11th June 2026
Further Objection to Outline Planning Application – Padden Brook Development
I write to submit a further objection to the above outline planning application, on the grounds of serious geotechnical risk, public safety, and insufficient supporting information.
1. Ground Instability and Risk to Existing Residential Properties
The proposal involves the excavation and removal of approximately 2,000 tonnes of soil from the base (“toe”) of a steep woodland slope composed of heavy clay. This raises profound concerns regarding slope stability and the safety of the 24 residential properties situated at the crest of the slope, including my own property.
In geotechnical engineering, the toe of a slope provides essential structural resistance. Its removal significantly reduces the stabilising forces that counteract downslope movement. Excavation at this location will increase the likelihood of progressive slope failure or a retrogressive landslide, which could propagate upwards and undermine:
- Residential foundations
- Access roads
- Underground services
The presence of leaning trees on the slope is clear visual evidence of existing slope creep or instability. This indicates that the slope is already under stress. Any removal of material at the base will exacerbate this condition and could trigger catastrophic failure.
Furthermore, heavy clay soils are particularly vulnerable when disturbed. When saturated, clay experiences a significant reduction in shear strength, increasing the likelihood of sudden and severe ground movement.
This represents an unacceptable risk to life and property, contrary to national planning policy which requires development to be safe and not adversely affect neighbouring land.
2. Absence of a Comprehensive Geotechnical Assessment
This application is submitted in outline form without the necessary technical evidence to demonstrate that the site can be developed safely.
Critically, there is no detailed Geotechnical or Slope Stability Assessment provided in accordance with recognised standards (e.g. BS 5930 / BS 8004). Arboricultural and ecological reports do not address structural ground stability.
Without a full site investigation carried out by a Chartered Geotechnical Engineer, the Local Planning Authority cannot reasonably conclude that:
- The slope will remain stable during and after excavation
- Adjacent land and properties will not be affected
- Appropriate mitigation measures are feasible
It is therefore premature and unsafe to approve the principle of development at this stage.
3. Impact on Trees and Structural Root Systems (Including TPO Trees)
The excavation of large volumes of soil at the base of the slope will inevitably damage or sever the structural root systems of trees within the woodland, many of which may be protected.
Tree roots play a vital role in reinforcing soil structure and maintaining slope integrity. Their removal will:
- Destabilise the slope further
- Increase the likelihood of tree failure
- Accelerate soil movement
Damage to trees subject to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) is a serious matter and may constitute a criminal offence. The submitted arboricultural report (dated December) does not adequately assess seasonal root spread or the full impact of excavation.
4. Inadequate Ecological Assessment – Impact on Protected Species
The ecological survey submitted with the application was conducted in December, during a period when wildlife activity is significantly reduced…….(protected wildlife details omitted from this post)
A winter survey cannot provide an accurate baseline for assessing these impacts. A comprehensive, seasonally appropriate ecological assessment is required.
5. Conclusion
In summary, this application fails to demonstrate that the development can be carried out safely or without unacceptable impacts on neighbouring land, protected trees, and wildlife.
The removal of substantial material from the toe of an already unstable clay slope presents a clear and evidenced risk of landslide and structural damage to existing homes.
I therefore strongly request that the Local Planning Authority:
- Refuse the application, or
- At a minimum, defer any decision until a full geotechnical investigation, slope stability modelling, and updated ecological surveys are provided
The risks identified are not minor or speculative—they are fundamental to the safety and viability of the site.
I shall post a copy of this email to the Chief Executive of the Association of British Insurers. I enclose details of past planning corruption at Stockport – not least of which is the deliberate exposure of 550 primary to school children to the risk of mesothelioma by leaving lethal brown asbestos fibres on the site, claiming even the mention of this fact to be vexatious, and the utter Schweinerei that is the A555. Officers and councillors at Stockport really should be facing prison sentences.
Yours faithfully,
Sheila Oliver
The Editor, The Romiley Gazette
