https://substack.com/@theromileygazette?
14th January 2026
Stockport Council’s Chief Executive, Michael Cullen, who maintains secrecy on this matter, despite his involvement with financial irregularities associated with the project.
Vicki Bates, Monitoring Officer who maintains to this day that any mention of this is vexatious, despite her having been given all relevant evidence.
More than fifteen years after a school was planned on a former waste tip in North Reddish, troubling questions remain about how serious public health warnings were handled – and why the resident who raised them was formally silenced.
In 2009, local campaigner Sheila Oliver repeatedly warned Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council that a proposed school, nursery and children’s centre at Harcourt Street sat directly above a former landfill site intensively tipped between 1954 and 1974. Her concern was clear: asbestos and other hazardous materials could be released through gas venting systems beneath the site and into areas used by children.
Rather than answering her questions, the council issued a formal notice stating that all further requests from Mrs Oliver relating to Harcourt Street would be classed as “vexatious” under the Freedom of Information Act and would not receive a response.
The questions were never answered.
Warnings That Would Not Go Away
In a detailed email sent in May 2009 to senior council officers, Mrs Oliver cited national press coverage of asbestos failures in schools and linked it directly to Harcourt Street.
She warned that:
- No contamination pits had been dug on the footprint of the proposed school
- The site lay directly over a former tip known to emit landfill gas
- Gas venting wells were planned beneath school buildings and playgrounds
- A document from Stockport’s Director of Public Health stated that “even one asbestos fibre vented could cause cancer”
Mrs Oliver requested confirmation of what investigations had been carried out to assess whether asbestos could be vented into school buildings or play areas.
She received no technical response.
Instead, a letter from the council’s Data Protection and Freedom of Information Officer stated that her requests were considered vexatious and would no longer be answered, though they would be “logged and retained for records.”
What Does ‘Vexatious’ Really Mean?
Under the Freedom of Information Act, public authorities may refuse requests deemed vexatious if they are intended to harass, impose unreasonable burden, or lack serious purpose.
But transparency campaigners warn that the provision can also be used to shut down persistent scrutiny, particularly where a single resident continues to raise unresolved safety concerns.
Mrs Oliver rejects the suggestion that her correspondence was frivolous.
“I kept asking because the questions were never answered,” she said. “This was about children being placed on top of a contaminated site. If that isn’t serious purpose, what is? I was proved totally correct”.
Planning Over a Former Tip
Records show the Harcourt Street site was heavily tipped for many decades, during a period when asbestos disposal was common and poorly regulated. Modern standards typically require extensive site investigation, including trial pits and contamination testing, before sensitive developments such as schools are approved.
Mrs Oliver maintains that no such testing was carried out directly beneath the school footprint.
“You can’t declare a site safe by assumption,” she said. “You have to dig.”
The council has never publicly confirmed whether asbestos was specifically tested for beneath the school buildings or whether gas venting systems were assessed for fibre transmission risk.
Proved Right – But Still Silenced
Mrs Oliver says subsequent events showed her concerns were justified, yet the label of “vexatious” has followed her ever since.
“I was proved completely correct,” she said. “But even now, raising it is treated as an irritation rather than a warning that should have been taken seriously.”
She describes the experience as an example of institutional defensiveness, where reputational risk is prioritised over public accountability.
A Wider Pattern?
The Harcourt Street case echoes broader national failures in dealing with asbestos in public buildings. Numerous inquiries have since shown that historic landfill sites, particularly those used in the mid-20th century, present complex and long-term risks when redeveloped.
Campaigners argue that when residents with local knowledge raise repeated concerns, they should be seen as a safeguard – not a nuisance.
Unanswered Questions
Key questions remain unresolved:
- Was asbestos contamination ever specifically tested for beneath the Harcourt Street school footprint?
- Were gas venting systems assessed for their potential to carry asbestos fibres?
- On what grounds were repeated health-related information requests deemed “vexatious”?
- Who made that decision, and was it reviewed?
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council has previously stated that all appropriate procedures were followed at the time of development and that environmental risks were assessed in line with regulations then in force. The council has not publicly addressed the specific asbestos concerns raised by Mrs Oliver.
Why It Still Matters
Mrs Oliver says she is not seeking an apology, but accountability.
“This is about how planning decisions are made, how warnings are treated, and how easy it is to silence someone who won’t go away,” she said. “If this can happen once, it can happen again.”
As pressure grows nationally for a full audit of asbestos in public buildings, the unanswered questions surrounding Harcourt Street stand as a reminder that dismissing inconvenient voices can carry consequences long after the paperwork is filed away.
———————————————————————————————-
Mon 11/05/2009 17:36
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing to acknowledge receipt of the email you sent to Donna Sager below regarding Harcourt Street.
As we have previously explained, the Council considers your requests for information on the topic of Harcourt Street to be vexatious within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; therefore they will not receive a response. All requests will, however, be logged and retained for our records.
Yours sincerely,
Claire Naven
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 09 May 2009 19:19
To: Andrew Webb; Donna Sager
Cc: DAVID PENKETHMAN; hse.infoline@connaught.plc.uk; peter.devine@gmwn.co.uk
Subject: Absestos in Schools
Dear Ms Sager
I learn via the press of CYPD’s failure to address the asbestos in schools issue, which may have lead indirectly to the death of a pensioner.
I have forwarded you in the past details of potential danger of asbestos being vented into the proposed 500 pupil school, children’s nursery and children’s centre to be built directly over a still gassing tip at Harcourt Street in North Reddish, Stockport.
Please let me know what measures have been taken to investigate the possibility of asbestos being vented into the school area or the playground from the gas venting wells which will be on site. Not one single contamination pit has been dug over the site of the school, which is directly over the old tip intensively tipped from 1954 to 1974. I have a document copied to you already from the Director of Public Health in Stockport stating that even one asbestos fibre vented could cause cancer.
I look foward to you comments about this potentially lethal problem. I understand the response time is 10 days, as laid down in the Council’s Charter.
Yours
Mrs Oliver
