Blog Image

The Romiley Gazette

From Schools to Green Belt: How Local Voices Are Still Being Ignored.

For Our Reddish Readers, Local Politicians, Stockport Council, Vexatious Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Mon, January 05, 2026 08:51

5th January 2026

Over a decade ago, residents of North Reddish raised alarms about the council’s proposed Harcourt Street school project. Today, those same concerns — traffic, contamination, loss of public open space, rising costs, and insufficient school size — resonate again as Stockport Council prepares to consider plans for 30,000 new homes on the borough’s green belt.

At the heart of the Harcourt Street controversy was Sheila Oliver, a local resident and campaigner, who questioned council decisions long before the school opened in 2011. She repeatedly flagged that the site was a former clay pit and landfill and likely contaminated.

“The GMGU report said the site was safe if simple precautions were taken,” she recalled. “But proper testing later revealed lead, arsenic, and brown asbestos across the land.”

Despite this, the council pressed ahead, and the school opened without the promised playing fields. Costs escalated from £5.4 million in 2005 to nearly £10 million before contamination remediation. Facilities demanded by Sport England, which she had personally helped secure, were added at significant cost, reducing the funds available for the school itself.

Traffic and Safety Concerns Ignored

Residents also raised the risks posed by local roads to schoolchildren. Independent reports and local feedback later confirmed that traffic impact had been underestimated, validating warnings Oliver issued years before.

Loss of Public Space and Accountability

The project also reduced access to public green space. While some landscaping and facilities remain, the council’s original promise of community-accessible fields was never fully delivered. Oliver repeatedly sought transparency, using Freedom of Information requests and formal correspondence, yet she remains barred from raising the issue in council meetings or communicating with councillors about the project.

“Traffic, contamination, loss of green space, rising costs, and insufficient capacity — all of these warnings were proven true,” she said. “And I’m still not allowed to discuss them officially with the council, the Chief Executive, or local representatives.”

A Modern Parallel: Green Belt Threats

Now, many of the same council officers and elected members who oversaw Harcourt Street are proposing housing developments that would build 30,000 homes on the green belt. Residents fear that history may repeat itself: rushed decision-making, insufficient scrutiny, and diminished public accountability.

For North Reddish and surrounding areas, the Harcourt Street saga is more than history. It is a cautionary tale of what happens when public money, public land, and public safety are not rigorously protected — and why local voices, even those proven right, must not be silenced.

“We can’t afford to be ignored again,” Oliver said. “Our green spaces, our safety, and our communities deserve more than repeated mistakes.”



North Reddish School: Promises, Pollution and a Project That Unravelled.

For Our Reddish Readers, Local Politicians, Stockport Council, Vexatious Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Mon, January 05, 2026 07:59

https://substack.com/@theromileygazette?

5th January 2026

When Stockport Council responded to a Freedom of Information request in July 2007 about the proposed North Reddish Primary School at Harcourt Street, it assured residents that the site was safe to develop and that extensive new sporting facilities would be delivered alongside the school.

Four years later, the school opened — but without the promised playing fields — and subsequent investigations would show that the land had been far more contaminated than originally claimed.

Council Assurances in 2007

In its 2007 FOI response (reference FOI/EIR 618), the council relied heavily on a ground investigation carried out by the Greater Manchester Geological Unit (GMGU). That report concluded the site was:

“safe to develop for a school with playing fields, provided some simple, precautionary measures are taken.”

The council told Mrs Sheila Oliver, who submitted the FOI request, that there was no need to remove “toxic waste” and that contamination could be managed through measures such as a clean cover system, limited landscaping, and gas monitoring.

The council also stated that the estimated £8.5 million cost of the school included contamination measures, although it acknowledged that contamination costs were not separately itemised.

At the time, additional works — including sports pitches, a multi-use games area and changing facilities — were cited as justification for developing the open space.

What Was Later Discovered

Campaigners say those assurances were fundamentally undermined when proper ground investigations were eventually carried out to the correct British Standard (BS 10175).

Those later investigations found the site to be completely contaminated, identifying lead, arsenic and brown asbestos across the land — far more extensive and hazardous contamination than suggested by the original GMGU report.

Residents argue that this confirmed long-standing warnings that the early investigations were inadequate, both in scope and methodology, and failed to reflect the site’s history as a former clay pit and uncontrolled landfill.

Playing Fields Never Delivered

Despite repeated references in planning documents and FOI responses to new recreational facilities for the community, the playing fields were never delivered.

