Stockport Council News

But he did nothing about it –

Dear Mr Stunell

The toxic waste dump school cost rose from £5.5 million in October 2005 to £7.5 million in December 2005 to £8.2 million by July 2006.

Now, as a person who apparently believes in people looking under the bonnet of local government, why am I branded vexatious (still after six years) for asking about this matter? How on earth can a primary school shoot up in cost like that over eight months? The cost then shot up to £9.9 million.

I look forward to receiving your response to pass on to other parties.

I wonder if you recall that I have provided you with all this documentary evidence in the past, yet you saw nothing to be concerned about at that time.

There is more, much, much more, not least of which is the failure to comply with the law to hold a public inquiry into the compulsory purchase of the land for the school, why it got through planning at all as it should have been refused on traffic grounds alone, never mind the brown asbestos, lead and arsenic on the entire site. I believe Michael Gove is bothered by asbestos in schools, so why on earth this should have been deliberately put on brown asbestos with full knowledge of the nature of the site and no contamination investigations to be done is anyone’s guess, but mine is corruption in planning at Stockport Council.

Yours

Sheila

Email sent – 05 February 2012 15:08

Dear Mr Stunell

I have been branded vexatious by Stockport Council for raising the following matter:-

In October 2005 the cost of the proposed toxic waste dump was £5.5 million. (img 024)

In December 2005 the cost had risen to £7.5 million. Why, I asked? Don’t be vexatious SMBC said.

As minister at the DCLG and as my MP – ostensibly someone who believes in looking under the bonnet of local government and a taxpayer being an armchair auditor, I would like you to overturn this ludicrous vexatious label on me.

I look forward to any reply and to passing it on to interested parties.

Kind regards

Sheila

Email sent – 05 August 2011 17:59

I wish to submit the following questions for the next Executive meeting. If I am unable to attend, please let me have written responses.

1) The car leasing scheme comes under Councillor Candler’s Portfolio and I would like to ask when he was first aware of it when it was set up, which Cllrs approved it and why it cannot be abolished forthwith.

2) Given this story on the front page of the Manchester Evening News today:-

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1454816_families-in-salford-street-told-to-flee-homes-in-poison-gas-alert

and as the two sites have amazing similarities, will the Council now be answering questions regarding the Harcourt Street toxic waste dump school and stop the ludicrous pretence that these are vexatious?

Please make sure all executive councillors are made aware of this question, especially if the Council continues to block all information on the dangerous nature of this site, as there may well be legal repercussions for all of you. I shall cc this to the Council’s underwriters, who must be really concerned about the calibre and honesty of the people whose actions they are expected to provide cover for.

Finally, I asked about Derbyshire’s rental properties at the last full council meeting, but got no reply.

We must stamp out corruption in planning at Stockport.

Sheila

Email sent to Khan et al – 20 March 2011 10:24

Dear Sirs

Following the Dianne Willmore case:-

“Willmore’s lawyers did not have to prove her mesothelioma was caused by that exposure, only that the council’s negligence had “materially” increased the risk of mesothelioma.”

The children and babies will start to be exposed in September 2008. Local residents already have been exposed to dangerous carcinogens. We have top notch public interest lawyers on board already.

I am assuming this verdict will simplify the bringing of corporate manslaughter charges against negligent council officers and councillors in the Harcourt Street toxic waste dump school case.

Mrs Oliver

Email sent – Thursday, September 22, 2011 3:51 PM

Attn Linda Harrison, Headmistress, Vale View School

As Built Health and Safety Files ABHSF for the Vale View Primary
School Stockport

Dear Linda

I acknowledge and thank you for the subject title. My first observation is the ABHSF appears to have been very well presented. However, there appear to be the following shortfalls with .. missing data for the following.

1.No Lightning Protection System (LPS) Data. Could you confirm if there was a LPS installed.

2.No Building Completion Certificate.

3.No Electrical system data or testing results of the same.

4.No Building Air Test results

5.No Plumbing or Drainage System Data.

6.No Fire Certifcate.

7.No sprinkler system data.

8.No quality or environmental audit data.

9.No Asset Management Plans data.

10.No design change order log.

I am surprised that the ABHSF are available only in hard copy which has the following drawbacks.

A. Not Environmental friendly

B. VERY time consuming and expensive to reproduce for the school staff.

C.Takes up valuable storage space

D. Voluminous amounts of paper records are or could be a fire hazard.

I am also VERY surprised the SMBC appear to have offloaded their client remit onto the Headteacher and her staff.I woul have envisaged that Teachers have enough on their plates with teaching and adminstration duties without oversight supervision for the new building!

I can’t help thinking that neither you or your staff are qualfied to an acceptable level to oversee the design, build and operation of this school.

I would be most grateful if you would forward items 1to 10 or point me in the right direction where I might obtain such documents.

With thanks

Alan M Dransfield

But I couldn’t ask Stockport Council because the LibDem Dodgies had banned all questions in order to conceal the fact that the primary school site was contaminated.

