Stockport Council News

Shhhh, if anyone mentions the dangerous traffic situation the LibDems have created around the still gassing toxic waste dump school which was built too small, and £5m overbudget, with no replacement playing fields as stipulated by Sport England, they will immediately be branded “vexatious” across the Internet. It is tough being a Stockport resident under the ruthless and unprincipled LibDems.

When there are obvious traffic problems, why is it “vexatious” of me to raise the issue? Dodgy LibDems.

The Executive Councillor responsible – Weldon and project manager – Sager took no action whatsoever following this meeting (February 2008) to show them evidence of the extent of contamination on the proposed primary school site. They were eventually forced to do contamination investigations (kicking and screaming) but not until October 2009 when they had to prove to a public inquiry that the site was not contaminated. At that time and that time alone they admitted to the contaminated nature of the site.

http://www.sheilaoliver.org/contamination-4.html

These documents can be more clearly read here:- http://www.sheilaoliver.org/financial-irregularities.html

In the document below from March 2008, the Council says the cost they have worked on for the project is £1450/m2.

I was questioning and questioning the rising costs of this school. To try to shut me up they had to come up with some sort of explanation for exponentially rising costs. In this document they explain the size of the school has gone from 2600 m2 to 3185m2. This is a rise of 585m2 and we see the cost they have given is £1450m2. 585 x £1450 = £848,250 and not the £1,050,000 they claim.

In October 2005 the Vale View School was to have cost £5.5m. By March 2008 the costs had risen to £9.9m. At this time Stockport Council was still pretending there was no contamination on the site, though they knew otherwise, so the rise in cost can’t be down to the costs of contamination remediation.

Year after year after year up until the present day I am told I am “vexatious” for raising this matter. I think the LibDem ruling councillors and fatcat council officials at the top forget who funds them so generously – me.

These documents can be more clearly read here:- http://www.sheilaoliver.org/financial-irregularities.html

BS 10175 (7.6.2.1) states the more sensitive the receptors…the greater degree of confidence needed in the outcome of the risk assessment and the subsequent risk management. Greater Manchester Geological Unit said 104 boreholes and 209 trial pits (some from an investigation in the 1990s) were not enough for the sister former Jackson’s Brickyard site at Adswood, but for this school, directly over the old tip, 4 contamination pits and 11 boreholes on a similar-sized site were adequate. Why?

A 500+ pupil primary school and babies’ nursery – not sensitive receptors at all.

From the GMGU proof of evidence to the public inquiry 2006 – “The only suitable forms of hard deveopments are large scale commercial developments such as offices, supermarkets etc. Schemes to protect buildings in these situations need to provide multiple levels of protetction e.g., extraction wells, sealing techniques, ventilation voids and extensive monitoring.”

This is not happening for the 550 primary school pupils in the school though. Why not?