Stockport Council News

These documents can be more clearly read at – http://www.sheilaoliver.org/traffic.html

I said the traffic situation being created around the Vale View School would be highly dangerous. Majothi reported me to the Information Commissioner as being “vexatious”.

Within weeks of the school opening the Police had complained to the Council about… you guessed it … the dangerous traffic situation.

Have Majothi or his line manager, Adrian Moores, apologised to me for this very public blacking of my character and damage to my reputation as a campaigner? Have they Buxton!

Under the Defamation Act, Mr Majothi and Mr Moores need to make an offer to make amends to me. To say that I – a mother who lost her child in a road accident – am vexatious to have correctly raised these issues before and after the building of the school is so grotesque as to be off the scale in terms of defamation.

Fraud by false representation – the LibDems shut me up by branding me vexatious for mentioning (before the contract was signed) that the school was being built too small. They knew the facts – they falsly represented them.

A person is in breach of the Act if they intend by making the representation to cause another person a loss or expose another to a risk of loss – (they have done that to the council taxpayer who is now having to fund expensive renovations at other schools to cope with the shortfall in pupil places.

A representation is false if it is untrue or misleading and the person making it knows it might be untrue or misleading – they mislead the Secretary of State, a diversion of footpath public inquiry and the people of North Reddish on the true state of affairs and when I tried to bring this up at council meetings they gagged me by claiming what I was saying was “vexatious”.

This has been done over and over again by the LibDem Executive Councillors and some senior Stockport Council officers.

The council taxpayer has suffered a huge loss due to the deliberate actions of the LibDem Executive Councillors and some senior Council officers. I was saying all along the school was being built too small. “Don’t be vexatious”, they said – and they still do. We have paid over the odds for a school which never was fit for purpose. Why build it then? And these people want oversight of the hundreds of millions of pounds A6 to Airport Road. Heaven help us all!

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1589690_council-bosses-to-spend-74m-on-building-work-to-beat-stockport-classroom-crisis

One year after opening the circa £10 million Vale View School is not big enough. Unfortunate happenstance I hear you cry. Not a bit of it. A deliberate offence under the Fraud Act 2006.

They knew in 2006 that the school was being built too small. They said they would bring in temporary classrooms until the class numbers fell, but this FOI response shows that they knew that the figures were actually rising and not falling-

These documents can be more clearly viewed at:- http://www.sheilaoliver.org/not-big-enough-one-year-on.html

Given the range and the number of claims awarded nowadays for disease from contact with asbestos dust, defendants (companies, individuals and other bodies) have in the main gone bust and insurance companies have long ago given up covering risks of this kind. The persons claiming would mainly have been working with asbestos in building, demolition, clearance of sites etc.

In any case, those who would be potentially liable would be those visible in hiring labour for these activities. Many of these would have gone out of business long ago and if not would be overwhelmed by the weight of these actions. In fact, many large and otherwise prosperous companies have gone under in this way or have made settlements which left them badly damaged.

“Class Actions” have been all the fashion. Local Authorities will have a statutory obligation to protect their assets including insuring them. It could be that Central Government would be the last resort – but they wouldn’t like it that liabilities had put the Authority in difficulties.

Companies etc have gone to great lengths to deal with the situation but have been mainly unsuccessful e.g., setting up offshore insurance companies and paying them premiums – but these were never going to be enough.

A government (of Quebec) acquired all of the going concern asbestos mines for £1.

The Vale View school has been built on unremediated brown asbestos:-

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

The council officers and councillors responsible for this – Schulz, Khan, Webb, Sager, Majothi, Lucas, Goddard, Derbyshire, Weldon et al – have probably bankrupted our town in the process, not to mention endangered the lives of a large number of young children and local residents.

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 Council 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? Vexatious to ask apparently.

In 1922 there were three Jackson’s Brickyards in Stockport. The school site in North Reddish, what is now Adswood Tip and Bredbury Tip and industrial estate.

When they had finished brick-making in the 1950s they filled in the claypits with rubbish. When legislation was introduced in the early 1970s to record what was being tipped, the parent company of the three sites, which had had a similar layout and history including tipping history since 1922, Christian Salveson, applied to the Council for planning permission to build housing on the three sites. The Council refused because the sites were too dangerous to build on.

Christian Salveson appealed to the Secretary of State and the Council was forced to buy the three sites off them.

In the 1980s contamination investigations were done at the Bredbury site in order to build the tip and warehousing. Even then, even for that purpose, better contamination investigations were done than were done in 2006 for a 550 pupil primary school and nursery for 78 babies! I mentioned this at the time. Don’t be so vexatious the LibDems said, and they still do.

These documents can be more clearly viewed at – http://www.sheilaoliver.org/contamination.html

July 2006 the project was £2.40million above available funding. Why wasn’t there a re-think at this point to instead renovate the existing three schools?

Why does LibDem Stockport Council still maintain I am vexatious for raising the matter of funding, making defamatory remarks about me.

This document can be more easily read at http://www.sheilaoliver.org/financial-irregularities.html

This document can be more clearly viewed at – http://www.sheilaoliver.org/contamination.html

“The decision not to disturb the pitch was a verbal one….”

So, they tried to get away with not bothering to investigate a very large part of what they knew was a seriously contaminated site when they knew a primary school was to be going there. When I pointed out to LibDem Stockport Council they had failed to investigate properly they called me a liar and vexatious – and they still do. The site should have been investigated on a strict grid pattern under BS 10175. They repeatedly claimed in writing to have complied with this.