https://substack.com/@theromileygazette?

9th January 2026

Residents in Romiley have escalated their concerns over planning decisions at Padden Brook into what they describe as a formal challenge to the integrity of Stockport Council’s planning, governance, and democratic accountability.

After more than 17 months of sustained objections, correspondence, and requests for intervention, campaigners say they are facing not just disputed planning outcomes, but a wall of silence from those elected and appointed to represent and protect the public interest.

They argue that what began as a local planning dispute has now exposed a much wider failure — one that spans council officers, elected councillors, and the local Member of Parliament.

Failure of Statutory Oversight

Central to residents’ concerns is the role of the council’s Monitoring Officer, Vicki Bates, whose statutory duty is to ensure council actions are lawful, procedurally sound, and compliant with governance standards.

Campaigners state that repeated representations have been submitted raising concerns about:

  • Compliance with planning policy
  • Cumulative environmental harm at Padden Brook
  • Procedural fairness and transparency
  • Consistency and lawfulness of decision-making

Despite this, residents say they have seen no visible intervention, review, or corrective action, even as contested decisions continue.

“The Monitoring Officer is meant to act when systems fail,” one resident said. “If concerns can be raised repeatedly over more than a year without any apparent response, people are entitled to ask whether oversight is actually being exercised.”

Questions for the Head of Planning

Residents are also challenging the role of Emma Curle, Head of Planning, whose responsibility includes maintaining public confidence in the planning system.

Campaigners argue that planning outcomes at Padden Brook show a recurring pattern in which:

  • Environmental sensitivity is marginalised
  • Local objections are consistently overridden
  • Incremental approvals collectively undermine policy intent

They say this raises serious questions about leadership, judgment, and whether the planning system is operating in the public interest.

Allegations of Restricted Representation

Concerns have intensified following claims that residents attempting to pursue clarification or challenge planning decisions have had their correspondence curtailed.

Campaigners allege that Liz Sykes, the council’s Information Governance Officer, has restricted or blocked further representations relating to Padden Brook, effectively preventing residents from continuing to engage with the council on matters that directly affect their community.

Residents describe this as a decisive turning point.

“When people are told they can no longer raise concerns, that is no longer a planning issue — it is a democratic one,” a campaigner said.

17 Months of Political Silence

Perhaps most troubling to residents is the continued silence of those elected to represent them.

Campaigners state that local Liberal Democrat councillors Angela Clark, Rachel Bresnahan, Mark Roberts and the local Lib Dem MP Lisa Smart have been repeatedly contacted over a period of 17 months, yet have failed to provide meaningful responses, public statements, or visible advocacy on the issue.

Residents say this silence has exacerbated an already serious breakdown in trust.

“Councillors are supposed to scrutinise officers. MPs are supposed to represent constituents,” one resident said. “When both remain silent for over a year, it raises the question of whether anyone is actually willing to challenge what’s happening.”

Campaigners stress they are not asking elected representatives to predetermine planning outcomes, but to:

  • Acknowledge constituents’ concerns
  • Seek transparency
  • Demand explanations
  • Ensure residents are not shut out of the process

A System Failing Upwards

Taken together, residents argue the situation at Padden Brook reflects a systemic failure:

  • Planning decisions proceed despite sustained objection
  • Statutory oversight appears absent or invisible
  • Channels for challenge are restricted
  • Elected representatives fail to intervene or even respond

They say that even if no wrongdoing has occurred, the absence of accountability, scrutiny, and representation is profoundly damaging to public confidence.

Who Do They Work For?

Campaigners are now calling for:

  • A transparent explanation of how Padden Brook decisions comply with planning and environmental policy
  • Clarification of what oversight actions have been taken by the Monitoring Officer
  • An explanation for the restriction of residents’ representations
  • Independent scrutiny of planning governance at the site
  • Public engagement from elected councillors and the local MP

“Council officers, councillors, and MPs are all paid from public funds,” one resident said.
“After 17 months of silence and obstruction, people are entitled to ask a simple question: who exactly do all these people work for?”

Stockport Council, local councillors, and the local MP have been invited to respond.