18th January 2026

Stockport Council warned local resident Mrs Sheila Oliver in 2008 that it would refuse to respond to further Freedom of Information requests relating to the proposed Harcourt Street school development, citing the strain placed on council resources. Following that warning, the Council subsequently ceased answering further FOI requests from Mrs Oliver on the subject.

In correspondence sent in September 2008, the Council stated that it had dealt with an exceptionally high volume of requests and noted that the Standards Committee found no breach of the Code of Conduct or flaws in the planning process. While some information was disclosed, including legal costs exceeding £118,000, other requests were refused as repeated, publicly available or deemed “vexatious” under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Council also stated at the time that it held no documents showing concerns about Building Bulletin 99 (BB99) standards being raised at Project Board level. It did.

Mrs Oliver argued that she was asking questions that council officers and councillors themselves should have raised. She maintained that later events appeared to support her concerns, including issues relating to land contamination, traffic impact, escalating costs and the school proving too small shortly after opening.

She further contended that the Council’s denial of BB99-related documentation, received on Friday 3 October 2008, could not be explained by delay or misunderstanding, and alleged that the outcome led to substantial additional costs to council taxpayers when extra school places had to be provided soon after the school opened.

The Council rejected allegations of wrongdoing and maintained that it had acted lawfully and in line with national guidance on Freedom of Information.

Fri 03/10/2008 16:30

Dear Mrs Oliver,

Re: Numerous requests under the Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations regarding Harcourt Street.

I refer to a number of requests that you have made regarding the above. The Council apologises for the delay in responding to your requests; but the frequency and number of requests has taken a considerable amount of resources to respond to. Dealing with your recent requests individually (and using the Council’s reference numbers):

  1. Request dated 17th August 2008 at 5:55 pm (our reference no. 1289)  

For the record, the Standards Committee did not find that the planning process was in any way flawed and indeed did not find that there had been any breach of the code of conduct in this matter.

It is noted that you have previously viewed the files held by NPS which contained any correspondence from the consultants to the Council and NPS. We have received correspondence from GVA Grimley who state that you have been in correspondence with them by email in December 2007 and January 2008. They state that they advised that they could arrange for you to visit their Manchester office to view the files that they hold in archive storage in Bristol after you had contacted the Council. They did not receive any further specific request to retrieve the files from archive so they have not been fully reviewed them in detail to remove any commercially-sensitive information. They have advised that to disclose the information held in archive now would cost the Council an estimated £750 in professional fees to redact any information and £250 in disbursements; therefore as the cost of providing this information from GVA Grimley would exceed the appropriate limit, the Council will not be requesting that GVA Grimley provide you with a copy of the documents. However, the Council will allow you to view NPS’s files on one further occasion at a time which is mutually agreeable to you and NPS. 

  • Request dated 17 August 2008 at 6:10 pm (our reference no. 1280)

With regard to your request concerning the Ms Scullion’s response to the complaints made to the Standards Committee the Council considers that this request is vexatious.

The Monitoring Officer, in writing to the individual complainants, was lawfully carrying out her duty to request clarification from the members of the public to ensure that all the information that they wish to place before the Standards Committee was considered. The decision that was being considered had to go to an initial assessment by the Standards Committee Panel which is chaired by an Independent Member. The Panel does not consist of officers and it is appropriate for the Monitoring Officer to obtain enough clarification and information for that Panel to be able to make a decision as to whether the allegations being made were such as to consider whether there had been a breach of the code of conduct. To this end, she wrote to all 164 of the complainants and received 37 responses back, including 7 responses stating that the individuals wished to withdraw their complaint.

On the 30th June 2008 the Council wrote to you to state that your question regarding Ms Scullion’s car lease scheme was a vexatious request under Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act in “that the time taken to respond to this request and the resulting distraction of staff from their normal duties is disproportionate to any possible benefit in terms of the wider public interest. Your request has no serious purpose or value…”

As you are aware, Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act provides that the general right of access to information “does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious”. In accordance with the Information Commissioner’s guidance, the Council has considered whether this new request is designed or has the effect of subjecting a public authority to “inconvenience, harassment or expense.”

The Council considers that this request is another such request that is designed to cause annoyance and serves to harass the Council; therefore the Council will not be answering your questions as this request is another request singling out Ms Scullion and the comments in your query are of a personal nature. The Council considers that to respond to this request would again be distracting staff from their normal duties and is disproportionate to any possible benefit in terms of the wider public interest. 

