, I think it shows the Council is not impartial but quite vindictive.
XXXX (name redacted) died. I think you maybe met him – her certainly was very concerned about your plight. I am gutted
Mr. Parnell was charged with breaching the ASBO on 16th and 17th July 2009 by entering the Town Hall. He appeared at Stockport Magistrates Court from custody on 18th July 2009. He was apparently adamant that he would not abide by bail conditions and so was remanded in custody to Forest Bank to appear today.
He did appear today. He pleaded not guilty and elected Crown Court trial. His next appearance is before the Magistrates on 14th September 2009. Today his solicitor applied for bail which was opposed by the CPS. The Magistrates did grant bail. I have attached the actual bail notice. His condition is not to come within 1 mile of the Town Hall. The only exception is when he is appearing in court or by prior written appointment made by his solicitor. There is no exception for attendance at any meeting within that exclusion zone and that was made clear to him. These conditions appear to be unambiguous. It is fair to say that Parnell was less than enthusiastic about these conditions.
Just keeping you in the loop.
Fondest wishes,
Dave,
Ps, Glad you enjoyed the Stepping Hill by-election it makes it all worth it.
1. How would a council leader get hold of someone’s CPS bail notice?
A CPS bail notice is normally held by:
The police (who issue it)
The CPS
The defendant and their legal representative
It is not something a local authority or councillor would normally have access to.
For a council leader to obtain it, the most common possibilities are:
Possibility A — Someone in the police or CPS gave it to him
This would generally be an unauthorised disclosure unless there was a legitimate safeguarding or legal reason — which from what you describe, there was not.
Possibility B — A councillor with personal connections
Councillors sometimes have informal relationships with local police, council staff, or others who may have seen the document — but passing it on without a proper reason would still have breached rules.
Possibility C — It was given to him by someone close to the accused
For example a family member or associate. (Not likely given the context you describe.)
Possibility D — It was obtained improperly
This covers:
Gossip leaking from local police
Someone deliberately sharing it to smear the accused
Councillor misusing his position or influence
This did happen in some councils historically, and both police and councillors have been disciplined for similar leaks.
🟦 2. Was it unlawful to send it to you in 2009?
Even before GDPR, the following laws applied:
✔ The Data Protection Act 1998
Under the DPA 1998, personal data (including criminal allegations and bail status) could only be disclosed for a lawful purpose.
Sharing a bail notice to “gloat”, smear, or shame someone:
Had no lawful basis
Breached the data protection principles
Could be a misuse of confidential information
This would have been a breach of the Data Protection Act by whoever disclosed it — likely the police or the councillor, depending on who originally leaked it.
✔ Misconduct in Public Office (MIPO)
If the councillor obtained the document through his influence or through improper access to police information, that could have constituted:
Misconduct in public office (a common-law offence) if done deliberately and recklessly.
✔ Breach of police confidentiality
If a police officer handed the bail notice to him, that officer would likely have breached:
The Official Secrets Act
Force confidentiality policies
🟦 3. The fact the man was later found innocent
This does not change the legality of the disclosure at the time, but it shows:
The disclosure had no legitimate public interest purpose
It may have been done maliciously
It caused harm and distress to both him (if he knew) and you
🟦 4. If this happened today (post-GDPR)
It would be a clear data breach, requiring:
Reporting to the ICO
Possible fines for the disclosing authority
Possible claims for compensation for distress
Thu 23/07/2009 08:35
Dear Mr Rusbridger
I read with interest the Guardian’s recent articles on miscarriages of justice. Please see below the apparently gloating email from the Leader of Stockport Council to me, which as I understand it is a very serious breach of Data Protection legislation, as well as revealing a worrying level of sarcasm and delight at the plight of a simple (and I mean that as a compliment), kind, helpful, gentle, determined and very brave man and the obvious detrimental effect his imprisonment will have on his already troubled daughters, whose lives were very seriously damaged by their birth family. Having got nowhere over a decade with his request to Stockport Council for help with his troubled adopted daughters – and they would be costing Stockport Council a lot of money were they still in care – he decided to stand on the town hall steps, which he did for two years constantly being harrassed by Stockport Council and having the police called to him repeatedly -one one occasion I witnessed with flashing blue lights, so called as an emergency. I do not blame the police, who have been extremely kind and helpful to Mr. Parnell and apparently have to respond if there is a breach of the peace alleged. There is a legal right to peaceful protest, but not in Stockport.
