Stockport Council News

http://a0768b4a8a31e106d8b0-50dc802554eb38a24458b98ff72d550b.r19.cf3.rackcdn.com/pmho0406biyl-e-e.pdf

There should be, but apparently are no, petrol interceptors at Vale View School, as required by the Building Regulation and by the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

It is very difficult to get a complaint dealt with at Stockport Council under Mr Majothi and his line manager, Adrian Moores:-

The whole case against building a School at Harcourt Street is that it was to be built on a past tip with the available scientific information that this could prove a serious hazard to health. This scientific information was being “covered up” or was not being presented truthfully. Indirect evidence of this is that the budgeted cost of the school rose exponentially and it is supposed/alleged that this extra cost was to cover the possible undeclared site decontamination costs after approval had been given but before the school had been built.

In October 2009 they finally did what they should have done all along – carried out a proper investigation in line with BS 10175. When they did (and they were forced kicking and screaming to carry this out) the entire site was found to be contaminated with lead, arsenic and brown asbestos. Tragically, they failed to remove the deadly brown asbestos from the site properly:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0rCPnP5H9o

When I told them it was not being removed properly, they again branded me “vexatious”.

Email sent by me 0th August 2009 at 06.21

Dear FoI Officer

I have been trying for over a year to see documentary evidence from Stockport Council regarding the further contamination investigation work demanded by the Environment Agency at the Harcourt Site for the proposed 500 pupil school, nursery and children’s centre to be built over the site of a still gassing toxic dump extensively tipped from 1954 to 1974 when no records were kept and over the site of which absolutely no contamination investigation points have been dug.

You have consistently refused me access to this information. I contacted the Heath and Safety Executive on this issue and they told me to get the information from the consultants involved Watts and Co. I made a FOI request to Watts and Co who said Stockport Council refused them permission to disclose this information.

As the footpaths across the school site will need to be diverted, before we go to an expensive public inquiry and put the Planning Inspectorate to great expense, we need, of course, to make sure the footpaths are not being diverted into areas of contamination which will have to be fenced off (which is the proposed method the Council has of dealing with the contamination on the site).

I shall cc this to the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate as further proof of the Herculean efforts I have made over a year long period to get this information. I can send her all the other attempts I have made to get this information without success should she need to see further evidence.

The Council has been told by a senior officer at the Information Commission to reconsider the refusal under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (and I did actually quote that legislation in my original request), yet still the Council is refusing to release this information and one has to ask – what is there to hide?

I look forward to hearing from you without much hope of success.

Kind regards

Sheila

Regarding the special report by Jennifer Williams on 08/09/2010:-

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bill-for-school-to-be-built-on-toxic-minefield-898373

it is inconceivable that the school would actually be built following “failure to detect toxics” – the tests were obviously unreliable especially having failed and caused the reckless plans to go ahead. By then the financial aspects of this new project were too great to resist, especially backed by the extraordinary claim by the Council that the old industrial tip site could be made safe and used.

The Council had commissioned soil tests and found no contamination! There was the influence of the Government grant of £2.2 million already in the till and even spent on something else. But more soil tests, only carried out because the Council had to prove to a diversion of footpath public inquiry that the site was not contaminated found a variety of chemicals – lead, arsenic and brown asbestos. What on earth were the previous experts – Greater Manchester Geological Unit – doing to have missed all this or should the question be who was in the pocket of whom?

Contracters then sifted the deadly material by hand – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0rCPnP5H9o

Come on! How could they recognise the material, especially when the experts couldn’t?

The excellent local MP Andrew Gwynne said they were spending money to save face because the site had to be used.

Councillor Mark Weldon stated the Council had “no responsible alternative”. Well I never! Responsible to whom? Certainly not the council taxpayers.

Why have the costs risen so much, I asked the LibDem Executive at Stockport Council? “Don’t be vexatious”, they replied, and they still do.

..but still the LibDems who run Stockport Council claimed it was “vexatious” to mention this – and they still do!

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 First Tier Tribunal and it will continue though to the Upper Tier.

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 Information Commissioner’s Office.

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 beggars belief that a brand new school would require any LPS remedial works.

I call upon your office to come clean……

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield