Stockport Council News

http://www.semmms.info/semmms/strategy/a6-to-m60-link/

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/manchester-airport-bypass-when-complete-14210969

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/highways-bosses-turn-340000-tonnes-13331387

‘leader@stockport.gov.uk’; ‘pam.smith@stockport.gov.uk’; ‘craig.ainsworth@stockport.gov’; Jonathan Vali <jonathan.vali@stockport.gov.uk>
Melissa Ivinson <Melissa.Ivinson@tfgm.com>; newsdesk@men-news.co.uk; news@mailonline.co.uk; Paul Dacre <news@dailymail.co.uk>; mary.robinson.mp@parliament.uk; ‘william@williamwragg.org.uk’; Bailey.Harding <bailey.harding@ntlworld.com>; ‘FOI Officer’ <foi.officer@stockport.gov.uk>; ‘sue.stevenson@stockport.gov.uk’; ‘cllr.dave.goddard@stockport.gov.uk’; ‘cllr.iain.roberts@stockport.gov.uk’; ‘cllr.mark.weldon@stockport.gov.uk’

Email sent – 26/07/2017 19:08

Dear Leader, Chief Executive, Monitoring Officer

Branded a waster of the valuable time of council officers and councillors for asking about this problem years ago:-
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/highways-bosses-turn-340000-tonnes-13331387

Mr Ainsworth/Mr Vali – please ensure this reaches the Chief
Executive and the Monitoring officer

I raised the issue of the removal of waste soil and the
lorry movements with Stockport Council years ago. I knew all about it
because I was one of the few people who had bothered to read the £250k
Environmental Impact Assessment. Councillor Harding was the only
other person I met who had also read it. I was informed by LibDem
Councillors Goddard/Roberts/Weldon that I was wasting the very valuable time of
councillors and council officers by raising this matter.

It now transpires, quelle surprise, that no-one else had
considered this. Was it a certain Stuart Jackson who wrote to me slapping my
legs for mentioning this? I can check.

Fortunately, the arrogant and incompetent
Weldon/Goddard/Derbyshire/Roberts no longer hold power in Stockport, and thank
(insert relevant deity) for that!

I would like a written apology for having been treated like
this. Maybe the new Chief Executive is a decent person – we shall see.

I would like please to ask this question under the FOIA and
EIR 2004:

Who was responsible for
this glaring failure – the Council or the Contractors? Who will pay to
put this right, and what is the cost likely to be?

I look forward to hearing from you
and also to having replies to the numerous council meeting questions I have
raised in recent months without response. I have also exercised my legal
right to information from the Council’s annual accounts regarding the total A6
MARR expenditure this year – again without response.

Yours

Sheila

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/campaigners-demand-rethink-potential-relief-11322302

New roadbuilding brings infill development.

This is a letter sent from Little Bollington Parish:

“Dear Residents

PROPOSED CHESHIRE GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT

Please send your comments to Cheshire East Closing date:
5pm, Tuesday 19 April

A well attended Parish Meeting on 11 April agreed to
encourage everyone to make a response to Cheshire East Council about the
proposed Cheshire Gateway development. This is a proposal for a major
commercial development on land in and near Little Bollington.

The proposed development is on two adjacent sites: the
western site of 25 hectares (63 acres) is bounded by the M56/A556/A56 and Spode
Green Lane; the eastern site of 9 hectares (22 acres) at Yarwood Heath is
bounded by the M56/M56 slip road/A556. The proposal for development is made by
Tatton Estates, a major owner of land in the area around Tatton Park.

Cheshire East Council have prepared a detailed report on
the proposal dated March 2016. The report proposes as follows:

1. the eastern site be removed from the Green belt
and safeguarded for future development.

2. The western site remain in the Green Belt.

Cheshire East Council are in the final stages of
preparing the Local Plan. This sets policy and strategy for future development.
The plan is open for consultation and responses are invited by 19 April. The
Local Plan will be based on the above recommendations, subject to any changes
following consultation responses.

The land owner is likely to respond to the Local Plan
consultation and call for both sites to be removed from the green belt
immediately.

The Parish Meeting will also respond, to ask that both
eastern and western sites remain in the green belt. The Parish Meeting calls on
all residents to do the same. It is important all residents respond in their
own words to ensure to a high number of individual responses.

Please send your response on the Local Plan consultation
before the deadline of 5.00 pm, Tuesday 19 April.

A short list of important points to consider in preparing
responses is below.

An online response is preferred via this website: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/lpspcv

Or you can send an email to: localplan@cheshireeast.gov.uk

Or you can write to:

LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION, Cheshire East Council, 1st
Floor, Westfields, Middlewich Road, Sandbach, CW11 1HZ

The consultation is open to all members of the public.
Please encourage others to respond.