Why couldn’t the Council simply deal with his problem in a reasonable manner? You may well feel this is an isolated incident but I have been publicly abused and victimised for pointing out that a proposed school, costing millions and millions overbudget with no proper explanation of the increase in cost, which is illegally taking public open space, is actually going on a former toxic dump on which no contamination investigations at all have been carried out over the site of the proposed school, which is actually directly over the tip. I have had dirty tricks played on me too by this Council.
We need now to forensically find out what the many, many police call-outs have cost, the court time – one trial last January being abandoned on the day of the hearing. We need to find out what this cost in keeping Mr. Parnell in prison, where he was last week for breaching a court order not to come within a mile of the town hall. All he had done was use the public lavatory in the town hall. What a disgusting abuse of power by Stockport Council.
Well, they have picked on the wrong man. Mr. Parnell is honest and courageous and because his daughters are involved he can’t give up.
Mr. Rusbridger, I shall keep you informed step by step of what happens next in this miscarriage of justice we have the misfortune to be witnessing first hand.
With very warmest best wishes
Sheila
Email sent Wed 22/07/2009 18:29
Dear Ms Naven
If you can’t open the attachment mentioned below, then SMBC is not in receipt of Mr Parnell’s authorisation to disclose personal information to me.
In that case, the Leader Councillor Goddard, was seriously in breach of the Data Protection Act when he sent me a particularly gloating email about Mr. Parnell being sent to prison. To be apparently delighted at such a turn of events, involving as they do more distress to Mr Parnell’s already troubled daughters and given the story in today’s Stockport Express of a prisoner being murdered by another prisoner, one has to question whether Councillor Goddard is a fit person to hold the office that he does.
Please may I have your comments regarding this? I shall forward you the offending email after this one.
Kind regards
Sheila
—– Original Message —–
Stockport Council always has to cc in another FoI officer. Who is that? Vexatious to ask.
Subject: RE: Fw: Freedom of Information GSA 2210/09
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am unable to open the type of attachment you have provided. Please can you resend it in another format e.g. pdf?
Please also specify which requests – quoting Council reference numbers which have been provided to you either in our final response or acknowledgement – you now wish to be reconsidered. Once we receive these details and a copy of Mr Parnell’s authorisation which I am able to open, we will proceed with reconsidering your requests.
Attached is Mr. Parnell’s authorisation. Please proceed with answering the questions I asked of the police ans of Stockport Council regarding his case.
Subject: Re: Fw: Freedom of Information GSA 2210/09
Dear Sheila Hello again its mike here, enclosed is my authorisation and full approval, use this to open up the council wrongdoings, and how must they are costing the council tax paying residents, if everybody knew how much was wasted and how much is being inappropately spent we all might not want to give it in the first place, but we wouldn’t do that because we know that we need what we pay for, but do they ,or do they care, well we will see if they have one once of conscience. love and best wishes mike — On Wed, 17/6/09, Sheila Oliver <sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com> wrote: From: Sheila Oliver <sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com> Subject: Fw: Freedom of Information GSA 2210/09 “MICHAEL PARNELL” <mickysara@btinternet.com>, Date: Wednesday, 17 June, 2009, 8:59 AM For info Sheila —– Original Message —– From:Sheila OliverTo:FreedomOfInformation@gmp.police.ukCc:Chief.Constable@gmp.police.uk ; John Schultz ; alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.ukSent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:57 AM Subject: Fw: Freedom of Information GSA 2210/09 Dear Sir Many thanks for your reply. So, this is purely a Data Protection issue and the information could be disclosed either with written consent from Mr. Parnell or if Mr. Parnell himself makes the request. Very interesting! It is quite scandalous the police time which has been wasted with this non-issue. I shall see what happens in court and then decide how to proceed. Kind regards
I was very interested to read your anonymous correspondents views on the motives for the resistance to the proposed school in Harcourt Street. I have no idea whether he is right in his conclusions. I would say however that the Express records a continual list of Council Planning errors and so the probability of Harcourt St being yet another seems much higher than the correspondents claims that the toffs in Harcourt Street are bullying the poor council tenants in Fir Road. That explanation seems patronising to the point of absurdity. Conversely I have equally no firm idea that Mrs Oliver is correct in her assertion that the Harcourt Street site is seriously contaminated with toxic elements. From what I understand from her letters to this column she claims the ex tip in Harcourt Street is the same as other old tipping sites in Stockport that have been refused planning permission. Furthermore it appears a less than required testing regime has indeed shown serious toxic contamination. Surely any sensible person would expect a proper and full scientific testing of the site especially as young schoolchildren are involved.
