1st February 2026
“Since corrupt people unite amongst themselves to constitute a force, then honest people must do the same.” — Leo Tolstoy
LibDem run Stockport Council.
Exasperated residents, Senior council officers, Vale View School, Vicki Bates, Monitoring Officer, Stockport Council Posted on Sun, February 01, 2026 06:55- Comments(0) https://blogging.sheilaoliver.org/?p=5958
- Share
Residents Outraged as Protected Woodland at Padden Brook Is Destroyed And Fear Further Planning Corruption As At Harcourt Street.
Padden Brook, Vale View School, Vicki Bates, Monitoring Officer, Stockport Council Posted on Thu, January 08, 2026 07:448th January 2026
Residents living near Padden Brook have raised serious concerns after what they say has been the destruction of protected woodland and amenity land, with repeated complaints to elected representatives and council officers going unanswered.
According to residents, the problems began in August 2024, when a new landowner took control of the site and began clearance works. The land has since been identified as W1 protected woodland and protected visual amenity land, but residents say significant damage had already occurred by the time enforcement was sought and ignored.
Locals report that trees were felled or damaged, root systems disturbed, and wildlife habitats disrupted. Residents say protected species were present on the site and that the disturbance caused widespread distress within the community, prompting attempts by locals to intervene and protect what remained.
Despite what residents describe as “numerous complaints” to local councillors Clark, Roberts and Bresnahan, MP Lisa Smart , and senior council officers Vicki Bates, Emma Curle, Michael Cullen, Liz Sykes, Emma Stubbs Lisa McGrane et al, they say no meaningful action was taken.
Further anger has been caused by the appearance of a derelict care or “butty” van, which residents say was dumped on the land. The vehicle later became heavily graffitied and was eventually fenced in with a seven-foot-high fence, effectively turning it into a permanent feature of the site. Again, residents say repeated complaints were met with silence.
One of the most contentious actions involved the installation of a gate on Howard Close, which residents say was used to allow a bulldozer access onto the protected land. They claim the roots of protected trees were damaged as a result. Residents say they raised concerns immediately but saw no intervention from the Council.
Locals also allege that plans are now in place to fence in the entire site permanently and install permanent gates, further restricting access and changing the visual character of the area.
Residents on Howard Close say they were not properly informed of the planning application affecting them. They claim that although around 24 households should have been notified, only one was contacted. That letter, they say, arrived on the final day for comments, and the application could not be accessed or commented on before the deadline closed.
Adding to residents’ frustration, they claim that attempts to raise the matter through council meetings, Freedom of Information requests, and Environmental Information Regulation requests have been blocked, with questions reportedly refused or ignored. Vicki Bates, Monitoring Officer and Liz Sykes, Information Governance Officer blocked all scrutiny claiming raising the issue was “vexatious”.
For many locals, the situation has revived memories of earlier planning disputes in Stockport, including Harcourt Street. Residents say the pattern feels familiar: damage occurs first, questions are blocked, and enforcement fails to follow.
https://blog.cromptonthedog.com/category/vexatious
“This is protected land,” one resident said. “Once it’s gone, it’s gone. And nobody in authority seems willing to step in.”
Stockport Council, local councillors, and the area’s MP have been contacted for comment regarding enforcement action, consultation procedures, and the handling of residents’ complaints.
- Comments(0) https://blogging.sheilaoliver.org/?p=5951
- Share
Local Campaigner Accuses Stockport Council of Silencing Public Scrutiny.
Vicki Bates, Monitoring Officer, Stockport Council Posted on Wed, January 07, 2026 06:497th January 2026
A long-standing community campaigner from the borough has accused Stockport Council of undermining local democracy after a series of confrontations at public meetings and private correspondence with senior council officers.
Sheila Oliver, who has been active for many years on issues ranging from transport policy to environmental protection and disability access, says she has repeatedly been given incorrect or misleading information by councillors and officers — and publicly dismissed when challenging it.
In correspondence seen by the Romiley Gazette, the Council’s Chief Executive, John Schultz, asked Ms Oliver whether she would object to him copying one of his letters to the local media. The request followed Ms Oliver’s indication that she intended to raise her concerns publicly rather than continue asking questions in council meetings.
Ms Oliver responded by setting out a detailed list of cases where she believes elected members provided inaccurate statements in public forums. These include disputes over the cost of the South East Manchester Multi Modal Strategy (SEMMMS), the risk status of the Harcourt Street School project, and the absence of contingency planning.
She also described instances where, she claims, questions were deflected or shut down during council meetings, including intervention by the Chair and the Mayor when she sought clarification on alternative sites for development.
