24th January 2026
Long-standing questions over the siting and cost of a new school in Reddish have resurfaced following renewed scrutiny of council documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Correspondence from Stockport Council dated January 2007 shows that the Fir Tree School site was rejected in favour of Harcourt Street, but offers only limited explanation for that decision — despite Fir Tree having no apparent technical or planning barriers.
In response to an FOI request from Mrs Sheila Oliver, a Romiley resident and Freedom of Information campaigner, the Council stated that several sites had been investigated but that only Harcourt Street was considered “feasible”. The reasons given for rejecting Fir Tree were that it was further from the centre of the pupil population and that parental preference was for Harcourt Street. The letter also noted that Harcourt Street had been earmarked for a new school for around 30 years although in 1974 the Council had decided the site was too contaminated for housing.
However, the response did not cite any of the factors normally used to rule out a school site. There was no reference to traffic or highway safety problems, land contamination, lack of space, inability to expand, or conflict with the Unitary Development Plan, including policies on the use of public open space.
Campaigners say this omission is significant. Fir Tree, they argue, had no known traffic issues, no contamination, sufficient land for expansion, and did not involve building on protected open space — points that were never addressed or rebutted in the Council’s explanation.
At the same time, the Council declined to release the minutes and papers relating to the site-selection process, saying that searching and redacting the material would exceed the statutory FOI cost limit. An estimate suggested it would take 84 hours of officer time to read and redact the documents.
Education and local government guidance in force at the time required councils to demonstrate that major capital projects were supported by transparent option appraisals, comparing alternative sites against clear criteria such as deliverability, value for money, planning risk and long-term suitability. Critics argue that the explanation provided for rejecting Fir Tree falls short of those expectations, relying instead on preference and historical assumptions rather than documented analysis.
The lack of a clear, evidence-based comparison has also been linked to the project’s later cost escalation. Initial figures placed the cost of the new school at £5.5 million in October 2005, rising to £7.5 million by December 2005. Subsequent figures indicate that the final cost reached around £11 million.
Mrs Oliver later raised concerns about these increases and asked the Council to investigate possible financial irregularities. In September 2009, the Council declined to do so, stating that her complaint fell outside its corporate complaints procedure. Shortly afterwards, further questions on the subject were designated “vexatious”, effectively barring continued scrutiny.
That restriction remains in force today and is upheld by the Council’s Monitoring Officer, meaning questions about the site choice and rising costs continue to be refused.
The Council has never published a detailed public explanation setting out why Fir Tree was rejected, how Harcourt Street was judged superior on objective grounds, or how early site decisions may have affected the overall cost of the project.
Local residents say the case highlights wider concerns about transparency, accountability, and the long-term consequences of major decisions taken without full public disclosure.
