Stockport Council News

This email is from the senior Highways Officer at SMBC to the planning officer. We had had a meeting with him six months earlier to explain the dangerous nature of the proposed school entrance; he obviously didn’t listen. The safety of children is not important in Stockport.

——————————————

From Nick Whelan <nick.whelan@stockport.gov.uk>

25 July 2007 11:55

To Jim Seymour <jim.seymour@stockport.gov.uk
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

Vote LibDem? Vote Dodgy!

This solution to the traffic problems, which were admitted to by SMBC at the planning meeting in July 2007, can’t ever be implemented because the dodgy LibDem council didn’t include this land in their compulsory purchase order for the school. Why not? Because that would have taken the amount of land being CPO going over the amount which would have required a public inquiry, so they didn’t bother.

The dodgy LibDems care nothing for children’s safety; the police complained about the dangerous traffic situation within weeks of the school opening:-

http://www.sheilaoliver.org/traffic.html

This is the community use football pitch referred to below – no white line, no goal posts, no drainage, no community changing facilities as far as I am led to believe.

This LibDem Council lies and cheats local people.I am writing in response to your request for information (ref FOI 7903).

The relevant Council Service(s) has searched for the requested information and our response is as follows.

1. There are two sites where an investment in community sport took place in North Reddish. The first is the Fir Tree site where the old nursery has become a changing provision, the second is Vale View Primary School on the Hardcourt Rd site that contains changing facilities for the community to use. Vale View School manage the Hardcourt Street facilities.

The background is: –

The relevant Planning Condition for the original scheme (DC024357) regarding open space facilities refers to qualitative improvements at the Fir Tree site as a pre-occupation condition:

An extension of time was granted by planning until 18/11/11 but due to vandalism during the contract period the scheme was delayed and meant that Practical Completion was achieved in February 2012 (school opened September 2011).

The following note was also included in the Decision Notice relating to management of the site:

There were delays in finishing the pitch (on former Fir Tree site) due to the weather conditions (snow and rain) and the sub-contractor going into liquidation. All provisions listed in the report have been made and the pitches are now available for use.

Management of the Harcourt street pitch was agreed to be undertaken by the School who can control access to the locked parts of the site and building and Place have been made aware to contact the School to co-ordinate any bookings as they have a list of interested clubs for sites across the Borough.

Whilst there is a contract value associated to the Fir Tree facilities (which exceeds the original amount in the GVA report)(Contract approx. £322,000 of which approx. £55,000 on pitch improvements), the costs associated with the Harcourt Street facilities will be embedded in the overall contract value for the new build school.

2. All information is contained within the Stockport Planning portal approved documentation for the Harcourt Street site, Fir Tree site qualitative replacement and fencing to the new pitch adjacent Vale View Primary School and children’s centre. There has been no recent conversation with Sport England over recent fencing works. There are two types of fencing and we have been granted permission for the higher ‘ball stop’ fencing. We have been informed that the additional low level (around 1.2 metres high) fencing did not require planning permission, so none has been sought. Note that the school should not be locking this additional fencing as the site has to remain accessible to the community.

3. We do not have any drainage reports to share. Pitch drainage was built into the pitch at Hardcourt Street from the creation of the field as a school and community resource.

———————————-

Email sent 24th March 2014 to Stockport Council FOI Officer

Please let me have details of community football groups who have applied to use the North Reddish community playing fields at Vale View and on which days they have played there? How many times have the community changing rooms been used and where are they? When were the white lines painted and goalposts erected?

Kind regards

Sheila

Surely, not more LibDem dodgyness in planning? How much can there be?

Email sent – 22 December 2013 14:04

Attn Mr Barry Khan Legal Advisor to the Stockport Borough Council

Dear Mr Khan

As you are aware, my FOIA case is now before the FTT and it will continue through to the UT.

In the meantime, the Vale View school is operating in a legal void owing to lightning defects. You have made false statements to the ICO ref the facts on the Vale View school Ref the Lightning Protection System (LPS).

For the avoidance of doubt for ALL parties the Vale View school LPS is unsafe and unfit for purpose and it is NOT what it is purported to be by you and the ICO.

It beggars belief how you can argue my FOIA request is vexatious when you actually released the sought after data i.e., Lightning Protection Data.

You have simply failed to provide the LPS risk assessment and the LPS test results for the remedial LPS works. It also beggars belief that a Brand New school would require any LPS remedial works…..

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Email sent 17 October 2013 06:15
Attn Mr Barry Khan SBC Solicitor

Dear Mr Khan

As you are aware, I am on record that the Stockport Borough Council and you in particular are guilty of criminal negligence in allowing the Vale View School to operate in a legal void due to serious H&S violations previosly recorded and in BOLD CAPITALS below.

