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.
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)
18th November 2025
From: Name redacted – but he was correct.
To: sheilaoliver
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: Traffic Issues Harcourt Street
Hi Sheila
I visited Harcourt St area and Fir Road area on Wednesday 13th August 2008 to observe the road layout and general appearances. The timing was between 13.30 and 14.30. The weather was fine and sunny. The schools were on holiday.
Observations
1 Harcourt St as such is a series of artificially blocked off sections and it is impossible to follow in one go the full length of the road. I saw one access point to the green area which is presumed to be the proposed school. It is a pleasant enough road with off road parking for some houses and with adjacent Sts running to Gorton Road being terraced houses with limited parking. I don’t know what part if any Harcourt St will actually be used to access the school. If it is then the current layout will make for a very congested area with confused access points.
2 I suspect the main access to the school will be in the Longford Rd, Mill Lane and Windmill Lane one way system. All these streets were very busy even at the time I visited. The right turn from Mill Lane to Windmill Lane, which I did, is almost impossible and very dangerous because of limited visibility.
Longford St is a mainly terraced, one way street from Gorton Rd with limited residential parking. I can’t imagine residents being too happy with a greater influx of traffic. Probably everything going to the school would come down either this street or Windmill Lane.
Windmill Lane is full of bends, narrow in parts, unsuitable for a lot more parking and I would imagine that School buses would find it tricky to negotiate. As I say the turn into Mill Lane and from Mill Lane into Windmill Lane is very dodgy.
Mill Lane is a dead end leading from Gorton Road into which it feeds as a one way st and as a two way narrow lane from its’ junction with Longford St and Windmill Lane. Basically it is a country lane with some very nice housing developments providing quite a bit of traffic. At its’ dead end it appears to be a walking access to open ground.
I am guessing this is where the proposed turning circle is to be put. Nothing is ever impossible and certainly walkers who visit would equally find it useful to park their cars in such an area. However at the least it would destroy that part of a very nice quiet, narrow country lane and at worst the narrow width of the lane would make it extremely difficult for buses to safely travel. Also if buses are using the turning circle how will the cars of parents turn round, the road is too narrow for that.
Of all the streets, to my mind Mill Lane presented the greater problems.
SHEILA I THINK ROADS ARE CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THEIR WIDTH AND THIS WILL DETERMINE HOW AND BY WHAT THEY CAN BE USED!!!.
For instance Emergency vehicles (fire engines and ambulances) require a certain access width AND ESPECIALLY TO THE LARGEST SCHOOL IN STOCKPORT.
3 I took the opportunity to visit the Fir Road School. What a contrast. The road access is excellent. I know there is a reservoir behind but would this restrict its’ expansion? It was much more pleasant to drive there than the difficult narrow and congested area around Harcourt St
4 Someone wrote in the Express that the toffs in Harcourt St were bullying the much poorer people around Fir Road. I am no expert in evaluating house prices. Whilst there are some very nice houses especially in Mill Lane the houses around Fir Road and Longford Rd West seemed actually better and in no way did it appear a poor area compared to the streets between Gorton Rd and Harcourt St.
Conclusion
I believe the evidence shows there is a traffic problem especially around Mill Lane. Fir Rd appears to have much better access with easier parking and bus access.
Recommendations
1 I think you should get a photograph/video record of the 2 areas.
2 You should obtain from Traffic Services the various width classifications of streets along with any recommendations of limits of traffic usage, parking etc.
Part of this should be any considerations that need to be made for Emergency Plans ( what happens if the school sets on fire)
3 Someone should measure the pavement widths, and road widths of Harcourt, Windmill, Longford Rd, Mill Lane, Longford Rd West and Browning Rd.
Hope this helps and please come back if something is not clear enough.
LOL
XXXX
ps Have you seen Goddard has lost the Town Centre Development. The bungs can’t have been big enough.
