Romiley Resident Challenges Council After “Politically Motivated” Claim.

19th February 2026

A Romiley resident is pressing Stockport Council for answers after her public questions to Cabinet were dismissed as “likely to be politically motivated”.

The questions were submitted to the 10 February 2026 Cabinet meeting. As she was not present, written responses were later issued by the Leader of the Council.

In the reply, the Leader confirmed a dossier she had submitted was passed to the council’s Monitoring Officer — the senior legal official responsible for ensuring the authority acts lawfully.

However, the response also rejected her allegations of maladministration and stated the questions were likely politically motivated due to her campaigning activity.

The resident has now written back asking a direct follow-up: what actually happened after the Monitoring Officer received the dossier?

She is seeking confirmation of whether the submission triggered any investigation, whether it was treated as a formal complaint, and whether any breach of council rules or law was identified.

Councils are entitled to challenge criticism, but residents are also entitled to know what becomes of formal allegations once they enter official channels. The Monitoring Officer role exists specifically to separate governance oversight from political debate.

At the time of publication, no clarification has yet been issued.

The exchange highlights a familiar fault line in local government — when scrutiny from the public meets political sensitivity inside the council chamber, transparency becomes the real test.

To:
Ms Vicki Bates
Assistant Director – Governance, Monitoring Officer
Stockport Council

Subject: Response to Complaint Findings – Cllr Roberts / Padden Brook

1. Introduction

1.1 I write in response to your email of 12 December 2025 regarding the findings and decision on my complaints about Cllr Roberts.

1.2 The purpose of this letter is to provide clarification and factual context in relation to the matters raised, including the characterization of my conduct as “vexatious” or “politically motivated,” and to set out evidence of my engagement with councillors and the council on behalf of local residents.

2. Apolitical Engagement

2.1 I am apolitical. While I have engaged with councillors from multiple parties—including Conservative, Labour, Green, and Reform—my engagement has been based solely on their integrity and responsiveness to local issues, not on party affiliation. I can provide supporting emails to evidence this.

2.2 Regarding observations about my limited support for Reform and the Green Party: this involvement has been restricted to leafleting on specific issues and for specific candidates where I considered that they would better represent local residents. This activity was motivated by civic concern, not political bias.

3. Response to Allegations of Vexatious or Politically Motivated Conduct

3.1 I strongly contest the description of my conduct as “vexatious” or “politically motivated.”

3.2 My actions, including questions submitted to council meetings and correspondence regarding Padden Brook, have been factual, evidence-based, and in pursuit of transparency, accountability, and protection of a significant wildlife site.

3.3 I also note that my use of social media has been referenced in criticisms of my conduct. I assert my right to post on social media, both to raise awareness of issues affecting local residents and to exercise my legitimate rights to freedom of expression. Such posts are factual, evidence-based, and intended to inform the community and hold public representatives accountable. Criticism of my social media activity should not be used to characterize my engagement as “vexatious” or politically motivated.

4. Ongoing Padden Brook Issue

4.1 The issue at Padden Brook has persisted from 9 August 2024 to the present day.

4.2 During this period:

Cllr Roberts, Cllr Angela Clark, and Cllr Rachel Bresnahan did not respond to any emails sent by me.
The MP also did not respond to correspondence regarding this matter.
The site, an important wildlife area, experienced ongoing damage on a daily basis.
The only response received—in relation to a council meeting question—was demonstrably untrue, claiming that the site had been improved and tidied up.

4.3 I represent multiple local residents who share concern about Padden Brook. I hold emails from these residents confirming that they too were receiving no responses from councillors or the MP. Copies of these emails are available and can be provided as evidence in court if required.