The ICO are currently considering this appeal but I wish you to reconsider my H&S issues raised below.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

———————————–

From: alan dransfield
To: Barry Khan
Cc: headteacher Valeview
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: Vale View Primary School

Dear Mr Khan

I acknowledge and thank you for your following letter and I do thank you for the confirmation that you are considering my request to visit the Vale View school for a co-inspection of the faults I have raised, which, quite frankly, I think it is the best way to resolve this matter. For ease of future readers, I have responded to your comments via Red Capital Letters.

There is nothing in your letter which would cause me to withdraw my claim the Vale View school is operating in a legal void.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield
—————————–

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Barry Khan <barry.khan@stockport.gov.uk> wrote

Dear Mr Dransfield

I refer to my e-mail of the 4 th January 2012 and your e-mails in reply, namely:

· Two e-mails dated 5 th January 2012
· E-mail dated 6 th January 2012
· E-mail dated 7 th January 2012
· Two e-mails dated 9 th January 2012
· E-mail dated 13 th January 2012
· E-mail dated 14 th January 2012
· E-mail dated 15 th January 2012
· Email dated 20 th January 2012

As requested in your e-mails, I have re-checked the position on whether the football pitch has actually been built and I can re-confirm the position I stated on the 4 th January, namely:

‘I have been informed that the football pitch has been built to Sport England Standards as part of the original contract. All the drainage has been installed as the plans previously sent and all works including alterations to the existing outfalls have been completed”
With regard to your request on the 4 th January – ‘Please double check if the school has been built.” – I can confirm that the school has been built.

THIS SHOULD READ HAS THE FOOTBALL PITCH BEEN BUILT

The issue with regard to producing the ‘as built’ drawings for this school, is that I have been informed that we do not have a copy of the plans on CD. I have been informed that the School only holds paper copies of the drawings (as opposed to the plans for the Council’s Fred Perry House which we have electronically). However I understand that you are in communication with the Council’s Freedom of Information team and if you wish to request a review of any response to any FOI request, then please can you contact them directly. You have raised issues with myself with regard to the legal position of the School and I have addressed those concerns. I can confirm from the information that has been provided to me that I am happy to confirm that the school does not operate in a ‘legal void’ as suggested.

IT BEGGARS BELIEF THE AS BUILT DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN RETAINED IN HARD COPY ONLY.

I can confirm that I have been informed that all the details with regard to the drainage have been built as shown on the ‘as built’ drawings. Again there seems to be some confusion as you state that there is no physical evidence on the site of a Control Panel, however I have been informed that there is in fact a warning panel located in the school.

THE CONTROL PANEL IS/SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO BE INSTALLED OUTDOORS TO ENABLE THE FLASHING WARMING LIGHTS TO BE SEEN.
THE DRAINAGE DRAWINGS PROVIDED TO ME ARE “PROPOSALS ONLY”

With regard to your request for gas monitoring I understand that this has already been answered under your FOI request reference 4873 and a copy of the Site Completion Report has been sent to you. In addition I understand that additional information regarding risk assessments have been sent to you with regard to your FOI request 4436 including a report entitled “Harcourt Street, Site won soil Verification.”

RISK ASSESSMENT HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED TO ME.

With regard to the fishing pond, the attached link shows that there was an existing drainage system which was installed in 1983 and approved by Sports England, which outfalls to the existing pond. The new scheme plans show that the football fields surface water only now drains to the pond to maintain the system. I have been informed that it is incorrect to state that any of the car park drains to this and this is not what the plan shows. In addition the following documents show that the Environment Agency and United Utilities were consulted regarding the proposed surface water runoff:

THE CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS APPLIED TO THE FOOTBALL PITCH WILL BE DRAINED INTO THE POND WHICH IS NOT ECO FRIENDLY.

http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/onlinemvm/mvmedrms.asp?DCNumber=DC024357

Appropriate ecological assessments were carried out prior to the development (Badgers, Great Crested Newt etc ) – and these documents can be found at the above link. In addition the pond is still used for fishing and we have not received any complaints that the eco system has been affected. The Environmental Health Department have been notified and approved the measures on the site.
Also, as stated previously the lightning protection system for this school has been installed in accordance with the B.S standards and successfully tested 12 months following installation.

YOU FAILED TO QUOTE THE RELEVANT BS STANDARDS, HENCE PLEASE ALLOW ME. THE RELEVANT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THE BUILD WERE BS6651 WHICH HAVE NOW BEEN REPLACED BY BS-EN 62305/2008 WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO THE OPERATIONAL PHASE AND THIS STANDARD MANDATES A LIGHTNING RISK ASSESSMENT. WHICH YOU DO NOT HAVE.
IN THE EVENT YOUR SCHOOL IS STRUCK BY LIGHTNING AND SUBSEQUENT FIRE THE PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE WOULD BE REVOKED DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF LIGHTNING RISK ASSESSMENT.