On 10 Aug 2008, at 08:55, sheilaoliver wrote:
Sir
Attached is a Google Earth map which explains some of the Harcourt Street traffic problems.
Those houses on the two estates within the red lines can only leave via very narrow Mill Lane. Two days before the planning decision meeting the Head of Traffic decided the traffic proposals for the school were unworkable and introduced the turning circle at the top of Mill Lane. So, in the morning when traffic is leaving those houses, and most have two or even four cars, then parents will be doing U-turns in front of them into the turning circle where the council says they can park and walk their children up to the school and the council also says they can’t park, so presumably they will leave their young children to walk up the dangerous lane and negotiate the unworkable school entrance on their own.
At the top of Mill Lane is Windmill Lane, a main road artery and when the M60 floods, which it does a lot, traffic leaves the motorway to use Windmill Lane to escape it.
Never mind the contamination issues, I and everyone else who lives there thinks this proposal is complete madness and very dangerous for children.
What do you think? I respect your advice. Do you think a turning circle on a narrow, dangerous lane in those circumstance is workable. I know you will tell me the truth – warts and all. Am I exaggerating the problem?
LOL
If a councillor becomes aware of financial irregularities at their council, they have a legal and ethical duty to act promptly and responsibly. Here’s what they must and should do:
The councillor must report the issue through appropriate channels:
Councillors have a fiduciary duty to protect public funds and uphold integrity in public service. Failure to act on financial irregularities can lead to:
Drazen Jaksic
Chief Executive
Zurich Insurance UK
Head Office
70 Mark Lane
London
EC3R 7NQ
Thursday, 09 January 2025
Dear Drazen Jaksic
Insurers of Stockport Council
Please listen to what I am saying. Many years ago Stockport Council, ruled almost entirely by the LibDems, put a new primary school on a still gassing toxic waste dump – a former Jackson’s Brickyard – which you may know had appalling contamination histories. The council refused three planning applications in the 1970s because the site was too toxic to build on. It was decided to put a new primary school on that site, although there was another, more popular, safer site available with room for expansion. The LibDem councillors chose to sell that off for housing and use the toxic site instead, which they tried to pretend was clean. There was more planning corruption/fraud involved than you could shake a stick at, which is all clearly documented here:-
https://www.sheilaoliver.org/toxic-waste-dump-school-.html
When I started exposing their planning corruption they had to shut me up, so they told the Information Commissioner that I was vexatious. I had to try for years to get them to remove the contamination, which they did after a fashion, but the brown asbestos fibres were left on the site. There are reference points on the video proving this is that site:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0rCPnP5H9o
The school opened in 2011. Mesothelioma cases, as I understand it, usually take 25 years to develop. Apart from the school children, the area is very built up. The brown asbestos fibres they disturbed will have travelled. When I pointed out migrant labour was removing lethal brown asbestos fibres using a bin bag and stick and that they didn’t understand their task as they took their own respirators off, I was told I was vexatious. I have the documentary evidence.
When I gave evidence to the Information Commissioner subsequently that I had been correct in every respect, they refused to remove the vexatious branding.
So, I assume you may face potentially huge mesothelioma claims in the future. I think the insurers of the LibDems and the Information Commissioner will have to pay towards any settlements. I couldn’t go to the police about the corruption because of the close connection between Greater Manchester Police and Stockport Council, which is shown in the second case of corruption, which might also leave you with huge damages claims.
https://www.sheilaoliver.org/mr-parnell-rip.html
This paedophile –
Lord Goddard and the Stockport LibDem councillors repeatedly/maliciously imprisoned this sick, innocent, fiercely protective father of 2 lovely young girls until he died aged 58. The same people as were involved with the toxic waste dump primary school. Two of them, Wendy Meikle and Shan Alexander are still Executive Councillors even today. What on earth may they be currently up to? Mr Parnell’s and his family’s life were destroyed, all because he tried to protect his adopted daughters from the above paedophile. I begged every LibDem Lord, MP, senior official every day to stop what was being done to him. I said they were kicking him into his grave, which they were. Not a single response was received from anyone.
