Stockport Council News

Email sent July 05, 2013 1:12 PM

Dear Sirs,

I am very concerned about written statements concerning air quality displayed at the SEMMMS exhibition.

In particular, on the display board titled ‘Local Air Quality’ , the reader is informed that levels of pollution exceeding the specified limits are not a risk to human health.

[UK air quality standards] represent thresholds which are adopted as an indicator relative to the risk to human health; they are not a trigger level above which there is a definitive risk to human health’

This is misleading to the extent of totally contradicting all that is presently understood about the effects of air pollution and the intent of the laws that control air quality.

It is not for the SEMMMS team to assert there own nonsensical interpretation of health risks involved but It is a matter of public concern that they show due diligence regarding compliance with air quality laws.

I have no doubt that visitors to the exhibition have been lead to believe that air quality is not a substantial concern despite the accompanying graphic showing many areas with the highest levels of predicted air pollution. To make good the damage this has caused please display the following at all future SEMMMS exhibitions.

1) Make a corrective statement regarding the risks to human health citing the quoted statement.

2) Make the following statement clarifying the legality of current non compliance in the UK. ‘In May this year the Supreme Court declared that the Government is failing in its legal duty to protect people from the harmful effects of air pollution.’

Your cooperation in this matter would be appreciated,

Kind regards,

Stephen Houston

Poynton

“We live on a planet of finite resources and land so we can’t forever keep ‘growing’. I for one, do not want to live in a world where my children have no access to the countryside because there is simply none left. I do not want my children to live in a world where the air is so polluted they suffer with asthma and other chronic health conditions. Wake up Councillor Derbyshire…we need to think long term here and stop concentrating on get rich quick short-term ‘growth’ schemes like building more roads and expanding airport capacity; and instead start investing in genuine sustainability that brings long term prosperity over short-term ‘growth’. Your failure to grasp this reality makes you unsuitable to call yourself a ‘leader’. Time to go.”

The Council was considering using the Greater Manchester Pension Fund to finance the new airport road. Pension funds are the only entities with any money around at the moment and are ripe for rifling. The LibDems in charge now seem to have been kicked into the long grass, fortunately.

They were also considering borrowing the money to fund the A6 to Airport Road from China! They would then be involved in currency risk – directly or indirectly – especially in the current unstable global markets. These are the people who failed to keep an eye on what was happening at SK Solutions and failed to ensure even basic accounting procedures were followed, so heaven help us all if they are let loose borrowing from China! Fortunately, that also seems to now have been kicked into touch.

What source of funding are we left with? They will build the road and over the next 60 years all the new businesses attracted into the Borough will all pay lots of business rates and that will fund the road. No, please don’t laugh – they are serious.

In other words the poor council taxpayer will shoulder all the debt and all the risks involved with this road, which it hasn’t even been proved is needed, and our children and their children be landed with the financial burden of paying this back.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334527/Money-votes-row-Nick-Clegg-accused-funnelling-taxpayer-funds-key-Lib-Dem-constituencies.html

It couldn’t happen in Stockport, could it?

These documents can be more clearly read at http://www.sheilaoliver.org/m56-to-a6-bypass-2.html

Hunter, Stunell and Danny Alexander hold a meeting, the details of which are to be kept secret from poor taxpayers, to fund a LibDem vote winning road for which there is no business case and no traffic modelling under a decade old, so no proof that it is needed. Iffy, or what!

£420,000 spent on recent A6 to Airport Road consultation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01s7twg/Bang_Goes_the_Theory_Series_7_Episode_8/

My children attended this playscheme and it was wonderful.