Stockport Council was given over £2m for a new school/new school places in North Reddish. They spent it on something else, which is not illegal, but they then had to replace that money.
There were two possible sites for the new school – on without toxic waste in situ, with no dangerous traffic problems and with plenty of room for expansion. They sold that off for housing – The Fir Tree site. The other site was a still-gassing toxic waste dump. It was a Jackson’s Brickyard. When they stopped making bricks they filled in the claypits with rubbish at a time when no records of what was tipped were kept. In the early 1970s, the law on tipping changed. They couldn’t meet the new safety standards, so the land was grassed over and became public open space, local sports facilities and a recreation ground. There were terrible, existing traffic problems at the location even before the new 500 + pupil school was built. Obviously, the totally LibDem executive committee decided to put the new school on the toxic site.
Who owns the Stockport Homes fancy pants new building? Stockport Homes do. Could I see the details of the arrangement? No, because it is still secret. I have asked again but this is a LibDem run council so secrecy is key to them. I note Councillor Sheila Bailey, who was neither corrupt nor stupid, opposed their plans.
Mrs Oliver,
Public Question to the Council Meeting
I refer to your public question that you submitted to the recent meeting of the Council in relation to the ownership of the Stockport Homes officer building.
As you were not in attendance, it was agreed that a written response would be provided.
I have now been passed the following response which I have been asked to circulate to you:-
Mrs Oliver,
Thank you for your recent Public Question to the most recent Full Council meeting.
Stockport Homes owns the building and the development followed a full business case process.
I understand a written response has already been sent to you regarding the public question you submitted to the last Cabinet meeting.
Kind regards,
Mark Hunter
Leader of the Council
My reply to them:
Dear Foi Officer
I received this reply below to a council meeting question regarding who owns the Stockport Homes building, in light of the council’s proposal to dispense with them. I asked to see the business case and, guess what, it is secret. I knew it would be before I even asked the question. https://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=1199. So could I please now see the confidential parts of this application.
I copy the relevant legislation to you.
Kind regards
Sheila Oliver
Local Authority Specialist Researcher
Citizens 2022 Committee
“Information is not exempt information if it relates to proposed development for which the local planning authority may grant itself planning permission pursuant to regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992
Information which-(a)falls within any of paragraphs 1 to 7 above; and (b)is not prevented from being exempt by virtue of paragraph 8 or 9 above, is exempt information if and so long, as in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information”“3. Subject to regulation 4, an application for planning permission by an interested planning authority to develop any land of that authority, or for development of any land by an interested planning authority or by an interested planning authority jointly with any other person.
Councillor Lisa Smart/Councillor Angela Clark Stockport Town Hall Edward Street Stockport SK1 3XE By Recorded Delivery
Thursday, 01 February 2024
Dear Councillor Smart/Clark
You undertook at the full council meeting at Stockport Town Hall on 4th October 2023 to represent me. My questions have been erroneously branded as being vexatious by Stockport Council from the last time it was under Liberal Democrat control. It was claimed that I had been rude and offensive. The Information Commissioner decided that I had not been rude and offensive, but was asking too many questions. I have that evidence, as does Stockport Council. The Council has no evidence of my ever having been rude or offensive. I need you to examine the relevant evidence yourself and decide if the questions were rude, offensive, wasting councillor/officer time or in the interests of public safety or the public purse. I draw your attention to the relevant government advice, which was in place at the time these questions were first raised:-
Your reply to me, when it was finally extracted from you, was ludicrous to say the least. Because this took place in a different part of Stockport you can’t help me? You promised to represent me – I live in your ward. The offences were committed by LibDem Executive councillors, some of whom are now back in control of the council.
Financial Irregularities (Part 1)
I was branded vexatious by then LibDem run Stockport Council for raising the issue of financial irregularities. In October 2005 the Vale View School was said to be costing £5.5million, by December 2005 it had gone up to £7.5 million. By July 2006 the costs had risen to £8.2million, £2.40 million over budget. It then rose shortly afterwards to £10 million Why was it considered vexatious of me to raise these matters?
I look forward to your reply. I shall send this by snail mail as well, so you can’t claim you haven’t received it.
We don’t need another MP happy to turn a blind eye to the corruption of their political cohorts.
Thank you for the question you submitted to the full council meeting last week.
It is especially pleasing to hear that our newsletter delivery network is working as it should. We usually rely on party members and supporters to let us know when they receive a leaflet so that we can monitor the effectiveness of our deliverers and I’m delighted that you have added yourself to their number by keeping us informed. Thank you.
Your question related to the questions you have previously submitted to me and I list below the questions I am aware of.
Question submitted to Full Council meeting of 4th October, 2023
As the questioner was present, both Cllr Angie Clark and I responded verbally to this question. The webcast is available for viewing on the council website should anyone wish to watch it.
Question submitted to Full Council meeting of 16th November, 2023
I believe that a question was submitted to me but was deemed to be on a matter previously determined as vexatious by the Council’s Monitoring Officer. As the question relates to a site outside the ward I was elected to represent and dates back to matters five years before I was elected, I do not intend to comment further on this topic.