When North Reddish Primary School eventually opened in 2011, it did so without the sports pitches and associated facilities that had been presented as a major public benefit of the scheme.

For critics, this absence reinforced concerns that community benefits were overstated during the planning process.

A Pattern of Escalating Costs

Cost figures associated with the project rose steadily before contamination was properly addressed:

  • £5.5 million — estimate in October 2005
  • £8.5 million — cited in 2007 FOI response
  • £9.97 million — before full remediation was required

Substantial additional costs were incurred once comprehensive remediation became unavoidable.

Campaigners maintain that each increase should have prompted a reassessment of alternatives — particularly the former Fir Tree Primary School site, which was already developed land and did not carry the same contamination risks.

—–Original Message—–
From: sheila.oliver@tiscali.co.uk [mailto:sheila.oliver@tiscali.co.uk]
Sent: 11 July 2007 20:40
To: Cllr Mark Weldon
Subject: RE: possible iffyness – Harcourt Street/Fir Tree site

Dear Councillor Weldon

Dearie me!  You are the teacher and I am just a typist.  I quite often

make up words – why not?    I am a linguist and the Germans make their

own words up  all the time 

“If conjunction – On the supposition that , providing that, in case

that, even on the supposition, allowing that, whenever, at the time

when, whether, also used in an exclamatory sense” The Concise English

Dictionary – so iffyness is the noun derived from that conjunction.  I

am not saying it is gramatically correct, but if I chose to use that

noun that is my affair.

In the same way, I refer to people as having paws.  Are you a little

oversensitive on this issue?

My point was merely that it is your job as Executive councillor for

this portfolio to make sure that money is not wasted and that the

people of Reddish get the best deal.   How much is the removal of the

toxic waste costing and how much will these new stipulations of Sport

England cost?  Someone other than me should be asking these

questions.   And please don’t start boasting in future about providing

these potential new facilities for Reddish that Sport England will

insist on because it was I who wrote to Sport England’s Chief Executive

to get them to act in this regard.

The unfathomable reasons is that the people of Reddish are being

cheated of their public open space for purely financial reasons, the

traffic will be even more horrendous and children will die under the

wheels of cars because the Council’s traffic consultants say it is safe

for children from the age of four to 11 to cycle to school along some

of the most dangerous roads in Stockport.   And there should be enough

money from the sale of the closed schools to finance a new school. 

I shall be bringing this issue up with the District Auditor before the

planning meeting on the 30th July.

Mrs Oliver—-Original Message—-

>From: cllr.mark.weldon@stockport.gov.uk

Date: 11/07/2007 17:42

To: <sheila.oliver@tiscali.co.uk>

Subj: RE: possible iffyness – Harcourt Street/Fir Tree site 

Dear Mrs Oliver,

Thank you for your email. I have raised Mr Gwynne’s concern re the

valuation of the site and have been assured the valuation is realistic,

if not a little conservative. I am aware Mr Gwynne MP has no valuation

qualifications as he has been a politician/politico all his working

life so his beliefs don’t carry any particular weight.

With regards to “clean paws”, if you have any evidence whatsoever of

wrongdoing please go the  police or auditor immediately. As the ELECTED

representative it is what I would and am required to do rather than

make offhand unsubstantiated allegations en masse, for unfathomable

reasons. 

Regards,

 Mark Weldon

—–Original Message—–

From: “sheila.oliver@tiscali.co.uk” <sheila.oliver@tiscali.co.uk>

To: “chief.executive@stockport.gov.uk” <chief.executive@stockport.gov.

uk>; “leader@stockport.gov.uk” <leader@stockport.gov.uk>; “elaine.

mclean@stockport.gov.uk” <elaine.mclean@stockport.gov.uk>; “steve.

lamb@stockport.gov.uk” <steve.lamb@stockport.gov.uk>

Cc: “cllr.mark.weldon@stockport.gov.uk” <cllr.mark.weldon@stockport.

gov.uk>; “paul.carter230@ntlworld.com” <paul.carter230@ntlworld.com>

Sent: 11/07/07 15:22

Subject: possible iffyness – Harcourt Street/Fir Tree site

> 

Dear Hearts 

It seems to me that these new stipulations by Sport England

regarding Reddish (Harcourt/Fir Tree) will be very costly.  Have they been

costed at all?

How strange that when you are getting such a small sum for the Fir

Tree site, so small that the local MP can’t believe it, that you

will have the funds to remove the toxic waste (or the tiny bits you

intend to remove at least) and provide all these sporting facilities.

