Katie Moores (again).

19th January 2026

Council Stands by Planning Advice Despite Local Concern.

Based on the correspondence you shared, here’s a careful breakdown of what Katie Moores, as Complaints Manager, ideally could or should have done, especially under the Duty of Candour and good public administration practice:

1. Fully Investigate the Core Complaint

What happened: The resident, Sheila Oliver, claimed that a planning officer gave misleading information to councillors, which directly affected their withdrawal of objections.
Ideal action: Katie Moores should have examined the original advice given to councillors, including minutes, internal notes, and emails, rather than only reviewing publicly available committee reports and the prior responses.
Why: Even if the planning officer’s advice ultimately aligns with policy, confirming that councillors understood the information correctly is essential under the Duty of Candour.

2. Assess Impact and Accountability

What happened: The response simply stated that no misleading advice was given and that transparency was not breached.
Ideal action: Moores could have assessed the impact of any inaccurate information, e.g., whether councillors’ decisions were influenced by misunderstandings. If errors were found, she should have acknowledged them explicitly.
Why: Duty of Candour isn’t just about denying wrongdoing; it’s about acknowledging mistakes where they exist and ensuring public trust.

3. Provide Clear, Substantive Explanations

What happened: The letters stated “not applicable” or “no” without providing context, reasoning, or evidence for those conclusions.
Ideal action: Moores should have explained the investigation steps she undertook, what evidence was examined, and why the council concluded no misleading advice was given.
Why: Transparency is as much about showing your work as it is about the final answer. Residents need to understand how decisions were reached.

4. Offer Remedies or Escalation Options Proactively

What happened: The council pointed to the Ombudsman as an afterthought.
Ideal action: Moores could have offered proactive remedies, such as:
- Ensuring future councillor briefings include lessons from the incident.
- Publishing clarification for the public on the planning matter.
- Suggesting internal review of how officer advice is communicated.
Why: Providing remedies demonstrates accountability and that the council takes complaints seriously.

5. Avoid Dismissing the Complainant as “Vexatious” Without Justification

What happened: Previous correspondence had apparently labelled the resident’s enquiries as vexatious.
Ideal action: Even if correspondence is frequent, each complaint must be judged on its merits. Moores should have ensured the current concern was assessed independently, without relying on past characterizations.
Why: Mislabeling a legitimate concern as vexatious can undermine trust and the council’s legal obligations under Duty of Candour.

Summary of Ideal Approach

Katie Moores should have:

Investigated the specific advice given to councillors.
Assessed whether any errors affected decision-making.
Clearly explained the evidence and reasoning behind her conclusions.
Offered remedies or suggested improvements.
Treated the complaint on its own merits, without relying on previous “vexatious” labels.

Bottom line: The council’s response was technically defensive but fell short of full transparency and accountability, which are the core principles of the Duty of Candour.

Dear Ms Oliver,

Further to your follow up questions, please find the responses below:

Did the planning officer provide misleading or inaccurate information to councillors regarding the balance between housing need and traffic concerns? No
Was the planning committee made fully aware that local councillors’ withdrawal of objections was based on incorrect advice? Not applicable
Given the duty of candour, does the Council acknowledge any failure in ensuring transparency and accuracy in this process? No

Kind regards,

Katie Moores

Complaints Manager

Stockport Council

Mobile: 07929 795350

http://stockport.gov.uk

From: Sheila Oliver <sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com>
Sent: 25 February 2025 18:51
To: Katie Moores <katie.moores@stockport.gov.uk>
Cc: James Almond <james@almond-pubs.co.uk>
Subject: External: RE: Council response

Dear Ms Moores

Subject: Response to Complaint Review – Duty of Candour

Thank you for your response regarding my complaint about the handling of planning matters related to Hatherlow Sunday School. I note your assertion that the Council is satisfied with the response provided to me. However, I remain concerned that a key issue has not been adequately addressed—namely, that the planning officer provided misleading information to local councillors, which directly influenced their decision to withdraw their objections.

The Council has a duty to ensure that decisions are made transparently and based on accurate information. Under the new Duty of Candour obligations for public bodies, I would expect the Council to fully acknowledge and address instances where misleading or inaccurate information has played a role in decision-making. It is not sufficient to state that a proportionate response was provided if the fundamental concern—incorrect information being given to councillors—has not been properly examined.

I request a clear response on the following points:

Did the planning officer provide misleading or inaccurate information to councillors regarding the balance between housing need and traffic concerns?
Was the planning committee made fully aware that local councillors’ withdrawal of objections was based on incorrect advice?
Given the duty of candour, does the Council acknowledge any failure in ensuring transparency and accuracy in this process?

I would appreciate a direct and substantive response to these points. Should the Council fail to address this issue properly, I will have no choice but to escalate my concerns to the relevant oversight bodies.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila

From: Katie Moores [mailto:katie.moores@stockport.gov.uk]
Sent: 25 February 2025 17:26
To: sheilaoliver
Subject: Council response

Dear Ms Oliver,

I refer to the letter from the Leader of the Council dated 17^th January 2025 in which he advised that the response you have been provided would be reviewed.

Having fully reviewed your initial complaint, the webcast of the Area Committee and the Councils together with the responses you have been provided, the Council is satisfied that a factually correct and proportionate response was provided to you.