25th August 2026

The Local Government Ombudsman and Social Care Ombudsman
PO Box 4771
Coventry
CV4 0EH

Complaint concerning Stockport Council – Padden Brook planning enforcement, prolonged delay, failure to properly address residents’ concerns, and subsequent restriction on my communications.

24th August 2026

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to make a formal complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman concerning Stockport Council’s handling of planning enforcement matters relating to Padden Brook.

I consider that there has been prolonged and unreasonable delay, inadequate investigation and administration of the enforcement matter, failure to provide adequate responses to concerns raised by myself and other local residents, and subsequently an excessive and disproportionate restriction on my ability to communicate with the Council about the matter.

The underlying issues have now been ongoing for more than two years.

I appreciate that the Ombudsman does not normally substitute its own planning judgement for that of a local planning authority and that a council has discretion as to whether and how it exercises planning enforcement powers. My complaint is principally about the way the Council has administered and investigated the matter, the length of time it has remained unresolved, the failure to provide proper responses, and the subsequent treatment of my attempts to obtain answers as unreasonable persistence.

1. Background to the planning enforcement concerns

The matters brought to the Council’s attention include, amongst other things:

  • the dumping of a derelict butty van on the land;
  • the subsequent transformation/use of that vehicle as what appears to be a site office;
  • the placement of a table and chairs on the land;
  • the use and occupation of the site;
  • concerns regarding development and activity on land which I understand to have protected amenity status;
  • the woodland designation of the site, which I understand to include W1 woodland;
  • concerns regarding works affecting the stability of the land;
  • damage to a retaining wall; and
  • the potential consequences for nearby residential properties, one of which is mine.

The matter has remained ongoing for more than two years.

Despite the length of time involved, I remain concerned that there has been no effective resolution and, in particular, no clear explanation of what enforcement investigations have actually been undertaken, what conclusions have been reached and why effective enforcement action has apparently not been taken.

2. Evidence concerning the protected status of the site

I am able to provide evidence concerning the planning status of the land, including evidence that it is protected amenity land and W1 woodland.

I therefore dispute any suggestion that my repeated concerns are simply based upon an incorrect assertion that the land is “protected”.

If the Council considers that my description of the site’s protection is incorrect, I ask the Ombudsman to require the Council to identify precisely:

  • the relevant planning designation;
  • the policy or planning document relied upon;
  • the map or plan showing the designation;
  • the date upon which that designation was made; and
  • the precise basis upon which the Council says that the land is not protected in the manner I have described.

This is particularly important because the Council has relied upon my continued reference to the land as “protected” as part of its justification for characterising my communications as unreasonable.

3. Prolonged delay in dealing with enforcement concerns

My principal complaint is the length of time taken by the Council to deal with the matter.

I first raised concerns more than two years ago. Despite this, the matter remains unresolved.

On 21 August 2026 I submitted a further formal complaint to the Council concerning the planning enforcement matter. In that complaint I asked the Council to provide a clear account of:

  1. the investigations undertaken;
  2. enforcement investigations and decisions recorded;
  3. the current status of the enforcement case;
  4. whether the change from the original derelict butty van to its apparent use as a site office had been considered;
  5. whether the table and chairs had been investigated;
  6. whether the protected status of the land had been considered;
  7. why enforcement action had not been taken if the Council had concluded that a breach existed;
  8. why the matter had remained unresolved for more than two years if no final decision had been made; and
  9. the relevant enforcement records and correspondence.

I have not raised these matters simply because I disagree with the Council’s planning judgement. My concern is that I have been unable to obtain a clear and satisfactory account of what the Council has actually investigated and decided over a period exceeding two years.

4. Concerns raised by other local residents

This is not an issue which concerns me alone.

I am able to provide evidence from other local residents showing that they have also raised concerns and sent communications to the Council concerning Padden Brook.

I understand that some residents’ emails and other communications have also gone without substantive responses for periods exceeding two years.

I can provide copies of correspondence from residents demonstrating the wider nature of the concerns and the length of time for which they have remained unresolved.

I also understand that councillors and my Member of Parliament have been approached concerning the matter, with communications concerning the same issues apparently receiving no substantive response for more than two years.

I recognise that the Ombudsman will need to consider evidence rather than simply accept my account. I am therefore willing to provide the relevant correspondence from residents and other evidence demonstrating the wider pattern of concern.

