For too long, many residents across Romiley and the wider Stockport area have felt that crucial decisions about their community are being made not by accountable representatives, but by a faceless army of senior council officers — individuals with titles like Chief Executive, Monitoring Officer, Head of Planning, Head of Information Governance and Arboriculture Officer.
These officers, though unelected, often wield immense influence over policies and outcomes that shape our daily lives — from controversial planning approvals and tree removals, to opaque spending and internal reviews that seem to shut residents out.
While councillors are meant to represent the public’s voice, it is increasingly apparent that the real power lies in the hands of senior officers who remain largely unseen, rarely named, and even less frequently held to account for their decisions, and councillors rarely challenge this.
When Decisions Defy Common Sense
Romiley residents have highlighted numerous recent examples of planning approvals that appear to defy local priorities or environmental concerns. Questions linger about how certain developments gain swift approval despite fierce opposition from residents and ward councillors, if the ward councillors can even be bothered to respond or act.
Tree preservation orders are lifted without clear justification; heritage sites face insensitive alterations; and local infrastructure — from drainage to green spaces — often seems to be an afterthought.
The frustration is not merely about the outcomes, but about process: decisions made behind closed doors, signed off by officers using delegated powers, with little transparency or explanation.
Accountability Through Transparency
The Gazette believes it is time to shine a light on how these decisions are made, who makes them, and what mechanisms exist for residents to challenge them.
We will be investigating:
The roles and responsibilities of senior council officers in planning and development.
How delegation of powers works within Stockport Council.
What transparency obligations apply under the Local Government Act 1972, Freedom of Information Act 2000, and the Localism Act 2011.
How residents can request information, appeal planning decisions, or demand review of flawed processes.
The Right to Know
Romiley taxpayers fund the salaries of these senior officials. It is not unreasonable to expect openness about who they are, what they do, and why decisions affecting our homes, green spaces, and community assets are made as they are.
As we continue this investigation, we encourage residents to share their experiences — particularly where council decisions appear inconsistent with local needs or democratic consultation.
Accountability should never hide behind anonymity. The public has a right to see the faces — and understand the reasoning — behind every decision made in their name.
The redevelopment of the former Hatherlow Sunday School has become the talk of Romiley, with unresolved land ownership and waived affordable housing requirements sparking local concern.
The scheme, which has been approved, aims to convert the historic Sunday school building into 11 new apartments. But recent investigations have revealed that the developer does not own two small patches of land crucial to the project. Because the Land Registry cannot confirm ownership for land with rights dating before 1925, questions remain over whether the development can proceed without legal disputes.
Adding to the controversy, Stockport Council removed the usual requirement for the developer to provide affordable housing. According to planning guidance, councils can adjust or waive affordable housing obligations if including them would render a project financially unviable. In this case, the council accepted that the development was entirely debt-financed, and insisting on affordable homes could have threatened the project’s viability.
Residents have expressed mixed reactions. Some support the redevelopment as a way to bring the long-empty Sunday school back into use. Others fear the community is losing out, not only on affordable housing but also on clarity over who actually owns parts of the site.
One neighbour said:
“It’s worrying that there are bits of land the developer doesn’t own. Combine that with no affordable homes, and it feels like the council is giving too much away.”
For now, the future of the Hatherlow Sunday School site rests on a delicate balance of finances, legal ownership, and council discretion — leaving the community watching closely as the redevelopment plans move forward.
Plans to redevelop the former Hatherlow Sunday School have run into a snag after it emerged the developers do not own two small but crucial patches of land linked to the site.
The long-awaited scheme, which received planning, aims to transform the old Sunday school building into new housing. However, concerns have been raised over land ownership, with residents questioning whether the project can legally go ahead without resolving the issue.
According to local campaigners, the Land Registry has confirmed that it cannot provide definitive ownership details if land rights date back before 1925. This has fuelled speculation that the unclaimed patches – thought to have been part of the Sunday school grounds – may complicate or even delay the development.
One resident told the Romiley Gazette:
“The developer doesn’t own every bit of land they’re trying to build on. It may seem minor, but in planning terms it’s really significant. We need clarity before anything moves forward.”
The Hatherlow Sunday School, a landmark building with deep ties to the community, has been empty for years. While many support redevelopment to bring the site back into use, others fear that unresolved legal questions could lead to disputes further down the line.
