25th September 2025

Residents of Romiley are now facing a worrying prospect: after more than a year of inactivity, there is a real risk that council tax payers could be saddled with substantial legal costs due to inaction over a deteriorating retaining wall. The wall, built in the 1960s out of concrete, supports 24 homes. Its situation has reportedly worsened, and it is unclear who is legally responsible for repairing it.

What has been happening

  • The wall holds back earth behind 24 houses. Given its age and the material (1960s concrete), experts say maintenance is critical to ensure safety.
  • According to local residents, for over a year no one has intervened meaningfully — despite repeated concerns raised. The individuals alleged to have failed to act include:
    1. LibDem councillor(s) representing the area. Cllr Angela Clark was asked to take action at 16.50 on 9th of August 2024 at Lisa Smart’s Constituency Office, and many times since
    2. The local Member of Parliament – Lisa Smart
    3. The council’s Monitoring Officer -Vicki Bates
    4. The council’s Tree Officer – Peter Pollard

Why responsibility matters

If the wall were to fail, the damage could be severe — risk to life, damage to property, plus the cost of rebuilding or stabilisation. In such cases, the question of liability becomes central:

  • Ownership: Who owns the wall? Often retaining walls behind houses are owned by the homeowners, by a homeowners association, or by the council. If the wall was built by the council or as part of a public works scheme, there could be a public liability or maintenance duty. If the wall is on private land, responsibility often lies with the landowner.
  • Statutory duty of care: Councils have duties under health & safety, public safety and planning/building regulations to ensure structures they own or maintain are safe. Even if a council does not own a structure, neglect or failure to respond to known hazards could expose it to legal challenge.
  • Negligence claims: If residents can show that the authorities (councillors, officers) were aware of the hazard and failed to act, then a negligence claim could follow. That could include claims for damages, and possibly legal costs against the council (or other parties) if fault is found.

Why action hasn’t been taken — and what that might cost

From what residents report:

  • The LibDem councillor(s) allegedly received warnings but did not initiate a formal request for inspection or funding for repair.
  • The MP may have been approached but, as is often the case, MPs have limited executive power; however, they can raise constituency concerns with relevant authorities.
  • The Monitoring Officer (a council officer whose role includes ensuring legality and good governance) and the Tree Officer (who might have oversight of adjacent vegetation that could impact the wall) also are said to have been inactive.

Possible reasons for inaction:

  • Uncertainty over who owns the wall, and who is legally responsible.
  • Lack of clarity whether the wall is council property, or private.
  • Insufficient budget or competing priorities.
  • Disagreement or bureaucratic delays between council departments.

The potential cost to taxpayers could include:

  • The actual repair or reconstruction costs, which for a large, aging concrete retaining wall could run into tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds (depending on size, location, engineering, access).
  • Legal costs: claims for damages if parts of the wall fail, or legal action from homeowners or insurers.
  • Health and safety enforcement costs, possibly fines if negligence or statutory breaches are found.
  • Remediation of secondary damage (if the wall’s failure causes damage to neighbouring property, roads, gardens etc.).

Who should act — and what residents can do

Responsibility likely lies with a combination of parties:

  • The council must investigate: which department (Highways / Assets / Building Control / Environmental Health) should lead.
  • The Monitoring Officer has a duty to ensure the council acts in accordance with law. If there has been maladministration, residents may be able to complain to the Local Government Ombudsman.
  • The Tree Officer, depending on whether tree roots or drainage impacted by trees are contributing to the wall’s deterioration, should assess the vegetative side.
  • The councillor(s) and MP are there to represent and press for action on behalf of residents.

Risk of legal costs

Because over a year has passed without clear accountability, the council faces legal exposure:

  • If a failure causes injury or damage, residents may sue. If negligence is proven, the council could be liable for compensation and legal costs.
  • Even defending claims (if the council contests liability) will incur costs.
  • Insurance premiums could rise.

What the Romiley community needs now

What is urgently needed:

  • Clarity: confirmation in writing from the council on who owns the wall, what inspections have been done, what plans exist.
  • Survey: an independent structural survey to assess the wall’s risk.
  • Transparency: get hold of any council reports or notices regarding the wall (Freedom of Information requests if needed).
  • Accountability: insist that elected representatives and officers explain why no action was taken, what barriers there are, and a timeline for resolving the issue.

As it stands, taxpayers could be facing a heavy burden — financially and in risk — unless someone steps up. The question now is: who will take responsibility, and when?