10th October 2025
A Romiley resident has accused Stockport Council of failing to take meaningful action for more than 14 months following repeated reports of suspected wildlife crime involving badgers near Padden Brook.
Sheila Oliver, a long-time campaigner for environmental protection in the area, says the Council has ignored evidence and dismissed her legitimate concerns as “vexatious,” effectively silencing her from raising further complaints.
In a formal Stage 2 complaint response dated 10 October 2025, Stockport Council’s Complaints Manager, Katie Moores, said the matter had been investigated and that the complaint was “not upheld.” (katie.moores@stockport.gov.uk
0161 218 1581).
According to the Council’s response, officers visited the site several times and concluded that no breach of planning control had taken place. The letter also noted that the woodland area is protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), but that this protection does not extend to scrubland at the front of the site.
However, Ms Oliver insists that “the land has been disturbed and the Council has failed to properly investigate the potential destruction of protected species
The Council maintains that wildlife crimes fall under the jurisdiction of GMP.
Ms Oliver disputes this outcome, saying “photographic evidence shows the area was neither ‘tidied up’ nor ‘improved,’ but damaged — and no one has been held accountable.”
In its response, the Council also defended its decision to classify Ms Oliver’s communications as vexatious, noting that she had sent around 400 emails over a 12-month period concerning Padden Brook. An internal review upheld that decision in July 2025.
“This is not just about me. It’s about transparency and accountability. If residents can be labelled ‘vexatious’ simply for asking questions, then something is deeply wrong.”
Residents concerned about how the Council has handled the issue are being advised they can contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), which independently reviews complaints about councils.
The Romiley Gazette has contacted Stockport Council for comment.
Protected Ash Tree
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