4.4 I also note that councillors, as elected representatives, hold a position of public trust. Recent cases in Stockport, including the prosecution of a former councillor on multiple charges of rape and sexual assault of an underage girl, demonstrate that allegations of serious misconduct by councillors are real and must be addressed appropriately. In particular, John Smith, a former Stockport councillor and executive member, has faced prosecution on multiple charges of sexual offences against an underage girl, becoming the second executive councillor in Stockport to be caught committing such offences. The failure of elected representatives and council officers to respond to ongoing public concerns—such as those I have raised regarding Padden Brook—underscores the necessity for accountability and timely action. My repeated correspondence was motivated by the need to protect the community and ensure that matters of public interest are taken seriously, particularly given that serious breaches of trust by councillors have precedent in this area.

4.5 I also note that Cllr Angela Clark has deliberately brought grass into the Romiley Precinct area to create the appearance that it had been dug up. Such actions, accompanied by social media posts and photographs, constitute misleading representations of the work of councillors. This further highlights the need for accurate recording and accountability in how councillors communicate publicly about ongoing environmental concerns.

4.6 Any assertion that repeated emails sent on this matter were “vexatious” fails to recognize that they were prompted by the council’s inaction on an issue of clear public importance.

5. Romiley Precinct Interaction (1 November 2025)

5.1 I approached Cllr Roberts at Romiley Precinct to seek factual information regarding Padden Brook.

5.2 My approach was non-threatening and focused on obtaining accurate information. Any interpretation of my conduct as confrontational or politically motivated is inconsistent with the context of this engagement and my ongoing representation of local residents.

5.3 I note that Cllr Roberts has stated that he should not have engaged with me given my previous and ongoing correspondence with the council, and that he attempted to avoid conversation and walk away. He claims that earlier that morning I had posted about him on social media, and that he turned away to leave while I continued to raise concerns, at which point I allegedly said he was being unreasonable and corrupt.

5.4 However, in my account of the interaction, Cllr Roberts’ conduct was aggressive and intimidating. His shrieking was such that my 75-year-old husband felt compelled to intervene, stating, “Don’t you speak to my wife like that.” This illustrates the disproportionate and aggressive nature of his response, which caused distress to both myself and my husband.

5.5 This incident further underscores the need for accurate recording of interactions and fair consideration of all evidence in evaluating councillor conduct.

6. Evidence of Correspondence and Community Representation

Appendix A – Evidence

6.1 Timeline of Correspondence:

Date	Recipient	Summary	Response Received?
9 Aug 2024 – present	Cllr Roberts	Emails regarding ongoing damage and management of Padden Brook	None
9 Aug 2024 – present	Cllr Angela Clark	Emails regarding ongoing damage and management of Padden Brook	None
9 Aug 2024 – present	Cllr Rachel Bresnahan	Emails regarding ongoing damage and management of Padden Brook	None
9 Aug 2024 – present	MP [Name]	Emails regarding ongoing damage and public concern	None
	Council Meeting Question	Submitted formal question regarding site management	Response received: inaccurately stated site was “improved and tidied up”

6.2 Volume of Correspondence:

Over 500 emails sent to councillors and council officers regarding Padden Brook since August 2024.
Emails were factual, requesting information and action to prevent ongoing environmental damage.

6.3 Community Representation:

Emails from residents confirm lack of response from councillors or the MP.
I act on behalf of these residents in raising concerns with the council. These email can be provided.

6.4 Context of Council Inaction:

Repeated follow-ups were required due to council’s failure to respond.
Characterizing these communications as “vexatious” is incorrect and misrepresents the factual basis for engagement.

6.5 Public Interest:

Padden Brook is an important wildlife site subject to ongoing environmental damage.
My correspondence and questions are intended to protect the site, raise accountability, and inform the local community.

6.6 Supporting Documents:

Copies of emails sent to councillors, council officers, and the MP can be provided.
Emails from residents confirming lack of response.
Copy of council meeting question and written response.

7. Conclusion

7.1 My engagement over this period reflects a consistent commitment to civic responsibility, transparency, and representation of local residents.

7.2 It is crucial that such engagement is not mischaracterized as politically motivated or vexatious.

7.3 I remain committed to constructive engagement with councillors and council services in pursuit of the community’s interests.

8. Further Matters – Referral to Police

8.1 I note that, as Monitoring Officer, you have the authority to refer matters to the police where illegal actions are suspected.

