Stockport Council News

Email sent to Khan et al – 20 March 2011 10:24

Dear Sirs

Following the Dianne Willmore case:-

“Willmore’s lawyers did not have to prove her mesothelioma was caused by that exposure, only that the council’s negligence had “materially” increased the risk of mesothelioma.”

The children and babies will start to be exposed in September 2008. Local residents already have been exposed to dangerous carcinogens. We have top notch public interest lawyers on board already.

I am assuming this verdict will simplify the bringing of corporate manslaughter charges against negligent council officers and councillors in the Harcourt Street toxic waste dump school case.

Mrs Oliver

Email sent – 04 August 2011 16:56

Dear Council Solicitor

I shall cc this to the Council’s underwriters.

I am led to believe that the Council Tax Leaflet issued by Stockport does not seem to comply with the required legal content. It has replaced the accurate statement of the obligations of discount recipients arising under Regulation 16 with a different and legally inaccurate assertion.

Could I have your comments please.

Also, I have not had any reply that I can find from Dave Westhead about why they did not enforce the planning condition to board off the toxic waste dump school site, which might have prevented at least some cases of mesothelioma in the surrounding houses. Also, were changes made to the shoddy, tin roof requested at planning? God knows why this cost us so much in architect’s fees – I suspect corruption – I really do. Senior council officers at Stockport should do their jobs properly. This alone could cost your insurers millions in defending actions for damages.

What a badly run ship you, Boylan and Goddard preside over!

Mrs Oliver

06 June 2010 15.12

Dear Mr Khan

Thank you for your letter of 2nd June 2010 regarding Mr. Roberts’s register of interests and may I say what a refreshing change it makes for a highly paid council officer at Stockport to respond to requests from council taxpayers. I am very glad, and Mr. Eric Pickles will be glad, that you appear to have turned over a new leaf.

I drew this matter to the Council’s attention in March 2010. It would have seemed reasonable to have put Mr. Roberts’ register of members interests up on the Internet. Not everyone can get to the town hall to view the actual documents, so to put it up on the Internet would see a perfectly reasonable solution.

Regarding the other two responses you sent me, I have taken them up with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government but I would appreciate a copy of the document regarding Mr. Parnell which you say was put on public display in the town hall. It appears to me that this has injured the resputation of an honest and innocent man. We have to look into whether this was a malicious prosecution by the Council – a tawdry affair which has probably cost the taxpyayer hundreds of thousands of pounds. May I remind you Mr. Parnell was acquitted. I sat in court and saw the appalling video evidence of the actions of the Council’s security guards, swearing, threatening to kick his head in, threatening to kill him. It would not look good for this Council if it were to get into the public domain. And, having been told by the judge to sort out his problems, he is again arrested instead for asking, apparently, for a council agenda meeting document. Still, I am sure Mr. Pickles will get to the bottom of it. I have copied it to the Editor of the Daily Telegraph, who doesn’t appear to like the LibDems much.

With very warmest best wishes

Sheila

Email sent – 24 August 2009 21:38

Dear Mr Khan

“From May 2008, if any body wishes to make a complaint alleging that a Councillor within Stockport has breached any part of the Code of Conduct then you must write to the Chair of the Standards Committee alleging a breach of the code. In my role as the monitoring officer I am happy to pass any such complaints directly to the Chair of that Committee…”

Mr Khan, I put in a complaint to the Chair of the Standards Committee about Goddard repeatedly and publicly calling me a liar many months ago and have not had even an acknowlegment. No evidence of lies was provided despite many requests. I have taken this issue to the Standards Board. When will this issue be put before the Standards Committee?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours

Mrs S J Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

Email sent – Thursday, September 22, 2011 3:51 PM

Attn Linda Harrison, Headmistress, Vale View School

As Built Health and Safety Files ABHSF for the Vale View Primary
School Stockport

Dear Linda

I acknowledge and thank you for the subject title. My first observation is the ABHSF appears to have been very well presented. However, there appear to be the following shortfalls with .. missing data for the following.

1.No Lightning Protection System (LPS) Data. Could you confirm if there was a LPS installed.

2.No Building Completion Certificate.

3.No Electrical system data or testing results of the same.

4.No Building Air Test results

5.No Plumbing or Drainage System Data.

6.No Fire Certifcate.

7.No sprinkler system data.

8.No quality or environmental audit data.

9.No Asset Management Plans data.

10.No design change order log.

I am surprised that the ABHSF are available only in hard copy which has the following drawbacks.

A. Not Environmental friendly

B. VERY time consuming and expensive to reproduce for the school staff.

C.Takes up valuable storage space

D. Voluminous amounts of paper records are or could be a fire hazard.

I am also VERY surprised the SMBC appear to have offloaded their client remit onto the Headteacher and her staff.I woul have envisaged that Teachers have enough on their plates with teaching and adminstration duties without oversight supervision for the new building!

I can’t help thinking that neither you or your staff are qualfied to an acceptable level to oversee the design, build and operation of this school.

I would be most grateful if you would forward items 1to 10 or point me in the right direction where I might obtain such documents.

With thanks

Alan M Dransfield

But I couldn’t ask Stockport Council because the LibDem Dodgies had banned all questions in order to conceal the fact that the primary school site was contaminated.

———————————————————–
24 September 2009 17:32
Ms Oliver,

Your request under the FOIA should be directed to Stockport Council, it is their information and we are not at liberty to divulge any information held by ourselves without their permission.