  •  Request dated 21st August 2008 at 6:39 am (our reference no: 1288)

The Plan referred in the GMGU document is specifically entitled Proposed borehole/trial pit/CBR locations dated 13th December 2005 and indicated proposals to undertake works on land not in the Council’s ownership. The actual locations shown on the plan within the GMGU report entitled Figure 2 Site investigation layout and Figure 3 Borehole locations Carbon dioxide results shows the actual locations within the Council’s ownership and as such has the test results reported in the document for those locations only.

  • Request dated 23rd August 2008 at 8:52 am (Our reference no. 1297)

The documentation we hold regarding this is in the form of a paper which was presented to the Executive. This is available to the public on the Council’s website via the following link:

http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/committeeminutes/document.ashx?id=27764&pg=1   

Information such as this which is accessible via other means is exempt information under section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This means that we do not have to provide this information to you directly following your request.

  • Request dated 23rd August 2008 at 8:54 am (Our reference no.1298)

Please find attached the minutes of the meeting on 12/06/08. The meeting scheduled for 10/07/08 was cancelled; therefore this information is not held.

  • Request dated 23rd August 2008 at 9:14 am (Our reference no. 1299)

The item was included in the risk register because of condition 11 of the planning approval (reproduced below). The detail and exact costs are not yet known and will form part of the main contractor’s tender figure as the documentation asks for this condition to be discharged by him

  • Request dated 23rd August 2008 at 9:16am (Our reference no. 1303)

This request is substantially similar to previous requests you have made (references 689 and 930); therefore we are not obliged to comply under section 14(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please see the information you were provided with in response to these earlier requests.

Regardless of the above, please note that item 3 on the risk register was included in response to conditions 11 and 12 on the planning application requiring further and additional information for approval of the planning authority. Under the terms of the contract documents, the main contractor is required to discharge all conditions of the planning approval.

  • Request dated 23rd August 2008 at 9:37 am (Our reference no. 1304)

Risk ‘4’ of the Harcourt Street Risk Register – Risk of planning conditions bringing delays/costs not allowed for – has been included, and alongside all other items, is on the risk register for the Board. There are no specific additional documents other than the outcome of the planning application DC024357. This is available to the public on the Council website via the following link:

http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/committeeminutes/document.ashx?id=27180&pg=3

  • Request dated 24th August 2008 at 8:20 am (Our reference no. 1301)

Only the original Project Initiation Document is held. You have been provided with this previously by Chris Keeble and have also viewed this on a number of other occasions. There is no additional information to that which you have already seen. On this basis, we consider this to be a repeated request which we are not obliged to comply with in line with section 14(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

  1. Request dated 31st August 2008 at 7:47 am (our reference no. 1310)

From checking the Council’s financial records, I can confirm that the amounts paid to Cobbetts Solicitors were:

2006/7: £64,478.62

2007/8: £53,803.17

  1. Request dated 31st August 2008 at 6:35 pm (our reference no. 1313)

At the last Project Board meeting, no item appeared on the current Risk Register which stated that ‘…there are fears that BB99 will not be met.’; therefore no documentation was presented to the board for their consideration

  1. Request dated 7th September 2008 at 8:15 pm  (our reference no. 1323)

Attached is the letter of appointment relating to GVA Grimley. Please note that the contract was under the standard OGC Terms & Conditions for goods and services which can be viewed at www.ogc.gov.uk/documents/specificservices(1).pdf

  1. Request dated 9th September 2008 at 8:11 pm (our reference no. 1322)

The Council did not follow the EU procurement route because the fee-level estimate was below the threshold. The advert used for the procurement is attached for information. 

  1. Request dated 10th September 2008 at 8:25 pm (our reference no. 1327)

Please find the information attached. Please note that these are working sheets which suggest possible pupil placements in 1-3 years’ time; however we cannot predict parental choices and as such these figures are a planning aid for internal discussion.

  1. Reconsideration of request reference 1202

The Council has fully reviewed the numerous requests you have made (see below) and has therefore decided to respond to you with further information with regard to this request so that you have all the relevant information before considering making any future requests in light of the information below. The Council has therefore decided to disclose the full letter sent to the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. Please find attached a copy of the full letter.

REVIEW OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF REQUESTS REGARDING THIS TOPIC

WARNING REGARDING THE POTENTIAL VEXATIOUS AND MANIFESTLY UNREASONABLE NATURE OF YOUR REQUESTS REGARDING HARCOURT STREET

The Council has considered the number and nature of requests that you have made with regard to the theme of the proposed development at Harcourt Street.


Since the creation of the Act you have made 257 requests under the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations.  At least 139 of these requests have directly related to the construction of the proposed school at Harcourt Street.

The Council considers that the number of requests being made with regard to Harcourt Street is now at such as a stage that it is necessary to warn you that any further requests about this topic may be deemed as ‘vexatious’ under Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and ‘manifestly unreasonable’ under Regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

In writing to you, the Council has considered the Information Commissioner’s guidance on this area in a document entitled Freedom of Information Act Awareness Guidance 22 which can be found at:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/freedom_of_information/guidance.aspx

In addition, the Council has considered the Information Commissioner’s approach in dealing with vexatious requests as stated in the case of FS50078594 (Birmingham City Council), which can be found at :

www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2006/Decision_Notice_FS50078594.pdf

The Information Commissioner’s guidance states that :

“Whilst giving maximum support to individuals genuinely seeking to exercise the right to know, the Commissioner’s general approach is that a request (which may be the latest in a series of requests) can be treated as vexatious where:

            -it would impose a significant burden on the public authority in terms of expense or distraction and

            – meets at least one of the following criteria:

  • it clearly does not have any serious purpose or value,
  • it is designed to cause disruption or annoyance
  • it has the effect of harassing the public authority
  • it can otherwise fairly be characterised as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable. “

In applying this guidance to the thematic requests regarding the proposed School at Harcourt Street the Council has considered that dealing with further questions regarding this topic, bearing in mind the number of questions already answered, could impose a significant burden on the Council and would divert a disproportionate amount of resources from our core business.

The Council considers that it has suffered a significant burden already in dealing with your requests due to the pattern of requests regarding this topic. The Council has considered the aggregated effect on the Council in dealing with all the requests that you have made and considers that significant resources are being diverted to respond to you requests. In addition, the frequency and volume of requests is considered to be such that they have the effect of harassing the Council. It should be noted that on one particular day (namely the 23rd August 2008) you made five separate requests within a one-hour period.

In addition, due to the number, nature and frequency of the requests, it is considered that the requests have the effect of harassing the public authority. The Commissioner’s guidance recognises that requests can have this effect even if it was not the intention of the requester to cause inconvenience or expense. Consideration has been given to the cumulative effect of the requests on the Council.

The Council has now warned you that it may not respond to future requests if the frequency of such requests is repeated and it hopes that you will consider this in the future.

In addition, you should be aware that Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act provides an exemption to providing information where the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit of £450. This limit represents the estimated cost of one person spending 18 hours locating, retrieving and extracting the information. In responding to your requests, the Council has exceeded this amount. 

Regulation 5 of the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 provides that where two or more requests are received by a public body, either from the same individual or from different people who appear to be acting in concert or as part of a campaign, and the requests are received within 60 consecutive days of each other, the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to be the aggregated cost of complying with all the requests.

Due to the number of requests that you have made, the Council considers that the requests regarding this area have exceeded the appropriate limit. It is estimated that in the past 60 working days, the cost of responding to your queries amounts to at least 19 hours of Officer time. This is based on 19 requests about Harcourt Street received during this period, conservatively estimated to take, on average, a minimum of one hour each to gather the required information.

In addition, under the Environmental Information Regulations, the Council considers that your requests regarding this ‘theme’ of the proposed development at Harcourt Street is manifestly unreasonable due to the cost and work needed to comply with the numerous requests that you have made.  Regulation 12(4)(b) provides that “a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that the request for information in manifestly unreasonable”.

In considering whether to continue to respond to your numerous requests over this particular matter, the Council has considered the public interest test of whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing it.  The Council considers that it is in the public interest to place as much environmental information regarding the scheme in the public domain. However, the costs in responding to your numerous requests regarding this subject are diverting resources from providing normal services to the public and therefore it is considered that the reliance on the exemption outweighs the public interest.

CONCLUSION

The Council hopes that the information provided in this e-mail is useful to you. However, please note that the Council cannot continue to spend the existing resources it has in responding to your numerous Freedom of Information and Environmental Information requests regarding this area. I therefore hope that you will now moderate the nature and number of requests regarding this topic in light of the contents of this letter.

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

www.ico.gov.uk

01625 545 745

Yours sincerely,

Claire Naven

Claire Naven

Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council