30th August 2025

Residents who questioned the wisdom of building Vale View Primary on a still-gassing toxic dump have long been brushed aside by Stockport Council. At the centre of that dismissal is Monitoring Officer Vicki Bates, who repeatedly branded legitimate public concerns as “vexatious.”

When locals warned the all-LibDem Executive in 2011:

“You are building the new school too small.”

They were met with a curt rebuke:

“Don’t be vexatious.”

Yet less than a year after Vale View opened, the Manchester Evening News reported in June 2012 that the Council was considering reopening Edwardian school buildings—including North Reddish Juniors—to cope with a “baby boom” in the borough. That directly undermines the Council’s case for building a new £12 million school on contaminated land.

Fraud Act Questions

Sections 2 and 3 of the Fraud Act 2006 define two offences:

  • Fraud by false representation: making misleading claims while knowing they may be untrue.
  • Fraud by failing to disclose information: withholding facts a person is legally bound to reveal.

Did the Council fall foul of either? Critics argue that residents were not told the full truth:

  • The birth rate was rising, not falling, when the toxic site school was approved.
  • The Edwardian school earmarked for closure was soon being discussed for reopening.
  • Public warnings were shut down by the Monitoring Officer, rather than being investigated.

A Risk of Loss

The outcome:

  • £12 million spent on a school on hazardous ground.
  • Potential health risks for pupils and staff.
  • Further costs subsequently under consideration to reopen older buildings.

The community is left asking whether Stockport Council, aided by its Monitoring Officer, knowingly misled the public—exposing them to financial waste and potential health dangers.

Time for Accountability

Council taxpayers say it is no longer enough to call critics vexatious. Monitoring Officer Vicki Bates and the Council leadership must now answer:

  • Why was the toxic site chosen when safer schools stood idle?
  • Why were demographic realities ignored or concealed?
  • Why was raising these questions treated as a nuisance rather than a duty?

Until those answers come, the label “vexatious” will look less like a defence of due process—and more like an attempt to silence the truth.