10th March 2026
For local taxpayers in Stockport, the story of the new school that opened in 2011 is a cautionary tale about escalating public project costs. What began as a projected £5.5 million in 2005 eventually more than doubled to nearly £11 million by the time the doors opened.
At the time, correspondence highlighted the rising costs and the frustrations of local residents seeking answers. LibDem Councillor Mark Weldon explained that these increases were simply professional estimates adjusting to changing circumstances, stressing that disagreement over figures did not imply wrongdoing:
“Estimates go up and down and are the best professional estimate at that time. They can change with economic circumstances beyond the control of the council.”
The exchanges also included Sheila Oliver, a fellow council taxpayer, who challenged Weldon’s explanations and questioned the sharp rise in costs. In her emails, she argued that repeated public explanations of lower figures were misleading for residents:
“You seemed to imply you had never heard of the almost £10 million figure – as if it was something ridiculous, which it actually is.”
However, since 2009, any questions from the public regarding this project have reportedly been deemed vexatious, effectively limiting the transparency and discussion around what became a significantly higher-than-expected bill for local taxpayers.
Looking back, while the school successfully opened in 2011, the episode serves as a reminder of the importance of transparent budgeting, realistic cost estimates, and open communication with residents. For those footing the bill, it underscores a simple truth: the numbers matter, and so does accountability—especially when concerns raised by taxpayers are formally dismissed.
Fri 17/04/2009 01:16
Mrs Oliver,
I do so hope you now accept that an estimate is just that. If I get an estimate for an extension for my house from one builder and a cheaper quote from another this does not mean I have somehow stolen or misappropriated the difference. To suggest so would be madness. Do you now accept that? Or do you insist on making this ridiculous claim?
To suggest I have not mastered the brief or read the documents is I believe obviously mistaken and I believe even my political opponents will accept that. I also however understand them.
I was neither rude nor offensive. My attitude is perfectly civil. I would never be rude or offensive to you or any other resident of Stockport. It is not rude to have to repeat the same answer to the same repetitive question. It is not rude to insist on refuting a nonsensical claim. Moreover it is not offensive to give answers with which you disagree , or will not recognise as the truth. You do not like the message I deliver, as it does not fit in with your preconceptions. However this does not mean I am rude. You may not like my voice , my intonation or indeed my Liverpool background. These are all things you have criticised me for in the past . But I have never been rude. My words and delivery always fall well within the code of conduct.
It is of course your right to complain to the standards board if you disagree with my assessment.
Yours
Mark Weldon
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: Thu 16/04/2009 22:20
To: Cllr Mark Weldon
Cc: Cllr Les Jones(EXT); peter.devine@gmwn.co.uk
Subject: Re: Fancy telling public lies about something so provable!
Dear Councillor Weldon
You were rude and offensive in your attitude, which ill befits a local
politician whose job is to represent the public, and for which you are
financially rewarded. Your sneering attitude has to stop – LibDems are
devoid of manners. I had perfectly sound reasons for using those figures,
which you chose to publicly ridicule, and this reflects very badly on your
grasp of your portfolio. You seemed to imply you had never heard of the
almost £10 million figure – as if it was something ridiculous, which it
actually is. Don’t you read council Executive documents? I attach details
of your “professional estimates”, which rose from £5.5 million in October
2005 to £7.5 million by December 12th 2005, £8 million by February 2006 and
then £8.2 million by May 2006 – not that professional then!
Sheila
—– Original Message —–
From: “Cllr Mark Weldon” <cllr.mark.weldon@stockport.gov.uk>
To: “Sheila Oliver” <sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com>; “Cllr Mark Weldon”
<cllr.mark.weldon@stockport.gov.uk>
Cc: <lesjacq_jones@lineone.net>; <peter.devine@gmwn.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:04 PM
Subject: RE: Fancy telling public lies about something so provable!
Mrs Oliver,
Please understand they are merely estimates. I can’t make it any more
simple. Estimates go up and down and are the best professional estimate at
that time.
They can change with economic circumstances beyond the control of the
council.
The final cost will not be known until the quotes from contractors are
opened. Until then I have to work with professional estimates. They are to
be treated as such with caution. You exhibit a certain touching faith and
niaivity in council estimates.
Regards,
Mark Weldon
I do hope this can be understood by yourself.
Sent from my Windows Mobile® phone.
—–Original Message—–
From: Sheila Oliver <sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com>
Sent: 16 April 2009 20:39
To: Cllr Mark Weldon <cllr.mark.weldon@stockport.gov.uk>
Cc: lesjacq_jones@lineone.net <lesjacq_jones@lineone.net>;
peter.devine@gmwn.co.uk <peter.devine@gmwn.co.uk>
Subject: Fancy telling public lies about something so provable!
Dear Councillor Weldon
I am astonished that you thought you could get away with those lies in the
council chamber tonight.
Attached is a pretty official document stating the cost of £5.5 million. The
£9.9 million is mentioned in the document put before the planning
committee – pretty official too. I will dig it out and email you a copy.
Have you the slightest grasp of what is going on here? Dearie me, not for
the first time I wonder about your competence.
With warmest best wishes
Sheila
After all this time Stockport Council’s Monitoring Officer still claims it is vexatious to mention this matter.