This evidence is important because the Council has subsequently characterised my repeated communications as unreasonable and has relied upon the volume of correspondence as justification for restricting my contact.

If multiple residents have independently raised concerns about the same site over an extended period, this is relevant to whether my communications should simply be characterised as unreasonable persistence or whether there has been an underlying failure by the Council to properly resolve, investigate or communicate its position concerning a matter of legitimate public concern.

5. Potential danger to nearby properties

I am particularly concerned about the physical condition and stability of the site.

I intend to provide the Ombudsman with a copy of a letter which I have sent to the Council’s insurers concerning the risks associated with the site.

That correspondence identifies concerns regarding the potential danger to approximately 24 residential properties arising from development/works on or adjacent to unstable land.

I am also concerned that the retaining wall has been damaged.

My concern is not merely theoretical. I consider that the condition and alteration of the site raise potentially significant safety and property-related consequences for nearby residents.

I ask the Ombudsman to consider whether the Council has adequately investigated these matters and whether appropriate departments/officers have properly communicated with each other concerning the potential risks.

I appreciate that the Ombudsman may not determine the engineering or structural merits of the concerns. However, the existence of potential risks to residential properties is highly relevant to whether prolonged inaction and failure to communicate adequately constituted maladministration.

6. Failure to provide a clear explanation of enforcement action

I have repeatedly sought to establish what the Council has actually done.

I would expect the Council’s records to establish, amongst other things:

  • when the enforcement matter was opened;
  • what site inspections were undertaken;
  • what photographs or other evidence were obtained;
  • what planning considerations were assessed;
  • what communications occurred with the relevant landowner/developer;
  • what potential breaches were considered;
  • whether the site office use was investigated;
  • whether the table and chairs were investigated;
  • whether the woodland/protected-land status was considered;
  • whether the retaining-wall issue was investigated or referred to an appropriate department;
  • what decisions were made by enforcement officers and their managers; and
  • why formal enforcement action was or was not considered appropriate.

I ask the Ombudsman to investigate whether the Council’s records demonstrate that these matters were properly investigated and administered.

7. The Council’s subsequent restriction on my communications

Following my continued attempts to obtain answers, the Council has now informed me that all communications I make concerning Padden Brook or the surrounding area will be treated as unreasonably persistent.

The Council has stated that all my emails will be diverted to a specific inbox and will only be read once per week by the Monitoring Officer or a deputy Monitoring Officer.

The Council has also relied upon the number of emails I have sent and has stated that some communications contain “abusive and defamatory content”.

I am concerned that this restriction is being used in circumstances where the underlying planning enforcement matter remains unresolved and where I have repeatedly attempted to obtain substantive answers.

8. The Council’s own April 2026 policy

The Council’s April 2026 Unreasonable Actions by Complainants Policy is particularly relevant.

Section 2.2 states:

“All complaints are considered on their merits.”

It also states:

“Unreasonable actions from complainants do not preclude there being a valid issue.”

Section 3.6 distinguishes between legitimate persistence and unreasonable persistence and refers to circumstances where a person continues pursuing a matter without new information or repeatedly pursues an issue which has already been addressed.

Section 9.1 states that restricting contact should generally be a last resort after attempts at reconciliation and warnings have been exhausted.

Most importantly, section 10.1 states that restrictions must be:

“tailored and proportionate to address the unreasonable actions found in each case.”

Section 10.2 states:

“The council should not take a blanket approach to restricting contact with services.”

Section 9.4 also expressly contemplates:

“Considering new complaints on their own merits”

and section 14 states that even where correspondence is placed on file without acknowledgement or reply, it should still be reviewed for significant new information.

I am concerned that the Council’s decision to treat all communications concerning Padden Brook or the surrounding area as unreasonably persistent amounts to precisely the sort of blanket restriction which its own policy says should not be adopted.

9. Repeated communications and unanswered correspondence

I also ask the Ombudsman to consider the circumstances giving rise to the repeated communications.

Where communications are ignored, not acknowledged, not answered substantively, or only partially answered, a resident may reasonably send further correspondence in an attempt to obtain an answer.

It would be unfair to count every subsequent follow-up email as evidence of unreasonable persistence without considering whether the Council’s failure to respond adequately contributed to the volume of correspondence.