FURTHER INFORMATION AND ADVICE

Short list of important points to consider in preparing
responses

Cheshire Gateway & the Green Belt

I support the recommendation for the Cheshire Gateway
western parcel (PSS1201a)to remain in the Green Belt.

I strongly oppose the recommendation to remove the
Cheshire Gateway eastern parcel (PSS1201b)from the Green Belt and to
include this as safeguarded
land for possible future development.

The western site must not be removed from the Green Belt.

The eastern site should not be removed from the Green
Belt at this time.

The Green Belt

The Green Belt should not be compromised.

It is essential to protect the Green Belt in this area
/the area lies just beyond the edge of the major conurbation of Manchester /
the green belt is a valuable resource for the people of Manchester / the Green
Belt provides a buffer around the Manchester conurbation / the urban sprawl of
Manchester must not be allowed to spread indefinitely/ ….

Little Bollington and area

Little Bollington is a particularly attractive area /
quiet residential area / small rural settlement / small village community / ….

The area is surrounded by rural amenity sites which will
be seriously adversely affected by any commercial development. These include
the Dunham Massey Estate, the Tatton Park Estate, the Bridgewater Canal, many
popular local footpaths, etc.

Provision for future development

It is inappropriate to take the major adverse step of
removing land from the Green Belt now to make provision for possible
development requirements for a date which is at least 14 years in the future.

The needs for development in the future are far from
certain. / It is not possible to predict the economic and development needs of
the area more than 14 years in the future. / It is generally recognised that
plans that extend for more than 5 years are of little value it is not sensible to plan now for a period
beyond 2030 /….

Astra Zeneca have moved many staff and operations away
from their Alderley Edge site in Cheshire East. The released office and
manufacturing space has not been occupied. This makes good provision to meet
future demand.

The full Cheshire East report on the Cheshire Gateway
proposals can be seen at this website – scroll down to Further evidence: Item 13m .

http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/lpspcv

Please let me know if you want to see a copy the Tatton
Estates prospectus for the Cheshire Gateway development.

Many thanks

Mike Reed

Parish Clerk, Little Bollington

clerk@littlebollington.org“

Nicola Turner, Head of Growth at the ludicrously named – Services to
Place
Stockport
Council
Fred Perry House
Edward Street
Stockport
SK1 3XE

T:
0161 218 1635
M: 07866 999609

agrees with Anwar Majothi that not one document pertaining to the moving of the fuel supply pipeline for Manchester Airport to enable the construction of the A6 MARR roadscheme can be disclosed. Not one document! The Council has a legal requirement to keep information in an easily accessible manner. Yet Ms Turner can’t even find one document to disclose. I really wonder what we pay the extortionate salaries of these unaccountable panjandrums for.

Mr Majothi was involved not only with the toxic waste dump school offences under the Fraud Act 2006 but also the bulling to death of sick, innocent Mr Parnell.

http://www.sheilaoliver.org/-multi-m-planning-fraud.html

http://blogging.sheilaoliver.org/#category2

Stockport Council officers – what’re they like eh?

Another £73m to solve traffic problems which should have been sorted out by the A6 MARR. What on earth is going on Councillor Sue Derbyshire, Leader of LibDem Stockport Council?

And I learn from the newspaper article above that Nick Whelan is involved.

The Nick Whelan who may well be considered by some people to be lethally incompetent? He was in charge of the traffic around the new toxic waste dump school at Harcourt Street, North Reddish. Circa £28,000 was paid to an external consultant to tell a load of lies about the traffic situation around the new school. Having got the report they wanted, corrupt Stockport Council took this utter rubbish to the planning meeting where ovine LibDem councillors passed the scheme on the nod.

Days before the planning meeting Whelan admitted he had had no idea how big the school was going to be or what a dangerous traffic situation would be created. Why not? I had told him many times and it was his job to know.

Within weeks of the school opening the local police had complained about the dangerous traffic situation. But shhhh. The corrupt LibDems at Stockport think it is “vexatious” to mention the dangerous traffic situation around a new primary school.

How could some might say prize nincompoop Nick Whelan not have known that most of the cars from the houses within the red lines had to exit the estate up the narrow lane past the new school entrance?

How could, some might consider, utter plonker Nick Whelan not have realised that placing a 550 pupil primary school, babies nursery, children’s centre etc at this lethal point would cause traffic problems? This was the situation before the new school was built:

Leave Nick Whelan in charge of a £73m traffic scheme? Heavens to Betsy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY11uw8HL1k

Please copy the link into your browser to see a Council video where LibDem Executive Councillors admit their road for votes will increase traffic in the Borough, bring in traffic from outside of the area and the rest of the roadscheme will not be completed until 2040, if ever.

LibDems, what’re they like?