https://substack.com/@theromileygazette?

5th January 2026

When Stockport Council responded to a Freedom of Information request in July 2007 about the proposed North Reddish Primary School at Harcourt Street, it assured residents that the site was safe to develop and that extensive new sporting facilities would be delivered alongside the school.

Four years later, the school opened — but without the promised playing fields — and subsequent investigations would show that the land had been far more contaminated than originally claimed.

Council Assurances in 2007

In its 2007 FOI response (reference FOI/EIR 618), the council relied heavily on a ground investigation carried out by the Greater Manchester Geological Unit (GMGU). That report concluded the site was:

“safe to develop for a school with playing fields, provided some simple, precautionary measures are taken.”

The council told Mrs Sheila Oliver, who submitted the FOI request, that there was no need to remove “toxic waste” and that contamination could be managed through measures such as a clean cover system, limited landscaping, and gas monitoring.

The council also stated that the estimated £8.5 million cost of the school included contamination measures, although it acknowledged that contamination costs were not separately itemised.

At the time, additional works — including sports pitches, a multi-use games area and changing facilities — were cited as justification for developing the open space.

What Was Later Discovered

Campaigners say those assurances were fundamentally undermined when proper ground investigations were eventually carried out to the correct British Standard (BS 10175).

Those later investigations found the site to be completely contaminated, identifying lead, arsenic and brown asbestos across the land — far more extensive and hazardous contamination than suggested by the original GMGU report.

Residents argue that this confirmed long-standing warnings that the early investigations were inadequate, both in scope and methodology, and failed to reflect the site’s history as a former clay pit and uncontrolled landfill.

Playing Fields Never Delivered

Despite repeated references in planning documents and FOI responses to new recreational facilities for the community, the playing fields were never delivered.

When North Reddish Primary School eventually opened in 2011, it did so without the sports pitches and associated facilities that had been presented as a major public benefit of the scheme.

For critics, this absence reinforced concerns that community benefits were overstated during the planning process.

A Pattern of Escalating Costs

Cost figures associated with the project rose steadily before contamination was properly addressed:

  • £5.5 million — estimate in October 2005
  • £8.5 million — cited in 2007 FOI response
  • £9.97 million — before full remediation was required

Substantial additional costs were incurred once comprehensive remediation became unavoidable.

Campaigners maintain that each increase should have prompted a reassessment of alternatives — particularly the former Fir Tree Primary School site, which was already developed land and did not carry the same contamination risks.

—–Original Message—–
From: sheila.oliver@tiscali.co.uk [mailto:sheila.oliver@tiscali.co.uk]
Sent: 11 July 2007 20:40
To: Cllr Mark Weldon
Subject: RE: possible iffyness – Harcourt Street/Fir Tree site

Dear Councillor Weldon

Dearie me!  You are the teacher and I am just a typist.  I quite often

make up words – why not?    I am a linguist and the Germans make their

own words up  all the time 

“If conjunction – On the supposition that , providing that, in case

that, even on the supposition, allowing that, whenever, at the time

when, whether, also used in an exclamatory sense” The Concise English

Dictionary – so iffyness is the noun derived from that conjunction.  I

am not saying it is gramatically correct, but if I chose to use that

noun that is my affair.

In the same way, I refer to people as having paws.  Are you a little

oversensitive on this issue?

My point was merely that it is your job as Executive councillor for

this portfolio to make sure that money is not wasted and that the

people of Reddish get the best deal.   How much is the removal of the

toxic waste costing and how much will these new stipulations of Sport

England cost?  Someone other than me should be asking these

questions.   And please don’t start boasting in future about providing

these potential new facilities for Reddish that Sport England will

insist on because it was I who wrote to Sport England’s Chief Executive

to get them to act in this regard.

The unfathomable reasons is that the people of Reddish are being

cheated of their public open space for purely financial reasons, the

traffic will be even more horrendous and children will die under the

wheels of cars because the Council’s traffic consultants say it is safe

for children from the age of four to 11 to cycle to school along some

of the most dangerous roads in Stockport.   And there should be enough

money from the sale of the closed schools to finance a new school. 

I shall be bringing this issue up with the District Auditor before the

planning meeting on the 30th July.

Mrs Oliver—-Original Message—-

>From: cllr.mark.weldon@stockport.gov.uk

Date: 11/07/2007 17:42

To: <sheila.oliver@tiscali.co.uk>

Subj: RE: possible iffyness – Harcourt Street/Fir Tree site 

Dear Mrs Oliver,

Thank you for your email. I have raised Mr Gwynne’s concern re the

valuation of the site and have been assured the valuation is realistic,

if not a little conservative. I am aware Mr Gwynne MP has no valuation

qualifications as he has been a politician/politico all his working

life so his beliefs don’t carry any particular weight.

With regards to “clean paws”, if you have any evidence whatsoever of

wrongdoing please go the  police or auditor immediately. As the ELECTED

representative it is what I would and am required to do rather than

make offhand unsubstantiated allegations en masse, for unfathomable

reasons. 

Regards,

 Mark Weldon

—–Original Message—–

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

> 

> 

> 

> 

>