This is particularly important here because I can provide evidence that other residents’ communications concerning the same matter have also apparently remained unanswered for prolonged periods.

I therefore ask the Ombudsman to investigate whether the Council has properly distinguished between:

  • genuinely repetitive communications;
  • follow-ups to unanswered correspondence;
  • requests for clarification;
  • new information;
  • new complaints;
  • responses to new information supplied by the Council; and
  • communications which were genuinely abusive or otherwise unreasonable.

10. FOI and EIR requests

The Council has also stated that my FOI and EIR requests concerning Padden Brook have previously been deemed vexatious and will not be responded to or acknowledged.

I am concerned that the Council may now be treating me as a permanently “vexatious requester” in relation to this subject rather than considering future statutory requests individually.

I ask the Ombudsman to consider whether this approach is compatible with the applicable statutory information-access regimes.

In particular, I ask that the Council be required to identify the actual FOI and EIR requests which it says were vexatious, including the wording of those requests and the reasons for each decision.

This is relevant because without seeing the actual questions it is impossible to assess whether they were genuinely repetitive or vexatious, or whether they represented attempts to obtain information which had not previously been provided.

11. The public-interest context

Padden Brook is not merely a private dispute.

The matters concern land, woodland, planning, environmental issues, potential enforcement, the condition of a retaining wall and potential risks to nearby residential properties.

Other residents have independently raised concerns.

I therefore ask the Ombudsman to consider whether the Council has given sufficient consideration to the wider public-interest context before characterising my continued attempts to obtain answers as unreasonable.

12. Alleged abusive and defamatory material

I do not accept the Council’s general assertion that my communications contain “abusive and defamatory content”.

If the Council is relying upon particular communications to justify its restriction, I have asked it to identify the statements concerned.

I am willing for the Ombudsman to examine the actual correspondence and determine whether the Council’s characterisation is justified.

I do not suggest that I have an unlimited entitlement to use offensive or abusive language. My complaint is that the Council should identify the specific material relied upon rather than making a broad assertion which contributes to a significant restriction on my communications.

Publication, satire and the allegation of defamation

I also wish to address the Council’s allegation that I have sent or publicly shared material which it describes as “abusive and defamatory”.

I run a newspaper and, after a prolonged period of attempting to obtain responses from the Council concerning Padden Brook, extending to approximately a year and a half or more in some instances, I published material lampooning and satirising the Council and its handling of these matters.

Satire, parody and robust criticism of public authorities have a long-established place in public and political discourse. The fact that the Council or individual officers may find criticism uncomfortable, embarrassing or offensive does not, of itself, mean that it is defamatory, abusive or an improper basis upon which to restrict a person’s communications with a public authority. In every instance I gave them the right to respond.

If the Council considers that any particular statement published by me is defamatory, I respectfully submit that it should identify the precise words complained of, explain why it considers them defamatory and, if it genuinely believes that it has a sustainable legal claim, pursue whatever legal remedy it considers appropriate.

Instead, the Council has made a broad allegation of “defamatory content” while apparently declining to identify the specific statements upon which it relies. I do not consider that a general and unparticularised allegation of defamation should be used as evidence supporting a significant restriction on my ability to communicate with the Council.

I would be content for the Ombudsman to examine the relevant publications and correspondence in context, including the lengthy history of unanswered communications and attempts to obtain substantive responses from the Council. I ask the Ombudsman to distinguish between genuinely abusive or threatening conduct, which I accept a public authority is entitled to address, and legitimate criticism, satire, parody and commentary concerning the conduct and performance of a public authority.

I am concerned that the Council may have treated criticism of its handling of Padden Brook as evidence of unreasonable conduct rather than addressing the substance of the underlying concerns. This is particularly important because the restriction now imposed covers future communications about Padden Brook and the surrounding area, despite the Council’s own policy stating that restrictions should be tailored and proportionate and that a blanket approach should not normally be taken.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

13. Injustice and potential consequences

The consequences of the Council’s approach are significant.

If the Council restricts all communications concerning Padden Brook while the underlying enforcement matter remains unresolved, there is a risk that:

  • new evidence may not be properly considered;
  • new planning or environmental concerns may not be investigated;
  • information concerning potential risks may not reach the appropriate officer;
  • residents may be unable to obtain meaningful responses;
  • legitimate complaints may be treated as unreasonable solely because of their subject matter; and
  • a longstanding unresolved matter may effectively become closed through restriction of communication rather than through an evidence-based decision.

