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 15:15
Dear Mr Majothi
So by May 2006 the Council is admitting the scheme is £2.40 million over the available funding.
Yours
Mrs Sheila Oliver
Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner
Vicki Bates maintained I was being vexatious for raising this matter. Should she still be in post? In October 2005 the new school was to have cost 5.5 million pounds. By 15th May 2006 it was 2.4 million pounds over budget. They shut me up by claiming my questions were vexatious. They weren’t – they were uncovering fraud and incompetence.
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 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
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
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:
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:
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
18th November 2025
To Mike Parnell
Sent Thu 23/07/2009 09:29
Please give the email below from Goddard to your solicitor. He has committed an offence against you with regards to Data Protection. Although you sent me the authority to act on your behalf and I sent it to the Council, the Freedom of Information Officer emailed me yesterday to say she couldn’t open the attachment, therefore Goddard had seen no authorisation for your details to be disclosed to me. Mike, this is another brick in the wall.
Plus, I think it shows the Council is not impartial but quite vindictive.
XXXX (name redacted) died. I think you maybe met him – her certainly was very concerned about your plight. I am gutted
Lots of love
Sheila
—– Original Message —–
From: Cllr Dave Goddard
To: sheilaoliver
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 5:40 PM
Subject: Mr. Parnell
Dear Sheila
Mr. Parnell was charged with breaching the ASBO on 16th and 17th July 2009 by entering the Town Hall. He appeared at Stockport Magistrates Court from custody on 18th July 2009. He was apparently adamant that he would not abide by bail conditions and so was remanded in custody to Forest Bank to appear today.
He did appear today. He pleaded not guilty and elected Crown Court trial. His next appearance is before the Magistrates on 14th September 2009. Today his solicitor applied for bail which was opposed by the CPS. The Magistrates did grant bail. I have attached the actual bail notice. His condition is not to come within 1 mile of the Town Hall. The only exception is when he is appearing in court or by prior written appointment made by his solicitor. There is no exception for attendance at any meeting within that exclusion zone and that was made clear to him. These conditions appear to be unambiguous. It is fair to say that Parnell was less than enthusiastic about these conditions.
Just keeping you in the loop.
Fondest wishes,
Dave,
Ps, Glad you enjoyed the Stepping Hill by-election it makes it all worth it.
A CPS bail notice is normally held by:
It is not something a local authority or councillor would normally have access to.
For a council leader to obtain it, the most common possibilities are:
This would generally be an unauthorised disclosure unless there was a legitimate safeguarding or legal reason — which from what you describe, there was not.
Councillors sometimes have informal relationships with local police, council staff, or others who may have seen the document — but passing it on without a proper reason would still have breached rules.
For example a family member or associate.
(Not likely given the context you describe.)
This covers:
This did happen in some councils historically, and both police and councillors have been disciplined for similar leaks.
Even before GDPR, the following laws applied:
Under the DPA 1998, personal data (including criminal allegations and bail status) could only be disclosed for a lawful purpose.
Sharing a bail notice to “gloat”, smear, or shame someone:
This would have been a breach of the Data Protection Act by whoever disclosed it — likely the police or the councillor, depending on who originally leaked it.
If the councillor obtained the document through his influence or through improper access to police information, that could have constituted:
If a police officer handed the bail notice to him, that officer would likely have breached:
This does not change the legality of the disclosure at the time, but it shows:
It would be a clear data breach, requiring:
Thu 23/07/2009 08:35
Dear Mr Rusbridger
I read with interest the Guardian’s recent articles on miscarriages of justice. Please see below the apparently gloating email from the Leader of Stockport Council to me, which as I understand it is a very serious breach of Data Protection legislation, as well as revealing a worrying level of sarcasm and delight at the plight of a simple (and I mean that as a compliment), kind, helpful, gentle, determined and very brave man and the obvious detrimental effect his imprisonment will have on his already troubled daughters, whose lives were very seriously damaged by their birth family. Having got nowhere over a decade with his request to Stockport Council for help with his troubled adopted daughters – and they would be costing Stockport Council a lot of money were they still in care – he decided to stand on the town hall steps, which he did for two years constantly being harrassed by Stockport Council and having the police called to him repeatedly -one one occasion I witnessed with flashing blue lights, so called as an emergency. I do not blame the police, who have been extremely kind and helpful to Mr. Parnell and apparently have to respond if there is a breach of the peace alleged. There is a legal right to peaceful protest, but not in Stockport.
Why couldn’t the Council simply deal with his problem in a reasonable manner? You may well feel this is an isolated incident but I have been publicly abused and victimised for pointing out that a proposed school, costing millions and millions overbudget with no proper explanation of the increase in cost, which is illegally taking public open space, is actually going on a former toxic dump on which no contamination investigations at all have been carried out over the site of the proposed school, which is actually directly over the tip. I have had dirty tricks played on me too by this Council.
We need now to forensically find out what the many, many police call-outs have cost, the court time – one trial last January being abandoned on the day of the hearing. We need to find out what this cost in keeping Mr. Parnell in prison, where he was last week for breaching a court order not to come within a mile of the town hall. All he had done was use the public lavatory in the town hall. What a disgusting abuse of power by Stockport Council.
