Blog Image

Stockport Council News

Dodgy Lord Goddard breaks Data Protection Law

Town Hall Protester Posted on Mon, January 12, 2015 20:23

Dodgy Dave Goddard, former Leader of Stockport Council, sent me the email below and the attachment. Mr Parnell was acquitted of the ludicrous assault with a sneeze in a £10,000 per day Crown Court Appeal Case.

Question – 1) Why did Goddard breach Data Protection laws to send me confidential information about another council taxpayer? At the time I had no functioning authority to act on Mr Parnell’s behalf.

Question – 2) How did Goddard get hold of a CPS copy of a court document within hours of someone being sent to prison, and why send it to me?

I asked the then Monitoring Officer to look into this, but being Stockport no action was taken.

Goddard and his LibDem cohorts and ?Masonic chums carried on persecuting Mr Parnell until his untimely death aged just 58, even hounding him whilst terminally ill in Intensive Care over £24 council tax arrears he didn’t even owe.

This was the CCTV of the non-assault. How did this case even get to court, never mind result in the imprisonment of sick, innocent Mr Parnell? Dodgy Stockport/Dodgy LibDems.

Nothing happened, as the Court of Appeal acknowledged.

Email received – 20 July 2009 16:40

From LibDem Council Leader Dave (now Lord) Goddard
Dear Sheila

Mr. Parnell was charged with breaching the ASBO on 16th and 17th July 2009 by entering the Town Hall. He appeared at Stockport Magistrates Court from custody on 18th July 2009. He was apparently adamant that he would not abide by bail conditions and so was remanded in custody to Forest Bank to appear today.

He did appear today. He pleaded not guilty and elected Crown Court trial. His next appearance is before the Magistrates on 14th September 2009. Today his solicitor applied for bail which was opposed by the CPS. The Magistrates did grant bail. I have attached the actual bail notice. His condition is not to come within 1 mile of the Town Hall. The only exception is when he is appearing in court or by prior written appointment made by his solicitor. There is no exception for attendance at any meeting within that exclusion zone and that was made clear to him. These conditions appear to be unambiguous. It is fair to say that Parnell was less than enthusiastic about these conditions.

Just keeping you in the loop.

Fondest wishes,


Ps, Glad you enjoyed the Stepping Hill by-election it makes it all worth it.

Stockport Council is officially one of the best in the country.
Awarded four stars and improving strongly by the Audit Commission March 2009.

This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this email, or any response to it, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.

If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport ICT, Business Services via and then permanently remove it from your system.

The culprits who ignore children’s safety.

Vale View School Posted on Mon, January 12, 2015 16:07

The people who are banning all mention of and questions about the dangerous traffic situation around Vale View School.

The Chief Executive of Stockport Council – Eamonn Boylan
Monitoring Officer – Parveen Akhtar
Head of Children’s Services Andrew Webb
Former Council Solicitor, Barry Khan
Deputy Head of Children’s Services Donna Sager
Leader of Stockport Council Sue Derbyshire (LibDem)
Lord Goddard (LibDem previously Labour)
Executive Councillor Martin Candler (LibDem)
Executive Councillor Wendy Meikle (LibDem)
LibDem Executive Councillors Stuart Bodsworth, Shan Alexander who killed her passenger with her dangerous driving (LibDem)

Former LibDem Councillors John Smith and David White.
LibDem Councillor Keith Dowling
LibDem Mayor Kevin Hogg
LibDem Executive Councillor Pantall

Any my useless MP Andrew Stunell refused all requests for help.

Incompetence of the Senior Highways Officer

Vale View School Posted on Mon, January 12, 2015 13:41

Within weeks of the new school opening, the police had complained about the dangerous traffic situation for the children. As of now (January 2015) the corrupt LibDem Executive at Stockport Council, the Chief Executive and the Monitoring Officer all insist I am being vexatious for raising this issue. I am the mother of a child who died in a road accident. One of the Executive Councillors refusing to disclose on grounds of vexatiousness killed her passenger whilst driving dangerously.


To Nick Whelan, Senior Highways Officer, Stockport Council

25 July 2007 11:55


I agree, I didn’t realise until I took over the file recently just how big the school is and how limited the drop off facilities. But better to raise it now than after the school opens and the kids are getting all muddy getting out on the verge. Then the cost of any remedial works would be likely to fall to the Area Committee who probably wouldn’t thank me for it.


From: Jim Seymour
Sent: 25 July 2007 12:40
To: Nick Whelan
Subject: RE: highways addendum

Sheila raised why this issue has been raised now and not with your other highways views within the committee report. She was having a dig that it was short notice.