———————————————————–
24 September 2009 17:32
Ms Oliver,

Your request under the FOIA should be directed to Stockport Council, it is their information and we are not at liberty to divulge any information held by ourselves without their permission.

Regards

Neil

Neil Atkinson
————————————————————————

Email sent – 24 September 2009 04:46

Dear Mr Atkinson

You would appear to have forgotten to get back to me.

So, under the FOIA and EIR, please let me have all emails, notes of telephone conversations or meetings, memos, letters, minutes of meetings or any written information held following the issues I raised with you about the inadequacy of the contamination investigations at the site of the proposed mega school and nursery at Harcourt Street, North Reddish, Stockport.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards

Mrs S J Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

—————————————————————————-

Email sent – Sent: Fri May 22 17:43:07 2009

Mr Atkinson

Many thanks for your reply.

GMGU did the contamination investigations for a proposed 500 pupil school, nursery and children’s centre on a still gassing, former Jackson’s Brickyard intensively tipped from 1954 to 1974. The standard of contaminations investigations is a disgrace and not one contamination pit was dug over the site of the proposed school which is over the site of the old tip. This was at Harcourt Street, North Reddish, Stockport for Stockport Council.

The school should have opened in September 2008 but as local people are so dead against it we have managed to throw legal challenge after legal challenge in its path, so nothing GMGU has done has so far put children and babies in danger.

I have masses and masses of documentary evidence if you want to see it – I would come at any time to suit you If you, as a new broom, decided to retract the report that would show GMGU in a better light.

Regarding Aquinas College at Heavily, Stockport for their new building I am less sure of my facts, which is why I made the FOI request. They are also building on a contaminated site. A report by Faber Maunsell was used to get the application through planning, but during construction the contamination work seems to have been downgraded.

I work in a busy cancer department. In 2005 I had to get 22 lorry loads of soil contaminated with heavy metals removed from a new housing estate in Stockport at Trident Foams, Offerton. I live in Romiley where Redrow should have removed toxic waste from the old bleachworks site. They didn’t and then told people not to grow fruit and vegetables. I know from my work that people from that site are going down with massive bladder cancers 25 years down the line. Things most certainly are not dealt with properly in Stockport

I am not after blood. I just want safety for babies and young children and certainly at the Harcourt Street site this will not be delivered, with BS 10175 not complied with as was claimed, children to be protected from toxic hotspots by prickly bushes (what happens when the leaves soak up the contaminants and fall off?) and the potential for asbestos fibres to be vented into the school building and playground with vented landfill gases.

I hope you will take this seriously and you can look yourself at GMGU’s report and the paucity of the contamination investigation points. Not one was dug over the football pitch which is where the school is going – please see the attached Google photo. Incidentally, some of the others were never dug because the Council did not own that land.

Kind regards

Sheila

————————————————————————–

Friday, May 22, 2009 11:56 AM

Sheila,

Please accept my apologies but can you provide me with a bit more information here. Simon Talbot is no longer with the business and I have taken over his responsibilities.

Am I not clear in regards to who you are and who your represent? Any information you could provide me with would help me greatly.

I look forward to hearing from you shortly.

Regards

Neil

Neil Atkinson

Associate Director (Environment, Geotechnics and Instrumentation)

Capita Symonds / UrbanVision Partnership / GMGU

10th Floor Emerson House

Albert Street

Eccles

Salford

M30 0TE

Email sent – 06 October 2013 13:37

Dear FoI Officer

In the light of the Junction 25 serious pollution incident, I ask again if SMBC will answer my question, declared vexatious previously, as to whether landfill gas is being monitored at the Vale View primary school site.

I shall send the reply or lack of it to the insurers of those firms affected by the Junction 25 pollution incident as evidence of dangerous planning corruption/practices at Stockport.

Yours

Sheila

————————————————————————-

A site gassing 14% v/v CO2, which Stockport Council themselves said are sites that shouldn’t be developed – and they aren’t monitoring the dangerous landfill gases at the Vale View School. Really, somebody should go to prison for what has gone on at this school development.

Email sent – August 30, 2009 7:27 PM

Dear Mr Majothi

How much will the expert monitoring of the gas venting systems in the proposed school and playground cost over the 25 year lifetime of this school? Or, won’t the Council bother?

Kind regards

Sheila Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

Email sent – August 23, 2009 7:42 PM

Dear Mr Majothi

I wasn’t there but local people tell me that at the packed angry public meeting held by the Council where the vast majority of people were against the scheme, at the end of the meeting the Council officer stated: I can see you are all broadly in favour – and closed the meeting. I am sure I could provide sworn testimony to that effect.

Therefore, I would think it pertinent for the Council to disclose any letters etc from people in favour of the school going on the Harcourt Street site and also any letters in favour of the school going on Harcourt Street from the planning meeting. There were over 500 letters of objection and two petitions of over 500 names. I have trawled the Hygarth House files and I couldn’t see any letters in favour on the system. 500 is a huge number and every one completely discounted at the planning meeting.

More evidence to follow.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours

Mrs Sheila Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner