https://substack.com/@theromileygazette?

5th January 2026

For local campaigners and taxpayers, navigating council bureaucracy can feel like running a marathon in a maze. What should be a simple question in a council meeting can quickly turn into a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, with a mandatory 20-working-day waiting period, leaving residents frustrated and unheard.

That is the experience of Sheila Oliver, a long-standing Stockport resident, and the late, great Mike Wacker, who have both challenged council practices for years. Their correspondence reveals how the system often shields officials and consultants from scrutiny.

“I asked a planning question yesterday,” Sheila Oliver recounted. “I was told to submit an FOI request — not applicable, I said — but they didn’t care. It would have taken 20 working days.”

Oliver describes how even straightforward issues, like children’s safety at school entrances, can be delayed by this bureaucratic workaround. In one instance, traffic consultants recommended that children as young as four be dropped off at a turning circle and walk along a narrow, traffic-heavy lane to enter a 600-pupil school site — a plan Oliver and others consider dangerously unsafe.

Where Does a Question End and an FOI Begin?

The correspondence highlights an important ambiguity:

  • Who decides whether a question is a standard council query or a formal FOI request?
  • If a verbal answer can be given, does it qualify as a question, or does it automatically become an FOI?

Mike Wacker, in his emails to Oliver, pointed out the confusion:

Even the council’s Internal Audit Department becomes involved in such cases, sometimes leaving residents uncertain whether complaints are being handled objectively or simply filed away.

Consultants, Case Law, and Residents’ Scrutiny

Council consultants and legal officers are often cited in replies, adding further layers of complexity. In one case, Oliver and Wacker highlighted discrepancies in how consultation results were presented, suggesting that percentages were calculated in a way that could misrepresent public support.

“I feel in my bones he has used the accepting votes as a percentage of responses rather than total houses to give the impression that a majority accepted,” Wacker noted.

Despite these obstacles, Oliver remains determined:

“They can’t go on and on having provable complaints lodged against them with people like the Information Commissioner and Internal Audit, so in the end they will have to change their behaviour. I shall get them for all this even if it takes me a decade.”

What Council Taxpayers Face

The correspondence paints a picture of a system where:

  • Routine questions can be redirected as FOI requests, slowing responses for weeks.
  • Consultants and officials can obscure the reality of planning or consultation results.
  • Residents raising genuine concerns risk being labeled “vexatious”.
  • Public scrutiny is often delayed, weakened, or ignored.

For council taxpayers, this adds up to time, effort, and frustration, as the ordinary checks and balances of democracy appear to falter.

The case of Harcourt Street, Padden Brook and other local projects shows that when residents’ voices are silenced or delayed, public trust in local government suffers, and accountability suffers alongside it.