https://theromileygazette.substack.com/publish/posts/published
5th January 2026
Reddish — As the long-running controversy over the Harcourt Street school site continues to be revisited by residents, campaigners say newly clarified cost figures strengthen a key argument made at the time: that the council should have reconsidered the Fir Tree site as costs escalated and contamination risks became unavoidable.
In October 2005, Stockport Council estimated the cost of building a new primary school on the former Harcourt Street open space at £5.5 million. At that point, the full extent of contamination on the site — a former clay pit and landfill — had not yet been factored into the project.
Within a relatively short period, that estimate rose sharply. The projected cost increased first to £8.5 million, and then again to £9.97 million, still before the council was forced to carry out full contamination remediation.
Campaigners argue that each of these cost increases should have triggered a reassessment of alternative options — particularly the former Fir Tree Primary School site, which was already developed land and did not carry the same contamination or traffic risks.
A Known Toxic Legacy
The Harcourt Street site has a long industrial history. Used for clay extraction by Jackson’s Brickworks and later infilled with waste between the 1950s and 1970s, the land predates modern landfill regulation. Records of what was deposited are incomplete, a fact acknowledged in parliamentary debate and regional media coverage at the time.
Despite this, early investigations into ground conditions were limited, with only a small number of boreholes drilled across the site. Critics — including residents, local campaigners and MPs — warned that this fell short of best practice for assessing contaminated land, particularly for a school.
Those concerns were later borne out when the land was formally recognised as contaminated and extensive remediation became unavoidable.
Warnings Ignored
In a 2007 email to senior council officers, local campaigner Sheila Oliver raised alarm over both the environmental and financial implications of proceeding at Harcourt Street. She questioned how the council could afford to remove toxic waste and install sports facilities when the capital receipt from selling the Fir Tree site was relatively small.
She also warned that the project risked wasting public money and sacrificing valuable green open space, and said she would refer the matter to the District Auditor due to concerns about value for money and the speed of decision-making.
Costs Rose — But the Site Did Not Change
By the time projected costs had reached £9.97 million, full remediation costs were still not included. Once those were imposed, the overall cost rose further.
Campaigners say this sequence — £5.5m → £8.5m → £9.97m → remediation on top — illustrates a fundamental failure to pause and reassess the site choice.
They argue that the Fir Tree Primary School site, which remained in use until 2011 and was later sold for housing, should have been reconsidered as costs escalated — particularly once it became clear that Harcourt Street carried significant environmental and financial risk.
A Lost Opportunity
For critics, the issue was never simply about building a new school. It was about choosing the right land, listening to early warnings, and adapting decisions as evidence changed.
They argue that rebuilding on the Fir Tree site could have avoided years of controversy, reduced costs, and eliminated the need to build a school on land later described in the Manchester Evening News as a “toxic minefield.”
A Cautionary Tale
While the school has since been completed and the land remediated, the Harcourt Street case remains a touchstone for debates about development on former landfill sites.
Residents say it offers a clear lesson: when costs rise rapidly and contamination risks are known, decision-makers must be willing to stop, reassess, and reconsider alternatives — especially when public money and children’s safety are involved.
Cost Timeline at a Glance
- October 2005: £5.5 million
- Later estimate: £8.5 million
- Subsequent revision: £9.97 million (still before full remediation)
- Final cost: higher still once contamination remediation was required
From: “sheila.oliver@tiscali.co.uk” <sheila.oliver@tiscali.co.uk>
To: “chief.executive@stockport.gov.uk” <chief.executive@stockport.gov.uk>; “leader@stockport.gov.uk” <leader@stockport.gov.uk>; “elaine.mclean@stockport.gov.uk” <elaine.mclean@stockport.gov.uk>; “steve.lamb@stockport.gov.uk” <steve.lamb@stockport.gov.uk>
Cc: “cllr.mark.weldon@stockport.gov.uk” <cllr.mark.weldon@stockport.gov.uk>; “paul.carter230@ntlworld.com” <paul.carter230@ntlworld.com>
Sent: 11/07/07 15:22
Subject: possible iffyness – Harcourt Street/Fir Tree site
Dear Hearts
It seems to me that these new stipulations by Sport England regarding Reddish (Harcourt/Fir Tree) will be very costly. Have they been costed at all?
How strange that when you are getting such a small sum for the Fir Tree site, so small that the local MP can’t believe it, that you will have the funds to remove the toxic waste (or the tiny bits you intend to remove at least) and provide all these sporting facilities.
I shall be getting in touch with the District Auditor regarding this.
Councillor Carter has very helpfully promised me a reply on the general subject but as you are proposing to push the planning application through in the next few days, I have no option but to take this up with the District Auditor PDQ. I have today checked with the Audit Dept at the Town Hall, who told me that was what I should do.
I do hope you all turn out to have clean paws on this and are not thoughtlessly wasting our money as well as our green open space.
Kind regards
Sheila X
