Stockport Council News

Email sent – 06 October 2013 13:37

Dear FoI Officer

In the light of the Junction 25 serious pollution incident, I ask again if SMBC will answer my question, declared vexatious previously, as to whether landfill gas is being monitored at the Vale View primary school site.

I shall send the reply or lack of it to the insurers of those firms affected by the Junction 25 pollution incident as evidence of dangerous planning corruption/practices at Stockport.

Yours

Sheila

————————————————————————-

A site gassing 14% v/v CO2, which Stockport Council themselves said are sites that shouldn’t be developed – and they aren’t monitoring the dangerous landfill gases at the Vale View School. Really, somebody should go to prison for what has gone on at this school development.

Email sent – August 30, 2009 7:27 PM

Dear Mr Majothi

How much will the expert monitoring of the gas venting systems in the proposed school and playground cost over the 25 year lifetime of this school? Or, won’t the Council bother?

Kind regards

Sheila Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

Email sent – August 23, 2009 7:42 PM

Dear Mr Majothi

I wasn’t there but local people tell me that at the packed angry public meeting held by the Council where the vast majority of people were against the scheme, at the end of the meeting the Council officer stated: I can see you are all broadly in favour – and closed the meeting. I am sure I could provide sworn testimony to that effect.

Therefore, I would think it pertinent for the Council to disclose any letters etc from people in favour of the school going on the Harcourt Street site and also any letters in favour of the school going on Harcourt Street from the planning meeting. There were over 500 letters of objection and two petitions of over 500 names. I have trawled the Hygarth House files and I couldn’t see any letters in favour on the system. 500 is a huge number and every one completely discounted at the planning meeting.

More evidence to follow.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours

Mrs Sheila Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

Email sent – August 23, 2009 1:44 PM

Dear Mr Majothi

Please see the attached. As if all I had outlined previously hadn’t been bad enough, we now learn that although £6.9 million for this school is to come from the sale of redundant school land, due to the economic downturn the sale of these assets is not proceeding as it should. I have asked for background details – but everything has to be kept secret and I am vexatious for even asking.

I look forward to your comments

Yours

Mrs Sheila Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

This document can be more clearly read here – http://www.sheilaoliver.org/financial-irregularities.html

As usual, Majothi is part of the problem and never presents the solution.

Email sent – September 02, 2009 6:50 AM

Subject: Appeal against being declared vexatious with knobs on

Dear Mr Majothi

It was stated at last night’s Executive Committee how fair the proposed Vexatious with Knobs on policy was to be. In the light of that I wish to appeal, due to the fact that Khan, Weldon, Schulz, Webb, Scullion, Candler, Goddard and Sager failed to comply with the Council’s policy on fraud and financial irregularities for well over 18 months, putting me to considerable effort and leading me to be branded a liar, rude, offensive and vexatious, which is defamatory.

In the light of all the evidence I have sent you I expect and answer, which will be sent to the Standards Board and the Audit Commission. If I don’t get any repsonse within a reasonable time that will be pointed out too. We can’t wait a decade for a reply as has happened in the past.

I look forward to hearing from you

Mrs S J Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

In the early 1980s I believe the land at Mill Lane/Harcourt Street, Barlow Fold was in the town plan as public open space. Housing was built on the site following a meeting held behind closed doors involving one senior council officer and one senior councillor. Greater Manchester Council did not approve the use of this land for housing and I believe no consultation was held with local people concerning the change of designation as housing land. Greater Manchester Council was very annoyed at this.

I asked a FOIA question regarding this and the information was not disclosed to me. I mentioned the question of possible corruption, as I recall, and I wanted access to the documents myself to check. It would appear that in those circumstances the Council should have disclosed those documents under its Fraud policy.

Apparently the formal adoption procedure had not been applied to the local plan.

The above document can be more clearly read here – http://www.sheilaoliver.org/how-did-it-pass-planning-.html

From the attached the “obvious concern over funding” expressed in March 2007 (when the cost was about £5 million cheaper than it turned out to be) and “advice required on how much of this goes in the highlight report” So, was Donna Sager, Project Manager, seeking to hide the massive financial problems from the Project Board? I think so.

http://www.sheilaoliver.org/financial-irregularities.html
This document can be more clearly read using the above link.

