Concerns have been raised about safeguarding culture in Stockport during the period when serious child sexual abuse cases went undetected or inadequately addressed, following renewed attention on comments made by a former senior social services leader.
Andrew Webb, who became director of the Association of Social Services, previously defended care-home practice in a 2006 national newspaper interview, arguing that staff were legally constrained from restricting children’s movements due to human-rights considerations.
At the time, Mr Webb served as Head of Children’s Services in Stockport, a role involving strategic responsibility for child safeguarding policies and practice across the borough.
The comments were made in response to the case of a teenage girl in care who was repeatedly sexually exploited by adult men while known to social services. Mr Webb stated that carers were “bound by regulation not to curtail young people’s liberty” and that preventing a child leaving a care home would require a secure accommodation order.
However, child-protection experts have since argued that this interpretation reflected a wider institutional failure to prioritise protection over risk-averse legal caution.
The above was perpetrated by LibDem Executive councillor at Stockport.
There is no suggestion that Mr Webb was personally involved in, or aware of, specific criminal acts, and no allegation of wrongdoing has been made against him. However, campaigners and survivors argue that senior leaders must be held accountable for the safeguarding cultures they oversaw.
Liz Davies, a senior social-work academic who has investigated multiple abuse cases nationally, has previously warned that systems which emphasise children’s “choices” over their vulnerability risk abandoning those most in need of protection.
Since the mid-2000s, national safeguarding guidance has shifted significantly. Authorities are now explicitly instructed to recognise children exploited through grooming as victims, not willing participants, and to intervene decisively where there is a risk of significant harm.
Local survivors’ groups say revisiting historic cases is not about blame alone, but about understanding how professional attitudes allowed abuse to continue unchecked.
“Children in care were effectively expected to save themselves,” said one advocate. “That didn’t happen by accident — it was the result of decisions made at senior levels.”
Shan Alexander, still a LibDem Executive Councillor
Wendy Meikle, still a LibDem Executive Councillor still in charge of children
Angela Clark, was told for years what was going on but failed to act, still a local councillor
Cllr Mark Roberts LibDem council leader. Tried to intimidate me into not speaking about LibDem corruption and abuses at Stockport.
Former council leader, now Lord Goddard, who together with LibDem Executive councillor paedophile John Smith, set about having a sick, innocent man, trying to protect his lovely, underage daughters, maliciously and repeatedly imprisoned him until he died aged 58, even when they knew he was terminally ill. He had Barrett’s Oesophagus which can turn malignant when the patient is subjected to stress, which he was for many years.
Why do any of these LibDems still hold public office? It is very dangerous for them to do so.
I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 2161).
Please find attached a copy of the current Communications Plan.
The discussion you refer to with NPS was not minuted so no information is held in relation to this. The response from NPS about how it can assist will not be provided to you because the Council maintains that it is exempt under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI Act) and Regulation 12(5)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs).
Disclosure of this information would prejudice the commercial interests of NPS because the tendering process is still underway; the Council has not yet made a decision about whether to use NPS or an alternative contractor. Disclosing information about NPS’ costs to the public at this time would give their competitors an unfair advantage. The Council has considered the public interest factors in this case and recognises that it is important that the Council is accountable for the public money it spends; however in this case no money has been spent to date because the information refers to rates and not public money which has already been spent. There is also a public interest in ensuring fair competition between companies which outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information for the purposes transparency in this case.
If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request you are entitled to ask for an internal review. Any internal review will be carried out by a senior member of staff who was not involved with your original request. To ask for an internal review, contact foi.officer@stockport.gov.uk in the first instance.
If you are unhappy with the outcome of any internal review, you are entitled to complain to the Information Commissioner. To do so, contact:
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com] Sent: 02 September 2009 17:49 To: FOI Officer Subject: SEMMMS FOIA and EIR 2004
Dear Ms Naven
Stakeholder Management
Stakeholders need to be kept informed and encouraged to support scheme
New Communication Plan being developed to re-launch scheme
Website updated Draft communication plan being discussed. Meeting 30th June
JMM
Landowners need to manage expectations, access to land, CPO process – early sale discussions
Discuss with NPS re their capability to do this
Meeting arranged 10th June
NPS are preparing a response on how they can assist. Availability of Cheshire East Officers being investigated
JMM
Please may I have a copy of the communication plan.
Please may I have the minutes of the meeting arranged on 10th June with NPS and their response on how they can assist.
Yours
Mrs S J Oliver
FOIC Stockport
—————————————————————————————————–
Mon 05/10/2009 15:22
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 2105).
None of the meetings you have listed were minuted apart from the meetings at points (i) and (v). You have already been provided with a copy of the minutes from the meeting with the DfT; in relation to the brief to Counsel, this has already been addressed in a previous request.
If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request you are entitled to ask for an internal review. Any internal review will be carried out by a senior member of staff who was not involved with your original request. To ask for an internal review, contact foi.officer@stockport.gov.uk in the first instance.