I am particularly concerned about this given the potential implications for approximately 24 residential properties and the alleged damage to the retaining wall.

14. What I am asking the Ombudsman to investigate

I respectfully ask the Ombudsman to investigate:

  1. whether Stockport Council has acted with unreasonable delay in investigating and administering the Padden Brook enforcement matter;
  2. whether the Council has properly investigated the matters reported to it;
  3. whether the Council has kept adequate records of its investigations and decisions;
  4. whether the Council has adequately explained its enforcement position;
  5. whether the Council has properly considered the protected amenity and W1 woodland status of the land;
  6. whether the Council has properly considered the reported changes to the site, including the apparent site office and table/chairs;
  7. whether the Council has appropriately considered concerns relating to the retaining wall and the potential risk to nearby properties;
  8. whether the Council has properly considered communications from other residents;
  9. whether the Council’s handling of the matter has caused avoidable delay, frustration and uncertainty;
  10. whether the decision to restrict my communications complies with the Council’s own April 2026 Unreasonable Actions by Complainants Policy;
  11. whether the restriction is sufficiently tailored and proportionate;
  12. whether the Council has unlawfully or improperly adopted a blanket approach to communications concerning Padden Brook;
  13. whether the Council is improperly treating me as permanently vexatious in relation to FOI/EIR requests rather than applying the statutory tests to individual requests; and
  14. whether appropriate remedies are required to ensure that genuinely new information, complaints and statutory information requests can continue to be considered properly.

15. Evidence available

I am able to provide supporting evidence, including:

  • correspondence with Stockport Council;
  • the Council’s April 2026 Unreasonable Actions by Complainants Policy;
  • my formal complaint of 21 August 2026;
  • correspondence from other local residents concerning Padden Brook;
  • evidence that residents’ communications have allegedly remained unanswered for more than two years;
  • correspondence with councillors and my MP;
  • evidence concerning the protected amenity status of the land;
  • evidence concerning its W1 woodland designation;
  • photographs and other evidence concerning the site;
  • evidence concerning the damaged retaining wall;
  • correspondence concerning the potential risks to approximately 24 residential properties; and
  • my correspondence to the Council’s insurers concerning those risks.

I am also able to provide the actual correspondence and FOI/EIR material relevant to the Council’s assertion that my requests have been vexatious.

16. Requested outcome

I am not asking the Ombudsman simply to substitute its judgement for the Council’s planning judgement.

I am asking the Ombudsman to determine whether the Council has administered this matter properly and without maladministration, particularly in relation to the prolonged delay, failure to provide adequate responses, failure to properly consider relevant evidence and the subsequent restriction on my communications.

If maladministration is found, I would ask the Ombudsman to consider recommending that Stockport Council:

  • undertake an appropriate review of the outstanding enforcement matters;
  • provide a clear written account of the investigations and decisions undertaken;
  • properly consider any outstanding evidence;
  • reconsider the communication restriction so that it is proportionate and consistent with its own policy;
  • ensure genuinely new complaints and information are considered on their merits;
  • ensure FOI and EIR requests are dealt with in accordance with the applicable statutory regimes;
  • review the handling of correspondence from other residents where appropriate; and
  • take any other action the Ombudsman considers appropriate to remedy the injustice caused by the delay and handling of the matter.

I recognise that the Ombudsman may require me to complete the Council’s complaints procedure before investigating some or all of these matters. I have already submitted a formal Stage 1 complaint to Stockport Council on 21 August 2026 but Vicki Bates, Monitoring Officer, has stated she won’t respond

However, given the length of time already involved, the concerns regarding the physical condition and stability of the site, the potential impact upon approximately 24 homes, and the subsequent restriction on my ability to communicate with the Council about the matter, I respectfully ask that the Ombudsman considers whether there are grounds for investigating the matter as soon as the relevant complaints process permits.

I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt of this complaint and advise me of any further information or evidence required.

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver
Editor, The Romiley Gazette

https://www.stockport.gov.uk/tree-preservation/check-if-there-is-an-existing-tree-preservation-order?query=padden+brook

From the Council’s own documents the entire site is protected, not just individual trees.