From: Nick Whelan
Sent: 25 July 2007 12:28
To: Jim Seymour
Subject: RE: highways addendum


What point?


From: Jim Seymour
Sent: 25 July 2007 11:47
To: ‘sheilaoliver
Cc: Steve Lamb; Nick Whelan
Subject: highways addendum


Here it is attached again. Timing is out of my control I’m afraid but yes I take your point. Speak to Nick Whelan (highway engineer) on this point if you need more info.





Email received – 22 August 2007 16:26

Our Reference: EIR 646

Dear Mrs Oliver

Environmental information – Correspondence from Nick Whelan

I am writing in response to your request for information contained in your e-mail dated 26th July 2007 in which you requested:

“I also need to see all handwritten notes, emails, notes of meetings regarding the last minute traffic turning circle and footpath amendment from Nick Whelan to the Harcourt Street planning application – the Grampian condition

The only recorded information the Council holds is Mr Whelan’s input to the planning process which is attached and is also on the planning file and an e-mail chain between Mr Whelan and Mr Seymour.

I trust this satisfies your request. If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request, you are entitled to ask for an internal review. This will be carried out by a senior member of staff who was not involved with your original request. To do so, please contact or the address below in the first instance

FOI Officer

Town Hall

Edward Street


SK1 3XE.

“GMGU considers the site safe to develop” but it wasn’t.

Vale View School Posted on Mon, January 12, 2015 13:35

Email received – 08 August 2007 17:10

Our Reference FOI/EIR 618

Dear Mrs Oliver,

FOI & EIR Request – Costs of North Reddish Schools

I am writing in response to your e-mail dated 11th July addressed to Cllr Weldon in which your request:

“How much is the removal of the toxic waste costing and how much will these new stipulations of Sport England cost?”


Firstly regarding your query in relation to the condition of the site, as you are aware GMGU carried a ground investigation report of the site in question (a full copy of the report can be found at: )

This report concluded that:

“In summary, the GMGU consider the site to be safe to develop for a school with playing fields, provided some simple, precautionary measures are taken that will ensure that any residual risks are effectively managed.”

The report does not recommend removing ‘toxic waste’, but states that there are a number of recommended remediation options with regard to the site condition which “include limited landscaping and construction of a clean cover system”. In addition it recommends certain Gas Montoring to occur during and post construction.

I refer you to the report for full details of the recommendations and information regarding the condition of the site.

In addition on the planning file is a document entitled “Justification for Developing Local Open Space for New North Reddish Primary School” (the full report can be found at ), it is stated at paragraph 8.2:

The overall costs for the School itself which will include for the pre-planning, planning and professional costs, dealing with contamination, providing services and the overall construction equates to circa £8.5 million. Additional costs which have emerged through the planning application process to meet national and local policy requirements and extended works at and surrounding the School equate to circa £625,000. Much of this investment relates to the new recreational facilities at the Harcourt Street site, including the newly laid out sports pitch, the multi use games area, the additional changing facilities and the landscaping works to deal with formalising footpath routes and planting to improve the visual appearance of the remaining open space area in community use. There are other significant costs in promoting and designing the proposals.”

Therefore there are no specific costs regarding removing ‘toxic waste’ but the estimate of £8.5 Million for the costs of the school includes the costs of implementing the recommendations of GMGU. The exact costs of the recommendations have not been separated from the overall estimate of the scheme. It should be noted that it is impossible to give actual costs for individual elements of construction of the school but as the detail designs develop, so will the estimate of the costs.


I have spoken to the Council’s consultants, NPS, who have stated an allowance in the region of £500,000 has been estimated for the cost of providing additional the requirements as suggested by Sports England. It should be noted that this figure is an estimate and the actual costs will be known once a contractor has been chosen to do this work if Planning Permission is granted for the application.

If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request, you are entitled to ask for an internal review. This will be carried out by a senior member of staff who was not involved with your original request. To do so, please contact the foi officer or the address below in the first instance

FOI Officer

Town Hall
Edward Street
SK1 3XE.

Why wasn’t the Executive Cllr for Finance questioning this? Why just me?

Vale View School Posted on Mon, January 12, 2015 11:58

Email sent – 09 August 2007 14:18

Dear Mrs Oliver

I am writing in response to your e-mail below addressed to Cllr Carter. As you will be aware the cost of scheme for the proposed school at Harcourt Street has increased. The reasons include inflation charges, the cost of implementing building regulation to ensure sustainability, inflation charges, and the costs of additional requirements to improve the Fir Tree site.

