Stockport Council & Other News

30th November 2025

Email sent – Sat 22/08/2009 09:35

Sir

So in December 2005 it was £7.5 million but by 20th February 2006 it was £8 million.  Why the further jump in just 2 months?

Kind regards

Mrs Sheila Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

John Schulz Chief Executive and Steve Houston, Section 151 officer simply ignored the above.

30th November 2025

Email sent – Sat 22/08/2009 19:11

Dear Mr Majothi

The Council stated it was cheaper to use the  Harcourt Street site than the Fir Tree site.  Please may I see the documentary evidence of this fact from the very start of this process. There must surely be documentary evidence as this claim was made by the Council.

At the Fir Tree site there would be no traffic regulation orders/work –  £130,000, no CPO costs £70,000, no drainage costs – £75,000, no Services to install – £231,000, no contamination costs – goodness knows how many millions that could be, no Sport England costs – £600,000, no village green costs, no footpath diversion inquiry costs, no outreach costs.

As I understand it the Council has a legal duty to consider alternatives which might present better value to the Council taxpayer.  Please provide evidence that a proper evaluation of the costs of putting the school on the Fir Tree site have been carried out.

Yours sincerely

Mrs Sheila Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

30th November 2025

Email sent Mon 24/08/2009 21:03

Dear Mr Majothi

When the school closure notice was published, (copy previously sent to you) a place was promised to every child who wanted one. This was an untrue statement as soon as it was made because I think even with temporary classrooms placed on the site there were circa 5 children who wouldn’t have a place anyway.  Temporary classrooms were to  be used till the pupil numbers fell.  Please see the attached – the birthrate is rising sharply in the area. Sport England’s demands (bless ’em) mean that there is no room for  any temporary classroom, so the school which is massively overbudget and has no room to expand (as the DCSF would like for new schools) is nowhere big enough for the pupils who need to attend and were promised a place.  There must a financial knock on effect in providing schooling for those children somewhere else, perhaps with the cost of providing temporary classrooms at other schools. Why is this site still being considered if it is not big enough?

I look forward to  hearing from you.

Mrs S J Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

21st November 2025

Email sent Sun 23/08/2009 18:32

Mr Majothi

Sorry, forgot the attachment.

Mrs Sheila Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

—– Original Message —–

From: Sheila Oliver

To: Anwar Majothi

Cc: Michael Warburton ; bailey.harding ; barry khan ; Cllr Mark Weldon ; DAVID PENKETHMAN ; Gaz Butler ; Jennifer Williams ; John Schultz ; martin.candler@stockport.gov.uk ; peter.devine@gmwn.co.uk

Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 1:38 PM

Subject: Untrue statement made under the FOIA

Dear Mr Majothi

Please see the attached from Andrew Webb.  I knew this to be a lie being told under the FOIA. I had already seen the documents some months previously and just wanted to re-read those and see any additions.  Ms Sager seemed to be complicit in the making of this untrue statement.

How could it have possibly taken 84 hours – almost three working weeks of a council officer working full time – to read and redact what turned out to be about four folders.  Why was this statement made?  Was it to cover up the strange goings on which I have detailed in my previous emails? Why was no internal review carried out for 6 months, and that was only done when I humiliated the LibDems at Westminster. Otherwise, I would still be being ignored under the FOIA.

I look forward to hearing your explanation and sending it to the Audit Commission and the Standards Board with all this documentary evidence.

Yours

Sheila Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

20th November 2025

https://www.facebook.com/chris.g8hcb.spencer/videos/1767549797224462?idorvanity=2726377140725084

https://www.facebook.com/chris.g8hcb.spencer/videos/850176924078361?idorvanity=2726377140725084

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1849485332607892/?group_id=2726377140725084&s=group&cft[0]=AZVFP4QY6dNg9C15o-AEjLGtNVLt10ddhUd-zBUODBznwNCE3oUvV0Hhrf2MzHttA7GXrSMOdfJypxKd8YItCSVJNbx5AhRrCodSGTm5rCCfnenD5TFuK5UJPLbpLicnqi9cDuca59BFveyo7NM6DliTN2U0lN4z5MWwwfbcz6Y2Ei10faOUud9pLpjGL_mUFdZWUXbo1UpLzU2cA6lqzfw_SyXtkBrbRGnmwW-5fQ2DZg&tn=H-R

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Dear Information Commissioner,

Re: Complaint regarding the improper use of Section 14 (“vexatious requests”) by Stockport Council again.

I am writing to make a formal complaint about the refusal by  Stockport Council in the past to respond to my information requests, which have been dismissed as “vexatious” under Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

My requests related to serious governance matters, including planning decisions, transparency concerns, and allegations published publicly in the following blog posts:

These posts raise significant issues of public interest, and my questions sought clarity and transparency about the decision-making processes referenced in them.

A555 flooding concerns
In addition, I raised questions regarding the A555, a road which has experienced repeated and well-documented flooding incidents since its opening. Prior to the road opening, I submitted a request to see the flood risk assessment that informed or justified the decision to proceed.

Instead of providing this critical document—or even engaging with the substance of the request—the authority declared my request “vexatious.” This designation is particularly troubling because the flood risk assessment is a key safety and public-interest document, and the persistent flooding of the A555 demonstrates the importance of understanding whether adequate risk evaluation was undertaken.

Concerns about misuse of Section 14
The authority did not:

• Provide any evidence log or reasoning demonstrating how my request met the statutory threshold for vexatiousness.
• Consider the broader context or public interest in understanding the safety assessment of a major public highway.
• Demonstrate that responding would impose a disproportionate burden or that my behaviour could reasonably be considered harassing or disruptive.

Instead, the “vexatious” label appears to have been used to avoid disclosing potentially inconvenient information relating to planning competence, governance, and public safety.

I respectfully request that the ICO:

1. Investigate whether the authority’s application of Section 14 complies with ICO guidance and established case law.
2. Require the authority to provide evidence supporting the designation of my requests as vexatious, including any internal assessments or logs.
3. Issue a Decision Notice if the refusal is found to be unsupported, procedurally flawed, or inconsistent with the public interest.
4. Provide corrective advice to the authority to ensure that Section 14 is not used to avoid answering legitimate, safety-related, or politically sensitive questions.

Conclusion
By using Section 14 to refuse both corruption-related inquiries and safety-critical requests regarding the A555 flood risk assessment, the authority appears to be undermining the purpose and spirit of FOIA. Such actions hinder public scrutiny and may conceal issues of significant public concern. With a 1 billion pound project like this, a lot of questions need to be asked.

I would be grateful for confirmation of receipt of this complaint and details of the next steps.

Yours faithfully

Sheila Oliver
Editor, The Romiley Gazette