8.2 In that context, I would like to formally raise concerns relating to potential fraud and request that you consider whether these matters warrant police involvement. I am prepared to provide full documentation and evidence to support this referral if required.

8.3 This request is made in a constructive and responsible manner, with the aim of ensuring transparency, accountability, and the protection of public interest.

Yours sincerely,

15/12/25 17.43

Appendix A – Padden Brook

Appendix A – Correspondence Timeline

No.	Date	Recipient	Summary	Response Received?
A1	9 Aug 2024 – present	Cllr Roberts	Emails regarding ongoing damage and management of Padden Brook	None
A2	9 Aug 2024 – present	Cllr Angela Clark	Emails regarding ongoing damage and management of Padden Brook	None
A3	9 Aug 2024 – present	Cllr Rachel Bresnahan	Emails regarding ongoing damage and management of Padden Brook	None
A4	9 Aug 2024 – present	MP Lisa Smart	Emails regarding ongoing damage and public concern	None
A5	Council Meeting	Submitted formal question regarding site management	Response: inaccurately stated site was “improved and tidied up”

——————————————-

Appendix B – Vale View School, Bypass Issues and Councillor Paedophilia/Abuses

Document B1 – School places needed just after school opens

Document B2 – Email from Andy McKenzie to Chris Woolard 10^th March 2006 stating the new school is too small and that this should be kept secret for the present.

Document B3 – Press insert stating the cost of the school in October 2005 would be £5.5m.

Document B4 – By 12^th December 2005 the costs had risen to over £7.5m

Document B5 –Financial irregularity of over £200,000 in this document and it shows the costs had risen to £9,930,000. Document produced 23/3/2008

Document B6 – Agenda pre meeting document 30/3/2007 showing obvious concern over funding and concerns that the school is being built too small.

Document B7 – Heatons and Reddish Area Committee 19^th December 2011 – report from police about dangerous traffic situation around the school.

Document B8 – Newspaper article showng that when the Environment Agency told the council not to decide the planning application on grounds of contamination they were ignored.

Document B9 – Sign showing the site was a recreation ground which should not have been developed without a public inquiry given the 800 objectors to the project.

Document B10 – 2 pages of a document produced for the council by their consultants – GVA Grimley regarding the Sport England planning condition.

Document B11 – Planning and Highways Regulation Committee document 13^th March 2008 regarding the importance of the Sport England planning condition.

Documen B12 – Letter from Stockport Council showing I ask questions on various relevant issues and their refusal to respond regarding the missing replacement playing fields stipulated by Sport England.

Document B13 Stockport Council letter admitting that all the town’s street lighting was to be funded by PFI bypass funds.

Document B14 –Manchester Evening News story link about the A555 flooding again

Documents B15 & B16 –photos of sand leaking from the sand-backfilled structures on the A555. This is not a Highway Agency road, but the liability of the council taxpayers of Greater Manchester.

B17 – Video about the case of the Town Hall Protester.

B18 – Video about the non-removal of brown asbestos fibres from the primary school site.

B19 link Evidence of the Town Hall protester’s custodies, arrests and imprisonments.

Document B20 – Email from Greater Manchester Police admitting the Town Hall protester had been completely innocent. This was admitted posthumously.

Document B21 – untrue and misleading social media post by Councillor Angela Clark

Document B22 Manchester Evening News story about LibDem (not Tory) paedophile Executive Councillor John Smith

Document B23 council log where Lord Goddard and the paedophile councillor John Smith ask why Mr Parnell is being allowed to continue to protest.

Document B1

Document B2

Document B3

Document B4

Document B5

Document B6

Document B7

Document B8

Document B9

Document B10

Document B11

Document B12

Document B13

B14 Manchester Evening News link about the flooded bypass
“The A555 Airport Relief Road in Handforth was closed by police last night and has remained shut today.

The road has continually flooded after spells of heavy rain since the £290m route, which links Hazel Grove to the airport, was completed in 2018”https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/a555-airport-relief-road-flooding-21258332