7th November 2025
The Information Commissioner
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
Dear Sir/Madam,
Subject: Failure to deliver replacement public sporting facilities at Vale View School, North Reddish — potential breach of planning condition by Sport England partner & lack of transparent responses
I write to draw your attention to a matter of serious concern involving Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (the “Council”), the above-named school and local community, in which the promised replacement public sporting facilities, originally required as a condition of planning approval and in line with Sport England’s advice, appear not to have been delivered. I believe the Council’s subsequent handling and information responses raise issues of transparency and accountability under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR).
Background
- During the planning process for the Vale View School development, the Council and/or its agents committed to providing replacement sporting and community facilities on the site, in compliance with Sport England’s requirements and planning policy. For example, it is recorded that “£280,000 was set aside for the demands of Sport England … which haven’t been complied with as there are no sporting facilities for public use on the site.” Sheila Oliver
- According to the campaign source, the sporting facilities “had to be in place PRIOR to the commencement of the development. Where are they then?” Sheila Oliver
- Furthermore, correspondence dated 19 March 2013 from the FOI/Data Protection Officer of the Council asserts that the Council considers the requester’s questions regarding the site to be vexatious under section 14(1) FOIA and Regulation 12(4)(b) EIR. Sheila Oliver
- The campaign source states that these sporting facilities remain absent and that despite raising concerns with Sport England, the Council appears to have ignored Sport England’s stipulations. Sheila Oliver
Concerns for your Office
- The apparent non-delivery of the replacement sporting facilities may amount to a breach of the planning condition or requirements under Sport England’s engagement.
- The lack of transparent response from the Council and the labeling of legitimate questions as “vexatious” raise concerns about the Council’s compliance with its obligations under FOIA and EIR.
- The community and other stakeholders appear to have been denied a meaningful explanation or redress regarding the missing facilities and the use or disposition of the funds reportedly allocated (£280,000 or more) for the facility provision.
- The Council’s decision to refuse to engage on the basis of vexatiousness (as reflected in the correspondence cited) may warrant review: whether the decision was fair, proportionate and consistent with ICO guidance.
- If the facility condition was a material planning obligation, the transparency in how the obligation is discharged (or not) is of public interest and arguably environmental information (given sports/recreational land uses).
What I request
In view of the above, I respectfully request that your Office:
- Review the Council’s decision to treat requests for information on this matter as vexatious under FOIA/EIR.
- Assess whether the Council is properly discharging its obligations to provide replacement public sporting facilities as required by planning conditions and Sport England’s involvement.
- Consider whether the Council’s failure to provide the requested information and facility delivery undermines public accountability and whether enforcement action is appropriate.
- Provide guidance (or confirm whether guidance has been provided) to the Council regarding its obligations in respect of replacement sporting/community facilities and transparent reporting under FOIA/EIR.
I am prepared to provide you with copies of the relevant planning conditions, correspondence, FOIA/EIR requests, and any other supporting material if your Office would find that helpful.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your acknowledgement of this letter and guidance on any next steps.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
The photos above show the poor drainage at what is supposed to be the replacement sports field.
Response to FOI request received 8/8/2007
“STIPULATIONS FROM SPORTS ENGLAND
I have spoken to the Council’s consultants, NPS, who have stated an allowance in the region of £500,000 has been estimated for the cost of providing additional the requirements as suggested by Sports England. It should be noted that this figure is an estimate and the actual costs will be known once a contractor has been chosen to do this work if Planning Permission is granted for the application.”
From: Cllr Mark Weldon
Sent: Thu 8/2/2007 10:12
To: sheilaoliver
Cc: Donna Sager; Cllr Kevin Hogg; Cllr Dave Goddard; Andrew Webb; John Schultz
Subject: RE: Irregularities at Stockport Council
Mrs Oliver,
I never made any such quote to you. I made no comments on the financial state of the borough or CYPD. I merely expressed the thought that the money spent on the sports facilities were welcome in a deprived area of the borough and questioned your motives in trying to stop it. My comments were made in the presence of Cllr Hogg and Mrs Donna Sagar whom I am sure can verify the exchange. It is because of this type of unreliable reporting that I was and remain unwilling to talk to you without a witness.
You do your case no good by resorting to fabrication.
Yours
Mark Weldon
From: sheilaoliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 09 August 2007 21:18
To: Cllr Mark Weldon; FOI Officer; Leader; John Schultz
Cc: f-blatcher@audit-commission.gov.uk; Donna Sager; Cllr Paul Carter
Subject: Re: Cost of Harcourt Street School
Dear Councillor Weldon
I have copies of my communications with Sport England’s Chief Executive. Following his kind intervention after my communication with him the Council was forced to agree to provide recreational facilities for young people which it would not otherwise have done. Unlike councillors, I do not try to claim credit for something I have not done. I am delighted at the prospect of the “golden elephants”. If the proposed school does go ahead, then at least I will have the consolation of having brought about recreational improvements worth over half a million pounds for the young people of North Reddish, whom the Council seeks to deprive at every turn, including the shutting of the local swimming baths and the transference of equipment to the baths in the affluent area of Hazel Grove. I remember forcing the Council to spend £197,000 of commuted sums interest on playgrounds, and Councillor Meikle took all the credit. Whoever it was got that money for local people it was certainly not her!
As the Council has reduced the opportunities for council taxpayers to hold them to account democratically, with official notes made of questions and sometimes answers, by over 50%, then we will have more of these problem encounters you mention with disputed outcomes. It is called democracy and if you try to circumvent it it leads to difficulties. You can’t just have the fat cat allowances and council officer wages – some ludicrously high – without accountability.
Under the Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations 2004, please may I see your contemporaneous handwritten notes from May 07? I am delighted that you are taking an interest in these spiralling costs. Have you considered simply carrying out improvements to the Fir Tree and North Reddish schools instead, which is a solution which would leave the people of North Reddish relieved and delighted?
Regarding wasting Council resources, I note you are on the Stepping Hill Area Committee. How was it that I, and not you as a paid councillor, had to point out that almost £900,000 of commuted sums money for sustainable transport was still lying in Sainsbury’s bank account, gathering interest for them, seven years after it should have been spent and with the likelihood that it would return to Sainsbury’s possession within a short period of time if it hadn’t been spent? It is your job to keep your eye on things like this. I am just a hospital typist. I got the £17,000 spent on the vital pedestrian link for Cow Lane. I got the £50,000 SEMMMS money for improvements at Offerton Precinct. I pointed out that we paid SEMMMS traffic consultants £1,400,000 in one year alone for a road which everyone privately admits will never be built.
Don’t you dare accuse me of wasting council resources.
Sheila