As you are aware the cost of the recommendations of Sport England is estimated to be £500,000.

Yours sincerely

Freedom of Information & Data Protection Processing Officer


Dear Councillor Carter

Sorry to question you in the car park today. Since Councillor Goddard has reduced the opportunity to ask questions by over 50%, I am afraid such car park questioning might become the norm. From questioning Cllr Weldon the other night it has become apparent his is not up to speed with his portfolio.

I am taking this issue to the District Auditor and would like to check my facts first. Just over six months ago the school was, I think, going to cost £5.4 million. Now, and consultants admit that all costs have not yet been taken into account, the cost is £8.5 million. It would seem economic sense to build the new school on the Fir Tree site, especially as over half the capital receipt the Council expects to get from that site will now have to be spend on the golden elephants currently being demanded by Sport England, bless ’em. Someone other than me – a hospital typist – should be asking these questions and the Executive councillor, if he didn’t know the reason for the leap in costs, should be taking steps to find out why it has gone up so much.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards


And the delay dragged on and the children were put in danger.

Information Commissioner Posted on Mon, January 12, 2015 11:34

14th July 2009

Case Reference Number FS50247042

Dear Mrs Oliver

Thank you for your correspondence dated 11/07/09, regarding your request for internal review of the Stockport MBC decision not to release the information you requested.

The information you have provided will be retained on our files for information only. Please let me know the outcome of the review as and when it is communicated to you, or confirm in due course that there still has been no response to your request.

Your email dated 03/07/09 regarding Harcourt Street is also acknowledged.

Should you wish us to look into this matter further we would ask you to contact our Helpline on 08456 306060, or 01625 545745 if you would prefer to call a ‘national rate’ number quoting the above reference number. One of our advisors will then be able to discuss the matter with you and explain the options available to you.

Yours sincerely

Jim Dunn

FoI Case Officer

FoI Case Reception Unit

The Information Commissioner’s Office


And this is what the dodgies who run Stockport Council got away with:-

When the ICO struggles with the workload, do they just tick “vexatious”?

Information Commissioner Posted on Mon, January 12, 2015 11:28

This was regarding a 550 pupil primary school and nursery to be built on a still gassing landfill site, directly over the rubbish in-filled claypits, £5m over budget, not big enough and creating a lethal traffic situation for the children. There was no time for any delay. I got nothing else but delay and then a final branding of being “vexatious” by the ICO. All I foretold came true.

9th June 2009

Case Reference Number FS50232537
Stockport Council

Dear Mrs Oliver

Further to previous correspondence I regret to advise that it is still not possible to allocate your complaint to a caseworker.

We are dealing with outstanding complaints as quickly as we can and your complaint is continuing to progress up the queue. We are constantly reviewing our procedures in order to try and identify new ways to speed up complaints handling, thereby further speed up the allocation of complaints. However as the Commissioner has explained in his evidence to the Justice Select committee in January 2009 whilst improvements have been made to reduce the backlog of complaints, continual delays in allocation are largely attributable to a lack of resources. Our current level of funding for FOI will therefore restrict our ability to deliver further significant improvement in the immediate future.

We appreciate you will be disappointed by this continuing delay but we will keep you updated every twelve weeks about the status of your complaint.

Yours Sincerely

FOI Operations – Local Government

Information Commissioner’s Office

The crooks at Stockport Council ignore the ICO over the toxic waste dump school

Information Commissioner Posted on Mon, January 12, 2015 11:25

16th April 2009

Case Reference Number FS50232537

Dear Mrs Oliver

Your information request to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council.

Thank you for your correspondence dated 15/04/09 in which you confirm that you have not yet received a response to your request for internal review following notification that your request for information had been deemed as vexatious under section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Your case has been allocated to one of our case resolution teams who will contact you as soon as possible to explain how your case will be progressed. Due to the volume of complaints we are receiving at present it may be several months before you hear from us.

The Information Commissioners Office is an independent public body set up to promote public access to official information. We will rule on eligible complaints from people who are unhappy with the way public authorities have handled requests for information under The Freedom of Information Act 2000.

If you need to contact us about any aspect of your complaint about Stockport MBC please contact our Freedom of Information Helpline on 08456 306060, or 01625 545745 if you would prefer to call a ‘national rate’ number, being sure to quote the reference number at the top of this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Sent on behalf of

Mr Paul Arnold

Head of Front Line Operations

FOI Case Reception Unit

The Information Commissioner’s Office

Next »