Illegally built gate, digger destroying the roots of protected trees – the entire site is protected.  Ignored by Stockport Council.

For the attention of the Chief Claims Officer / Head of Public Liability Claims

Zurich Insurance Group / Zurich Insurance Company Ltd
Mythenquai 2
8002 Zurich
Switzerland

9th August 2026

RE: STOCKPORT METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL UK– PADDEN BROOK / GREEN LANE / HOWARD CLOSE – RETAINING WALL, STRUCTURAL RISK AND COUNCIL KNOWLEDGE

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to bring to the attention of Zurich Insurance the circumstances surrounding a potentially serious public liability and property risk involving Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council in the UK, the land adjoining Padden Brook, Green Lane and Howard Close, and a retaining wall which is understood to provide support to the highway/footway and properties in the vicinity.

I ask that this correspondence is treated as a formal notification of circumstances which may give rise to an insured claim, and that it is immediately referred to the appropriate claims, risk and/or legal department dealing with Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council.

The issue is particularly concerning because there is now written evidence from the landowner itself acknowledging that the retaining wall is affected by a structural problem.

Written acknowledgement of the condition of the retaining wall

I enclose a copy of written correspondence addressed to residents of Green Lane, Howard Close and Padden Brook.

The correspondence states that structural engineers have examined the situation and advised that three sycamore trees adjacent to the retaining wall along Howard Close should be removed because their root structure is undermining the footings of the wall.

Importantly, the letter expressly states:

“Should the wall fail it would cause the footpath and road to subside creating considerable inconvenience to the residents i.e. possible road closure.”

The same correspondence states that Tree Management has advised that two common ash trees also require removal because they are substantially affected by ash dieback.

The significance of this document is that it appears to constitute a written admission that the retaining wall is subject to a structural problem and that failure of the wall could result in subsidence of the footpath and road.

This is not therefore simply a matter of historic speculation by residents.

There is documentary evidence which expressly refers to:

  • structural engineers having examined the wall;
  • tree roots undermining the wall footings;
  • the possibility of wall failure;
  • possible subsidence of the footpath and road;
  • the possibility of road closure; and
  • remedial action being considered necessary to prevent damage.

The letter further states that the trees would be replaced at a ratio of two replacement native trees for every tree removed.

The significance of this information to Stockport Council

My concern is not simply that the retaining wall may require repair.

The concern is what Stockport Council knew, when it knew it, what responsibility it accepted or disputed, what inspections were undertaken, what engineering information it received, and what action it took once the risk was identified.

The wall is understood to be providing support in an area containing approximately 24 residential properties.

A failure of the retaining structure could therefore have consequences extending well beyond the loss of a single piece of infrastructure.

There are potentially significant risks relating to:

  1. highway and footway safety;
  2. subsidence;
  3. damage to residential property;
  4. access for residents and emergency services;
  5. potential road closure;
  6. personal injury;
  7. further damage resulting from failure of the retaining structure; and
  8. the council’s potential exposure to claims arising from a failure to investigate, monitor, maintain or remediate the structure where it had a relevant responsibility to do so.

Information being withheld by Stockport Council

I have also sought information from Stockport Council concerning the condition of the retaining wall and the council’s knowledge and involvement in the matter.

The information sought is plainly capable of falling within the definition of environmental information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, particularly insofar as it concerns land, the condition of land, structural matters affecting the environment, and measures designed to protect against potential damage.

However, information concerning the condition of the wall and the council’s knowledge has not, in my view, been properly addressed.

The council’s Chief Governance Officer and Monitoring Officer, Vicki Bates, is involved in the council’s governance arrangements. Stockport Council’s current published organisational information confirms that Ms Bates is its Chief Governance Officer and Monitoring Officer.

I am particularly concerned that the council’s position appears inconsistent with the documentary evidence now available.

On the one hand, the landowner’s written correspondence records that structural engineers have identified a problem with the retaining wall footings and expressly warns of potential subsidence and road closure.

On the other hand, information concerning the condition of that wall and the council’s knowledge of it is being withheld or disputed.

I therefore ask Zurich to consider whether the council’s handling of this matter is consistent with the information, inspection, risk-management and disclosure records that it should hold.

The ICO’s guidance makes clear that public authorities are subject to specific obligations when dealing with requests for environmental information. Where information is refused under the EIR, the authority must identify the applicable exception and explain the basis for the refusal, and requesters have a right to an internal review and subsequently to complain to the Information Commissioner.

