Questions continue to be raised over the loss of the former Harcourt Street Recreation Ground, with local campaigners arguing that a major redevelopment went ahead despite overwhelming public opposition and without a public inquiry. Vicki Bates, current Monitoring Officer and Assistant Monitoring Officer at the time claims it is “vexatious” to ever mention this fact.
How did Stockport Council justify the loss of a valued recreation ground despite approximately 800 objections, and what consideration was given to the site’s former landfill history when deciding to build a school there?
The recreation ground, which served local families for many years, was a valued community asset and provided much-needed open space for residents. However, controversy arose when plans were brought forward to redevelop the site.
Campaigners claim that around 800 objections were submitted against the proposals, reflecting widespread concern within the community about the loss of the recreation ground. Despite the scale of opposition, no public inquiry was held before the development proceeded.
Long-time campaigner Sheila Oliver says the issue remains one of the most significant planning controversies in the area’s recent history.
“The recreation ground belonged to the community and was well used by local people,” he said. “Hundreds of residents objected to its loss, yet there was never a public inquiry. Many of us still believe the public deserved a proper opportunity to have their voices heard.”
Adding to the controversy is the history of the land itself. Campaigners say the recreation ground had originally been created on land that had previously been used for waste disposal before being transformed into a public open space.
A surviving section of the original Harcourt Street Recreation Ground sign, preserved by campaigners, serves as a reminder of a facility that many local residents remember fondly.
The dispute has not faded with time. Decades later, campaigners continue to raise concerns about the decision-making process and the handling of objections. They argue that the case raises important questions about transparency, accountability and public consultation in local government.
Campaigners have also objected to suggestions that continued discussion of the issue is vexatious, arguing instead that matters involving the loss of a valued public amenity and substantial public opposition remain legitimate subjects for public debate.
For many former users of the recreation ground, the issue is not simply about the past. They believe it serves as a reminder of the importance of ensuring local communities are properly heard when major decisions affecting public spaces are made.
The original controversy may be decades old, but for some residents the questions surrounding the loss of Harcourt Street Recreation Ground remain unanswered.
