7th November 2025
Information Commissioner
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
Dear Sir/Madam,
Subject: Concern over failure to provide information and dismissal of questions as “vexatious” regarding drainage issues at the site of Vale View School, North Reddish
I am writing to raise serious concerns about how Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) has handled my questions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). These questions relate to drainage works, flood-risk and contamination tied to the Vale View School site in North Reddish.
Key concerns
- The campaign information shows that approximately £200,000 was allocated for drainage works on this site. sheilaoliver.org
- Despite the allocation, the site continues to experience flooding, indicating possible failure to deliver the drainage infrastructure as intended. sheilaoliver.org
- The site is reported to be located over an important aquifer and marked as a contaminated site. sheilaoliver.org
- My enquiries have been labelled “vexatious” by SMBC (or the responses have implied refusal to engage), despite the issue clearly being of public and environmental significance.
- The questions I posed — about the status of the drainage works, as-built drawings, inspection records, monitoring of contamination and flood risk — are entirely legitimate, relevant to public interest and clearly fall within the scope of environmental information.
Why this matters under your remit
- The issues relate to environmental information (drainage systems, groundwater, contamination, flooding) and thus fall under the EIR.
- The public interest in clarity, accountability, and transparency in how public funds (the £200k) were spent, and how the site is being managed for flood risk and contamination, is high.
- The designation of such questions as “vexatious” by the council appears excessive and may be a misuse of the exemption provisions in FOIA/EIR — effectively blocking legitimate scrutiny.
- The refusal or failure to provide meaningful responses undermines trust, transparency and good governance in local public authorities.
What I ask your office to consider
- Review whether the Council’s decision to treat my enquiries as vexatious under FOIA/EIR was compliant with the guidance, proportionate and properly justified.
- Assess whether the Council should have treated my requests as environmental information under the EIR and responded accordingly — including potentially narrowing the scope or providing partial disclosure rather than a blanket refusal.
- Consider whether the Council’s handling of the drainage fund (£200k), the delivery of the drainage system, flood risk and contamination monitoring is transparent and if there is a failure of accountability that your office should address.
- Provide guidance or enforcement where necessary to ensure that legitimate environmental information requests like these are not wrongfully dismissed as vexatious, particularly when high-public interest issues (drainage, flooding, contamination) are involved.
I am happy to provide copies of the correspondence, the campaign website material, the Council’s responses, and any other relevant documentation your office may require.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your acknowledgement of this letter and any advice you can offer on next steps.
Yours faithfully,
Sheila Oliver
Editor, The Romiley Gazette
Was the £200,000 actually spent? Vexatious to ask.
Did the underwater storage tank go in? What was the purpose of this storage tank – was it for the toilet flushing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_(Design_and_Management)_Regulations_2015#Health_and_safety_file The correct procedure for As Built drawings.
Or did we pay £200,000 for this pipe?
