20th August 2025
Residents campaigning for answers about environmental concerns at Padden Brook have been dealt another blow after Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council upheld its decision to refuse the release of further information.
Campaigners had asked the council to clarify whether investigations had been carried out into possible land instability at Padden Brook, and which officers were involved. However, the council has refused, citing the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), claiming that the requests are “manifestly unreasonable” and “vexatious.”
In an internal review of its earlier decision, the council confirmed last week that it will not be releasing the information.
Council Stance: Burden on Resources
The review, carried out by Information Governance Manager Liz Sykes, acknowledged that the condition of Padden Brook is a matter of public interest, but insisted the “burden of compliance” outweighed the benefit of disclosure.
According to the council, staff have had to respond to over 230 emails on the matter since August 2024. Officials said the cumulative effect of this correspondence has created “a disproportionate impact on staff time.”
The review pointed to legal precedent allowing councils to consider the wider context of persistent requests. It noted that while the latest query was narrow, it “cannot be viewed in isolation” and formed part of a broader pattern of communication that had become “unmanageable.”
Residents Cry Foul
Local residents argue that their requests for information are legitimate, given ongoing concerns about land slippage, flooding, and the ecological health of the Local Wildlife Site.
They also point out that delays by public bodies themselves have made repeated follow-ups inevitable. In one case, it reportedly took the council three months to reply to a single email, forcing further reminders. Councillors and the local MP are also said to have refused to respond for over 220 days, again compelling residents to chase replies.
Campaigners say the council’s refusal only deepens suspicion that potential are being downplayed.
One resident, who has been corresponding with the council for months, told the Gazette:
“We’re being branded as vexatious for simply trying to protect our community. If there are risks to homes or the environment, we deserve straight answers—not to be shut down.”
Council Position on Future Requests
The council stressed that future requests would still be considered on their own merits, but warned it may rely on exemptions if the subject continues to generate what it sees as unreasonable pressure on resources.
Officials insist that “nothing is taking place at the site of Padden Brook that the Council needs to take action on.”
Next Steps
Residents dissatisfied with the outcome have been told they can escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which has the power to order disclosure if it believes the council’s reasoning is flawed, but that would take a long time and the destruction of this vital wildlife habitat continues at a trot.
For now, however, campaigners remain locked in a stalemate with the authority—frustrated by what they see as stonewalling, while the council maintains it has already provided enough information and must protect its limited resources.
———————————————————————————–
OFFICIAL
EIR INTERNAL REVIEW REQUEST
Reference: IR 101007866729
Request References: EIR 101007834786
01 July 2025
Dear Requester,
I write in relation to your most recent request, sent to Stockport Metropolitan
Borough Council (the Council) under the Environmental Information Regulations
2004 (EIR).
I refer to your email dated the 3rd of May 2025, in which you requested an internal
review of the Council’s response to your EIR submission of the 2nd of April 2025.
I am writing to formally request an internal review of your refusal to respond to EIR
request 101007834786, citing Regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information
Regulations (EIR) and Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
I believe the decision to classify my request as “manifestly unreasonable” and
“vexatious” is flawed.
As a member of staff who was not involved in this case, I have been asked to
undertake an internal review.
During the course of this review, I have:
Examined all correspondence between yourself and the Council.
Reviewed the response provided to you.
Reviewed the application of section 12(4)(b) of the EIR and Section 14(1) of
the FOIA
Original Response
On the 2nd of April you requested information in relation to the management of
Padden Brook. This included clarification on whether an investigation had been
carried out by the Council in regards to land instability and details of the officers
involved.
Your request was refused under Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and Section 14(1) of
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), on the grounds that it was manifestly
unreasonable and vexatious.
Internal Review Outcome
I have reviewed this response, alongside the service area involved, to clarify if
Section 12(4)(b) and Section 14(1) should apply to this request. On this occasion I
am upholding the original decision to apply the above exemptions for the following
reasons:
OFFICIAL
- Legitimate Public Interest
It is acknowledged that whilst the subject matter—potential environmental
degradation at a Local Nature Site—is of public interest and falls within the scope of
environmental information under Regulation 2(1), the existence of public interest
does not prevent the application of Regulation 12(4)(b) where the burden of
compliance is disproportionate. - Burden of Compliance and ICO Guidance
It is acknowledged that your current request appears narrow, however the Council
has to consider it within the context of a sustained pattern of correspondence and
requests on this topic. The council has received approximately 230 emails since 1
August 2024 in relation to Padden Brook. The cumulative effect of these interactions
has placed a significant and ongoing burden on council resources. The ICO
recognises that a request may be manifestly unreasonable where it forms part of a
wider pattern of behaviour that is obsessive, harassing, or causes unjustified
disruption.
Although a detailed cost analysis was not provided in the original refusal, the volume
of prior correspondence, the time spent responding, and the disproportionate impact
on staff time are documented internally. The Craven case you cited is noted;
however, the authority is not required to conduct a full cost analysis in every
instance, particularly where the burden is qualitative rather than purely financial. - Characterisation of Behaviour
We acknowledge your frustration and do not dispute your right to seek
accountability. However, the tone, frequency, and volume of your communications
have had a disproportionate impact on staff. The Upper Tribunal in Dransfield
confirmed that vexatiousness may arise from a combination of factors, including
persistence, tone, and burden. In this case, the threshold has been met. - Specificity of the Current Request
While the current request is more focused, it cannot be viewed in isolation. It forms
part of a broader pattern of requests and correspondence that has become
unmanageable. The authority has already provided substantial information on this
matter and has attempted to engage constructively. The Council has previously
advised in response to your requests that there is nothing taking place at the site of
Padden Brook that the Council needs to take action on.
We would like to reaffirm that any requests are considered on their own merits. The
statement regarding future requests was intended to reflect the cumulative burden of
repeated, overlapping requests rather than to impose a blanket ban. We will continue
to assess future requests individually, in line with our obligations under the EIR.
However, as stated in our original response, we reserve the right to not respond to
further requests relating to Padden Brook in accordance with section 17(6) of the
FOIA.
On review of the above, I am upholding the Council’s response regarding EIR - The public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the
interest in disclosure, given the disproportionate burden imposed.
If you are unhappy with the outcome of this internal review, you are entitled
to complain to the Information Commissioner. To do so, contact:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
https://ico.org.uk
0303 123 1113
Kind regards,
Liz Sykes
Information Governance Manager
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
OFFICIAL