Ms Oliver further highlighted her involvement in securing improvements for local communities, including campaigning for better pavements for disabled residents, the protection of green spaces such as Poise Brook Valley and Chadkirk, and the release and use of Section 106 funds for community projects.
“I will not stop fighting for what I feel is right,” she wrote. “I have no status, no money, and nothing to lose by speaking out.”
Ms Oliver says she believes the council’s actions discourage ordinary residents from participating in local democracy. “If this is how someone who is persistent and well-informed is treated,” she said, “what hope is there for people who are less confident?”
Stockport Council was approached for comment but did not respond by the time of going to press.
Mon 29/01/2007 11:14
Mrs Oliver,
I should be grateful if you would let me have a reply to the question in my letter about whether you would be prepared for me to copy that letter to the local media.
John Schultz
—–Original Message—–
From: sheila.oliver@tiscali.co.uk [mailto:sheila.oliver@tiscali.co.uk]
Sent: 27 January 2007 16:05
To: John Schultz
Subject: Response
Mr Schultz
You don’t have to worry about my council chamber questions – I had already decided to put everything in the press instead and have made a start.
I notice from a council newsletter recently delivered to my home that the Council seems to value local democracy. Gosh! May I give you some examples where incorrect information has been deliberately given to me:-
Councillor Derbyshire denied the £556 million cost of SEMMMS, despite it being in the Council document for that full council meeting and having also been in the Executive meeting document a few days before. This was a budget meeting
– that was her portfolio – you would have think she would have read it.
I have turned out to be correct and Goverment figures put the cost at £60 million plus per mile. What a pity no-one wanted to listen and instead I was publicly belittled for stating these facts. Not locally democratic is it?
I asked Councillor Pantall to confirm what he had put in a letter to me a couple of days before – that the Harcourt Street school issue was not high risk and that there was no Plan B in place. He was unable to confirm this in front of the press, public and other councillors. The issue is referred to as high risk in documents seen under the FOIA. Why is there no Plan B?
Not locally democratic,
is it?
When I asked in the full council meeting why the Fir Tree site wasn’t considered, Councillor Pantall said I knew the site hadn’t already been sold off for housing. Not what I asked at all. My attempts to get a proper answer were scuppered by you and the Mayor. Not very locally democratic is it?
I gave notice of a question to Councillor Goddard about the £2 million cost of working out the PFI for SEMMMS. I have these details in writing from the Council. He said there would be no cost. Not locally democratic is it?
I recently asked a question at SHAC. The Chair came to me at the beginning of the meeting to tell me my question was wrong – there was no plan to move Woodsmoor Station to Stepping Hilll and I should alter my question. Lo and Behold it was in the agenda document, so the Chair hadn’t bothered to read it before the meeting. Not very locally democatic, is it?
I have fought for better pavements for the disabled, playgrounds for children where the Council has left them without for 12 years despite Section 106 money for this purpose resting inthe Council’s account. I have tried to help Offerton Community Farm, got Poise Brook Valley recognised as Local Nature Reserve, helped to get Chadkirk recognised as a Local Nature Reserve and will shortly do the same for the Goyt Valley. I have fought to get £820,000 of Section 106 money off Sainsbury’s – why has it been in their account for
7 years losing value for us and gaining interest for them? I have helped to get £17,000 Sainsbury’s section 106 money spent on much needed improvements at Cow Lane. I have fought as hard as I can for the 317 bus at Offerton and for the people of Offerton who have been disgustingly neglected by this council. I am doing my utmost for the people of Reddish, have helped to get an Audit Commission Inquiry into the hidden cost of roadbuilding, have tried to get Tesco on the national agenda regarding what happened at Portwood without ever having publicly criticised Stockport Council’s role in that.
I have discovered at least £250 million waste of taxpayers’ money on the
M60 Denton to Middleton section.
And I am the baddie in all this!
I will not stop fighting for what I feel is right and you can throw all you like at me, Mr Schultz. I have no status and will take any humiliation on the chin. I have no money – everything given away – so you can’t sue me, and if you did it would make a lovely story in the Guardian.
I have watched my child die – do you really think anything can frighten me after that, Mr. Schultz?
You remain my humble servant, which I think you forget sometimes
Sheila X
___________________________________________________________
- Comments(0) https://blogging.sheilaoliver.org/?p=5939
- Share
Lisa Smart Stands Up In Parliament , But On The Ground In Stockport She Does Nothing For Anyone.
