13th January 2026
Documents released under Freedom of Information and Environmental Information Regulations show that, more than a decade ago, questions were raised about how Stockport Council handled Environment Agency objections linked to the former Harcourt Street development site.
At the time, local resident Sheila Oliver submitted a series of FOI and EIR requests seeking clarity on the way contamination concerns were communicated within the Council during the planning process.
In a response dated 2007 and issued under reference FOI/EIR 873, the Council stated that it did not hold recorded information directly answering some of Mrs Oliver’s questions. Instead, it outlined the general consultation process used for planning applications.
The Council explained that the Harcourt Street planning application had been subject to multiple consultations designed to bring together planning, environmental health and external regulators. An Environmental Health Officer had previously indicated that the application could be approved, subject to conditions.
The Environment Agency, which regulates risks to controlled waters, had raised objections relating to contamination. Those objections were passed to the applicant’s agent, who was responsible for responding. Following further submissions, the Environment Agency reviewed the additional information and later withdrew its objection, subject to conditions.
The Council stated that the matter was to be reported to a future Planning & Highways Regulation Committee meeting.
However, correspondence released under an earlier request (EIR 836) showed that the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer only became aware of the Environment Agency’s objections in late November 2007, despite the Agency having objected in early September that year.
Mrs Oliver questioned why the objections were not shared sooner and why, if the Environment Agency’s concerns were described internally as “as expected,” relevant officers had not been informed earlier in the process.
In her correspondence at the time, she also queried why the Environment Agency appeared to have been fully engaged only shortly before a key planning meeting, and noted that the Agency had requested further work on contamination at the site.
In response, the Council stressed that the Environmental Health department and the Environment Agency had different regulatory responsibilities. Environmental Health dealt with land contamination and risks to human health, while the Environment Agency focused on contamination affecting groundwater and other controlled waters.
The Council also stated that the Environment Agency had subsequently received a full site investigation, including groundwater sampling and a risk assessment, and had concluded that the risk to controlled waters was very low.
The exchange highlights historic concerns about communication between council departments and external regulators during complex planning cases involving contaminated land — an issue that has since led to greater emphasis on coordinated consultation and record-keeping within planning authorities.
The Council did not carry out the contamination investigations until forced to prove the site wasn’t contaminated for a footpath diversion public inquiry in October 2009. It was entirely contaminated with lead, arsenic and brown asbestos.
Vicki Bates, Council Monitoring Officer, still claims it is vexatious to mention this matter. It isn’t.
