25th August 2026

Subject: Section 19 Consultation Response – Request for Confirmation

Dear Ms Bates,

I am writing to ask for clarification regarding my Section 19 consultation response.

In light of your recent decision to restrict my communications with the Council in relation to Padden Brook, I would be grateful if you could confirm whether my Section 19 consultation response can still be properly received, considered and dealt with by Stockport Council through the appropriate planning process.

I do not wish to submit correspondence to the wrong body or in a manner that could subsequently be characterised as unreasonable contact. I am therefore asking you specifically to confirm the appropriate route for my response.

If the Council’s position is that my Section 19 consultation response will not be accepted or considered by Stockport Council, please confirm this in writing and provide the reasons for that decision, including:

  1. The specific basis on which the Council considers it cannot or will not accept my response;
  2. The relevant statutory provision, policy or procedural rule relied upon;
  3. Whether the restriction imposed on my communications is intended to prevent the Council from considering my consultation response;
  4. Whether my response can instead be submitted through another Council officer, department or designated consultation process;
  5. If the Council will not accept or consider it, whether you consider that I should submit it directly to the Planning Inspectorate; and
  6. If so, please confirm whether the Council will provide the Planning Inspectorate with an explanation that my response was not accepted by Stockport Council because of the communications restriction imposed upon me.

I would particularly appreciate a clear answer because I do not want the Planning Inspectorate to receive a consultation response without the relevant context. If Stockport Council is declining to deal with a response that I am entitled to submit, I consider it important that the Inspectorate is made aware of the precise reason why the Council has declined to accept or consider it.

For the avoidance of doubt, this request is not intended to reopen matters that have already been dealt with. It concerns my ability to participate properly in a current statutory planning consultation and to ensure that my representations are submitted to the appropriate decision-maker.

Given the Council’s stated intention that communications from me will be diverted to a specific inbox and only read once a week, I would be grateful if you could ensure that this particular request is considered promptly, particularly if there is a statutory consultation deadline involved.

I would also ask that you confirm whether my Section 19 response will be accepted and considered by Stockport Council. If the answer is no, please provide the full reasons in writing so that I can make an informed decision about referring the matter to the Planning Inspectorate.

I look forward to your clarification.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

From: Peter Pollard <peter.pollard@stockport.gov.uk>

Date: 30/09/2025 09:42 (GMT+00:00)

To: “Vicki Bates (Legal)” <vicki.bates@stockport.gov.uk>

Cc: Emma Stubbs <emma.stubbs@stockport.gov.uk>, Michael Anders <michael.anders@stockport.gov.uk>, Jane Bardsley <jane.bardsley@stockport.gov.uk>

Subject: RE: External: RE: Tree work – Padden Brook

Hi Vicki,

The original woodland order was intended to protect the woodland, which it has successfully done since it was created. There were an odd poor quality tree which were not included in the TPO, these are the ones which have been recently felled. One of the trees was an ash with a fatal disease (Ash die back) and the other was a multi-stemmed Sycamore, which I actually carried out a separate assessment on earlier this year following suggestions that Mr Hall may wish to remove it. It failed to fulfil the criteria for protection, see attached.

Hope this helps

Regards

Peter