13th August 2025

Call for Council to Revoke Hatherlow Sunday School Planning Permission After Faulty Advice

A new dispute has erupted over the fate of the historic Hatherlow Sunday School, with local resident and Romiley Gazette editor Sheila Oliver urging Stockport Council to revoke planning permission for its controversial redevelopment.

Mrs Oliver claims councillors on the Werneth Area Committee were given “completely wrong” advice before they voted on 29 July 2024 to recommend the scheme. She alleges members were told that housing need outweighed traffic safety concerns — advice she says was later contradicted by the Council’s own Monitoring Officer, Vicki Bates.

“The issue of the need for housing does not take precedence over any genuine traffic concerns, and you yourself have admitted this in writing to me,” Mrs Oliver wrote to Ms Bates.

No work has yet begun on the site, more than a year after permission was granted.

Traffic vs. Bins: Which Mattered More?

The Werneth Area Committee first considered the application on 29 July 2024, raising concerns over on-street parking and the lack of any parking provision within the development. This led to a Planning and Highways Regulation Committee (PHRC) site visit on Monday, 12 August — a weekday morning when the Spread Eagle pub was closed and most local residents were at work.

The visit’s stated aim was to assess parking and traffic issues, but it was conducted according to the council’s standard practice of 10am Monday visits, timed for officer and member availability rather than for capturing peak traffic conditions.

During the PHRC meeting, some members noted congestion on Otterspool Road at peak times and queried whether residents would be reliant on cars. Officers responded that the site was close to buses, a train station, and local shops. Two traffic surveys had been carried out, and members were told the data was adequate.

However, several councillors downplayed parking pressures, pointing to nearby roads with available on-street parking and properties with large driveways. Cllr Mark Jones concluded that parking could not be considered a reason for refusal.

The Great Bin Debate

By contrast, far more meeting time was devoted to discussing refuse storage and bin access. The officer’s report detailed litre-by-litre waste storage requirements for 11 apartments and highlighted potential issues with moving bins from a rear courtyard via a narrow one-metre-wide side path, possibly over a step.

Cllr Wendy Meikle raised concerns about the practicality of residents manoeuvring large bins and whether six bins would be enough for up to 22 people. She warned that extra bins would turn the courtyard into a bin yard, depriving residents of usable outdoor space.

Planning officer Suzanne Broomhead confirmed that smaller receptacles would be wheeled out by residents for collection, as in other developments.

Other councillors, including Graham Greenhalgh, focused on ensuring bins would not be stored at the front of the building to preserve its appearance.

Monitoring Officer Vicki Bates wrote that she was “satisfied that the members of the committee discussed and considered the issues of traffic and bin storage sufficiently” and that, on balance, the application was approved.

The Legal Route to Revocation

Under Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, local authorities can revoke or modify planning permission that has been granted but not yet implemented. Grounds include:

  • The decision was based on incorrect or misleading information.
  • There has been a material change in circumstances.
  • The decision was unlawful, such as being based on faulty officer advice.

Revocation is rare and requires the Secretary of State’s approval, but councils may act in the public interest. Developers can claim compensation for losses, yet the law still allows intervention where procedural or legal flaws exist.

Mrs Oliver’s Verdict

Mrs Oliver insists the Council should start the revocation process immediately, criticising the committee for failing to properly examine dangerous traffic issues.

“More time was spent discussing bin placement than the safety of our roads,” she said. “We live in interesting times.”

Her comments highlight the continuing tension in Romiley between meeting housing targets and safeguarding residents from the pressures of overburdened traffic networks.

BIN TALK OUTWEIGHS TRAFFIC FEARS

“The worst possible mistake we could make would be allowing bin storage at the front.”
— Cllr Graham Greenhalgh

Traffic & Parking

  • Brief discussion on Otterspool Road congestion at peak times.
  • Officers cited two traffic surveys as “adequate.”
  • Several councillors noted nearby parking options.
  • Conclusion: Not a reason to refuse.

Bin Storage & Access

  • Detailed litre-by-litre waste capacity calculations for 11 flats.
  • Concerns over narrow 1m access path, steps, and moving large bins.
  • Fear of courtyard becoming a “bin yard.”
  • Repeated emphasis on keeping bins hidden to protect appearance.

Reader Takeaway:
Council minutes show more time spent on refuse arrangements than on whether the development would worsen already dangerous traffic conditions.