 

I shall be getting in touch with the District Auditor regarding

this. 

Councillor Carter has very helpfully promised me a reply on the

general subject but as you are proposing to push the planning application

through in the next few days, I have no option but to take this up

with the District Auditor PDQ. I have today checked with the Audit Dept

at the Town Hall, who told me that was what I should do.

I do hope you all turn out to have clean paws on this and are not

thoughtlessly wasting our money as well as our green open space.

Kind regards

Sheila X

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 



Harcourt Street School: How Rising Costs and Toxic Land Revived Calls to Reconsider Fir Tree Site.

For Our Reddish Readers, Local Politicians, Vexatious Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Mon, January 05, 2026 07:30

https://theromileygazette.substack.com/publish/posts/published

5th January 2026

Reddish — As the long-running controversy over the Harcourt Street school site continues to be revisited by residents, campaigners say newly clarified cost figures strengthen a key argument made at the time: that the council should have reconsidered the Fir Tree site as costs escalated and contamination risks became unavoidable.

In October 2005, Stockport Council estimated the cost of building a new primary school on the former Harcourt Street open space at £5.5 million. At that point, the full extent of contamination on the site — a former clay pit and landfill — had not yet been factored into the project.

Within a relatively short period, that estimate rose sharply. The projected cost increased first to £8.5 million, and then again to £9.97 million, still before the council was forced to carry out full contamination remediation.

Campaigners argue that each of these cost increases should have triggered a reassessment of alternative options — particularly the former Fir Tree Primary School site, which was already developed land and did not carry the same contamination or traffic risks.

A Known Toxic Legacy

The Harcourt Street site has a long industrial history. Used for clay extraction by Jackson’s Brickworks and later infilled with waste between the 1950s and 1970s, the land predates modern landfill regulation. Records of what was deposited are incomplete, a fact acknowledged in parliamentary debate and regional media coverage at the time.

Despite this, early investigations into ground conditions were limited, with only a small number of boreholes drilled across the site. Critics — including residents, local campaigners and MPs — warned that this fell short of best practice for assessing contaminated land, particularly for a school.

Those concerns were later borne out when the land was formally recognised as contaminated and extensive remediation became unavoidable.

Warnings Ignored

In a 2007 email to senior council officers, local campaigner Sheila Oliver raised alarm over both the environmental and financial implications of proceeding at Harcourt Street. She questioned how the council could afford to remove toxic waste and install sports facilities when the capital receipt from selling the Fir Tree site was relatively small.

She also warned that the project risked wasting public money and sacrificing valuable green open space, and said she would refer the matter to the District Auditor due to concerns about value for money and the speed of decision-making.

Costs Rose — But the Site Did Not Change

By the time projected costs had reached £9.97 million, full remediation costs were still not included. Once those were imposed, the overall cost rose further.

Campaigners say this sequence — £5.5m → £8.5m → £9.97m → remediation on top — illustrates a fundamental failure to pause and reassess the site choice.

They argue that the Fir Tree Primary School site, which remained in use until 2011 and was later sold for housing, should have been reconsidered as costs escalated — particularly once it became clear that Harcourt Street carried significant environmental and financial risk.

A Lost Opportunity

For critics, the issue was never simply about building a new school. It was about choosing the right land, listening to early warnings, and adapting decisions as evidence changed.

They argue that rebuilding on the Fir Tree site could have avoided years of controversy, reduced costs, and eliminated the need to build a school on land later described in the Manchester Evening News as a “toxic minefield.”

A Cautionary Tale

While the school has since been completed and the land remediated, the Harcourt Street case remains a touchstone for debates about development on former landfill sites.

Residents say it offers a clear lesson: when costs rise rapidly and contamination risks are known, decision-makers must be willing to stop, reassess, and reconsider alternatives — especially when public money and children’s safety are involved.

Cost Timeline at a Glance

  • October 2005: £5.5 million
  • Later estimate: £8.5 million
  • Subsequent revision: £9.97 million (still before full remediation)
  • Final cost: higher still once contamination remediation was required

From: “sheila.oliver@tiscali.co.uk” <sheila.oliver@tiscali.co.uk>

To: “chief.executive@stockport.gov.uk” <chief.executive@stockport.gov.uk>; “leader@stockport.gov.uk” <leader@stockport.gov.uk>; “elaine.mclean@stockport.gov.uk” <elaine.mclean@stockport.gov.uk>; “steve.lamb@stockport.gov.uk” <steve.lamb@stockport.gov.uk>

Cc: “cllr.mark.weldon@stockport.gov.uk” <cllr.mark.weldon@stockport.gov.uk>; “paul.carter230@ntlworld.com” <paul.carter230@ntlworld.com>

Sent: 11/07/07 15:22

Subject: possible iffyness – Harcourt Street/Fir Tree site

 Dear Hearts

It seems to me that these new stipulations by Sport England regarding Reddish (Harcourt/Fir Tree) will be very costly.  Have they been costed at all?

How strange that when you are getting such a small sum for the Fir Tree site, so small that the local MP can’t believe it, that you will have the funds to remove the toxic waste (or the tiny bits you intend to remove at least) and provide all these sporting facilities.

I shall be getting in touch with the District Auditor regarding this. 

Councillor Carter has very helpfully promised me a reply on the general subject but as you are proposing to push the planning application through in the next few days, I have no option but to take this up with the District Auditor PDQ. I have today checked with the Audit Dept at the Town Hall, who told me that was what I should do.

I do hope you all turn out to have clean paws on this and are not thoughtlessly wasting our money as well as our green open space.

Kind regards

Sheila X



Questions Raised Over Use of Public Funds in Village Green Inquiry.

For Our Reddish Readers, Local Politicians, Stockport Council, Vexatious Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Mon, January 05, 2026 07:10

5th January 2026

Concerns have been raised about the use of public money in relation to legal evidence submitted during the Harcourt Street Village Green public inquiry.

Romiley resident Sheila Oliver had written to solicitors Cobbetts questioning why public funds were used to produce evidence which, she claims, portrayed local residents as acting “with stealth, secrecy and trespass” when accessing land that campaigners maintain has long been used as a recreation ground.

In her correspondence some years ago, sent following a full Stockport Council meeting at the Town Hall, Ms Oliver said she had been advised by Councillor Mark Weldon, Executive Member for Children and Young People, to raise the matter directly with the firm. Copies of the letter were also sent to the council’s Chief Executive, the District Auditor and members of the local press.

Ms Oliver specifically queried the submission of photographs showing high metal fencing, which she says does not surround the land in question, and questioned why such material was included as evidence.

“If public money is paid out then it should be paid out for the truth to be told and nothing less,” she wrote, adding that while Councillor Weldon had suggested the evidence did not affect the outcome of the inquiry, she believed this missed the wider issue of accountability for public spending.

The correspondence also raises broader questions about Stockport Council’s relationship with Cobbetts, referencing reports that the firm is facing legal action elsewhere. Ms Oliver suggested that the council should review its continued use of the firm.



Fir Tree Nursery.

For Our Reddish Readers, Vexatious Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Sun, November 16, 2025 09:44

16th November 2025

Stockport Council once again found itself under scrutiny following questions from local resident Sheila Oliver concerning the closure of Fir Tree Nursery School. The controversy comes amid wider tensions surrounding planning and school provision in the borough.

Mrs Oliver, known for her persistent campaigns on local school issues, submitted a question to the Council’s Executive Meeting on 6 December 2010 regarding alleged late-stage changes to nursery provision. Her question asked why planning adjustments had been made to the nursery school layout and Learning Resource Centre at the nearby Harcourt Street School, and how these changes might affect nursery children.

Mike Iveson, Head of Committee Services, responded that her question would not be put to the Executive Meeting. “The question relates to the Harcourt Street School and questions from you on that subject have been ruled vexatious,” he explained, noting that planning-related questions are generally excluded from public question time.

However, Mr Iveson confirmed that no planning applications had been submitted for Fir Tree Nursery School itself. The amendments Mrs Oliver referred to were connected solely to the new Harcourt Street School building, including minor material changes such as window replacements, roof alterations, and ventilation adjustments. According to the Council, these changes would not affect nursery children and were part of standard building development procedures.

Despite the official clarification, Mrs Oliver remained critical of what she described as “broken promises” by the Liberal Democrat-controlled council. In emails to Council officers, she highlighted widespread local opposition to the nursery closure and suggested that the lack of transparency around these decisions was deeply concerning.

The row over Fir Tree Nursery is part of a broader pattern of disputes in Stockport over school closures, new builds, and compliance with safety and planning regulations. In earlier correspondence, Mrs Oliver had raised issues around Harcourt Street School, including safety risks, car parking adequacy, and adherence to planning rules. She had also escalated concerns to national figures, including MPs and the Education Funding Agency, arguing that council procedures have left local taxpayers at financial risk.

