25th January 2025
According to the resident, the application claims that the site is not within 20 metres of a watercourse. This is strongly disputed. The resident states that a watercourse runs directly beneath the land and emerges only a few feet away on Hurstheads Lane — a factor that could have implications for drainage, flood risk and environmental protection.
Fresh concerns have been raised by a Romiley resident over the accuracy of information submitted in a current planning application affecting land at Padden Brook, with warnings that errors could lead to environmental and wildlife impacts being overlooked.
The concerns follow earlier complaints relating to tree works at the same site. Two applications to fell three trees from woodland at Padden Brook — submitted in October 2024 and March 2025 — were withdrawn by the applicant before any formal assessment took place.
In a letter dated 19 January 2026, Stockport Council confirmed that because those applications were withdrawn, they were never considered by the local planning authority. The council also advised the resident that they could escalate their complaint through the corporate complaints process if dissatisfied.
However, the resident says that similar — and potentially more serious — inaccuracies now appear in a new planning application, reference DC/097706, which is awaiting determination.
The resident has also challenged statements in the application relating to biodiversity. While the application reportedly answers “no” to questions about biodiversity or geological conservation features, the resident says the applicant is aware of protected wildlife at the northern end of the site. The area is described as being used by bats, as well as other birds and mammals.
Further questions have been raised about transparency. The resident notes that there is no mention in the application of a six-foot-high noticeboard erected over the Christmas period at the northern boundary of the site.
In addition, the application indicates that no Environmental Assessment has been carried out — a point the resident believes should be of particular concern given the proximity of the watercourse and the presence of wildlife and W1 protected woodland and protected visual amenity land.
Writing to the council, the resident said they hoped these issues would be fully recognised when the planning department comes to consider the application, stressing that planning decisions must be based on accurate and complete information.
At the time of writing, Stockport Council has not issued a public response addressing the specific concerns raised about application DC/097706, which remains under consideration.
The Romiley Gazette will continue to monitor the application and report on any decisions or further developments.
—————————————————————————————————
From: Local Resident
To: Michael Anders <michael.anders@stockport.gov.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, 20 January 2026 at 14:15:19 GMT
Subject: Re: Formal complaint Ref:101007950570 [GGK04SU5]
Dear Mr Anders,
Thanks for your reply. I now understand that these applications were not actually considered by the planning authority. However can I add that in the applicant’s current planning application, he is up to the same sort of inaccuracies. In application DC/097706 he claims that the site in question is NOT within 20 metres of a watercourse, when in fact there is a watercourse running directly under the land, coming out feet away on Hurstheads Lane. He also answers NO to the question about whether there are any ‘biodiversity or geological conservation features’ to be considered; in fact he is very aware that there’s protected wildlife at the northern end of the site. ………. The area is also very obviously in use by bats, as well as other birds and mammals.
As far as I can tell there is no mention of the 6-foot high ?noticeboard that was erected over Christmas at the northern end of the site boundary, either.
In the Application Details it is indicated that there has been no Environmental Assessment.
I hope that all this will be known when the planning department do get to the point of considering DC/097706.
Thanks for your time,
Local resident
On Monday, 19 January 2026 at 13:43:13 GMT, Michael Anders <michael.anders@stockport.gov.uk> wrote:
Dear Ms XXXX
I write with regards to your recent complaint regarding your concerns over errors in tree works applications to fell three trees from woodland at Padden Brook submitted on 22nd October 2024 and 14th Marcd (sic) 2025.
Having viewed these applications (DC/095281 & DC/09387) I can confirm that as they were withdrawn by the applicant these applications were never considered by the local planning authority.
NEXT STEPS
I hope this response has addressed your concerns. Your feedback is valuable, and it helps us continuously improve our services. However, if you’re still dissatisfied with any part of this response, you have the option to escalate your complaint to stage 2 of the corporate complaints procedure. You can do this by writing to the Complaints Service within 20 working days of receiving this response. Please send your correspondence to:
Complaints Service
Stockport Council
1st Floor
Stopford House
Stockport
SK1 3XE
Email: Stage2.complaints@stockport.gov.uk
Best regards
Michael Anders BA (Hons) Pg Dip
Neighbourhoods Manager – Arboriculture
