Blog Image

Stockport Council News

Michael Warburton, ICO

Freedom of Information Posted on Sat, October 05, 2013 19:43

Email sent 27 January 2012 11:33

Ref. RCC0429756

Dear Mr Warburton

I am sorry if I have maligned you and will correct the statement if I have.

I have had no information regarding the toxic waste dump school for years, despite the site being toxic as I said, despite them suddenly having to borrow £5 million as I said, despite the police having complained about the dangerous traffic situation as I said, despite local people being denied access to the rear of their own properties as I said, despite the school not being finished in six months, as I said.

Perhaps you could clear up that misunderstanding for me. What information did you persuade them to disclose?

Kind regards

Sheila

Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:00 PM

Dear Ms Oliver

I refer to the recent emails you have exchanged with Rachael Cragg and the ICO.

To avoid any confusion, I would like to point out that the only case I dealt with for you was under reference FS50205853 where I was successful in persuading the council to disclose the requested information.

Yours sincerely

Michael Warburton, Senior Complaints Officer
ICO

FS5020585

Email sent by me 03 January 2012 20:41

Dear Mr Warburton

I write to you in the hope that you can help me clear this matter up. I have already taken this matter to the Information Commissioner and every member of the ICO Board and shall do so again with more up to date worrying developments.

Regarding the toxic waste dump school where you inexplicably said I was vexatious, even though I provided you with evidence that the site was contaminated with deadly brown asbestos, lead and arsenic and Stockport Council, who you found to be cleaner than clean, lied about this.

What has happened now is that despite the school only having been open since September 2011 – large numbers of parents have taken their children from the school due to bullying issues. I raised the matter of bullying in such a huge primary school – you declared me vexatious. The school ceiling collapsed – mercifully no child was hurt this time. The council is still refusing to disclose any details to me about this because you declared me vexatious. I mentioned the fact that the school was being thrown up – because of your branding of me as vexatious, Stockport Council was able to ignore this. |More danger to kids!

The police have expressed serious concerns to the Council about the traffic arrangements around the school – I raised these concerns at a time when something could have been done about it – you declared me vexatious. There is no doubt that children will die as a result of this school – either a slow and painful disablement followed by an early death from mesothelioma (I pointed out they were failing to remove the brown asbestos – you declared me vexatious, so that gave them carte blanche to carry on and not do the job properly). Children are likely to die in road accidents around the school. You will have a lot on your conscience. I have at all times tried my best. You have publicly defamed me when I provided rock solid evidence of wrongdoing. Even the fact that they lied about the contamination was enough to prove me to be not vexatious.

I hope we can now re-open this matter. If you fail to respond in a helpful manner, I shall have no option but to expose your inexplicable decision in fine detail on the Internet. You wrongly defamed me. I shall correctly simply identify the action you took, failed to take and the ridiculous length of time you took to come to such a dangerous decision.

There must be an option to re-examine cases when evidence of wrongdoing – in this case by Stockport Council – comes to light.

I hope in future you take your duties more seriously. Kids’ lives are precious you know.

Sheila



Michael Warburton, ICO

Freedom of Information Posted on Sat, October 05, 2013 19:41

FS50205853

15 July 2009

Dear Mrs Oliver

Your complaint about Stockport MBC (the council)

Thank you for your email dated 14 July 2009, the contents of which I have noted.

I confirm that I have received the withheld information from the council. However, I have also asked it to reconsider your original request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (as opposed to the Freedom of Information Act 2000) which I believe is the appropriate legislation.

I am currently asking the council to clarify a number of issues and will write to you again as soon as I have received its response, which I anticipate will be quite soon.

Yours sincerely

Michael Warburton
Senior Complaints Officer
ICO



Michael Warburton, ICO

Freedom of Information Posted on Sat, October 05, 2013 18:18

FS50234602/FS50205853

18 May 2009

Dear Ms Oliver,

Your complaint about Stockport MBC (the council)

Thank you for your email dated 15 May 2009 together with the attached Newspaper article from the Daily Mirror, the contents of which I have noted.

Once I have heard from Ms Naven at the council and had an opportunity to consider her response I will write to you again.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Warburton
Senior Complaints Officer
ICO



Michael Warburton, ICO

Freedom of Information Posted on Sat, October 05, 2013 18:15

FS50205853

01 June 2009

Dear Ms Oliver,

Your complaint about Stockport MBC (the council)

Our reference: FS50205853

Thank you for your copy emails dated 22 and 24 May 2009 (regarding other FOI requests you have submitted to the council) the contents of which I have noted.

I will write to you again once I have heard from the council regarding Harcourt Street, which is the case I am investigating.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Warburton
Senior Complaints Officer
ICO



Michael Warburton, ICO

Freedom of Information Posted on Sat, October 05, 2013 18:12

FS50205853

19 May 2009

Dear Ms Oliver,

Your complaint about Stockport MBC (the council)

Thank you for your email dated 18 May 2009 together with attached land adverts from NPS Property Services’ website, the contents of which I have noted.

I will write to you again once I have heard from the council.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Warburton
Senior Complaints Officer
ICO



Michael Warburton, ICO

Freedom of Information Posted on Sat, October 05, 2013 18:05

Re; FS50205853

15 May 2009

Dear Ms Oliver,

Your complaint about Stockport MBC (the council)
Thank you for your letter dated 12 May 2009 together with the attached Newspaper article, the contents of which I have noted.

I will write to you again once I have heard from Ms Naven at the council and had an opportunity to consider her response.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Warburton
Senior Complaints Officer
ICO



Air Quality Exceedances

Bypass Posted on Sat, October 05, 2013 16:23

Email sent Thursday, September 26, 2013 12:49 AM
SEMMMS air quality exceedances

Dear FOI Officer,

EIR 2004 enquiry

In the course of the second phase of the public consultation the SEMMMS team made the following statements:-

“Along the route of the scheme, there will be areas where annual average NO2 concentrations exceed the limit value specified in the UK Air Quality Strategy. However, should the scheme be granted consent, air quality modelling indicates that a far greater number of properties will benefit than will be disadvantaged in air quality terms as traffic is diverted away from existing congested roads with air quality objective exceedances to this purpose designed by-pass.”

“A large number of properties within the greater Manchester area and Cheshire East currently exceed annual average NO2 objectives due to local traffic movements. A number of properties in Disley are predicted to experience an increase in pollutant levels if the scheme goes ahead with 3 additional properties exceeding the air quality objective as a result of increased traffic in this area. However it is predicted that 780 properties in Greater Manchester will be removed from exceedence as a result of the proposed scheme as traffic levels in those areas is reduced.”

Moreover the 780 properties represent only 18% of the properties experiencing exceedances in 2017. It is very surprising that properties experience exceedances because although some roadside measurement sites are recording exceedances the levels drop away rapidly further from the road. So these projections imply a very serious health problem.

Please provide me with;

1) The locations of the properties predicted to experience exceedances with or without the road. Of these please identify schools and properties that fall outside the scope of the air quality directive (eg factories and industrial installations). For each property please identify the position selected to be representative of the property (eg worst affected boundary, worst affected building facade).

2) The predictions for the roadside measurement sites in the areas affected by these high predicted levels.

Kind regards,

Steve Houston