3rd January 2026

The Harcourt Street Primary School project now stands as a stark example of governance failure — not merely because serious flaws were known before public consultation, but because those warnings were ignored, only for the consequences to emerge months later at enormous public cost.

Internal council correspondence and committee records from 2006 show that unresolved risks were identified well before residents were invited to comment on the proposals. These included site suitability concerns, traffic impact risks and uncertainty over whether the school could meet projected demand.

In October 2006, a senior council officer confirmed that the Council’s Scrutiny Committee had already raised concerns and formally recommended further site investigations and a traffic impact assessment. Rather than pausing the project, the Executive chose to re-affirm its original decision and proceed.

Design Sub-Group minutes from April 2006 reveal further internal alarm. Pupil projections fluctuated between 525 and 563 children — figures officers acknowledged could not all be accommodated. One option openly discussed involved diverting children to other schools, despite the admission that this would break the promise of “a place for every child”.

These were not marginal issues. They went to the heart of whether the project was deliverable.

Yet residents say none of this uncertainty was properly disclosed during consultation. Instead, the public was asked to comment on proposals presented as viable, settled and capable of meeting local need.

What followed only deepened concerns.

Within months, the council was forced to spend a proportion of £80 million in the wider area to address an acute shortage of school places — a stark contradiction of earlier assurances that local demand would be met by the Harcourt Street scheme.

Even more damaging was the later discovery that the Harcourt Street site itself was contaminated with lead, arsenic and brown asbestos. The scale of contamination was so severe that the Manchester Evening News reported the land as a “toxic minefield”, raising serious questions about how the site had been deemed suitable in the first place.

For residents, this revelation confirmed what Scrutiny had warned from the outset: that site investigations were not a procedural nicety, but an essential safeguard.

The most troubling aspect is not that problems emerged — complex projects often encounter difficulty — but that the council’s own governance systems failed to prevent foreseeable risk from becoming public harm.

Scrutiny raised concerns.
The Executive pressed ahead.
Consultation proceeded without full disclosure.
Taxpayers absorbed the cost.

There is no evidence that Scrutiny meaningfully revisited the project after its recommendations were disregarded. Oversight appears to have ended at the precise moment it should have intensified.

This is not merely a flawed consultation. It is a breakdown of governance — where checks existed, warnings were documented, and yet accountability failed.

Residents are now calling for a full review of how the Harcourt Street project was approved, how risks were assessed, and whether the public was misled — intentionally or otherwise — about the true condition of the site and the viability of the proposals.

For Stockport, the legacy of Harcourt Street is not just an abandoned plan or a contaminated site.

It is a lesson in what happens when governance becomes procedural, scrutiny is ignored, and consultation is treated as a formality rather than a duty.

WHAT THE COUNCIL KNEW — AND WHAT THE PUBLIC WAS TOLD

What the Council Knew:

  • Scrutiny Committee recommended further site investigations and a traffic impact assessment
  • Pupil numbers were unstable and contradictory
  • The site could not meet projected demand
  • Children would need to be diverted elsewhere
  • Promises of “a place for every child” could not be kept
  • Serious site suitability risks remained unresolved

What Happened Afterwards:

  • A proportion of £80 million had to be spent locally to address school place shortages
  • The Harcourt Street site was found to be contaminated with lead, arsenic and brown asbestos
  • The land was publicly described as a toxic minefield

What the Public Was Told:

  • The project was viable and progressing
  • The site was suitable for a new primary school
  • Local demand would be met
  • Consultation would meaningfully influence decisions

Fri 06/10/2006 15:17

Dear Mrs Oliver

Re: Enquiry on the 1st October 2006 concerning the Harcourt Street site and Primary School proposals.

In your email you ask “should the Scrutiny Committee recommendations have been carried out?”  In summary, the Scrutiny Committee is not responsible for decisions taken by the Executive.  Scrutiny Committees do not have decision-making powers, but are responsible for scrutinising the decision-makers and making recommendations to the Executive.  The Executive are not required to accept those recommendations.

The Committee considered the Executive’s decision to amalgamate Fir Tree Primary School, North Reddish Infant School and North Reddish Junior School in a new building at its meeting on the 19th September 2005.

The Scrutiny Committee recommended that the Executive re-affirm its original decision subject to further site investigations and the completion and publication of a traffic impact assessment.

Since the decision the Committee has not further reviewed this issue.

However, following your enquiry I have contacted officers in the Children & Young People’s Directorate and can confirm that the various site investigation reports (including bore holing and traffic impact

assessment) have all been completed.  Following the receipt of these by the Council the Project Design Team completed its design work and the results were shared with the public at two consultation events on 3 August and 7 September 2006. The various site investigation reports form part of the planning application which was submitted last week.

If you require further information please contact Chris Keeble.  He can be contacted on 0161 474 3948, by email at chris.keeble@stockport.gov.uk, or by post by writing to the Town Hall.

Members of the public are free to contact Scrutiny Committees to suggest that they review particular decisions or policies.  If you feel this matter should be referred to the relevant Scrutiny Committee then I would advise that you contact the relevant Scrutiny Chair.  Councillor Jenny Humphreys is the Chair of the Children & Young People’s Scrutiny Committee.  Cllr Humphreys can be contacted via the Scrutiny Team by writing to the Town Hall, Stockport, SK1 3XE, or by email at scrutiny@stockport.gov.uk.

 Yours sincerely

Jane Scullion

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bill-for-school-to-be-built-on-toxic-minefield-898373

Failure to remove brown asbestos fibres from new primary school site.