Stockport Council News

Email sent 20/11/13

Dear FoI Officer

Just tell me any outcome of that meeting. You can redact all you like – just tell me what action if any they decided to take.

This matter is not going away and I shall put your reply up on the Internet.

Kind regards

Sheila

——————————————-

20th November 2012

FOI 7887: Meeting between Mr Parnell and Goddard held 23rd March 2011 – Response

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your request for information (ref FOI 7887).

The relevant Council Service(s) has searched for the requested information and our response is as follows.

The information you have requested is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act by virtue of Section 40 (Personal Data) and Section 41 (Confidential Information).

Section 40 relates to personal information, where the disclosure of this information may result in a breach of any of the Data Protection principles. As the records you have requested relate to a deceased individual, their information does not meet the criteria which defines ‘personal information’.

However, the information you have requested may also identify any number of other individuals and this information is exempt from disclosure under Section 40 of the FOI.

Section 41 relates to information which is confidential in nature and/or which was provided in confidence. The information you have requested relates to sensitive information of another. The Council holds a responsibility to the subject of this data to keep it confidential and protected from inappropriate disclosure. This duty of confidentiality survives death and the release of this information into the public domain under the FOIA would breach this.

Therefore the information you have requested cannot be provided under this legislation.

————————————————————————–
Dear FoI Officer

There is no data protection for the dead. Please let me have all documents pertaining to the meeting referred to above, agenda, minutes, outcome, what action Goddard took. If there is any information in there referring to Mr Parnell’s family, please feel free to block it out.

The police have confirmed in writing that Mr Parnell was a completely innocent man. It beggars belief the treatment he received which everyone knew about not least because I told them.

Kind regards

Sheila

“Dear XXXX

Thank you for getting in touch – I appreciate that whilst the vast majority of residents support the scheme and the many benefits it will bring, not everyone does, and we are following the correct democratic processes to ensure everyone can have their say.

However, I must correct you on your last statement. PAULA are wrongly claiming that alternative plans were drawn up and not consulted on. They know that this is entirely untrue as it was them who came to the Council with the alternative route after the last consultation. The Council did some work to look at it, and in doing so found it had numerous issues that made it entirely unsuitable. That PAULA are now misleading people about this concerns me.

Best wishes,

Iain

“Well, the plans were drawn up, signed off by a Chartered Engineer but not put forward to the residents for their views.

PAULA did suggest a route to the South of Carr Wood which would have protected the wood according to the advice from the Woodland Trust, as well as being much cheaper (one junction replaces three) and much more resident friendly. But the Council never took the advice of the Woodland Trust presumably relying on the advice of their consultants who had previously managed to omit the protected status of Carr Wood from their environmental maps and scoping report. They may say Natural England were also consulted but they sent them these same incorrect documents.

Let’s face it, why would the Council expend time and effort producing controlled drawings for PAULA? Most of their published drawings have no sign off or revision history and are often marked draft. Far more likely is that very late in the day, they now appreciate they will have to make a case for destroying ancient woodland. They will have to argue on the basis that the alternative route is not an ideal alignment for extending up to Bredbury. However this presumes there is a good case for the extension.

On the grounds of air quality alone an extension to Bredbury looks dead in the water. Air quality considerations have already scotched plans for using the hard shoulder between junction 8 and 18 on the M60. When the A6/Airport opens the traffic rises from 25,000 to 60,000 vehicles per day. The Council estimates that as a result, NO2 pollution will exceed the Directive limits. The corridor will have to be declared an air quality management area with an obligation to lower the pollution levels well below the limits. If the road is extended to Bredbury there would be a further huge influx of traffic so it is very unlikely to gain planning permission. In fact the A555 might have been declared an AQMA in 2009 following measurements that year but the results were not widely published and kept separate from other results in the borough contrary to the principles of open disclosure championed in the Directive.”