8th July 2026
Sent to: leader@stockport.gov.uk; emma.curle@stockport.gov.uk; Vicki Bates (vicki.bates@stockport.gov.uk); Lisa Smart – Enquiries (enquiries@lisasmart.org.uk); cllr.angie.clark@stockport.gov.uk; cllr.rachel.bresnahan@stockport.gov.uk
Dear Head of Planning and Contaminated Land Team,
I am writing to raise concerns regarding the adequacy of the contaminated land investigation submitted in support of the redevelopment proposals at Compstall Mill.
Having reviewed both the Phase I environmental assessment and the subsequent intrusive site investigation, I am concerned that the investigation does not appear to have been sufficiently designed around the site’s well-documented industrial history.
The Phase I assessment identifies a complex historical land use that extends well beyond that of a conventional cotton mill. Historical mapping records show extensive printing works, numerous tanks, bridge works, filter beds, pits, reservoirs and other industrial features across the site dating back to the late nineteenth century. These are precisely the types of features that have the potential to give rise to localised contamination hotspots.
In particular, the Phase I records numerous historical tanks on the site together with former print works and filter beds, all of which would ordinarily warrant carefully targeted intrusive investigation rather than reliance upon a broadly distributed sampling strategy.
Whilst the Phase II investigation includes standard contamination testing and identifies elevated concentrations of arsenic, lead and asbestos requiring further consideration, I am concerned that it appears to represent a generic contaminated land investigation rather than one specifically designed to address the risks associated with a historic textile printing and dye works.
Given the historical use of the site, I would have expected to see a clearer justification that:
- the conceptual site model fully reflected the site’s printing and dyeing history;
- boreholes and trial pits were specifically targeted at former tanks, process areas, filter beds and other potential contaminant hotspots identified from historical mapping;
- the analytical suite was selected to address contaminants reasonably associated with historic textile printing and dyeing processes, rather than relying primarily upon a standard redevelopment contaminant suite; and
- sufficient evidence was provided to demonstrate that all plausible pollutant linkages had been investigated before concluding that the site could be appropriately assessed.
The historical presence of numerous tanks, process infrastructure and wastewater treatment features raises legitimate questions as to whether contamination may be localised and therefore capable of being missed by a more general investigation strategy.
I would therefore be grateful if the Council could confirm:
- Whether the submitted Phase II investigation has been independently reviewed by the Council’s contaminated land specialist or geotechnical adviser.
- Whether the investigation is considered sufficient to characterise contamination associated with the site’s historic printing and dyeing operations.
- Whether any further intrusive investigation or targeted sampling has been requested before the planning application is determined.
- How the Council is satisfied that the conceptual site model has adequately addressed all plausible contamination risks arising from the site’s historical industrial uses.
I appreciate that the Council must ensure that redevelopment complies with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and relevant planning guidance relating to land affected by contamination. Given the complexity of the site’s industrial history, I would be grateful for reassurance that these matters have been fully considered before any planning decision is made.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.
Yours faithfully,
Sheila Oliver