My suggestions going forward? Have some sort of contact point for people undergoing these abuses which might leave local authority insurers with huge claims in the future. Nip the abuses in the bud when they start. It wouldn’t cost much to set up or run, and the potential savings for your industry could be huge.
There is, of course, the case of Mrs Luba Macpherson and Sunderland Council. No-one did their job. No-one listened to a concerned mother worried about her daughter. How much might that claim cost your industry?
I shall cc this to the rogues at Stockport Council. If they wish to dispute matters they can, but I have a very large amount of documentary evidence
I hope you listen; I really do
Yours sincerely
Sheila Oliver
Local Authority Specialist Researcher
Citizens 2022 Committee
c.c. Mr John Edwards
Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Wilmslow
Cheshire
c.c LibDems
Stockport Council
c.c. Edward Davey
LibDem Leader
Condoms, excrement and full sanitary towels being discharged untreated into Micker Brook.
Email sent – 15 April 2016
Subject:
Misconnections in Cheadle Hulme
Dear HRT,
I comment around the disgraceful condition of Micker Brook and tributaries as
follows;
I’m aware and have already spoken at length with Caroline Riley around tests
done 14/11/14 and have spoken with public health at SMBC. I’m monitoring
visible sewerage toilet products which appear on each heavy rainfall and in my
view are coming from the sewer overflow at Ladybridge Rd.
Three years ago I walked the two combined sewers there on (both now pumped to
increase flow it seems) opening manholes. Flow rates on a hot dry day were
alarmingly at 70% rather than the 19/20% I understood from engineer were
expected. Certainly the estate sewer in my garden bears evidence of high flow
rates preventing exit to trunk sewer and suspended solids dropping to base
blocking the chambers here and upline.
Certainly the sheer amount of filth present on strand line of river suggests
regular overflow is occurring. Similarly holding tanks are possibly engaged
therein as tankers have been reported on 7 arches vicinity. In 26 years local
residency I’ve never seen it so bad as currently presents and heavy rainfall in
my view is leading to activation of overflows as sewers are inadequate.
Persimmon Homes are expecting to build many homes at Midland Rd tip land
already subject to 2 Sec of State enquiries due to pollution and UU have
refused to accept surface water to sewer it being so polluted. Chemicals filth
and substances are therefore freely draining to the culvert exiting at Warwick
bridge with an expectation of greater increased flow as sustainable drainage
from tips area isn’t allowed, rather they must limit all water carrying
leachate.
I attach a link to the SOS outcomes and refer you specifically to sections 59
to 65 and 89 to 94 where any suggestion this isn’t real is eliminated.
Furthermore in the absence of sewers on the tipped land a septic tank is
operating under licence from UU at brickworks land. Over ten years ago tip
leachate was found at 135 times accepted for drinking water standards in the
aquifer therein supplying local boreholes metered by UU and 25% of UK supplies.
What efforts have been made to protect public health since that report of
August 2006?
I submit therefore the filth obvious and leachate not so, are not new problems
and due to Riparian responsibilities arising from Water Act 2010 HRT has been
drafted in due to detections within River Mersey purely as a defence mechanism
should any successful prosecutions arise so the founders are seen to be
tackling the problem. That alone hasn’t solved the ongoing problems however.
What progress has been made since your multiple testing 14th November 2014 please?
Have you examined, reported upon and worked either alone or in collaboration
around filth in Micker Brook and tributaries,Chorlton Brook and tributaries,
River Mersey from storm overflows and tipped areas? Can I please make an
appointment to view the methodology and findings therein?
To perhaps assist further I attach recent shots of debris and a link to Sec of
State matters around tip. Thank you for trying to make a difference in our
environment and I look forward to hearing further from you.
Best wishes
XXXXXX