I am sorry that you consider my previous response was inappropriate and that you wish to make a complaint about me. I can therefore confirm as requested that I am a solicitor and a member of the Law Society. Similarly I would also be grateful if you could inform the Council of your professional qualifications, current employment etc so that the Council can consider the appropriateness of arranging a meeting as you have requested to discuss technical points regarding the construction of a school.

IN REGARD TO MY PERSONAL DETAILS AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS, THEY ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT
AND I DO NOT INTEND TO PROVIDE ANY PERSONAL DETAILS OTHER THAN MY NAME.

I do however hope that the above and the answers to the previous requests shows how the school and the Council have taken health and safety matters very seriously with regard to the School. You have made repeated requests for a number of items which have previously been answered and the Council respectfully asks you to reconsider the number of requests you make in the future about this building as the Council is concerned with regard to the amount of time that is being spent answering repeated requests with regard to this matter that is diverting resources from other matters. If the issues that you raised uncovered serious concerns about the construction or operation of the school then the Council would have taken a very different view to these requests but this is not the position.

I HAVE MADE REPEATED FOIA REQUESTS BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE THE SOUGHT AFTER DATA.
THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS LETTER WHICH CONVINCES ME THAT YOU OR THE SBC OR THE SCHOOL ARE TAKING H & S ISSUES SERIOUSLY.

If you wish to make a complaint against the Council as you have requested, then you can follow the Council’s complaints procedure which can be found at:

http://www.stockport.gov.uk/services/councildemocracy/yourcouncil/complaintsabouservices/corporatecomplaints/complaintsprocedure
This attached link has a ‘Compliments and Complaints Leaflet’ attached which shows how you can make a complaint against the Council. If you wish to follow this procedure please complete the attached form and send it to the Improvement & Performance Officer (Complaints), who is nominated by the Chief Executive who will deal with the complaint under Stage 2 of the procedure.

THANK YOU FOR THE COMPLAINT DETAILS AND I WILL IN DUE COURSE BE SUBMITTING A FORMAL COMPLAINT.

Kind regards
Barry Khan

—————————-

From: Barry Khan <barry.khan@stockport.gov.uk>
Date: 17 October 2013 11:51:47 BST
To: “‘alan dransfield'” <alanmdransfield@gmail.com>
Cc: BRADSHAW Ben <BradshawBP@parliament.uk>, Paul Dye <Paul.Dye@ofsted.gov.uk>, Richard Bailey <Richard.Bailey@ico.gsi.gov.uk>, Headteacher Valeview <headteacher@valeview.stockport.sch.uk>
Subject: RE: Stockport Borough Council Safety Failures

Dear Mr Dransfield,

I wish to re-iterate my previous position that the School is not operating in a legal void and that the appropriate health and safety requirements have been complied with.

Kind regards

Barry Khan

Council Solicitor

Service Director (Legal, Democratic, Property and Information Services)

Corporate & Support Services

Stockport Council

E-mail Address: Barry.khan@stockport.gov.uk

Email sent 25/07/13 15.30

Attn of the Legal Advisor Stockport Borough Council

Dear Sir

I must advise you that you have made a serious error in law by using the GIA/3037/2011 as a Court Precedence because that particular case is still live and currently before the Court of Appeal; hence, your legal advisers knew that or should have known that.

May I suggest you withdraw your statement or otherwise I will pass this onto the ICO for their consideration. As you can see, I have included the ICO caseworker in my mailing list.

With thanks

Alan M Dransfield

Email sent to Council Solicitor 06/07/13 at 05.08

Dear Mr Khan

Polite reminder I have still not received a satisfactory answer from you ref:-

1.The external football pitch and changing rooms.

2. The Storage water tank under the football pitch

3. The Class 1 Petrol/Oil Separator next to manhole #13 on the attached drawings.

4. The rainwater harvesting tank shown on the attached drawings.

5.These drawing do not indicate any grease traps outside the kitchen area?

This drawing indicates the Playgound run-off water will be drained into the existing pond which cannot be correct.

I would be most grateful if you would now elevate these matters to your immediate line manager. It should also be noted thia attached drawing was sent to me as an AS BUILT DRAWING and you can clearly see it is NOT an As Built Drawing but is a PROPOSED drawing.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

——————————–

And Khan’s reply:-
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
——————–

Email sent to the ICO 17 July 2013 15:30

Dear Sirs

Please see the response from the Stockport Borough Council (SBC) in reply to my FOIA request. I now wish to elevate this as a formal complaint to the ICO.

It would appear to be a useless exercise to ask the SBC to review their decision; hence, I am going straight to the ICO please.

Please advise me a case reference number and a case worker’s name.

Its rather ironic that I am refused a FOIA requests under protection of the GIA/3037/2011 which is well known to all men that it is a ROGUE DECISION.

I consider this latest SBC decsion to be a willful attempt to breach Section 77 of the FOIA 2000.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield