16th March 2026
Fresh attention has been drawn to long-standing concerns surrounding the size and capacity of a Stockport school that opened in 2011, after the resurfacing of correspondence sent during the planning stages of the project.
An email dated 24 August 2009, sent by Stockport Freedom of Information campaigner Mrs S J Oliver, warned that the proposed school might be too small to meet local demand for pupil places even before construction had begun.
Concerns Raised Before Construction
In the email, sent to a council official during the consultation period, Mrs Oliver argued that statements made in the official school closure notice — which promised a place for every child who wanted one — were already unrealistic.
She wrote that even if temporary classrooms were installed on the site, there could still be around five children without a place.
Mrs Oliver also highlighted demographic data suggesting that local birth rates were rising sharply, meaning pupil numbers were expected to increase rather than fall.
Lack of Space for Expansion
The email further raised concerns that Sport England requirements affecting the site layout meant there was no space available for temporary classrooms, removing what planners had suggested would be a safety measure while numbers stabilised.
Mrs Oliver questioned why the site continued to be pursued if the physical constraints meant the school could not expand to meet demand.
Her message stated:
“The school which is massively over budget and has no room to expand (as the DCSF would like for new schools) is nowhere big enough for the pupils who need to attend and were promised a place.”
Potential Financial Impact
The email also warned that if the school could not accommodate all local pupils, there could be knock-on costs for the education authority.
Mrs Oliver suggested these costs might include:
- Providing places for displaced pupils at other schools
- Installing temporary classrooms elsewhere
- Additional transport or administrative costs
She concluded by asking why the site remained under consideration if it was not large enough to meet projected demand.
A Question Revisited
The school ultimately opened in 2011, but the resurfacing of the correspondence has renewed discussion locally about whether the original capacity planning adequately reflected demographic trends at the time.
While planning decisions often balance space constraints, budgets and national guidelines, campaigners say the early warnings raise questions about whether concerns raised during consultation were fully addressed.
For many residents, the issue highlights the importance of transparent planning processes and accurate forecasting when major public infrastructure projects are developed.
Mrs Oliver’s original email ended with a request that remains relevant to many residents today:
“Why is this site still being considered if it is not big enough?”
Email sent Mon 24/08/2009 21:03
Dear Mr Majothi
When the school closure notice was published, (copy previously sent to you) a place was promised to every child who wanted one. This was an untrue statement as soon as it was made because I think even with temporary classrooms placed on the site there were circa 5 children who wouldn’t have a place anyway. Temporary classrooms were to be used till the pupil numbers fell. Please see the attached – the birthrate is rising sharply in the area. Sport England’s demands (bless ’em) mean that there is no room for any temporary classroom, so the school which is massively overbudget and has no room to expand (as the DCSF would like for new schools) is nowhere big enough for the pupils who need to attend and were promised a place. There must a financial knock on effect in providing schooling for those children somewhere else, perhaps with the cost of providing temporary classrooms at other schools. Why is this site still being considered if it is not big enough?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Mrs S J Oliver
Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner
