https://substack.com/@theromileygazette?
14th January 2026
Romiley Gazette – retrospective report
The new North Reddish primary school officially opened in 2011, four years after local resident Sheila Oliver first raised concerns about the safety, cost, and planning of the development.
Mrs Oliver had written to Stockport Council in July 2007 under the Freedom of Information Act asking for details on the cost of removing “toxic waste” from the Harcourt Street/Fir Tree site and the expenses associated with additional facilities required by Sport England. She also raised concerns about the loss of public open space, traffic safety, and whether the project represented value for money.
In response, the council confirmed that a ground investigation report had concluded the site was safe for development provided precautionary measures were implemented, such as limited landscaping, a clean cover system, and gas monitoring during and after construction. The report did not recommend the wholesale removal of toxic materials, but remediation measures were included in the overall school budget.
At the time, the estimated total cost of the school, including professional fees, construction, site remediation, and services, was approximately £8.5 million, with an additional £625,000 for planning- and policy-driven works such as sports facilities, changing rooms, landscaping, and improved footpaths. Sport England requirements were estimated at around £500,000, though final costs depended on contractor selection.
Following contamination investigations, the full scale of the site’s contamination became apparent, with lead, arsenic, and brown asbestos requiring extensive remediation. This contributed to the final reported cost of £11 million when the school opened in 2011.
Mrs Oliver’s early warnings about costs, open space, and safety were widely reported at the time. She also raised concerns about the council’s governance: Michael Cullen, who is now Chief Executive of Stockport Council, was then Borough Treasurer responsible for fiscal oversight. According to sources, questions about the project’s financial management were effectively blocked at the time and since, despite Cullen’s responsibility for ensuring value for money and sound financial control.
According to recent sources, the council’s Monitoring Officer, Vicki Bates, has consistently treated correspondence from Mrs Oliver regarding the project as “vexatious,” refusing to engage with further questions about the development or its costs.
The North Reddish school project highlights the challenges of developing educational facilities on complex sites, balancing community consultation, regulatory requirements, and public funds. While the school is now operational, the extended timeline, rising costs, and remediation work remain a point of discussion among residents.
Wed 08/08/2007 18:10
Our Reference FOI/EIR 618
Dear Mrs Oliver,
FOI & EIR Request – Costs of North Reddish Schools
I am writing in response to your e-mail dated 11th July addressed to Cllr Weldon in which your request:
“How much is the removal of the toxic waste costing and how much will these new stipulations of Sport England cost?”
QUERY CONCERNING THE GMGU REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Firstly regarding your query in relation to the condition of the site, as you are aware GMGU carried a ground investigation report of the site in question (a full copy of the report can be found at: http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/onlinemvm/getimage.asp?DocumentNumber=30867 )
This report concluded that:
“In summary, the GMGU consider the site to be safe to develop for a school with playing fields, provided some simple, precautionary measures are taken that will ensure that any residual risks are effectively managed.”
The report does not recommend removing ‘toxic waste’, but states that there are a number of recommended remediation options with regard to the site condition which “include limited landscaping and construction of a clean cover system”. In addition it recommends certain Gas Montoring to occur during and post construction.
I refer you to the report for full details of the recommendations and information regarding the condition of the site.
In addition on the planning file is a document entitled “Justification for Developing Local Open Space for New North Reddish Primary School” (the full report can be found at http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/onlinemvm/getimage.asp?DocumentNumber=49085 ), it is stated at paragraph 8.2:
“The overall costs for the School itself which will include for the pre-planning, planning and professional costs, dealing with contamination, providing services and the overall construction equates to circa £8.5 million. Additional costs which have emerged through the planning application process to meet national and local policy requirements and extended works at and surrounding the School equate to circa £625,000. Much of this investment relates to the new recreational facilities at the Harcourt Street site, including the newly laid out sports pitch, the multi use games area, the additional changing facilities and the landscaping works to deal with formalising footpath routes and planting to improve the visual appearance of the remaining open space area in community use. There are other significant costs in promoting and designing the proposals.”
Therefore there are no specific costs regarding removing ‘toxic waste’ but the estimate of £8.5 Million for the costs of the school includes the costs of implementing the recommendations of GMGU. The exact costs of the recommendations have not been separated from the overall estimate of the scheme. It should be noted that it is impossible to give actual costs for individual elements of construction of the school but as the detail designs develop, so will the estimate of the costs.
STIPULATIONS FROM SPORTS ENGLAND
I have spoken to the Council’s consultants, NPS, who have stated an allowance in the region of £500,000 has been estimated for the cost of providing additional the requirements as suggested by Sports England. It should be noted that this figure is an estimate and the actual costs will be known once a contractor has been chosen to do this work if Planning Permission is granted for the application.
If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request, you are entitled to ask for an internal review. This will be carried out by a senior member of staff who was not involved with your original request. To do so, please contact foi.officer@stockport.gov.uk or the address below in the first instance
FOI Officer
Town Hall
Edward Street
Stockport
SK1 3XE.
If you are unhappy with the outcome of any internal review, you can appeal to the Information Commissioner. To do so, contact:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Yours sincerely
Andy McAlpine
Freedom of Information & Data Protection Processing Officer
—–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
