Romiley, 5 November 2025 — A Romiley resident has renewed calls for transparency and accountability from Stockport Council over alleged damage to protected woodland at Padden Brook (Tree Preservation Order 376E, W1).
In a detailed written statement to Councillor Mark Roberts, Leader of the Council, local campaigner Sheila Oliver expressed deep concern that the Council’s response to her public question “did not substantively address the issues raised” and contained “statements inconsistent with verifiable evidence.”
The dispute centres on the management and protection of a mixed deciduous woodland in Romiley that has been under a statutory Tree Preservation Order since 1976. Over the past fourteen months, residents have repeatedly reported what they describe as “continuous and visible destruction and degradation” of the site — including tree felling, ground disturbance, and the dumping of material within the protected area.
Evidence vs. Council Findings
In her letter, Ms. Oliver disputes the Council’s statement that “officers found no evidence of anything untoward taking place.” She says this is “demonstrably inconsistent” with dated photographs and videos she and others have supplied to the authority.
She has requested that the Council disclose the dates of all officer visits, the positions of those who attended, and the findings formally recorded during each inspection, arguing that such transparency is vital to determine whether investigations were adequate and compliant with statutory enforcement duties.
Statutory Duties and Public Interest
Citing the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012, Ms. Oliver stresses that councils have a legal duty to investigate and, where necessary, enforce against any breaches affecting protected trees.
“Failure to act upon credible and evidenced reports of damage,” she writes, “may constitute a breach of those obligations.”
She adds that public persistence in seeking action “cannot be equated with vexatious behaviour” when the underlying concern involves environmental harm to a protected public asset.
‘Vexatious’ Designation Disputed
A central point of contention is the Council’s decision to label Ms. Oliver’s correspondence and information requests as “vexatious.”
In its written Cabinet response, Councillor Roberts stated that the Council had received “over 200 emails” regarding the site, that officers had attended “on numerous occasions,” and that “no evidence of anything untoward” was found.
The response also clarified that it was the Council collectively, not an individual officer, who determined that the volume and frequency of requests were “disproportionate,” though the matter was recognised as one of public interest.
Ms. Oliver rejects the classification as unjustified, writing that it has “deterred proper scrutiny, caused reputational harm, and restricted access to due process.” She has called on the Council to formally retract the designation and acknowledge the legitimacy of residents’ environmental concerns.
Outstanding Questions
In her latest correspondence, Ms. Oliver again asks the Council to provide clear answers to three key questions:
- What specific investigations or enforcement actions have been undertaken regarding the continuing damage to Padden Brook (TPO 376E)?
- Does the Council consider that it has met its statutory obligations under the 2012 TPO Regulations?
- Will the Council retract the “vexatious” classification applied to this correspondence?
A Matter of Public Stewardship
“This is not a personal grievance,” Ms. Oliver concludes, “but about the protection of a legally designated woodland — a public asset held in trust for the community and future generations. It is essential that the Council’s handling of this issue meets both the spirit and the letter of its environmental responsibilities.”
As of publication, Stockport Council has not issued any further comment beyond the Cabinet’s written statement.
