Sheila Oliver's Campaigning Website

I am again vexatious for asking about the planning shenanigans surrounding Padden Brook.  The LibDem local councillors have lied to us; lied after us asking them for 220 days for a response.

These are the councillors:

    https://blogging.sheilaoliver.org/2025/04/22/cllr-angela-clark-cllr-mark-roberts/
    https://blogging.sheilaoliver.org/2025/04/26/libdem-liar-council-leader-mark-hunter/

    This is our beloved and protected amenity land/Local Wildlife Site:
     https://blogging.sheilaoliver.org/2025/04/21/padden-brook/

Padden Brook went from this, untouched since the 1960s:-

To this, which the lying, lazy LibDem councillors Angela Clark and Mark Roberts claim has improved the site and the dumping of car, old trailer and assorted junk has tidied it up.

And now the bent LibDem council says it is vexatious of me to ask any further questions regarding Padden Brook.

Environmental Information Request
Reference: EIR 101007834786
Dear Applicant,

Please consider this as our formal response to your information request which was logged under the above reference number and treated as a request made under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) 2004.

EIR Requests:
101007834786
Dear FoI Officer
This response is a complete fabrication, possibly to facilitate planning corruption like at Vale View School and Offerton Precinct.  Not your fault, of course.
Please let me know which council officer gave that response and upon which evidence it was based.

I can prove the response is untrue and shall take to Twitter with the evidence to further the case that the Stockport LibDems are  very much at ease with corruption.
How has this lovely, protected, Local Nature Site been improved by the destruction and dumping of rubbish on it?  This is another blatant lie.
101007774896

Dear FoI Officer
I don’t believe I put in the question “instructed by the landowner”
Is the response still the same?  On Day 1  asked Cllr Angela Clark to look into the issue of the instability of the land, with a witness. It is now day 219 and no response has been received from her (ever actually)  Clarification please – has the council requested any such investigation be carried out?

Our Response:
Refusal under Regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) and section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA:
After careful consideration, we are writing to inform you that your requests for information relating to the Padden Brook site have been refused. To the extent that the request is for non-environmental information, it is vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA and to the extent that the request is for environmental information, it is manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR

In reaching this decision, we have taken into account the guidance provided by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and the ICO decision notice FS_503163771. Requests can be manifestly unreasonable for one or more of a wide range of reasons, including the burden of dealing with the request, the applicant’s motive, and any harassment or distress caused to staff. The ICO decision notice FS504640002 and the tribunal decision in Dransfield v Information Commissioner (EA-2103-0237)1 further support this approach.

Your requests appear to be of a similar nature to other requests you have submitted on the subject of “Padden Brook” and considered part of a campaign against the Council rather than to provide information in the public interest. The Council has previously advised in response to your requests that there is nothing taking place at the site of Padden Brook that the Council needs to take action on. We note that you may not agree with this, however the position of the Council remains the same following several visits to the site by Council officers.

Our records indicate we have received at least 6 requests for information regarding “Padden Brook” the nature and context of your requests also suggest that they are intended to cause disruption rather than contributing to public understanding or accountability. This aligns with the criteria for manifestly unreasonable requests as outlined in the ICO guidance. In addition to these requests, the Council has also received in excess of 160 emails from yourself on the subject of Padden Brook since August 2024.
Furthermore, we have considered the ICO’s decision notices and guidance on the application of section 14(1) of the FOIA and Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR in cases where requests are received that may contain an unreasonable tone or offensive language. Such requests, which are part of a pattern of persistent and unreasonable behaviour intended to cause disruption or divert Council resources, can be deemed manifestly unreasonable or vexatious.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) advises the following:
"....In some cases it will be easy to recognize that a request is manifestly unreasonable. For example, the tone or content of the request might be so objectionable that it would be unreasonable to expect your authority to tolerate it, no matter how legitimate the purpose of the requester or substantial the value of the requested information. Such as where threats have been made against employees, or offensive language used..”
Whether regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR has been applied based on the cost or burden alone or for wider reasons, it is subject to a public interest test.

Public Interest
Even after an exception has been engaged and we deem it to be manifestly unreasonable, we can only apply the exception if the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Factors in favour of releasing the information
Public interest in transparency – there is a general public interest in releasing information to contribute to a greater awareness of matters, a free exchange of views and more effective participation by the public in environmental decision-making.
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council is committed to transparency. Disclosing the requested information would comply with this commitment.