From the Harcourt Street Highlight report for period 15/3/06 – 14/05/06

“Aspirations continue to exceed budget provision and at this stage the scheme is undeliverable if the funding (or Brief) is not revisited.”

Highlight report for period 15/3/06 – 14/5/06

“Funding shortfall will lead to ultimate project failure if not addressed i.e., unable to enter into contract”. This was when the cost was circa £8.6 million – it is now circa £10 million.

From the Fir Tree Consultation with Governors 06/07/05

“There was concern from the governors that families in the Fir Tree area will have difficulty in getting to the proposed new site. The governors felt the outreach work would need to be increased as they felt parents from the school would not walk to the new facilities. The governors supports a new school but would wish the site to be in the Fir Tree community”

How much has the outreach work been costed at?

Did Stockport Council lie to a court in order to get a lower fine? Who knows.

Email sent – 13 October 2009 17:50

Dear Ms Naven

Again, no reply. Please may I have one.

Yours

Mrs S J Oliver

Working towards a less corrupt council
—————————————————————————-

Email sent – 28 August 2009 17:59 to FoI Officer

Dear Ms Naven

I think this is an example of the stalling tactics which force further questions which then lead to the questioner being branded vexatious and worse.

I originally asked a question after a pensioner died as a result of maintenance not being carried out at 62 council owned premises, ostensibly because money had suddenly been diverted to deal with the asbestos in schools issue, although this problem had been known about for some time. The Council said in court that they had budget difficulties and as a result they were given a considerably reduced fine. This was the first I had heard about a budget deficit and indeed Goddard said they had put £5 million away for a rainy day. The court case was only this April, so within living memory. The totally inadequate reply came back that there was no budget deficit. How very odd, I thought, so I wrote back telling you Andrew Webb would know all about it and you should ask him. I heard nothing. Then I mentioned to Weldon in a meeting and he went off on one of his offensive rants again at me. I want to get to the bottom of this issue, so I asked the question below as to a written explanation of why the maintenance at the 62 buildings wasn’t carried out, which may have led to the death of the pensioner. I assume someone somewhere was asked to write an explanation of what had happened.

So you write back today – asking which maintenance – which means I have to write back again with this totally unnecessary explanation, you can stall a bit longer and you can brand me vexatious for asking yet another question.

Yours

Mrs S J Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

———————————————————————————

August 28, 2009 11:59 AM

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 2132).

Please clarify which maintenance you refer to so that we can proceed with your request.

Yours sincerely,

Clare Naven
Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Council

————————————————————————————-

Email sent – 28 August 2009 17:59

Dear Ms Naven

£5.6 million black hole – asbestos in schools issue – Ref 1920 – Response

Does this exist? If so, may I see it?

Yours sincerely

Sheila

————————————————————————————-

Email sent June 29, 2009 5:44 PM

Dear Ms Naven

I assume there exists somewhere at the Council a written explanation of why the maintenance wasn’t carried out, which may have led to the death of the pensioner in Reddish, due to the absestos in schools issue. Please may I have a copy.

Kind regards

Sheila
————————————————————————————

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:20 PM

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 1920).

I understand that there is no such deficit; therefore no notification was needed.

Clare Naven
Freedom of Information Officer
SMBC
————————————————————————————

Email sent 06 June 2009 08:37

Dear FoI Officer

£5.6 million black hole – asbestos in schools issue

I note from the Council’s own Financial Management document that: “Corporate Directors shall notify the Corporate Director, Business Services, as soon as possible of any matter within their area of responsibility which may affect the financial position of the Council.”

At what point was the Corporate Director, Business Services, notified of the £5.6 million deficit in the CYPD budget for dealing with asbestos in schools, which may have indirectly led to the death of a pensioner? I certainly noticed no mention of it in any council meeting I have attended.

I am concerned there has been a cover-up over anomalies of several millions of pounds within this same CYPD on another matter, so these are serious issues.

I am also concerned that Mr. Andrew Webb has so many other professional irons in the fire that he is not dedicating the time he should (or that I pay him a lot of money to do) to his primary employment.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards

Sheila