Council officials maintained that they were acting within statutory requirements and emphasized that all relevant consultations and approvals had been conducted. Nevertheless, the exchanges underscore ongoing tension between residents seeking transparency and the Council’s attempts to manage complex developments under strict procedural rules.

For residents of Stockport, the Fir Tree Nursery saga remains emblematic of wider debates over accountability, planning transparency, and the future of local education provision.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/former-stockport-councillor-facing-10-10723666



Residents Challenged Council Over Reddish School Site Decision – All Concerns Ignored.

For Our Reddish Readers, Local Politicians, Vexatious Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Wed, October 01, 2025 15:18

1st October 2025

Vick Bates, Monitoring Officer, Lisa Smart and Councillor Angela Clark all claim any mention of the following matters is vexatious.

Back in 2005, Stockport Council announced plans for a new £5.5 million primary school in North Reddish. The proposed site was Harcourt Street Recreation Ground, a well-used community space that once served as Jackson’s Brickyard.

The decision has remained controversial ever since.

A Tale of Two Sites

Critics point out that there was already an existing school, Fir Tree Primary, with room to expand, no traffic problems, and no concerns about land quality. But instead of developing Fir Tree, the Council earmarked its site for housing, while pushing to build on Harcourt Street instead.

The Harcourt Street land had a troubled past. After the brickyard closed, the claypits were filled with industrial waste. Residents recall tankers from a soap manufacturer in the 1960s tipping caustic soda, with even rats seen fleeing the site. By 1973, the land could no longer meet new safety standards for tipping and was grassed over, becoming a public recreation ground with a football pitch and tennis courts.

In fact, back in 1974, three planning applications for housing were refused on the grounds that the land was too contaminated.

Contamination Concerns

When the Council revived the site for the new school, residents raised fears about hidden pollution. Initial investigations were criticised as inadequate. Only one borehole was drilled, and residents say testing deliberately avoided the worst areas, such as the in-filled claypits and football pitch.

School location – directly over the in-filled claypits.

The cost of the new school quickly escalated — from the original £5.5m estimate to £10m within months.

There is a financial irregularity of £201,750. in the documents directly above. They attribute some of the monumental rise in cost of this school to an increase in floor area from 2600m2 to 3185m2 and they have themselves given the figure they used as £1450m2.  So, this is an increase of 585m2 at £1450 the cost of which they have put at £1,050,000 when it is £848,250. 

The Environment Agency advised the Council not to proceed without full contamination assessments, but locals say their warnings were ignored. Later investigations confirmed widespread contamination, including lead, arsenic and brown asbestos.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bill-for-school-to-be-built-on-toxic-minefield-898373

Residents allege that the asbestos was removed in unsafe conditions, with untrained workers using “bin bag and stick” methods and removing their own respirators. Some fibres are said to remain on site to this day.

The School Opens

Despite the concerns, the new primary school eventually opened in 2011, with the final bill rising to around £11 million.

Critics say the school was built too small for local demand, forcing further spending. The surrounding streets have also suffered from severe congestion, with police warning of dangerous traffic conditions shortly after the school opened.

Recreation Ground Lost

Another sticking point is the loss of Harcourt Street’s playing fields. Over 800 residents objected, but the Council pressed ahead. Sport England intervened, placing a £625,000 planning condition requiring replacement public sporting facilities. However, campaigners claim that no such facilities have ever materialised.

Questions of Accountability

Local residents argue that Stockport Council acted improperly by:

  • Taking recreational land without adequate replacement
  • Ignoring environmental and safety advice
  • Escalating costs from £5.5m to £11m+ without oversight
  • Failing to provide the promised sporting facilities

Campaigners also allege that the Monitoring Officer, local LibDem councillors and senior officials failed in their legal duty to act when financial irregularities were raised.

For residents, the story of Harcourt Street is one of lost trust. “We were called vexatious for raising safety and cost concerns,” one local said. “But everything we warned about has come true.”



Monitoring Officer in the Hot Seat over ‘Vexatious’ Label on Padden Brook Concerns.

For Our Reddish Readers, Padden Brook, Vexatious Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Sat, August 30, 2025 02:16

30th August 2025

Stockport Council’s Monitoring Officer, Vicki Bates, finds herself under renewed scrutiny after her office reportedly dismissed all questions related to Padden Brook as “vexatious.” This term has stirred concern among residents and local campaigners, many of whom see the issue as one of public importance rather than frivolous objection.

