https://theromileygazette.substack.com/publish/posts/published
17th January 2026
A Romiley resident has raised concerns about the way Stockport Council handled a Freedom of Information (FOI) request relating to projected pupil numbers for the then proposed new primary school at Harcourt Street, North Reddish.
In August 2008, Mrs Sheila Oliver, a local resident, submitted an FOI request asking for documentary evidence of projected pupil numbers for the proposed new school, which was expected to open by March 2011. Mrs Oliver said she accepted that some additional primary school places were needed in North Reddish, but wanted to understand how the council had calculated demand and whether the scale and location of the proposal were justified.
Stockport Council responded in September 2008 by providing projection spreadsheets and methodology documents relating to three North Reddish primary schools. However, when Mrs Oliver sought clarification on notes contained within the council’s own documents — specifically references to schools highlighted in red where projected pupil numbers exceeded admission limits, and details of where excess pupils had been re-allocated — she was told that this information was not applicable to her original request.
In a written response dated 3 September 2008, Claire Naven, the council’s Data Protection and Freedom of Information Officer, stated:
“Your original email specifically requested information on the three North Reddish primary schools; therefore we provided you with this information. For these three schools the projections are not going to rise above the Admission Limit. This means that the information you refer to below is not applicable to your original request so was not included.”
Mrs Oliver disputes this interpretation, noting that the spreadsheets supplied by the council referred explicitly to additional pupils being re-allocated from schools projected to exceed their admission limits. She argues that understanding where those pupils were expected to go was directly relevant to assessing future demand and the need for new provision.
“I wasn’t trying to block new school places,” she said. “I accepted that some extra capacity was needed. I was simply asking for the details already mentioned in the council’s own documents, so residents could understand how decisions were being made.”
The exchange took place against a wider backdrop of pressure on primary school places across Stockport. At the time, the council publicly acknowledged a borough-wide shortage of places, with reports estimating that resolving the issue could cost more than £80 million.
Mrs Oliver was informed that she could request an internal review of the FOI response or escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office if she remained dissatisfied.
The correspondence highlights ongoing questions about transparency and clarity in the presentation of pupil projections, particularly where major capital decisions and long-term planning are concerned.
Stockport Council has not issued a further public comment on the specific correspondence.
Wed 10/09/2008 17:02
Dear Mrs Oliver,
Your original email specifically requested information on the three North Reddish primary schools; therefore we provided you with this information. For these three schools the projections are not going to rise above the Admission Limit. This means that the information you refer to below is not applicable to your original request so was not included.
Yours sincerely,
Claire Naven
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
From: sheilaoliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 03 September 2008 17:19
To: FOI Officer
Subject: Re: projected pupil numbers – FOI ref 1269
Dear Ms Naven
Many thanks. In one sheet it refers to:-
“On the sheets entitled ‘2009_10 Adj’, ‘2010_11 Adj’ and ‘2011_12 Adj’ the schools highlighted in red are those which show projections which will go above their AL by more than 3 pupils. In the difference column, I have added a note to say which schools these additional pupils have been re-allocated to.”
Could I have these details please as I can’t seem to find them. Many thanks.
Sheila
—– Original Message —–
From: FOI Officer
To: sheilaoliver
Cc: FOI Officer
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 11:00 AM
Subject: RE: projected pupil numbers – FOI ref 1269
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 1269).
Please find attached the latest set of projections available for the new combined North Reddish primary school. Please note that these are based on provisional figures for Sept 2008 for parental allocations which were taken as at 14th May and are not yet finalised. A copy of the full methodology is also attached which outlines how the projections have been arrived at, as well as some additional notes which are relevant for the Sept 2008 update and need to be read in conjunction with the methodology. Projections are currently only available up to 2011/12 because they are only based on actual live births, due to the uncertainty in projecting live birth figures.
If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request you are entitled to ask for an internal review. Any internal review will be carried out by a senior member of staff who was not involved with your original request. To ask for an internal review, contact foi.officer@stockport.gov.uk in the first instance.
If you are unhappy with the outcome of any internal review, you are entitled to complain to the Information Commissioner. To do so, contact:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
01625 545 745
Yours sincerely,
Claire Naven
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
From: sheilaoliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 13 August 2008 22:38
To: FOI Officer
Cc: Pat Penkethman
Subject: projected pupil numbers
Dear FoI Officer
What are the projected pupil numbers for the proposed new school at Harcourt Street for its opening date (at the latest) of March 2011?
I would prefer, if you have it, documentary evidence of the fact rather than just a figure.
Kind regards
Sheila
