Blog Image

Stockport Council News

SK Solutions are apparenty not working at site, despite having been seen there

Bredbury Fire/Pollution Posted on Tue, December 17, 2013 07:01

Email received – 09 December 2013 10:17

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your request for information (ref FOI 8023).

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

Having contacted SSK I have been informed that they are not currently working at the Junction 25 recycling plant.



Weldon again, is he fit to hold public office?

Town Hall Protester Posted on Tue, December 17, 2013 05:52

Response to reply received from Stockport Council here – http://iloapp.sheilaoliver.org/blog/blogging?Home&post=676

Email sent 17 December 2013 05:51

Dear FoI Officer

Was the supplementary question addressed?

“Who has the legal duty in this Local Authority to perform this assessment, and if this not done, then who is responsible to enforce what is passed in law..?”

And I asked what action Weldon subsequently took to assist Mr Parnell with his problem.

Could I have a response please.

Kind regards

Sheila



Ignoring their legal duty to help Mr Parnell

Town Hall Protester Posted on Tue, December 17, 2013 05:45

Support was not received from the voluntary sector, as SMBC cut the funding to After Adoption despite receiving a grant of £600k for just that purpose.

Email received 13 December 2013 11:36

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your request for information (ref FOI 8019).

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

Below is an extract from the minutes which are a public document and a full copy of available on the Council website:

“The second question related to the time frame for assessments of adoption needs under the Adoption and Children Act, 2002 and responsibility for performing assessments.

The Executive Councillor (Children & Young People) responded that there was a three year support plan before a child was placed for adoption. In the event of a request for a further assessment, the response would be based on need and urgency considerations. The timescale was based on seven days for initial assessment and thirty five days for a more comprehensive assessment. The local authority had a legal duty to undertake assessments and they were carried out by qualified social workers but support was provided from a range of service providers including the voluntary sector.”

My question to the Council:-

Dear FoI Officer

This question was asked of Weldon at the Executive Meeting on 8th September 2008 by Mr Parnell. What was Weldon’s response or what action did he subsequently take to assist Mr Parnell with his problem?

Main question – “Adoption & Children’s Act 2002. Under this statutory act you can request an assessment of your adoption needs. Does this Local Authority following a request for an assessment have a time frame in which an assessment is done and then concluded?”

Supplementary question – “Who has the legal duty in this Local Authority to perform this assessment, and if this is not done, then who is responsible to enforce what is passed in law..”

Kind regards

Sheila



Bypass will be thrown out at public inquiry wasting £millions

Bypass Posted on Tue, December 17, 2013 05:37

“Dear FOI Officer,

Many thanks for persevering with the Council to release this location data previously withheld on the basis of it being impractical to download from their data base.

I am fairly certain that the data is in a truncated form of the National Grid Reference format but with the 100km grid reference omitted. As it is it might be several places in the UK. Could you please confirm this location data in the normal format.

Locations 36 and 37 appear to be the only ones actually within a few meters of the road edge on the existing A555. No measurement is shown but a note explains;
‘* Inadequate data capture – not used’

Nearby measurements 70m from the A555 on the Hall Moss Lane B road are recorded as 35.5ug.

Locations 36 and 37 are the only two out of 64, that are missing data but they would have probably indicated Air Quality Directive exceedances based on nearby successful recordings.

Please send me;

– the details of how the data was not successfully recorded

– any related correspondence particularly concerning the possibility of repeating the measurements

Kind regards,

Steve Houston”



« Previous