I am pursuing the appropriate information-rights remedies separately. I am not asking Zurich to determine the legality of the council’s EIR response. Rather, I am bringing the underlying evidence to Zurich’s attention because it may be highly relevant to the council’s liability exposure and to the circumstances of a potential public liability claim.

Request for Zurich to investigate

In view of the above, I ask Zurich to:

1. Confirm whether Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council is or has been insured by Zurich in respect of public liability and/or risks associated with the land, highway, retaining structures or matters described above.

2. If so, refer this correspondence to the appropriate claims and risk-management department.

3. Confirm whether Zurich has previously been notified of any incident, circumstance, inspection, complaint, claim or potential claim concerning the retaining wall, Padden Brook, Green Lane or Howard Close.

4. Establish whether Zurich has received any engineering reports, inspection reports, photographs, correspondence or other documentation concerning the condition or stability of the retaining wall.

5. Establish whether Stockport Council has previously notified Zurich of the possibility of subsidence, structural failure, road closure, property damage or personal injury arising from the wall.

6. Preserve all records held by Zurich concerning this matter, including correspondence, claim notifications, engineering reports, risk assessments, photographs, inspection reports and communications with Stockport Council or its representatives.

7. Consider whether the evidence raises a potential public liability exposure which requires further investigation.

A matter requiring urgent attention

I would particularly ask Zurich not to regard this as merely an historic dispute between residents and a local authority.

The written evidence enclosed refers expressly to a structural engineering assessment and to the possibility that failure of the wall could result in road and footpath subsidence and possible road closure.

That is a foreseeable risk with potentially serious consequences.

If the council has information establishing the condition of the wall, its history, previous damage, inspections or remedial recommendations, I believe that information should be examined alongside the landowner’s written admission.

I would also ask Zurich to consider whether the council’s insurers have previously been made aware of these circumstances and, if so, when and by whom.

Documents

I enclose the written statement circulated to residents of Green Lane, Howard Close and Padden Brook.

I am able to provide further documentation, including correspondence with Stockport Council, information-request correspondence, photographs, planning material and other evidence concerning the history and condition of the site.

I would be grateful for confirmation that this correspondence has been passed to the appropriate senior claims/legal officer and that the matter has been logged.

Given the potential consequences of failure of the retaining structure, I would appreciate a substantive response rather than simply a referral back to Stockport Council.

Yours faithfully,

Attachments

  1. Letter to local residents from the new landowner Greg Hall who has bulldozed protected, unstable land and stripped it of vital water-soaking vegetation almost daily for two years.
  2. Email from the council  to a  local resident admitting there is a problem with the retaining wall which holds up a road and 24 houses.
  3. Correspondence with the Information Commissioner regarding Vicki Bates, Monitoring Officer and Liz Sykes, Information Governance Officer regarding their illegal action in refusing to even acknowledge EIR/FOIA requests about the retaining wall.

In addition local Councillor Angela Clark was informed on 9th August 2024 that unstable land holding up 24 houses was being illegally bulldozed, in front of a witness.  To date she has taken no action.

From: Vicki Bates (Legal) [mailto:vicki.bates@stockport.gov.uk]
Sent: 24 August 2026 08:00
To: sheilaoliver
Subject: Fw: External: Formal complaint – Padden Brook planning enforcement and unreasonable delay

Dear Mrs Oliver

As you know all your FOIs and EIRs relating to any matters concerning Padden Brook have previously been deemed vexatious and will not be responded to or acknowledged.  The reasons for this have been set out to you previously.

I write to confirm that all other communications that you send via email, letter, by way of a question to a committee meeting or via any other means of correspondence or communication (including complaints) to the council relating to Padden Brook or surrounding area will now be treated as unreasonably persistent pursuant to the council’s Unacceptable Actions by Complainants Policy.  This is due to the number of emails (hundreds) you have sent to the council containing the same or similar questions over the last 2 years relating to Padden Brook.  For example, I note that once again you refer to the land as being “protected” despite the correct position being set out to you on a number of occasions.