A Pattern of Dismissal

Critics have pointed to a series of communications where Bates cited the Council’s Unacceptable Actions by Complainants Policy to deem inquiries related to Vale View Primary School “vexatious”—concerns that included contamination fears.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bill-for-school-to-be-built-on-toxic-minefield-898373

Moreover, previous posts on Oliver’s blog dating as far back as 2019 document a similar pattern: Bates, along with her deputy, Michelle Dodds, reportedly labelled questions about missing community sports facilities and multi-million-pound financial inconsistencies “vexatious” Sheila Oliver’s Blog+1.

Padden Brook at the Centre

Although specific details about Padden Brook are not laid out in official correspondence, local activists argue that this issue deals directly with environmental safety and community well-being. The repeated branding of such concerns as vexatious has alarmed residents, who say it suppresses legitimate debate and accountability regarding council decisions.

Watchful Eye on Procedure

As Monitoring Officer, Bates’ primary responsibility is ensuring that council decisions comply with legal and governance standards. Official profiles list her involvement in meetings such as the Council Meeting on 21 November 2024, numerous Standards Committees, scrutiny bodies, and Cabinet sessions throughout mid-2024 Stockport Public-I. However, while her procedural diligence is on record, detractors say it appears to have come at the expense of democratic transparency.

Community Reaction

Long-time campaigners like Sheila Oliver argue that Bates’ broad dismissal of repeated, public-interest concerns is tone-deaf at best—and oppressive at worst. The vexatious tag, they say, has shut down vital lines of inquiry into contaminated sites, missing facilities, and financial irregularities.

What Lies Ahead

Romiley residents and local campaign groups are now looking to push for greater oversight and perhaps challenge the use of “vexatious” as a blanket shield against accountability. Some are urging the Council to clarify:

  • What timeline or criteria define a question as vexatious?
  • Are environmental and planning-related inquiries being properly assessed?
  • Can the Council commit to responding substantively to Padden Brook-related concerns?

Given the mounting pressure, Stockport Council—and Vicki Bates—may soon need to provide clearer justification for the use of this term and demonstrate openness to public scrutiny, especially on issues tying into environmental and community welfare.

Key Points

IssueDetails
What was labelled vexatious?Questions on contamination, missing sports facilities, financial irregularities, and Padden Brook.
Who said it?Monitoring Officer Vicki Bates (and deputy Michelle Dodds in some instances).
Campaigners’ stanceThese concerns are in the public interest and should not be brushed aside.
Concern raisedThat procedural compliance is being used to sideline democratic scrutiny.



Community Left Waiting as Questions Over Missing £625,000 Sporting Facilities Persist

For Our Reddish Readers, Local Politicians, Vexatious Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Fri, August 29, 2025 13:10

29th August 2025

Concerns continue to grow over the missing replacement sporting facilities promised as part of the Harcourt Street Playing Fields development in North Reddish, with campaigners saying councillors may have failed in their duty to act on possible financial irregularities.

The school, built on the former playing fields despite being against the town plan, was only approved on condition that new sporting facilities worth £625,000 were provided for the community. Sport England made this requirement clear before granting permission. Yet, years later, local residents are still asking: Where has the money gone?

Campaigner Sheila Oliver has repeatedly pressed the council for answers, only to be met with silence or dismissed inquiries. She has now called on councillors themselves to take responsibility.

Experts say that if a councillor becomes aware of potential financial irregularities, they have both a legal and ethical duty to act promptly. Guidance is clear:

  • Report it immediately to the council’s Chief Finance Officer (the Section 151 Officer), the Monitoring Officer, or the Head of Internal Audit. If these channels fail, concerns must be raised with external auditors, the Local Government Ombudsman, or even the police.
  • Follow whistleblowing procedures, which protect councillors under the Public Interest Disclosure Act if concerns are raised in good faith.
  • Keep records of what was seen, when, and the steps taken.
  • Maintain confidentiality, avoiding speculation and sticking to evidence.

Failure to act could leave councillors personally liable for negligence, in breach of the Code of Conduct, or facing reputational damage.

Oliver told the Gazette:

“The community was promised sporting facilities in exchange for losing playing fields. That promise was broken. If councillors know there are financial irregularities here, they are duty-bound to act. This is about accountability, honesty, and the integrity of public service.”

So far, Stockport Council has not responded to repeated requests for clarification.

The Romiley Gazette will continue to press for answers on behalf of the community.



Next »