25th May 2026
Planning Department
Stockport Council
Town Hall
Stockport
SK1 3XE
Monday, 25 May 2026
To Whom It May Concern,
I wish to formally object to the proposed housing development at Padden Brook, Romiley.
This objection is based on serious concerns regarding environmental damage, planning process failures, wildlife impact, flooding risk, visual amenity harm and the apparent lack of meaningful enforcement action relating to previous activity on the site.
Padden Brook has repeatedly been described by residents and campaigners as protected visual amenity land and a Local Wildlife Site containing mature woodland and habitat for wildlife including bats, hedgehogs, owls and other protected species. Residents have stated that substantial clearance and disturbance works began in 2024 before proper scrutiny and enforcement action occurred.
Numerous local residents have expressed distress regarding the destruction of trees, vegetation and wildlife habitat on land which had remained largely undisturbed for decades. Concerns have also been raised regarding bulldozer access, damage to root systems, dumped vehicles, tipping, fencing and the long-term degradation of the natural character of the area.
The proposed housing development would intensify those harms permanently.
I also have significant concerns regarding:
• Loss of protected wildlife habitat and biodiversity
• Destruction of mature woodland and visual amenity
• Increased flood and drainage risks
• Potential land stability and subsidence concerns affecting nearby homes
• Traffic and construction disruption in a constrained residential area
• Inadequate public consultation and notification of nearby residents
• Apparent failures of enforcement despite longstanding complaints from the community
Residents have alleged that only a very limited number of neighbouring households were properly notified regarding previous planning matters affecting the site and that attempts to raise concerns were dismissed as “vexatious.”
Whether or not the council disputes those claims, public confidence in the handling of this site has clearly broken down. That alone should require the highest level of scrutiny before any further development is permitted.
The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that planning authorities should protect and enhance valued landscapes, recognise the intrinsic character of the countryside, minimise impacts on biodiversity and ensure developments are genuinely sustainable.
In this case, many residents believe the opposite has occurred.
Approving housing on this site after the extensive clearance already complained of would risk creating the perception that environmental degradation can simply be followed by retrospective redevelopment.
That would set an extremely damaging precedent.
I therefore respectfully request that the application be refused and that a full independent ecological, drainage, land stability and planning process review be undertaken before any further consideration of development at Padden Brook proceeds.
Yours faithfully,
Sheila Oliver
Editor, The Romiley Gazette
https://blog.cromptonthedog.com/category/padden-brook
Mrs Oliver,
Public Question to the Cabinet
I refer to your public question that you submitted to the 5 November 2024 meeting of the Council Meeting which was as follows:-
“Please could Councillor Hunter confirm that the land at Padden Brook mentioned in the Refusal of Planning Permission J492 dated 28th May 1974 is Amenity land as stated therein? “
As you were not in attendance, it was agreed that a written response would be provided.
I have now been passed the following response which I have been asked to circulate to you:-
Dear Mrs Oliver
Thank you for your question regarding Padden Brook and the refusal of planning permission in 1974. I am aware that you have recently raised a number of similar questions to officers from across the council and have already been provided with a response.
The land at Padden Brook includes an area of woodland which is defined as a Local Wildlife Site on the proposals map of the adopted development plan. It is clear from the reference given in the refusal of planning permission in 1974 that this land was originally identified as an area of amenity which would serve the wider residential development that was implemented.
Regards
Cllr Mark Hunter
Leader of the Council
Kind regards,
Damian Eaton
Damian Eaton
Head of Democratic and Electoral Services
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
Town Hall, Stockport SK1 3XE