Factors in favour of withholding the information
Complying with the requests would put a strain on the Council's resources and make it more difficult for the Council to deliver its core services due to the time it would take to comply with these numerous request.
We believe that it is in the public's interest to deliver core services to the fullest potential. Preparing a response to the requests would have an impact on the Service Area and greatly reduce its effectiveness.

Conclusion
Given these considerations, we have determined that responding to your requests would place an undue burden on Council resources and is not justified in terms of the public interest. We have concluded that the public interest in refusing your requests outweighs the interest in its disclosure.
Statement under Section 17(6) of FOIA

Please be advised that further requests for information relating to the Padden Brook site will not be responded to in accordance with section 17(6) of the FOIA.
Appeal Process

If you are dissatisfied with this decision, you have the right to appeal. You can submit an appeal in writing to the Information Governance Team within 40 working days of receiving this refusal notice. Please include the grounds for your appeal and any supporting evidence. The appeal will be reviewed by a senior officer who was not involved in the original decision. You will receive a response to your appeal within 20 working days.
Following the completion of an internal review, if you are dissatisfied with the outcome, you can appeal to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) via the following contact points:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Home | ICO
0303 123 1113

Documents held by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council may fall under the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015. If you receive a Council document and you wish to use it for a new purpose, please identify the document in question and describe how you intend to re-use it. We will aim to respond to any re-use request within 20 working days.
You can find more information about EIR requests via the following link:
Freedom of Information - Stockport Council
Kind regards,
Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear FoI Officer

Under the FOIA/EIR please let me know the name of the council officer who has declared me vexatious (again).  Please see below.  The last time this happened they were covering up LibDem offences under the Fraud Act 2006, multi £m planning corruption, malfeasance in public office and endangering the lives of children.  I think it is reasonable to name the officials who are making these decisions.  I look forward to your response.

https://www.sheilaoliver.org/toxic-waste-dump-school-.html

Kind regards

Sheila
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Request for Internal Review of EIR 101007834786
Dear Information Governance Team,
I am writing to formally request an internal review of your refusal to respond to EIR request 101007834786, citing Regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) and Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
I believe the decision to classify my request as "manifestly unreasonable" and "vexatious" is flawed for the following reasons:

1. Legitimate Public Interest
My request relates to potential environmental degradation and public land management at Padden Brook, which is a Local Nature Site. As such, it falls squarely within the definition of "environmental information" under Regulation 2(1) of the EIR 2004. The destruction of a protected site and the possible involvement of a public body in sanctioning or ignoring that destruction is unquestionably a matter of substantial public interest.

2. ICO Guidance on Manifestly Unreasonable Requests
According to ICO guidance, a request is not manifestly unreasonable merely because the authority disagrees with the applicant’s views or finds the tone unpalatable. The threshold for invoking Regulation 12(4)(b) is high and must be justified with evidence that the burden of responding clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
You have not demonstrated a detailed cost analysis or specific breakdown of the alleged burden. In Craven v Information Commissioner & DECC (EA/2011/0226), the Tribunal stated:
"Authorities should be expected to provide robust evidence of the burden of compliance rather than general assertions."
Without this evidence, the application of 12(4)(b) is procedurally and substantively defective.

3. No Blanket Ban Permitted Under EIR
Your statement that no future requests on this topic will be responded to is incompatible with the EIR, which does not permit blanket refusals. Each request must be considered on its own merits. Regulation 12(4)(b) requires a public interest test each time.

4. Challenge to Characterisation of Behaviour
While I acknowledge repeated contact, I strongly dispute the suggestion that my requests are part of a campaign "intended to cause disruption." The tone of previous messages reflects frustration due to a lack of transparency and prolonged silence from elected officials, not an attempt to harass.
Further, in Dransfield v ICO, the Upper Tribunal clarified that persistence alone does not make a request vexatious or manifestly unreasonable:
"There must be a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress."
The threshold is not met in this case.

5. Specificity of This Request
The present request is narrow and focused: it seeks the name of the council officer who made a decision and the evidence they relied upon. This is basic accountability—not a voluminous or overly broad inquiry.

Conclusion and Request
In light of the above, I respectfully request that you:
Reverse the refusal under EIR 12(4)(b) and FOIA Section 14(1),
Disclose the name of the officer responsible and the evidence used in the original decision,
Confirm whether any investigation into land instability has been conducted, and if not, why.
If this request is again denied, I intend to escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office for a formal decision.
Yours sincerely,
Sheila