https://theromileygazette.substack.com/publish/posts/published
30th December 2025
Dear Monitoring Officer,
I am writing to raise a formal complaint of maladministration concerning a pattern of decision-making and enforcement failures by Stockport Council, together with the improper characterisation of evidence-based concerns as “vexatious.”
This complaint asks you, in your statutory role under s.5 Local Government and Housing Act 1989, to consider whether the Council has failed to act lawfully, rationally, and in accordance with its governance obligations.
1. Evidence of Foreseeable Demand Ignored – School Places
Attached / previously supplied is a Freedom of Information Act response (FOI 881) dated January 2008, confirming that birth rates in North Reddish were rising, not falling, in the years immediately preceding the construction of the new Harcourt Street Primary School. (Img034)
This FOI evidence directly contradicts any later narrative that pupil numbers were unforeseeable or declining.
In addition, Design Sub-Group minutes (28 April 2006) for the Harcourt Street school explicitly record that:
- Projections showed 553–563 children,
- Yet the school was deliberately designed for 525 places,
- With a known consequence that children would be displaced elsewhere. (Img018 Img019)
Options to restrict admissions or rely on temporary accommodation were explicitly discussed and acknowledged to break the promise of a place for every child, yet were still pursued.
Within a decade, the Council was required to spend in excess of £80 million addressing a primary school place crisis that was demonstrably foreseeable on the Council’s own data. (lack of school places to cost over 80m pounds)
This meets established Ombudsman definitions of maladministration:
- failure to take relevant information into account,
- failure to plan properly,
- and failure to act on known risk.
2. Improper Use of the “Vexatious” Label
Concerns raised by myself and others about school capacity, planning decisions, and later environmental enforcement have been dismissed as “vexatious”.
This characterisation is unsustainable for the following reasons:
- The concerns are evidence-based, relying on the Council’s own FOI disclosures and internal meeting records.
- They relate to public interest matters: education provision, environmental protection, planning control, and statutory enforcement.
- Subsequent events (including emergency expenditure and retrospective mitigation) validate the substance of those concerns.
The Local Government Ombudsman and the ICO are clear that persistence alone does not make a complaint vexatious, particularly where issues remain unresolved and new evidence continues to arise.
Labelling such concerns vexatious appears to have functioned as a deterrent to scrutiny, rather than a proportionate complaint-handling measure. That in itself raises a governance concern.
3. Cross-Link to Woodland and Visual Amenity Enforcement Failures
The same pattern of behaviour now appears in relation to protected visual amenity land and W1 woodland at Howard Close:
- Long-term fly-tipping, including a dumped trailer, has been left in situ for over a year.
- Instead of removal, the waste has been fenced in, normalising rather than remedying the breach.
- Gates and temporary fencing have been erected on land where vehicular access is not permitted, risking harm to protected tree root zones.
- Elected members have asserted the site was “tidied up,” a claim contradicted by the physical reality.
As with the school-place issue:
- risks were known and documented,
- enforcement powers existed,
- yet meaningful action was delayed or avoided,
- while residents raising concerns were marginalised.
This demonstrates not isolated error, but a systemic failure of administrative culture: inconvenient evidence is discounted, and scrutiny is managed rather than addressed.
4. Matters for the Monitoring Officer
I therefore ask you to consider:
- Whether the Council’s historic handling of school capacity planning constituted maladministration.
- Whether the continued reliance on a “vexatious” label is compatible with lawful and fair complaint handling.
- Whether current woodland and visual amenity enforcement failures reflect the same governance weaknesses.
- Whether any officer or member conduct gives rise to a duty to issue a formal report under s.5 LGHA 1989.
I am not seeking to relitigate policy choices, but to ensure that legal duties, evidence-based decision-making, and public accountability are upheld.
I would be grateful for confirmation of how this complaint will be assessed and what steps you propose to take.
Yours sincerely,
Sheila Oliver
Editor, The Romiley Gazette