Stockport Council confirmed that planning permission was granted but stressed that ownership matters are outside the planning process and fall under property law.
The developer has been approached for comment but has not yet responded.
For now, the future of the historic site remains uncertain – resting not just on bricks and mortar, but on paperwork that may be more than a century old.
Romiley’s community is demanding answers following a planning consent tied to Section 106 contributions for open space—while a nearby Local Wildlife Site was recently destroyed.
Mrs Oliver, representing many local residents, voiced deep frustration:
“They have just allowed a Local Wildlife Site to be destroyed. Where will the replacement open space come from—or will they just take the Section 106 money and keep it in the bank as the council has done in the past?”
Though S106 agreements are meant to ensure that such contributions go to genuinely mitigate development impacts, the audit trail is murky. Stockport’s Infrastructure Funding Statements show how much money has been collected, but not always how or where it’s spent stockport.gov.uk+1.
Amid growing nationwide scrutiny, a number of local authorities have reduced the use of S106 for open space since adopting CIL—raising concerns funds may be shifted toward more essential infrastructure only GOV.UK.
Campaigners are now calling on Stockport Council to commit to clear, local, post-development habitat provisions, with funds earmarked for real replacement of the wildlife corridor lost nearby—not just held in the bank.
Contacted for comment, the Council has not yet confirmed how or where the open space contributions will be invested—fueling local demands for transparency and accountability.
photographer (Ken Bagnall) – licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.
If you stroll down Hatherlow on a sunny afternoon, you might notice a modest stone building whose face is marked not just by weather and age, but by a sundial from 1814 bearing the motto: “Be always prepared.” Few passers-by realise that this is more than just a quaint architectural flourish — it’s the last visible trace of over 200 years of local learning, fellowship, and community spirit.
From Chapel to Classroom The story begins in the late 1600s, when nonconformist worshippers in the Chadkirk area found themselves without a home. By 1706, they had built a chapel at Hatherlow — a simple structure, sturdy enough to outlast generations of worshippers and eventually serve a new purpose.
Fast-forward to May 1817, when the first Hatherlow Sunday School sessions were held at School Brow. Lessons soon moved to the “Top School” on Gorsey Brow — still standing today as a private house. These early classes weren’t just about scripture; they offered reading, writing, and moral instruction to children who might otherwise have gone without any education at all.
A Centre for the Mind and the Soul By the 19th century, the original 1706 chapel had been repurposed as the Sunday School itself, with an 1862 extension adding much-needed classrooms. This was no dusty corner of parish life: Hatherlow was home to the Bredbury Amicable Subscription Library (established 1822) and the Hatherlow Botanical Society. Books, plants, ideas — it was a place where the mind could grow alongside the soul.
The Rebuild of 1911 In 1911, the old school building came down. But in a nod to history, the builders salvaged the 1792 belfry and the 1814 sundial, giving the new hall a face steeped in its own heritage. Generations of Romiley’s children would pass through its doors in the decades that followed, many captured forever in sepia-toned class photographs from around 1907.
A Living Memory Hatherlow’s walls have echoed with more than hymns and recitations. They’ve witnessed community meetings, charity efforts, and the names of the Sunday School and Brotherhood members now recorded in the Imperial War Museum’s memorial database. Even today, as planning proposals float for conversion of the building into apartments, the sundial’s advice — “Be always prepared” — feels apt.
For some, Hatherlow Sunday School is just another handsome old stone hall. For those who know its story, it’s a reminder that Romiley’s history isn’t kept only in museums — it’s written in our streets, carved in our stones, and still ticking away in the shadow of an old belfry.
The sale of the historic Hatherlow Sunday School building by the United Reformed Church (URC) did not appear to include specific restrictions on its future development. The church cleared out the Sunday School hall prior to its sale and focused on plans to improve facilities within the church to meet the needs of the congregation and community.
Subsequently, the building was sold to OMD Properties Ltd, who proposed converting it into 11 residential apartments. They are based here.
