14th January 2026
Romiley Gazette – retrospective report
Concerns raised by a Romiley resident in 2007 over the handling of a proposed school development have taken on renewed significance following the school’s eventual opening in 2011 at a reported cost of £11 million.
Mrs Sheila Oliver, who wrote to senior Stockport Council officers in August 2007, had warned of what she described as serious procedural, financial, and consultation failures surrounding the Harcourt Street school project. At the time, she questioned rising costs, the loss of public open space, and the adequacy of information provided to councillors and residents before planning approval was granted.
The school eventually opened four years later, after the discovery that the entire site was contaminated with lead, arsenic, and brown asbestos. Extensive remediation work was required before construction could be completed, significantly increasing the overall cost of the project.
Mrs Oliver’s original correspondence raised concerns about the council’s handling of risk and due diligence, as well as the rapid escalation of costs. In 2007, she noted that the estimated budget had already risen to £8.5 million within six months, with further costs yet to be identified. She also questioned whether sufficient information, including technical reports, had been made available during the public consultation process. The police complained about the dangerous traffic situation weeks after the school opened.
The later discovery of widespread contamination added weight to those early warnings, with remediation works contributing to the final reported cost of £11 million by the time the school opened in 2011.
In her 2007 email, Mrs Oliver also criticised the loss of public open space, arguing that it had not been properly advertised as required by law and that residents in an already less affluent area were being deprived of much-needed facilities. She further questioned the financial wisdom of abandoning the Fir Tree site, which she described as more suitable, and warned that the project no longer represented value for money.
At the time, Mrs Oliver called for the planning decision to be postponed until outstanding issues had been fully examined and said she had copied her concerns to the District Auditor.
According to recent sources, the council’s Monitoring Officer, Vicki Bates, has continued to treat all correspondence from Mrs Oliver on this matter as “vexatious”, refusing to acknowledge or comment on her ongoing questions about the project, costs, or the contamination issues.
While the school is now operational, the project’s long gestation, sharply rising costs, contamination remediation, and ongoing council refusal to address related concerns have continued to prompt local questions about decision-making, transparency, and the handling of public funds.
Thu 02/08/2007 08:19
Mrs Oliver
Mrs Blatcher is currently on annual leave, and will look at your email on her return.
Kind regards,
Joanne Parr
Admin Support Officer – Northern Region
From: sheilaoliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 02 August 2007 06:33
To: barry.khan@stockport.gov.uk; chief.executive@stockport.gov.uk
Cc: Fiona Blatcher
Subject: Irregularities at Stockport Council
Dear Mr Khan
Please provide a reply to this email within 10 working days, as per the Council’s own rules. I have not once had a reply from you and other council taxpayers are having the same problem with you. I object to paying your salary if you don’t every respond!
I shall copy this email to the District Auditor to make her aware of the looming problems.
1) Please let me know why the public consultation regarding the Harcourt Street school application did not present the public with any traffic reports, although these had been in the Council’s possession for quite a while. Documents seen last October under the FOIA stress that traffic was the major concern. Now, at planning decision time council taxpayers are having to spend tens of thousands of pounds more on extra traffic measures which take even more of their public open space away totally without consultation. This should never have been allowed to happen.
2) Why has the Council failed to advertise the loss of open space as it is required to do under the Local Government Act 1972?
3) Why has Councillor Carter, Executive member for Finance and who is normally uniquely amongst the Executive members helpful and responsive to members of the public, failed to reply to my question regarding the burgeoning costs of this school – it has almost doubled in six months to £8.5 million and not all costs have yet been included as the consultants admit.
4) Why did planning officer Jim Seymour repeatedly tell the decision making Tame Valley Area Committee last Monday that it had been advertised as a departure from the UDP when he knew this to be a lie?
5) I am terribly worried regarding Councillor Weldon, Executive member for Children and Young People. When I asked him last Monday evening about the spiralling costs of this scheme, he merely smirked and said the Council was “awash with money for Education”. It is frightening that someone in his position should take that attitude to millions of pounds of taxpayers/council taxpayers’ money.
6) The agreement to take such vast amounts of public open space without proper consultation in an area sadly lacking in this facility and in a less affluent area where it is sorely needed is yet another damning indictment of this Council. I note the District Auditor has previously express concern regarding public open space.
7) Of the capital receipt from the sale of the vastly more suitable Fir Tree site of £1.2 million over half has now been eaten up by the demands of Sport England. This whole matter no longer makes financial sense and I am extremely worried about all this.
I look forward to hearing from you and suggest the decision-making planning meeting of 23rd August is postponed until these issues regarding huge amounts of public money and vital public open space have been explored in an honest manner.
Yours sincerely
Sheila Oliver
The LibDem council leader aggressively confirms that no questions can be asked on this matter.
And the Chief Executive is in agreement with the decision. Position in 2007: Borough Treasurer — he was part of the council’s finance leadership, responsible for financial strategy and oversight (equivalent to the council’s chief finance officer).
