https://substack.com/@theromileygazette?

5th January 2026

Residents of North Reddish repeatedly warned council officers about serious traffic dangers surrounding a proposed school development at Harcourt Street. Correspondence from 2007 shows that Executive Councillor Mark Weldon, responsible for the project, refused to properly consider evidence presented by local campaigner Sheila Oliver, even when that evidence later proved correct.

In an email exchange, Councillor Weldon claimed that the traffic reports had taken all relevant causes of extra traffic into consideration, insisting that the matter was for the planning committee to decide. Oliver responded firmly, pointing out that Weldon’s statement, made before witnesses, was factually inaccurate. She noted that ignoring proper traffic evidence could lead to judicial review — a costly burden for council taxpayers.

“You can’t keep making these statements and then denying them,” Oliver wrote. “If you haven’t read the documents, you shouldn’t make categoric statements as to what is in them. In planning terms, this is crucial, and any judicial review will cost the council taxpayer dearly.”

The exchange highlights a broader problem: residents’ concerns over safety, traffic, and planning are sometimes dismissed or ignored, even when independent bodies — including the police — later validate the evidence. In the Harcourt Street case, Oliver’s warnings about dangerous traffic conditions proved entirely accurate, yet were not acted upon at the time.

For taxpayers, the consequences are clear: decisions made without proper scrutiny can lead to legal challenges, increased costs, and threats to public safety. The Harcourt Street example underscores the need for councillors to carefully review evidence submitted by residents and independent experts, rather than relying solely on consultants or politically convenient reports.

In the years since, Councillor Weldon was removed from office, reflecting a recognition that failing to engage with community evidence and safety concerns is unacceptable for public representatives. Still, the episode remains a cautionary tale for Stockport and beyond: local democracy only works when residents’ voices are heard and acted upon.

“Ignoring residents’ evidence doesn’t make it disappear,” Oliver said. “It just makes the council accountable in the end, often at a higher cost.”

This story is a reminder that, for taxpayers, vigilance is necessary. Even experienced councillors can fail to act responsibly, and the consequences are borne by the community.

Tue 21/08/2007 19:07

Mrs Oliver,

I was careful to say it was a planning matter and I believed that the traffic study did take all relevant causes of extra traffic . I then repeated it was for the planning committee to decide.

Regards,

Mark Weldon

—–Original Message—–

From: “sheilaoliver” <sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com>

To: “Cllr Mark Weldon” <cllr.mark.weldon@stockport.gov.uk>

Sent: 21/08/07 18:39

Subject: Re: Porkies

Dear Councillor Weldon

You said quite plainly that the traffic generated by the proposed uses of the site that I had listed had been taken into consideration in the traffic reports.

I think you need to check and establish the truth of your statement, which was made before witnesses.  You can’t keep making these statements and then denying them.  If you haven’t troubled yourself to read the documents then you shouldn’t make categoric statements as to what is in them.  As mentioned, in planning terms this is a crucial issue with regards to judicial review, which will cost the council taxpayer dearly.

Yours sincerely

Sheila Oliver