https://theromileygazette.substack.com/publish/posts/published

4th January 2026

When Stockport Council claimed it could build a school on Harcourt Street without breaching national planning policy, it relied on a proposition that does not stand up to scrutiny.

At the heart of the dispute lies PPG17, the government’s Planning Policy Guidance on open space, sport and recreation — the policy in force at the time decisions were being made.

Under PPG17, councils were not free to build on public open space simply because they wanted to. They had to prove the land was surplus to requirements.

What PPG17 actually required

PPG17 was explicit in its intent: protect open space unless there is clear evidence it is no longer needed.

Before allowing development, a local authority was expected to demonstrate at least one of the following:

  • that the open space was surplus to current and future recreational needs,
  • that its loss would be replaced by equivalent or better provision, or
  • that development was unavoidable and clearly outweighed the harm.

This was not optional guidance. It formed part of the material considerations planning authorities were required to apply.

The contradiction at Harcourt Street

In the Harcourt Street case, the council found itself trapped by its own evidence.

On the one hand, it sought to argue that the land could be developed.
On the other, it submitted evidence to a village green inquiry acknowledging that the land was actively used by the local community for lawful sports and pastimes.

Those two positions cannot coexist.

Land that is demonstrably used for recreation cannot, by definition, be described as surplus or redundant under PPG17. Continued community use is precisely the factor that PPG17 says must weigh against development.

A policy breach, not a technicality

This was not a semantic argument. PPG17 existed to prevent exactly this situation: the quiet erosion of open space in less affluent areas where communities have fewer alternatives.

Calling well-used recreational land “available” does not make it surplus. Nor does council ownership change its planning status. Open space is judged by function and use, not by convenience.

If the land was still serving a recreational purpose — and the council’s own evidence said it was — then development directly conflicted with national planning policy.

Why this mattered legally

A proposal that conflicts with PPG17 could not simply be waved through. It exposed the council to:

  • planning challenge
  • referral to the Secretary of State
  • prolonged delay
  • and significant legal cost

Far from being an empty threat, objections based on PPG17 were capable of stopping development entirely — or at the very least forcing years of review and scrutiny.

The bigger picture

The Harcourt Street dispute was never just about one school. It was about whether a council could:

  • ignore national planning policy
  • contradict its own evidence
  • and redefine active open space as expendable

PPG17 was designed to stop that from happening.

In this case, it did its job — even if only because residents knew the policy well enough to force the issue into the open.