Correspondence address Holly Grange, 36, Church Lane, Bardsey, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom, LS17 9DP Role Active Director Date of birth August 1970 Appointed on 25 January 2021 Nationality British Country of residence United Kingdom Occupation Director
Correspondence address Holly Grange, 36, Church Lane, Bardsey, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom, LS17 9DP
Role Resigned Director Date of birth February 1971 Appointed on 25 January 2021 Resigned on 8 March 2023 Nationality British Country of residence United Kingdom Occupation Director
Filter charges
Filter charges
Outstanding / part satisfied 9 charges
Registered 9 outstanding, 0 satisfied, 0 part satisfied
Let’s carefully analyze the balance sheet for OMD Properties Ltd as at 31 January 2024. I’ll break it down step by step and highlight key points.
1. Fixed Assets
Category
2024 (£)
2023 (£)
Investment property
2,415,162
2,415,162
Investments
27
—
Total Fixed Assets
2,415,189
2,415,162
The company holds substantial investment property.
Minimal change in total fixed assets year-on-year (only £27 increase in “Investments”).
2. Current Assets
Category
2024 (£)
2023 (£)
Debtors
297,172
200,151
Cash at bank
12,731
237,251
Total Current Assets
309,903
437,402
Debtors have increased by ~£97k, which could indicate more receivables (rent due, loans, or other).
Cash has dropped sharply from £237k to £13k. This is notable — likely used for property expenses, development costs, or debt repayment.
3. Current Liabilities
Category
2024 (£)
2023 (£)
Creditors: amounts falling due within one year
1,456,354
1,654,635
Net Current Liabilities
(1,146,451)
(1,217,233)
Current liabilities are very high relative to current assets.
Net current liabilities have improved slightly (~£71k), but still indicate short-term liquidity pressure.
4. Total Assets Less Current Liabilities
2024 (£)
2023 (£)
1,268,738
1,197,929
The company is still asset-rich, primarily due to investment property.
5. Long-term Liabilities
Category
2024 (£)
2023 (£)
Creditors: amounts falling due after more than one year
1,008,628
1,008,628
Long-term debt is unchanged.
6. Net Assets
2024 (£)
2023 (£)
260,110
189,301
Net assets have increased by ~£71k.
This is a positive sign, showing retained earnings growth despite low cash balances.
7. Capital and Reserves
Category
2024 (£)
2023 (£)
Called up share capital
100
100
Profit and loss reserves
260,010
189,201
Total Equity
260,110
189,301
All growth in equity is from profit retention — no new share capital issued.
Small company in terms of share capital but holds significant property assets.
Key Observations
Strong property base: Fixed assets dominate the balance sheet, indicating the company’s main value is in property.
Liquidity risk: Cash is extremely low (£12k) versus current liabilities (£1.46m). This could be risky if short-term obligations become due.
Leverage: Total debt (current + long-term) ≈ £2.46m vs total assets ≈ £2.72m. The company is highly leveraged, but assets exceed liabilities.
Profit growth: Net assets increased by ~37% year-on-year, indicating retained profits.
Investment property likely financed: Given the large long-term and short-term liabilities, the property is probably heavily debt-financed.
Conclusion
OMD Properties Ltd is a property investment company with strong asset backing but high leverage and low cash, which could be a concern for short-term obligations. The increase in net assets is positive, showing profitability. Careful management of cash and debt is critical.
Perfect! Let’s calculate some key financial ratios for OMD Properties Ltd based on the balance sheet you provided. I’ll show the formulas and reasoning step by step.
Slightly above 1, meaning total assets just exceed total debt, mostly due to property value.
Indicates that the company is asset-backed, but little margin for error if property values decline.
✅ Summary of Financial Health
Aspect
Observation
Liquidity
Very poor (current ratio 0.21), high risk for short-term cash needs
Leverage
Extremely high (Debt-to-Equity ≈ 9.48, Gearing 90%), risky structure
Profitability
Equity grew ~37% YoY, suggesting retained earnings or revaluation gains
Asset Coverage
Just above 1, assets slightly exceed liabilities, but highly leveraged
Key Risk
Cash flow is very low (£12k), yet short-term debt is £1.46m
Overall: OMD Properties Ltd is asset-rich but highly leveraged with very low liquidity. Its strong property base supports debt, but short-term obligations are a serious concern. This structure is typical for property investment companies where long-term asset values underpin financing, but the company is vulnerable if cash inflows (e.g., rent or sales) are delayed.
Call for Council to Revoke Hatherlow Sunday School Planning Permission After Faulty Advice
A new dispute has erupted over the fate of the historic Hatherlow Sunday School, with local resident and Romiley Gazette editor Sheila Oliver urging Stockport Council to revoke planning permission for its controversial redevelopment.