Regards

Neil

Neil Atkinson
————————————————————————

Email sent – 24 September 2009 04:46

Dear Mr Atkinson

You would appear to have forgotten to get back to me.

So, under the FOIA and EIR, please let me have all emails, notes of telephone conversations or meetings, memos, letters, minutes of meetings or any written information held following the issues I raised with you about the inadequacy of the contamination investigations at the site of the proposed mega school and nursery at Harcourt Street, North Reddish, Stockport.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards

Mrs S J Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

—————————————————————————-

Email sent – Sent: Fri May 22 17:43:07 2009

Mr Atkinson

Many thanks for your reply.

GMGU did the contamination investigations for a proposed 500 pupil school, nursery and children’s centre on a still gassing, former Jackson’s Brickyard intensively tipped from 1954 to 1974. The standard of contaminations investigations is a disgrace and not one contamination pit was dug over the site of the proposed school which is over the site of the old tip. This was at Harcourt Street, North Reddish, Stockport for Stockport Council.

The school should have opened in September 2008 but as local people are so dead against it we have managed to throw legal challenge after legal challenge in its path, so nothing GMGU has done has so far put children and babies in danger.

I have masses and masses of documentary evidence if you want to see it – I would come at any time to suit you If you, as a new broom, decided to retract the report that would show GMGU in a better light.

Regarding Aquinas College at Heavily, Stockport for their new building I am less sure of my facts, which is why I made the FOI request. They are also building on a contaminated site. A report by Faber Maunsell was used to get the application through planning, but during construction the contamination work seems to have been downgraded.

I work in a busy cancer department. In 2005 I had to get 22 lorry loads of soil contaminated with heavy metals removed from a new housing estate in Stockport at Trident Foams, Offerton. I live in Romiley where Redrow should have removed toxic waste from the old bleachworks site. They didn’t and then told people not to grow fruit and vegetables. I know from my work that people from that site are going down with massive bladder cancers 25 years down the line. Things most certainly are not dealt with properly in Stockport

I am not after blood. I just want safety for babies and young children and certainly at the Harcourt Street site this will not be delivered, with BS 10175 not complied with as was claimed, children to be protected from toxic hotspots by prickly bushes (what happens when the leaves soak up the contaminants and fall off?) and the potential for asbestos fibres to be vented into the school building and playground with vented landfill gases.

I hope you will take this seriously and you can look yourself at GMGU’s report and the paucity of the contamination investigation points. Not one was dug over the football pitch which is where the school is going – please see the attached Google photo. Incidentally, some of the others were never dug because the Council did not own that land.

Kind regards

Sheila

————————————————————————–

Friday, May 22, 2009 11:56 AM

Sheila,

Please accept my apologies but can you provide me with a bit more information here. Simon Talbot is no longer with the business and I have taken over his responsibilities.

Am I not clear in regards to who you are and who your represent? Any information you could provide me with would help me greatly.

I look forward to hearing from you shortly.

Regards

Neil

Neil Atkinson

Associate Director (Environment, Geotechnics and Instrumentation)

Capita Symonds / UrbanVision Partnership / GMGU

10th Floor Emerson House

Albert Street

Eccles

Salford

M30 0TE

Email sent – 05 September 2012 17:25

Dear FoI Officer

FoI and EIR 2004 request

Please may I have by email the preliminary contamination site report for the above-mentioned planning application, evidence that this development was reported to the Environment Agency and the response of the Environment Agency.

Please may I see documentary evidence that the Council has informed the developers of the site that the land is potentially contaminated.

I shall post up the documents on my website.

Kind regards

Sheila

June 26, 2009 5:08 PM

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your recent request for information (ref 1831) in which you requested ‘evidence of any senior council officer’s involvement in this case – which is the calling of the police to the peaceful town hall protester around 70 times’. I apologise for the delay responding.

Any information the Council may hold in relation to this request is likely to constitute the personal data of the individual concerned; therefore we are unable to provide the information you have requested because it is exempt information under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

Section 40(2) FOIA states that information which constitutes personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act 1998 is exempt from disclosure if its release would contravene one or more of the data protection principles. Any information held in relation to your request is likely to constitute personal data because it relates to and identifies a living individual. Disclosure of these personal data would be unfair; therefore it would contravene the first data protection principle which requires the Council to process personal data fairly. This means that the information is exempt and will not be provided.

Yours sincerely

Clare Naven
Freedom of Information Officer
SMBC
——————————————————————————
Email sent June 29, 2009 5:36 PM

Dear FoI Officer

Then without identifying the council officer(s) by name, please state their grade within the organisation. I assume this would be someone of senior position. I may take this issue to the Information Commission, which won’t look good for Stockport Council. Maybe we can achieve the same end without getting SMBC even further black marks at the ICO.

Kind regards

Sheila

——————————————————–

Email sent – 09 August 2009 07:28

Dear Ms Naven

The persecution of the town hall protester may well cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not more. So, we need to know the grade within the Council of the person who decided to proceed with the court case in January, which was abandoned on the day of the hearing, the calling of the police over 80 times, the 11 arrests, the four days in prison, the further trial in September and the possible High Court costs.

I very much doubt these decisions were taken by a lowly security guard. If you won’t given me the actual name of the person who made these decisions, then please let me know what grade they were.

I shall cc this to Councillor Weldon who believes all FoI requests are answered by this Council and to the Information Commission.

Kind regards

Sheila

——————————————————