Councillor Lisa Smart/Councillor Angela Clark Stockport Town Hall Edward Street Stockport SK1 3XE By Recorded Delivery
Date 10/10/2023
Dear Councillor Smart/Clark
You undertook at the full council meeting at Stockport Town Hall on 4th October 2023 to represent me. My questions have been erroneously branded as being vexatious by Stockport Council from the last time it was under Liberal Democrat control. It was claimed that I had been rude and offensive. The Information Commissioner decided that I had not been rude and offensive, but was asking too many questions. I have that evidence, as does Stockport Council. The Council has no evidence of my ever having been rude or offensive. I need you to examine the relevant evidence yourself and decide if the questions were rude, offensive, wasting councillor/officer time or in the interests of public safety or the public purse. I draw your attention to the relevant government advice, which was in place at the time these questions were first raised:-
It is an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 to act deliberately to cause someone (in this instance the council taxpayer) a loss.
Section 2 – Fraud by False Representation It is an offence to commit fraud by false representation. The representation must be made dishonestly. The person must make the representation with the intention of making a gain or causing loss or risk of loss to another.
You are building the Vale View School too small deliberately, I told Stockport Council. Your question is vexatious and you are wasting our valuable time with your constant questions, they replied.
My question to the full council meeting – deemed vexatious.
But the Council knew in April 2006 that the school was being built too small, so why was my council meeting question on the subject deemed vexatious in February 2008?
The birthrate in the area was rising sharply.
The Council stated in the minutes of a meeting on 26th April 2006 that 555 pupils needed a place at Vale View School, so the above FOI response would appear to be incorrect – also an offence to give an untrue response.
On 10th of March 2006 the Council knew the school was being built too small. “I stress the need for confidentiality.”
After the school opened it was admitted that a share of 81 million pounds would have to be spent on school places in North Reddish.
I look forward to your decision as to whether this was well-researched questioning about which nothing was done, or my being a nuisance to busy and important council officers and councillors. It is a simple matter for you to read through this evidence. There will be no need to drag this out over weeks and months and I look forward to your response with interest.
Yours
Sheila Oliver
c.c. Councillor David Meller
Town Hall
Stockport
SK1 3XE
Councillor Smart’s response eventually extracted from her:-
Dear Mrs Oliver.
Thank you for the question you submitted to the full council meeting last week.
It is especially pleasing to hear that our newsletter delivery network is working as it should. We usually rely on party members and supporters to let us know when they receive a leaflet so that we can monitor the effectiveness of our deliverers and I’m delighted that you have added yourself to their number by keeping us informed. Thank you.
Your question related to the questions you have previously submitted to me and I list below the questions I am aware of.
Question submitted to Full Council meeting of 4th October, 2023
As the questioner was present, both Cllr Angie Clark and I responded verbally to this question. The webcast is available for viewing on the council website should anyone wish to watch it.
Question submitted to Full Council meeting of 16th November, 2023
I believe that a question was submitted to me but was deemed to be on a matter previously determined as vexatious by the Council’s Monitoring Officer. As the question relates to a site outside the ward I was elected to represent and dates back to matters five years before I was elected, I do not intend to comment further on this topic.
They promised in the full council meeting of 4th of October that they would represent me. No response yet to this letter to them.
Councillor Lisa Smart/Councillor Angela Clark Stockport Town Hall Edward Street Stockport SK1 3XE
Date 10/10/2023
Dear Councillor Smart/Clark
You undertook at the full council meeting at Stockport Town Hall on 4th October 2023 to represent me. My questions have been erroneously branded as being vexatious by Stockport Council from the last time it was under Liberal Democrat control. It was claimed that I had been rude and offensive. The Information Commissioner decided that I had not been rude and offensive, but was asking too many questions. I have that evidence, as does Stockport Council. The Council has no evidence of my ever having been rude or offensive. I need you to examine the relevant evidence yourself and decide if the questions were rude, offensive, wasting councillor/officer time or in the interests of public safety or the public purse. I draw your attention to the relevant government advice, which was in place at the time these questions were first raised:-
It is an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 to act deliberately to cause someone (in this instance the council taxpayer) a loss.
Section 2 – Fraud by False Representation It is an offence to commit fraud by false representation. The representation must be made dishonestly. The person must make the representation with the intention of making a gain or causing loss or risk of loss to another.
You are building the Vale View School too small deliberately, I told Stockport Council. Your question is vexatious and you are wasting our valuable time with your constant questions, they replied.
My question to the full council meeting – deemed vexatious.
But the Council knew in April 2006 that the school was being built too small, so why was my council meeting question on the subject deemed vexatious in February 2008?
The birthrate in the area was rising sharply.
The Council stated in the minutes of a meeting on 26th April 2006 that 555 pupils needed a place at Vale View School, so the above FOI response would appear to be incorrect – also an offence to give an untrue response.
On 10th of March 2006 the Council knew the school was being built too small. “I stress the need for confidentiality.”
After the school opened it was admitted that a share of 81 million pounds would have to be spent on school places including North Reddish.
I look forward to your decision as to whether this was well-researched questioning about which nothing was done, or my being a nuisance to busy and important council officers and councillors. It is a simple matter for you to read through this evidence. There will be no need to drag this out over weeks and months and I look forward to your response with interest.
