Drazen Jaksic Chief Executive Zurich Insurance UK Head Office 70 Mark Lane London EC3R 7NQ
Friday, 30 May 2025
Dear Drazen Jaksic
Insurers of Stockport Council
I have written to you before about Padden Brook. This unstable land holding 26 houses. The land is protected amenity land/Local Wildlife site which has been allowed to be destroyed by the local councillors, MP, Chief Executive, Head of Planning and Monitoring Officer.
I suspect planning corruption. I always do at Stockport Council, as such a lot of it has gone on in the past. Mr Peter Pollard, Planning Officer, has for some unfathomable reason allowed the new landowner to cut down most of the vegetation and is going now to allow him to cut down the very protected trees which are holding up the land which supports the housing above. Remember that name, Peter Pollard, when the huge insurance claims roll in. Is he even insurable as a council employee?
On seeking advice from environmentalists all over the country I have been told that an ecological survey should have been carried out and if necessary damage mitigation measures put in place. I am also informed the local councillors should act and assess what has been done to the land. I know you have recently claimed I am vexatious for mentioning the damage to this Local Wildlife Site/protected amenity land, so if you refuse I shall have to go back to them all publicly and explain the situation.
The legal position – Planning application implications:
Councils can refuse permission or require retrospective ecological surveys and mitigation.
They may impose conditions or request biodiversity offsetting or habitat restoration.
Please could you arrange the ecological survey and the local councillor reports.
Many thanks for your email. Members of Planning and Highways Regulation Committee resolved to defer and delegate the grant of planning permission on 15th August 2024, subject to the applicant entering into a S106 legal agreement to secure contributions towards Open Space in accordance with adopted development plan policies. Once the process of the legal agreement is complete, planning permission will be formally issued.
The planning application for the removal of trees at Padden Brook, Romiley (reference DC/095427), was granted on 22 May 2025.
This is a Local Wildlife Site/protected amenity land yet you have just allowed more destruction of this land, more trees destroyed so the new landowner can get his bulldozer on the land to build houses.
Haven’t the lazy, useless, lying LibDems already done enough damage to this Local Wildlife Site/protected amenity land without cutting down yet more trees? Yet more planning corruption at LibDem run Stockport Council with the full connivance of the Monitoring Officer, Vicki Bates, the Chief Executive, Michael Cullen and the Head of Planning, Emma Curle.
They lie and say the site is being improved/tidied up.
This was how the land was, untouched since the 1960s, home to bats, owls, dormice and other protected creatures.
This Local Wildlife Site/protected amenity land has not been improved or tidied up. Why would Cllr Mark Roberts or Cllr Angela Clark lie through their teeth and say it has?
Are they taking kickbacks to put housing on this protected site? This was how it looked before it was improved and tidied up.
Dear Mrs Oliver,
Public Question to the Council Meeting
I refer to your public question that you submitted to the 3 April 2025 meeting of the Council Meeting which was as follows:-
Temporary in planning terms is 28 days. When will the scruffy trailer dumped on visual amenity land/Local Wildlife Site at Padden Brook be removed? Local people have been asking the LibDems about this for many, many months and only received an incorrect answer in response tweezered out of them.
As you were not in attendance, it was agreed that a written response would be provided.
I have now been passed the following response which I have been asked to circulate to you:-
As previously advised by officers from the planning service, the trailer is on site to assist the landowner with clearance of detritus and we are advised that it will be removed once these works are completed. The trailer is not development requiring planning permission and is not covered by the 28 day temporary permission, as this relates to the use of land.
We remain satisfied that the response you have been provided is correct.
Cllr Angie Clark and Cllr Mark Roberts
Local Wildlife Site / Protected Amenity Land Considerations
Local Plans may have specific policies requiring additional scrutiny.
Activities that could harm biodiversity or visual amenity might still be controlled or restricted, even if they don’t need planning permission per se.
If the works involve heavy clearance, vehicle access, or risk to protected species/habitats, that could trigger the need for consent.
In the UK, disturbing amenity land with a chainsaw could be an offence depending on the specific circumstances, including the ownership of the land, local regulations, and the nature of the disturbance. Here are some key considerations:
1. Ownership and Permission
Private Land: If the amenity land is privately owned, using a chainsaw without the landowner’s permission could be considered trespassing and criminal damage.
Public Land: If the land is publicly owned (e.g., managed by the local council or government), using a chainsaw without authorization could lead to legal consequences, especially if it damages property or disrupts the public’s enjoyment of the land.
2. Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs)
Many trees, particularly those in conservation areas or on amenity land, may be protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). Cutting down, lopping, or damaging these trees with a chainsaw without permission is an offence. Breaching a TPO can lead to a fine of up to £20,000.
3. Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
If the disturbance affects wildlife, such as nesting birds, bats, or other protected species, you may be in violation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This legislation protects many species, and disturbing or destroying their habitats could result in criminal charges.
4. Noise Nuisance
Using a chainsaw in a way that causes excessive noise could also breach local noise regulations, leading to complaints and potential fines. This could be considered antisocial behaviour if it significantly disrupts the peace of nearby residents.
5. Environmental Damage
Any action that causes environmental damage (e.g., pollution or harm to natural features) on amenity land could lead to prosecution under environmental protection laws.
I refer to your public question that you submitted to the 10 December 2024 meeting of the Cabinet which was as follows:-
“Regarding the Local Wildlife Site and Amenity land at Padden Brook Romiley, were the land to be released for housing what legal process would need to be completed before the land could be released for this or any other purpose?”
As you were not in attendance, it was agreed that a written response would be provided.
I have now been passed the following response which I have been asked to circulate to you:-
Dear Mrs Oliver
For the allocation of the land on the proposals map of the adopted development plan to change, this would need to take place via the process of reviewing the local plan. It should however be noted that the allocation of the land on a proposals map does not prevent a landowner (or other party) applying for planning permission for an alternative use of the land. Regards
Cllr Mark Hunter
Leader of the Council
Public Question to the Cabinet
I refer to your public question that you submitted to the 5 November 2024 meeting of the Council Meeting which was as follows:-
“Please could Councillor Hunter confirm that the land at Padden Brook mentioned in the Refusal of Planning Permission J492 dated 28th May 1974 is Amenity land as stated therein? “
As you were not in attendance, it was agreed that a written response would be provided.
I have now been passed the following response which I have been asked to circulate to you:-
Dear Mrs Oliver
Thank you for your question regarding Padden Brook and the refusal of planning permission in 1974. I am aware that you have recently raised a number of similar questions to officers from across the council and have already been provided with a response.
The land at Padden Brook includes an area of woodland which is defined as a Local Wildlife Site on the proposals map of the adopted development plan. It is clear from the reference given in the refusal of planning permission in 1974 that this land was originally identified as an area of amenity which would serve the wider residential development that was implemented.
LibDem councillor leader Mark Hunter claimed Stockport Council can’t act on wildlife crime.
A council can act on wildlife crime — but usually only to a certain extent.
In the UK (and many other places), local councils have responsibilities like:
Enforcing by-laws about parks, public spaces, and nature reserves they manage.
Supporting or working with the police, Natural England, the Environment Agency, or the RSPCA when wildlife crime happens locally.
Investigating complaints about habitat destruction, illegal trapping, poisoning, or disturbance to protected species — especially when linked to planning permissions or land management.
Issuing fines or taking other action if local rules are broken (for example, disturbing nesting birds in a council nature reserve).
Public Question to the Council Meeting
I refer to your public question that you submitted to the 3 April 2025 meeting of the Council Meeting which was as follows:-
Temporary in planning terms is 28 days. When will the scruffy trailer dumped on visual amenity land/Local Wildlife Site at Padden Brook be removed? Local people have been asking the LibDems about this for many, many months and only received an incorrect answer in response tweezered out of them.
As you were not in attendance, it was agreed that a written response would be provided.
I have now been passed the following response which I have been asked to circulate to you:-
As previously advised by officers from the planning service, the trailer is on site to assist the landowner with clearance of detritus and we are advised that it will be removed once these works are completed. The trailer is not development requiring planning permission and is not covered by the 28 day temporary permission, as this relates to the use of land.
We remain satisfied that the response you have been provided is correct.
Cllr Angie Clark and Cllr Mark Roberts
Public Question to the Council Meeting
I refer to your public question that you submitted to the 1 October 2024 meeting of the Council Meeting which was as follows:-
“I identified important trees on the Padden Brook site. I asked people to contact their local councillors to protect them. The councillors will have sent an email to the relevant officer, and the trees now have Woodland Tree Protection Orders on them.
“I identified that the land there is Amenity land and its wildlife cannot be disturbed, partly due to the unique nature of the land which has been not disturbed since the late 1960s. I informed the Council Leader, Monitoring Officer, Chief Executive and Cllrs Smart, Clark and Roberts that the land was being massacred. All of these people simply stood by and let it happen. Amongst other important wildlife we have lost dormice.
“Will the landowner be charged with wildlife crime? We, the people of Romiley, really respect nature. It is a shame that Stockport Council doesn’t.”
As you were not in attendance, it was agreed that a written response would be provided.
I have now been passed the following response which I have been asked to circulate to you:-
Dear Mrs Oliver
Thank you for your question to the council meeting on 1 October 2024.
Any decision to charge the landowner with wildlife crime would be a matter for Greater Manchester Police and not Stockport Council.