Your communications on this subject are unreasonable as they significantly impact the council’s work, taking up excessive time to the detriment of other services of the council.  In addition, you have sent a significant amount of emails to the council which contain abusive and defamatory content, which you have also publicly shared.  These often relate to the council’s planning officers and department, to which your complaint relates.  I will share these with the ombudsman in the event you escalate your complaint to them.  I also reserve the council’s rights in relation to any legal action it may wish to take against you in relation to your conduct referred above.

Please find attached a copy of the policy and a link to the policy on the website :- Make a formal complaint – Stockport Council

All your emails will be diverted to a specific inbox and will only be read once per week by either myself or one of the council’s deputy monitoring officers.   I will review this restriction on your communications to the council in six months time.   I have considered the impact of this restriction on your communications pursuant to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010 and do not consider there to be any.

Yours sincerely

Vicki Bates

(She/Her)

Chief Governance Officer and Monitoring Officer

Corporate and Support Services

Stockport Council

Town Hall

Edward Street
Stockport
SK1 3XE

Direct:  0161 474 3219 / 07815 715 625

***Please note that if you receive this email from me outside of usual office hours I do not expect a response from you***

From: Sheila Oliver <sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com>
Sent: 21 August 2026 10:25 AM
To: Katie Moores <katie.moores@stockport.gov.uk>; Lisa McGrane <lisa.mcgrane@stockport.gov.uk>; Michael Cullen <michael.cullen@stockport.gov.uk>; Leader <leader@stockport.gov.uk>; Planning.DC <Planning.DC@stockport.gov.uk>; Planning.DC <Planning.DC@stockport.gov.uk>
Subject: External: Formal complaint – Padden Brook planning enforcement and unreasonable delay

Dear Sir/Madam,

Formal complaint – Padden Brook planning enforcement and unreasonable delay

I am writing to make a formal complaint about the handling of the planning enforcement matter concerning Padden Brook.

This matter has now been ongoing for more than two years, yet I remain concerned that there has been no effective resolution or meaningful enforcement action. In particular, I am concerned about the apparent lack of progress by the enforcement officer despite the circumstances at the site continuing to develop.

The issues I understand to have been brought to the Council’s attention include:

  • the dumping of a derelict butty van on the land;
  • the subsequent transformation of that vehicle into what now appears to be a site office;
  • the dumping/placement of a table and chairs on the land;
  • the fact that the land is protected land; and
  • the continuing use and occupation of the site despite the passage of more than two years since the enforcement concerns were raised.

I appreciate that the Council has discretion as to whether formal planning enforcement action is appropriate. My complaint, however, is not simply that I disagree with a particular planning decision. It is principally about the length of time this matter has remained unresolved, the apparent lack of effective investigation and the failure to provide a clear explanation of what action the Council has taken and why.

I would therefore ask the Council to treat this as a formal complaint and provide a clear response addressing the following:

  1. What investigations have been undertaken in relation to the Padden Brook site since the matter was first reported?
  2. What enforcement investigations or decisions have been recorded, and on what dates?
  3. What is the current status of the enforcement case?
  4. Has the Council assessed the change from the original derelict butty van to its current use as a site office as a potentially separate or materially changed planning matter?
  5. Has the Council investigated the placement and use of the table and chairs on the land?
  6. Has the Council specifically considered the protected status of the land when assessing the alleged breaches?
  7. If the Council has decided that enforcement action is not appropriate, please explain the reasons for that decision and identify the relevant planning considerations on which that conclusion is based.
  8. If no final decision has yet been made, please explain why the matter has remained unresolved for more than two years and provide a clear indication of what remains outstanding.
  9. Please also provide copies of, or access to, the relevant enforcement records and correspondence insofar as these can properly be disclosed.

I am particularly concerned about the apparent length of the delay. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has previously found fault with Stockport Council in relation to delay in a planning enforcement investigation. I therefore expect the Council to address the issue of unreasonable delay specifically rather than simply restating the general position regarding planning enforcement discretion.

I would also ask that this complaint is considered independently of the officer whose handling of the matter is the subject of the complaint, in accordance with the Council’s complaints procedure.

Please confirm that this has been registered as a formal Stage 1 complaint and provide me with the relevant complaint reference number.

If the Council is unable to resolve the matter through its complaints procedure, I reserve the right to escalate the complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, including in relation to the alleged unreasonable delay and any failure to properly investigate and administer the enforcement matter.

I look forward to receiving a substantive response addressing each of the points above.

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver
Editor, The Romiley Gazette