“High risk of drainage works in excess of allowed Prov Sum”.
Do you think they spent the money they should have done on the drainage for the site, or simply left it as a quagmire? There are no LibDem votes to be lost in North Reddish, so the LibDems don’t comply with planning conditions. Who cares?
 |
 |
 |
The email states that £200k would be spent on the drainage and can be read here:-
http://www.sheilaoliver.org/drainage-problems.html
I’m not sure 200 pence was.
The project manager of a scheme £5m adrift, and deliberately built too small investigates her own scheme and then declares it “vexatious” of me to raise any concerns regarding contamination, dangerous traffic situation, the fraud in spending circa £10m on something not fit for purpose in that it is too small and the astonishing financial irregularities. This is Stockport and this is Donna Sager, Assistant Director of Children’s Services.
http://www.sheilaoliver.org/-6.9m-to-come-from-sale-of-redundant-school-land—oops,-no-it-isn-t.html
Never trust your money, your vote or your children’s safety to the LibDems.
http://www.sheilaoliver.org/shortfall-gone—how-.html
How has the £2.40m shortfall suddenly be resolved, I asked. “Don’t be vexatious”, they replied.
http://www.sheilaoliver.org/rising-school-costs.html
http://www.sheilaoliver.org/goddard-s-lies.html
Lord Goddard implying I had failed to give him evidence of the multi million pound irregularities. I had done so dozens of times. That man is not to be trusted in public office.
http://www.sheilaoliver.org/cheaper,-larger-school-in-2014.html
In both cases the Council owned the land, so that doesn’t account for the financial anomaly. And Stockport Council was still pretending the Vale View site wasn’t contamination, so contamination remediation does not account for the large cost difference.
Still, we mustn’t be “vexatious” and question this further anomaly of £5m. Fingers on lips!
http://www.sheilaoliver.org/another–5m-anomaly.html
