By the Romiley Gazette Staff
14th November 2025
Years after the housing development at Sandringham Road was completed, anger among local residents has not subsided. Instead, many say it has deepened. They believe their concerns about access, flooding, contamination, open space and traffic were disregarded from the outset—and that the way the project was approved raises serious questions about the transparency of Stockport’s planning system.
Although the council insists the process followed statutory requirements, many living nearby say their experience tells a very different story.
A Site Visit Refused—and a Rapid Approval
During the early stages of the planning process, residents requested a formal site visit, arguing that councillors were unfamiliar with the narrow road layout, the parking pressures created by the playing fields, and the drainage issues they had been reporting for years.
Several councillors acknowledged limited knowledge of the location, but the request was rejected by the committee majority. One councillor argued strongly in favour of visiting the site, and was later praised by residents for “trying his best,” but was ultimately overruled.
Only days later, an ambulance struggled to reach a seriously ill patient, navigating past parked vehicles only by using the garage forecourt. Residents have repeatedly cited this incident as clear evidence that the access problems they warned about were real and should have been fully examined before approval.
Parking Promises and Practical Realities
Agents for Stockport Homes stated that six additional parking spaces would be provided to support the new homes and relieve pressure on the playing fields. They also claimed the design offered “suitable turning space” for emergency and service vehicles.
Residents say reality has proven very different. Long before the homes were even built, bin lorries, delivery vehicles and emergency services struggled to manoeuvre through parked cars. Some residents argue that the promised turning space never existed in practice and that the additional parking has not matched what was implied in planning documents.
These disputes have fuelled a sense that the development was pushed through with insufficient scrutiny.
Open Space Status Still Unclear
One of the most persistent unanswered questions concerns whether parts of the land were classified as public open space. If so, a separate legal process would have been required before any building could take place.
Several residents say they asked planning officers directly for clarification but did not receive responses. A Freedom of Information and Environmental Information Regulations request was later submitted in an effort to determine the land’s status, but residents say they remain without clear answers.
From Garage Demolition to Resident Displacement
The demolition of long-standing garages also prompted objections. Many relied on them for storage or off-road parking and felt the consultation process was abrupt and dismissive. Some argue that the loss of garage space has worsened congestion on a road already under pressure from sports-field traffic.
The council maintains that correct procedures were followed.
Concerns About Historical Contamination
The site lies near the former Adswood Tip—an area known to have undergone repeated contamination investigations over many years. Various archived reports and press articles have referenced long-standing concerns about the tip, including soil contamination, historic waste materials, and disputed claims of possible radioactive waste.
Although the Sandringham Road application included a site investigation report, several residents felt it did not adequately address past environmental issues or the extensive testing previously carried out in the wider area. Former MP Mark Hunter and several community groups had previously raised concerns about development around Adswood.
For many locals, these fears remain unresolved.
Flooding and Drainage: Issues Still Reported
Residents have long reported flooding around the garages, rising groundwater and heavy pooling after storms. Some say the river has overtopped in the past and that the existing sewer network already struggles during peak conditions.
Developers stated that modern drainage systems were included in the plan, but residents remain unconvinced these fully mitigate known risks.
Residents Say the Rapid Build “Confirms Their Fears”
With the development completed several years ago, some residents say the speed at which construction went ahead—despite their objections and unanswered questions—only strengthened their view that the planning process was unfair and lacked proper scrutiny.
A number of residents describe the handling of the application as “deeply questionable” and claim the experience left them feeling the system was “stacked against ordinary people.” Some go further, expressing personal belief that the approval showed signs of what they describe as “corrupt or politically driven decision-making.”
These claims reflect local opinion and frustration; Stockport Council has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and states that the development met all statutory planning requirements.
A Lasting Legacy of Distrust
What is indisputable is that the Sandringham Road development has left a deep fracture in trust between local residents and the planning system. Questions about access, land classification, consultation, contamination and flood risk continue to resonate years later.
For many in the community, the Sandringham Road case has become a symbol of broader concerns about transparency, communication and accountability within Stockport’s planning process.
A footpath in use for over 40 years simply blocked up without notice.
11th September 2012. Just days after the lazy area committee members refuse a site visit to see for themselves the dangerous traffic situation, and even before the new houses are built, an ambulance struggles to reach a seriously ill patient. The ambulances uses the existing garage area to get past. In future this area will be full of houses with the concomitant extra cars parked.
They put six car parking spaces on the planning documents but in reality there was never any intention to provide them. More evidence of the corrupt manner in which planning is run in Stockport.
https://www.sheilaoliver.org/files/Sandringham-Rd–Site-Investigation-Report.pdf
Apparently, these asbestos garages standing in way of housebuilding much wanted by Stockport Council are a severe threat to the health of local people from asbestos.
Strange that, the Council put a 550 pupil primary school and 78 babies nursery on brown asbestos which wasn’t removed properly and they didn’t turn a hair over that:-
The LibDem councillors who passed this application couldn’t have cared any less about the existing traffic problems for local residents, which there were about to make much, much worse by the building of houses on this land. Is the land public open space? We don’t know yet because the planning officers refused to respond, as is normal in Stockport.
Local people requested a site visit before the application to build houses here was passed. They were concerned about flooding; loss of public open space, loss of amenity, traffic and contamination issues. Even though most of the the area committee members admitted they were unfamiliar with the site in question a site visit was refused. Some of the committee members wanted a site visit but were overruled.
The planning document below points to the land being contaminated, but Stockport Council is pretending that isn’t the case.
Geoventures UK Ltd – Ground report of 12th December 2011. 1. Resultant map is annotated with bore holes siting. I am particularly interested in no 5. but wish to examine details of all taken. Scientific Analysis Laboratories Ltd It is noted Geoventures UK Ltd on hire from WML Consulting Ltd took samples examined by SAL Ltd. 5 soil/leachate samples removed from 5 windowsample probeholes at a depth of 4.45m 6/12/12. As a result, WS5 in particular was found to have Arsenic, Vanadium, Benzopyrene and others contamination thus: Arsenic = 260mg/kg Vanadium 85mg/kg Benzopyrene 24mg/kg in contravention of UK Environmental quality standards. 1. Where did this contamination originate? How much was deemed present? Was the presence reported to the Environmental Agency? 2. On remediation matters: what body decided the appropriate remediation process?, What form did that take? In accordance with all VOSA and other statutory provisions around contaminated waste removal, have Wiggett Ltd, Roy Braidwood, any other contractor used for removal, Stockport Homes Ltd, SMBC, and the EA retained all copies of waste transfer note (WTN) documentation? Where has that contaminated soil been removed to (on/around 20th February 2013) and does that comply with all EA and legislative requirements? 3. Upon removal, were further tests conducted to establish the source of the contamination? What steps were taken to identify other sources of similar contamination close by? How can all parties so involved be satisfied all pollution has been removed and that source (and any others) no longer present a risk to the public?