Mrs Oliver claims councillors on the Werneth Area Committee were given “completely wrong” advice before they voted on 29 July 2024 to recommend the scheme. She alleges members were told that housing need outweighed traffic safety concerns — advice she says was later contradicted by the Council’s own Monitoring Officer, Vicki Bates.
“The issue of the need for housing does not take precedence over any genuine traffic concerns, and you yourself have admitted this in writing to me,” Mrs Oliver wrote to Ms Bates.
No work has yet begun on the site, more than a year after permission was granted.
Traffic vs. Bins: Which Mattered More?
The Werneth Area Committee first considered the application on 29 July 2024, raising concerns over on-street parking and the lack of any parking provision within the development. This led to a Planning and Highways Regulation Committee (PHRC) site visit on Monday, 12 August — a weekday morning when the Spread Eagle pub was closed and most local residents were at work.
The visit’s stated aim was to assess parking and traffic issues, but it was conducted according to the council’s standard practice of 10am Monday visits, timed for officer and member availability rather than for capturing peak traffic conditions.
During the PHRC meeting, some members noted congestion on Otterspool Road at peak times and queried whether residents would be reliant on cars. Officers responded that the site was close to buses, a train station, and local shops. Two traffic surveys had been carried out, and members were told the data was adequate.
However, several councillors downplayed parking pressures, pointing to nearby roads with available on-street parking and properties with large driveways. Cllr Mark Jones concluded that parking could not be considered a reason for refusal.
The Great Bin Debate
By contrast, far more meeting time was devoted to discussing refuse storage and bin access. The officer’s report detailed litre-by-litre waste storage requirements for 11 apartments and highlighted potential issues with moving bins from a rear courtyard via a narrow one-metre-wide side path, possibly over a step.
Cllr Wendy Meikle raised concerns about the practicality of residents manoeuvring large bins and whether six bins would be enough for up to 22 people. She warned that extra bins would turn the courtyard into a bin yard, depriving residents of usable outdoor space.
Planning officer Suzanne Broomhead confirmed that smaller receptacles would be wheeled out by residents for collection, as in other developments.
Other councillors, including Graham Greenhalgh, focused on ensuring bins would not be stored at the front of the building to preserve its appearance.
Monitoring Officer Vicki Bates wrote that she was “satisfied that the members of the committee discussed and considered the issues of traffic and bin storage sufficiently” and that, on balance, the application was approved.
The Legal Route to Revocation
Under Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, local authorities can revoke or modify planning permission that has been granted but not yet implemented. Grounds include:
The decision was based on incorrect or misleading information.
There has been a material change in circumstances.
The decision was unlawful, such as being based on faulty officer advice.
Revocation is rare and requires the Secretary of State’s approval, but councils may act in the public interest. Developers can claim compensation for losses, yet the law still allows intervention where procedural or legal flaws exist.
Mrs Oliver’s Verdict
Mrs Oliver insists the Council should start the revocation process immediately, criticising the committee for failing to properly examine dangerous traffic issues.
“More time was spent discussing bin placement than the safety of our roads,” she said. “We live in interesting times.”
Her comments highlight the continuing tension in Romiley between meeting housing targets and safeguarding residents from the pressures of overburdened traffic networks.
BIN TALK OUTWEIGHS TRAFFIC FEARS
“The worst possible mistake we could make would be allowing bin storage at the front.” — Cllr Graham Greenhalgh
Traffic & Parking
Brief discussion on Otterspool Road congestion at peak times.
Officers cited two traffic surveys as “adequate.”
Several councillors noted nearby parking options.
Conclusion: Not a reason to refuse.
Bin Storage & Access
Detailed litre-by-litre waste capacity calculations for 11 flats.
Concerns over narrow 1m access path, steps, and moving large bins.
Fear of courtyard becoming a “bin yard.”
Repeated emphasis on keeping bins hidden to protect appearance.
Reader Takeaway: Council minutes show more time spent on refuse arrangements than on whether the development would worsen already dangerous traffic conditions.
Here at the Romiley Gazette, we use Artificial Intelligence to help with things like researching, writing, and formatting articles. It’s a handy tool that helps us get stories out faster and keep things accurate — but don’t worry, everything still gets a proper human check before it reaches you!
