https://theromileygazette.substack.com/publish/posts/published
4th January 2026
When Stockport Council decided to build a school on land purchased in 1974 as public open space, it was not simply a controversial planning choice. It was the culmination of a process marked by secrecy, misinformation, and disregard for community safeguarding.
Over many years, the Harcourt Street land had become vital recreational space for local residents — used for lawful sports and pastimes and relied upon by families in an increasingly built-up area. That reality was later supported by substantial evidence submitted to a village green inspector. Yet despite this, the council pressed ahead with development.
Open space in law — and in reality
Under the Local Government Act 1972, a local authority proposing to dispose of public open space must advertise its intention in a local newspaper and consider objections. This requirement exists for a reason: public open space is a community asset, not a reserve bank of land for councils to dip into when convenient.
Stockport Council initially told residents that no such advertisement was required because the land was “not being sold.” That assurance turned out to be false.
In a later meeting — held without proper public disclosure — the council admitted that it did have to publish a legal notice about the loss of public open space. By then, trust had already been eroded.
The distinction the council attempted to draw between “selling” land and permanently removing it from public use was not only misleading, it was disingenuous. Loss of access is loss of open space, whatever accounting language is used.
No inquiry, no pause, no accountability
When challenged, the Department for Communities and Local Government confirmed that while the law requires notice and consideration of objections, it does not require a public inquiry. In theory, residents may seek judicial review or complain to the Local Government Ombudsman.
In practice, this places an unreasonable burden on the public. Ordinary residents are expected to fund legal action or navigate complex complaints processes while the council proceeds regardless.
This is not participatory democracy. It is power exercised without meaningful scrutiny.
Safeguarding ignored — twice over
The land in question was not just valued open space. It had also been identified historically as tipped land and unsuitable for building. That fact alone should have triggered heightened safeguarding and environmental caution, particularly when the proposed development was a school.
Instead, the council:
- discounted historic safety warnings
- dismissed residents’ concerns
- restricted access to information
- and curtailed public questioning
Safeguarding was treated as an obstacle to delivery rather than a duty to be upheld.
FOI blocked, questions silenced
As opposition grew, residents report that:
- FOI requests were halted
- questions were prevented at council meetings
- correspondence contained demonstrable inaccuracies
When transparency disappears at the same time as resistance increases, alarm bells should ring.
This is not how a “four-star council” behaves. It is how institutions behave when they believe they no longer need public consent.
Corporate negligence by process, not accident
No single decision explains what happened at Harcourt Street. It was the accumulation of failures:
- failure to respect the purpose of public open space
- failure to act honestly in correspondence
- failure to safeguard children and community wellbeing
- failure to allow meaningful challenge
That pattern meets any reasonable definition of corporate negligence. Not because of one bad call, but because safeguards designed to protect the public were systematically bypassed.
The wider lesson
This case raises a question that goes far beyond one site or one school:
If a council can quietly reallocate public open space, suppress questions, misstate legal obligations, and proceed regardless of opposition — what protection do communities really have?
Public land is held in trust. When that trust is broken, the damage is not just physical. It is democratic.
At Harcourt Street, the community did everything it was supposed to do: gather evidence, engage inspectors, write formally, and object lawfully.
The council did everything it could to move ahead anyway.