Lisa Smart LibDem MP, Vale View School, Vicki Bates, Monitoring Officer, Stockport Council Posted on Sun, December 21, 2025 08:2221st November 2025
“Remarkable people working in local government? Like Vicki Bates, Liz Sykes, Katie Moores, Michael Cullen? I should co co. They work against local people not with them, as Padden Brook shows.
- Comments(0) https://blogging.sheilaoliver.org/?p=5919
- Share
Anwar Majothi Shouldn’t Hold Any Public Office.
Andrew Webb, CYPD, Anwar Majothi, Barry Khan, Vale View School, Vicki Bates, Monitoring Officer, Stockport Council Posted on Fri, November 21, 2025 07:20Email sent Sat 22/08/2009 19:25
Dear Mr Majothi
Internal Audit Strategy – Anti-Fraud Corruption Work 2009
In the above mentioned document it states:
“Suspected frauds or irregularities may come to light through a variety of channels, but in all cases will be reported to the Chief Internal Auditor” I have repeatedly tried to raise the issue of financial anomalies, with an official complaint and reminders to the Council Solicitor totally ignored. The Audit Committee refused to allow me to bring these facts to their attention. Please show me evidence that the Chief Internal Auditor had these issues brought to his attention and let me see the written evidence of his decision.
Yours sincerely
Mrs S Oliver
Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner
As of June 2023, he became a Senior Adviser at the UK Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (DLUHC).
- Comments(0) https://blogging.sheilaoliver.org/?p=5744
- Share
New School Deliberately Being Built Too Small, An Offence Under The Fraud Act 2006.
Andrew Webb, CYPD, Anwar Majothi, Barry Khan, Donna Sager, CYPD, Eamonn Boylan, Vale View School, Vicki Bates, Monitoring Officer, Stockport Council Posted on Fri, November 21, 2025 07:0721st November 2025
Email sent Mon 24/08/2009 21:03
Dear Mr Majothi
When the school closure notice was published, (copy previously sent to you) a place was promised to every child who wanted one. This was an untrue statement as soon as it was made because I think even with temporary classrooms placed on the site there were circa 5 children who wouldn’t have a place anyway. Temporary classrooms were to be used till the pupil numbers fell. Please see the attached – the birthrate is rising sharply in the area. Sport England’s demands (bless ’em) mean that there is no room for any temporary classroom, so the school which is massively overbudget and has no room to expand (as the DCSF would like for new schools) is nowhere big enough for the pupils who need to attend and were promised a place. There must a financial knock on effect in providing schooling for those children somewhere else, perhaps with the cost of providing temporary classrooms at other schools. Why is this site still being considered if it is not big enough?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Mrs S J Oliver
Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner
- Comments(0) https://blogging.sheilaoliver.org/?p=5733
- Share
LibDem Bypass Corruption
Anwar Majothi, Bypass, Vicki Bates, Monitoring Officer, Stockport Council Posted on Wed, November 19, 2025 18:3719th November 2025
- Comments(0) https://blogging.sheilaoliver.org/?p=5547
- Share
The Disgusting Actions Of LibDem Peer Lord Goddard.
Andrew Webb, CYPD, Anwar Majothi, Barry Khan, Donna Sager, CYPD, Eamonn Boylan, Freedom of Information, Ged Lucas, Information Commissioner, LibDem Councillors, Lisa Smart LibDem MP, S Houston Finance Director, Senior council officers, Town Hall Protester, Vale View School, Vicki Bates, Monitoring Officer, Stockport Council Posted on Tue, November 18, 2025 15:4218th November 2025
To Mike Parnell
Sent Thu 23/07/2009 09:29
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
Lots of love
Sheila
—– Original Message —–
From: Cllr Dave Goddard
To: sheilaoliver
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 5:40 PM
Subject: Mr. Parnell
Dear Sheila
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.
From: FOI Officer
To: Sheila Oliver
Cc: FOI Officer
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 10:55 AM
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.
Yours sincerely,
Claire Naven
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 16 July 2009 17:15
To: FOI Officer; FreedomOfInformation@gmp.police.uk
Cc: MICHAEL PARNELL
Subject: Fw: Fw: Freedom of Information GSA 2210/09
Dear Foi Officers
Attached is Mr. Parnell’s authorisation. Please proceed with answering the questions I asked of the police ans of Stockport Council regarding his case.
Kind regards
Sheila
—– Original Message —–
From: MICHAEL PARNELL
To: Sheila Oliver
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:25 AM
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 Oliver To: FreedomOfInformation@gmp.police.uk Cc: Chief.Constable@gmp.police.uk ; John Schultz ; alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk Sent: 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 |
- Comments(0) https://blogging.sheilaoliver.org/?p=5468
- Share