Well, they have picked on the wrong man. Mr. Parnell is honest and courageous and because his daughters are involved he can’t give up.
Mr. Rusbridger, I shall keep you informed step by step of what happens next in this miscarriage of justice we have the misfortune to be witnessing first hand.
With very warmest best wishes
Sheila
Email sent Wed 22/07/2009 18:29
Dear Ms Naven
If you can’t open the attachment mentioned below, then SMBC is not in receipt of Mr Parnell’s authorisation to disclose personal information to me.
In that case, the Leader Councillor Goddard, was seriously in breach of the Data Protection Act when he sent me a particularly gloating email about Mr. Parnell being sent to prison. To be apparently delighted at such a turn of events, involving as they do more distress to Mr Parnell’s already troubled daughters and given the story in today’s Stockport Express of a prisoner being murdered by another prisoner, one has to question whether Councillor Goddard is a fit person to hold the office that he does.
Please may I have your comments regarding this? I shall forward you the offending email after this one.
Kind regards
Sheila
—– Original Message —–
Stockport Council always has to cc in another FoI officer. Who is that? Vexatious to ask.
From: FOI Officer
To: Sheila Oliver
Cc: FOI Officer
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 10:55 AM
Subject: RE: Fw: Freedom of Information GSA 2210/09
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am unable to open the type of attachment you have provided. Please can you resend it in another format e.g. pdf?
Please also specify which requests – quoting Council reference numbers which have been provided to you either in our final response or acknowledgement – you now wish to be reconsidered. Once we receive these details and a copy of Mr Parnell’s authorisation which I am able to open, we will proceed with reconsidering your requests.
Yours sincerely,
Claire Naven
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 16 July 2009 17:15
To: FOI Officer; FreedomOfInformation@gmp.police.uk
Cc: MICHAEL PARNELL
Subject: Fw: Fw: Freedom of Information GSA 2210/09
Dear Foi Officers
Attached is Mr. Parnell’s authorisation. Please proceed with answering the questions I asked of the police ans of Stockport Council regarding his case.
Kind regards
Sheila
—– Original Message —–
From: MICHAEL PARNELL
To: Sheila Oliver
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Freedom of Information GSA 2210/09
| Dear Sheila Hello again its mike here, enclosed is my authorisation and full approval, use this to open up the council wrongdoings, and how must they are costing the council tax paying residents, if everybody knew how much was wasted and how much is being inappropately spent we all might not want to give it in the first place, but we wouldn’t do that because we know that we need what we pay for, but do they ,or do they care, well we will see if they have one once of conscience. love and best wishes mike — On Wed, 17/6/09, Sheila Oliver <sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com> wrote: From: Sheila Oliver <sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com> Subject: Fw: Freedom of Information GSA 2210/09 “MICHAEL PARNELL” <mickysara@btinternet.com>, Date: Wednesday, 17 June, 2009, 8:59 AM For info Sheila —– Original Message —– From: Sheila Oliver To: FreedomOfInformation@gmp.police.uk Cc: Chief.Constable@gmp.police.uk ; John Schultz ; alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:57 AM Subject: Fw: Freedom of Information GSA 2210/09 Dear Sir Many thanks for your reply. So, this is purely a Data Protection issue and the information could be disclosed either with written consent from Mr. Parnell or if Mr. Parnell himself makes the request. Very interesting! It is quite scandalous the police time which has been wasted with this non-issue. I shall see what happens in court and then decide how to proceed. Kind regards |
18th November 2025
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Harcourt street risk register
Dear Editor
I was very interested to read your anonymous correspondents views on the motives for the resistance to the proposed school in Harcourt Street. I have no idea whether he is right in his conclusions. I would say however that the Express records a continual list of Council Planning errors and so the probability of Harcourt St being yet another seems much higher than the correspondents claims that the toffs in Harcourt Street are bullying the poor council tenants in Fir Road. That explanation seems patronising to the point of absurdity. Conversely I have equally no firm idea that Mrs Oliver is correct in her assertion that the Harcourt Street site is seriously contaminated with toxic elements. From what I understand from her letters to this column she claims the ex tip in Harcourt Street is the same as other old tipping sites in Stockport that have been refused planning permission. Furthermore it appears a less than required testing regime has indeed shown serious toxic contamination. Surely any sensible person would expect a proper and full scientific testing of the site especially as young schoolchildren are involved.
In fairness the Council seems to be slightly veering to this view as it now judges the risk of a full scientific examination as Very High. That seems a very significant change in attitude.
Finally the attitude of the ruling LibDem Group seems at odds with the liberal and democratic attitude of their National Party.
3 Cllrs in particular, Cllrs Goddard, Weldon and Porgess seem to have nailed their reputations and possibly their jobs to the mast by insisting without firm evidence that there is nothing wrong with the site. Mrs Oliver has also pointed out that the cost of the new school is considerably higher than national standards and even the cost of other local schools. To borrow the conspiracy theory attitude of your correspondent are these Cllrs protesting too much because they have something to hide especially when a simple survey as required by the Environment Agency would settle the issue.
Yours faithfully
XXXX (name redacted)
