To: Vicki Bates (vicki.bates@stockport.gov.uk); Lisa Smart – Enquiries (enquiries@lisasmart.org.uk); michael.cullen@stockport.gov.uk; Lisa Smart – Enquiries (enquiries@lisasmart.org.uk) Planning.DC@Stockport.gov.uk

Subject: DC/097686 – Padden Brook, Romiley – Request for formal clarification on claimed footpath diversion requirement

Dear Planning Officer,

I am writing in relation to planning application DC/097686 (Padden Brook, Romiley SK6).

The applicant has stated that a public footpath “must be diverted” to facilitate the proposed development. However, this assertion does not appear to be supported by the submitted planning documents or the Definitive Map record.

Having reviewed the application boundary and publicly available Public Rights of Way information, I would be grateful for formal clarification on the following:

1. Legal justification for diversion claim

Please confirm:

  • which specific Definitive Map public right of way (FP number) is affected by the proposal; and
  • whether the Council accepts that any statutory obstruction of a PROW occurs within the current red-line boundary.

At present, no diversion order reference (Section 257 TCPA 1990) appears within the application file.

2. Consistency of applicant statements

The applicant’s assertion that a footpath “must be diverted” appears inconsistent with the published PROW alignment in the area, where:

  • Footpath 5 Bredbury & Romiley
  • Footpath 6 Bredbury & Romiley

do not appear to be directly crossed or severed by the current development boundary.

Please confirm whether this statement relates strictly to:

  • the current submitted application, or
  • a broader or future development proposal not forming part of DC/097686.

3. Planning accuracy and material considerations

If the diversion requirement is based on future or speculative development phases, I would ask that this be clearly distinguished from the determination of DC/097686 to avoid reliance on non-submitted development assumptions.

4. Formal position request

Please confirm the Council’s position on whether:

A Public Path Diversion Order is legally required for DC/097686 as currently submitted.

If no such requirement exists, I would request that this is clearly recorded within the planning record.

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver