1st October 2025
Vick Bates, Monitoring Officer, Lisa Smart and Councillor Angela Clark all claim any mention of the following matters is vexatious.
Back in 2005, Stockport Council announced plans for a new £5.5 million primary school in North Reddish. The proposed site was Harcourt Street Recreation Ground, a well-used community space that once served as Jackson’s Brickyard.
The decision has remained controversial ever since.
A Tale of Two Sites
Critics point out that there was already an existing school, Fir Tree Primary, with room to expand, no traffic problems, and no concerns about land quality. But instead of developing Fir Tree, the Council earmarked its site for housing, while pushing to build on Harcourt Street instead.
The Harcourt Street land had a troubled past. After the brickyard closed, the claypits were filled with industrial waste. Residents recall tankers from a soap manufacturer in the 1960s tipping caustic soda, with even rats seen fleeing the site. By 1973, the land could no longer meet new safety standards for tipping and was grassed over, becoming a public recreation ground with a football pitch and tennis courts.
In fact, back in 1974, three planning applications for housing were refused on the grounds that the land was too contaminated.
Contamination Concerns
When the Council revived the site for the new school, residents raised fears about hidden pollution. Initial investigations were criticised as inadequate. Only one borehole was drilled, and residents say testing deliberately avoided the worst areas, such as the in-filled claypits and football pitch.
School location – directly over the in-filled claypits.
The cost of the new school quickly escalated — from the original £5.5m estimate to £10m within months.
There is a financial irregularity of £201,750. in the documents directly above. They attribute some of the monumental rise in cost of this school to an increase in floor area from 2600m2 to 3185m2 and they have themselves given the figure they used as £1450m2. So, this is an increase of 585m2 at £1450 the cost of which they have put at £1,050,000 when it is £848,250.
The Environment Agency advised the Council not to proceed without full contamination assessments, but locals say their warnings were ignored. Later investigations confirmed widespread contamination, including lead, arsenic and brown asbestos.
Residents allege that the asbestos was removed in unsafe conditions, with untrained workers using “bin bag and stick” methods and removing their own respirators. Some fibres are said to remain on site to this day.
The School Opens
Despite the concerns, the new primary school eventually opened in 2011, with the final bill rising to around £11 million.
Critics say the school was built too small for local demand, forcing further spending. The surrounding streets have also suffered from severe congestion, with police warning of dangerous traffic conditions shortly after the school opened.
Recreation Ground Lost
Another sticking point is the loss of Harcourt Street’s playing fields. Over 800 residents objected, but the Council pressed ahead. Sport England intervened, placing a £625,000 planning condition requiring replacement public sporting facilities. However, campaigners claim that no such facilities have ever materialised.
Questions of Accountability
Local residents argue that Stockport Council acted improperly by:
- Taking recreational land without adequate replacement
- Ignoring environmental and safety advice
- Escalating costs from £5.5m to £11m+ without oversight
- Failing to provide the promised sporting facilities
Campaigners also allege that the Monitoring Officer, local LibDem councillors and senior officials failed in their legal duty to act when financial irregularities were raised.
For residents, the story of Harcourt Street is one of lost trust. “We were called vexatious for raising safety and cost concerns,” one local said. “But everything we warned about has come true.”