In fairness the Council seems to be slightly veering to this view as it now judges the risk of a full scientific examination as Very High. That seems a very significant change in attitude.
Finally the attitude of the ruling LibDem Group seems at odds with the liberal and democratic attitude of their National Party.
3 Cllrs in particular, Cllrs Goddard, Weldon and Porgess seem to have nailed their reputations and possibly their jobs to the mast by insisting without firm evidence that there is nothing wrong with the site. Mrs Oliver has also pointed out that the cost of the new school is considerably higher than national standards and even the cost of other local schools. To borrow the conspiracy theory attitude of your correspondent are these Cllrs protesting too much because they have something to hide especially when a simple survey as required by the Environment Agency would settle the issue.
The persecution of the town hall protester may well cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not more. So, we need to know the grade within the Council of the person who decided to proceed with the court case in January, which was abandoned on the day of the hearing, the calling of the police over 80 times, the 11 arrests, the four days in prison, the further trial in September and the possible High Court costs.
I very much doubt these decisions were taken by a lowly security guard. If you won’t given me the actual name of the person who made these decisions, then please let me know what grade they were.
I shall cc this to Councillor Weldon who believes all FoI requests are answered by this Council and to the Information Commission.
Subject: Re: Your request for information to Stockport Council – ‘Town Hall protestor’ – Ref 1831 – Response
Dear FoI Officer
Then without identifying the council officer(s) by name, please state their grade within the organisation. I assume this would be someone of senior position. I may take this issue to the Information Commission, which won’t look good for Stockport Council. Maybe we can achieve the same end without getting SMBC even further black marks at the ICO.
I note the comment below from your recent email, which caused me great offence:-
“to one e-mail account and these e-mails will be checked by a Council officer on a weekly basis.”
Who is that person, will they comply with the council customer care charter?
With warmest best wishes
Sheila
AI – The question “Who is that person?” is important because if:
your emails contain sensitive personal data
the council has passed them to an unnamed, unidentified person
without informing you who is processing your data
and without a lawful basis
then this can breach UK GDPR, because you must be told:
who is processing your data
why
and for what purpose.
If they’re diverting emails without notice, that may also breach transparency requirements.
Potentially Unlawful: Breach of the Human Right to Petition Government (Article 10 ECHR)
A council restricting your ability to contact elected officials, especially if you’re raising corruption, safety, or public-interest concerns, may interfere with:
your freedom of expression
your right to hold public bodies to account
Any interference must be necessary and proportionate. “Weekly checking” is very arguablydisproportionate, especially when other residents receive normal service.
⚠️ When it is not illegal
A council can impose communication restrictions only if:
they have a clear documented reason
they follow their policy fully
they provide a named officer
they offer a review or appeal
the restriction is proportionate
the restriction is time-limited
it does not obstruct your access to services or councillors
it is not discriminatory
And they must tell you exactly who is handling your mail.
Why the line “checked weekly by a council officer” is a red flag
Because:
“weekly” is unusually infrequent
no officer is named
there is no justification
it reduces service quality below what other residents receive
it may be punitive rather than administrative
it may limit your ability to raise safeguarding, corruption, or public-interest issues
it may be discriminatory if applied only to you
This is why it may be unlawful.
————————————————————————————————-
Thu 01/10/2009 15:21
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your email below.
As I have previously explained to you on a number of occasions, the Council has not stated that you are vexatious.
No ‘new vexatious policy’ has been applied to you. You were informed in an email dated 13th August 2009 that all your email correspondence will be redirected and checked weekly. It did not state that you will only receive replies once a week. Please see this email for further information.
