Romiley residents say they feel ignored and let down after ongoing concerns about the future of land at Padden Brook were met with what they describe as “council confusion” over the meaning of amenity land.
The issue came to a head following correspondence between residents and Stockport Council, in which Assistant Director of Legal & Democratic Governance, Vicki Bates, confirmed that “amenity land is a broad concept and not formally defined in planning legislation or guidance.”
For many long-time residents, this came as both surprising and worrying news. Local people recall that when the estate was first built in the 1960s, the land alongside Padden Brook was earmarked as amenity space — an area set aside for community benefit, to provide greenery, wildlife, and breathing space between houses. A planning refusal from 1974 even described it as such.
Yet the council now insists that the land carries no special designation as amenity land under the local plan, though it is recognised as a Local Wildlife Site due to its ecological value.
One Romiley resident, who has campaigned to protect the space, told the Gazette:
“It feels like the council are playing with words. They admit the land was originally identified as amenity space, but now they say it has no protection. If that’s the case, what’s to stop developers chipping away at it bit by bit?”
The council’s letter goes on to state that while no illegal works have been carried out by the landowner and no planning breaches have been identified, a future planning application could still be submitted. Such an application, they say, would be judged on national and local planning policies rather than any supposed amenity status.
This response has done little to reassure residents, many of whom say they already feel powerless.
Another resident commented:
“This land isn’t just trees and grass — it’s part of our community. Wildlife thrives there. To be told it might not count as amenity land anymore feels like erasing the history and the promises made when these houses were built.”
Campaigners are particularly concerned about the potential impact on wildlife, especially given recent reports of habitat disturbance. While the council says Greater Manchester Police and Natural England are the bodies responsible for investigating wildlife protection issues, residents feel this deflects responsibility away from the council’s duty to safeguard green spaces.
The controversy highlights a wider frustration across Romiley and beyond: that planning rules often seem opaque and weighted in favour of landowners rather than communities.
As one local put it:
“We are not against change. But when the council itself admits that amenity land has no clear legal definition, it leaves residents exposed and our green spaces at risk.”
With no firm protections in place, locals fear it may only be a matter of time before the land is under threat of housing development.
——————————————————————————————————————-
From Vicki Bates
c.c. Emma Curle
Date Tue 08/10/2024 19:37
Dear Mrs Oliver
Emma Curle, our Chief Planning Officer has prepared the below response to you. Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding to your email regarding your interpretation of what amenity lands means which has been due to annual leave and other work commitments.
Amenity (and amenity land) is a broad concept and one which is not formally defined in planning legislation or guidance.
The development plan does not allocate any land as ‘amenity land’ although, of course, land that is allocated in various other ways (such as, for instance, strategic or local open space) may have amenity value. You have provided quotes from a number of documents, officers have sought to establish where these quotes have been taken from, they do not appear to have been taken from anything that has been published by the council (in its role as local planning authority) and is not something that is recognisably from national planning policy or planning practice guidance. I would therefore assist if you could provide the Council with the source of these quotes please?
The woodland that runs along the western side of Padden Brook is defined as a Local Wildlife Site by the local plan. As such any development proposals would be subject to ‘saved’ Unitary Development Plan review policy NE1.2 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance and the wider area is defined as predominantly residential land. The link to that can be found here Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review (May 2006) – Policies which still apply from 1st April 2011 onwards (post Core Strategy adoption)
The explanation to NE1.2 sets out that the substantive nature conservation value of Local Wildlife Sites arises from their displaying of locally distinctive criteria including a combination of ecological, social, recreational, educational and aesthetic interest. It could be taken from that that a Local Wildlife Site can have amenity value and might be considered to be ‘amenity land’ but there is nothing specific to that effect in the policy wording.
It is clear from the reference you have provided to the 1974 refusal, that the land was originally identified as an amenity area as part of the wider residential development that was granted planning permission in the early 1960s. The planning permission has not been revoked, but this does not mean that a subsequent planning application for an alternative use could not be made, nor does it mean that works not requiring planning permission cannot be carried out in the area that are not development. Should the landowner wish to pursue an application for planning permission, that application would be considered against policies of the adopted development plan, national planning policy and other relevant material planning considerations.
I note your concerns regarding the impact on wildlife on the site, this is a matter for GMP and I understand that the matter has been directed to them to investigate but that they do not consider any crime has been committed. If any impact on wildlife relates to a planning consent (or lack of) then the council’s enforcement team can investigate if a breach of control has taken place and take action (e.g. issue a stop notice or a enforcement notice to outline what remediation works/planning consents are required). There has been no enforcement action required or undertaken and so it is not a matter for the council.
If the matter falls outside planning legislation, which this does, it would be an issue for the police to investigate. Natural England (as the statutory wildlife licensing body) also have an enforcement team to investigate protected species licensing issues, but ultimately it would be the police who would take any prosecution action.
Council officers in the Neighbourhoods team have visited the site on many occasions recently and no work has been undertaken by the landowner that should not have been.
In your latest email (attached) you reference restrictions that might be placed on amenity land, I am again unsure of this source, but can advise that there are no such restrictions in place on this land.
Kind regards
Vicki Bates
(She/Her)
Assistant Director – Legal & Democratic 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
