Stockport Council News

This new school on 29th January 2014 for 630 pupils and a nursery is to cost £8m.

The toxic waste dump school for 525 children and a nursery way back in 2008 was to have cost £9,930m.

For both schools Stockport Council owned the land, so that can’t account for the decrepancy and back in 2008 Stockport Council were still lying that there was no contamination on the toxic waste dump school site (although they knew there was), so the contamination remediation couldn’t account for the large cost discrepancy.

However, we are not allowed to mention this matter to the LibDem rulers at Stockport Council. We are not allowed to ask FOI or council meeting questions about this, as it is quite plainly “vexatious” to do so.

13 January 2015

I wanted to update you on what happened at the Stockport MBC Planning Committee meeting last Thursday, in case you were not able to make it.

Despite the fact that there were over 1,000 written objections and only one letter of support, as well as a 14,000 signature petition against the proposal to build 70 houses for sale within the boundary of Reddish Vale Country Park, the Planning Committee voted to grant approval citing as a special exception the need to raise money from this development as a contribution towards the cost of the Brinnington Regeneration Scheme.

There was a lot of anger and disbelief at the way the meeting was conducted and the very one-sided slant that was presented both by the planners and proposers of the scheme. However, as the land in question is in green belt, which is a national protection, the final say will rest with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, who does have the power to ask the Planning Inspectorate to call in the application for a planning inquiry and make recommendations to him as Secretary of State. He does have the power to overturn planning permission in those circumstances.

I did ask the planning minster Nick Boles a few months back about what would happen in a case such as the Reddish Vale one and I attach below his reply.

What is interesting is that he says that any changes to green belt in order to be developed requires green belt boundaries to be amended through the local planning process and as far as I can see Stockport MBC has not done this, but have instead granted planning permission for a development within green belt rather than amending the green belt first.

If people want to make their views known to the Secretary of State you should write to him at the Department for Communities and Local Government, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5DU quoting the Stockport MBC planning reference.

Please rest assured that both I and the Reddish Labour councillors remain of the view that an encroachment into Reddish Vale Country Park should be avoided, not least because it sets a very worrying precedent for the future and the country park is greatly valued by all the communities that surround it.

Best wishes,

ANDREW GWYNNE MP

Shadow Health Minister

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.

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

Jim,

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.

Nick

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.

jim

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

Jim,

What point?

Nick

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

Sheila

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.

Regards

Jim

———————————————————-

—————————————————–

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 foi.officer@stockport.gov.uk or the address below in the first instance

FOI Officer

Town Hall

Edward Street

Stockport

SK1 3XE.

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?”

QUERY CONCERNING THE GMGU REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

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: http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/onlinemvm/getimage.asp?DocumentNumber=30867 )

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 http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/onlinemvm/getimage.asp?DocumentNumber=49085 ), 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.

STIPULATIONS FROM SPORTS ENGLAND

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
Stockport
SK1 3XE.

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

Sheila

How can these questions from the excellent Mr Dransfield also be “vexatious” along with my questions pertaining to multi million pound fraud? LibDems eh, what’re they like?

From: FOI Officer
Date:
16 July 2013 11:30:42 BST

Cc:
FOI Officer
Subject:
FW: Valve View School Outstanding Issues – FOI 7420 –
Response
Dear
Mr Dransfield,

I
am writing in response to your request for information (ref FOI
7420).

This
request for information has been refused under Section 14(1) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 as it has been deemed vexatious.

Although
the term vexatious is not defined by the legislation, I have taken this decision
considering the themes as provided by the Upper Tribunal case of Information
Commissioner v Devon CC and Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440
(ACC).

Stockport
Council has received numerous requests for information from you since June 2011.
On the whole, these requests have related to various building regulations and/or
safety inspections primarily about Vale View Primary School in North
Reddish.

On
9th April 2013 I provided you with a refusal notice explaining why the decision
had been taken to refuse your (at the time) outstanding FOIA requests.

Although
the FOIA provides a significant right to request information, this right is not
overriding. More importantly, this right does not extend to providing a channel
for unauthorised investigations into the legality of building constructions by
members of the public.

To
continue to attempt to use the Act in this way is considered to be vexatious in
the sense of it being a manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of
FOIA.

As
this request appears to be continuing this theme Stockport Council has taken the
decision to refuse this request for information under Section 14(1) of the FOIA.

As
this request has been refused, there is no provision for an internal review to
be conducted by the Council.

If
you are unhappy with this response, you are entitled to complain to the
Information Commissioner. I understand that you have already raised this to the
ICO under their reference
FS50493287.
The Council are not
prepared to enter into any further discussion on this matter pending the outcome
of the ICO’s investigation.

Yours sincerely,

Simon
Oldfield

Freedom
of Information/ Data Protection Officer & RIPA
Coordinator

Stockport
Council
Town Hall
Stockport
SK1 3XE

Tel:
0161 474 4048
Fax: 0161 474 4006
http://www.stockport.gov.uk

Anwar Majothi has no recollection eh. Mr Majothi tells porkies.

Ban any discussion, FOI questions or council meeting questions on a subject year after year then say it is too late to comment. Dodgy Stockport Council.