If you are unhappy with the outcome of any internal review, you are entitled to complain to the Information Commissioner. To do so, contact:
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com] Sent: 07 September 2009 17:53 To: FOI Officer Subject: Re: FOI and EIR 2004 request A555 – Ref 2105 – Request for clarification
Ms Naven
I would like the minutes of any of those meetings listed which have taken place. It is in relation to the A555. I said Mrs Stevenson would know and she would have done had you asked her.
Subject: RE: FOI and EIR 2004 request A555 – Ref 2105 – Request for clarification
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 2105).
Please can you clarify exactly what you are requesting? You appear to have cut and pasted a list from a set of minutes but have not actually stated what you are asking for. Are you seeking confirmation that these meetings have taken place? Are you seeking notes of the meetings? Please specify what you are requesting.
Yours sincerely,
Claire Naven
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com] Sent: 10 August 2009 19:13 To: FOI Officer Subject: FOI and EIR 2004 request A555
Hi
Please may I see the following;-
1. Immediate first steps were discussed to propose to restart the project including meeting with:
i. DfT
ii. Consultants and ask for their views on delivering models and assistance with the scheme
iii. CECA
iv. Highways Agency Procurement and Major Scheme Specialist
v. Legal and following on need Council’s opinion
vi. NPS re. land support
vii. Mouchels re. EA
viii. Motts. Re. programme management assistance and modelling.
ix. Procurement and finance officers invite to consultant event.
x. Develop understanding of finance availability and profile
I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 2160).
Please find attached the brief for consultants to respond to. The remaining information you requested is not held by the Council. The meeting with GONW has not yet taken place and the remaining meetings were not minuted.
If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request you are entitled to ask for an internal review. Any internal review will be carried out by a senior member of staff who was not involved with your original request. To ask for an internal review, contact foi.officer@stockport.gov.uk in the first instance.
If you are unhappy with the outcome of any internal review, you are entitled to complain to the Information Commissioner. To do so, contact:
The three local authorities have agreed to continue to work together to deliver the SEMMMS Relief Road A6 to Airport scheme. They have agreed that Stockport Council will take the lead on managing the project.
The three authorities are starting to consider the assistance they will require to deliver the scheme and would like to receive proposals regarding the following areas of work.
Project/Programme Management of the scheme. A review of the scheme progress to date and an identification of what needs to be done to take the scheme forward through planning to building on site.
Support to develop the Major Scheme Business Case which must be approved within 9 months from 1st June.
Creation of a Traffic Assessment report to support the planning application and an associated complimentary integration measures report which will be needed to support the planning application and Environmental Assessment and modelling.
The local authorities would like to receive a presentation on the first two elements of work on _________ as a documented proposal for all elements of the work. The documented proposal should be submitted by the 29th July to Sue Stevenson at Stockport MBC by electronic means and with three printed copies. The various elements of work will be awarded based on the quality and cost indications contained in the proposals and presentation.
The presentation time available is 1.5hrs per consultant and should focus on the review, your views on the next steps, project management arrangements and how you could support them. It is expected that staff who would be responsible for the project management would be part of the presentation team wherever practical.
The found individual elements of work require separate proposals including timescales, costs, the staff available and their experience to enable each proposal to be judged and awarded separately.
The work may be awarded to one or more consultants as individual elements could be delivered as part of the project team approach or alternatively one consultant could undertake all the elements if the appropriate resources are available.
It would be helpful if you could indicate whether you intend to submit a proposal and for which or all elements you intend to respond to.
The project/programme management of the scheme is required to use an appropriate methodology e.g. Prince 2 to support the Project Board which contains representatives from Cheshire East, Manchester and Stockport and the Senior Responsible Owner – Jim McMahon from Stockport to deliver the scheme.
The project management will need to demonstrate that it can manage a complex project team which may include officers from the local authorities, possible in secondment, consultants from your own organisation and other consultants who may be working on individual elements of the scheme. This may include, but this is still subject to discussion.
Mouchells – Environmental Work
Motts – Transport Modelling
Counter Context – Public information and consultation
NPS and Cheshire East Officers leading on land issues.
The time management and cost control are crucial to the schemes eventual success and you will need to indicate how you intend to manage both of these elements. Your proposal should include proposed staff and an indication of the time/cost of the project management support you propose.
Review of the scheme.
You are requested to review the progress of the scheme to date and recommend what works is required to progress the scheme to the submission of planning permission and beyond to construction on site. You will be able to access the existing scheme documentation and meet with internal officers and our existing consultations to help you undertake the review. Please contact Sue Stevenson of Stockport in the first instance with any requests for assistance as part of the proposal and presentation. Please indicate your view of the progress made to date and the future elements of work required to meet key milestones, e.g. approval of the MSBC submission of the planning application and commencement on site on accordance with the agreed programme. Please indicate how you can assist us with the remaining work required giving an indication of the time/costs and your staff who would be involved.
DfT officers have indicated that they will require a Major Scheme Business Case to be submitted and approved within nine months from the 1st June 2009 for the scheme A6 – Airport. They have suggested that some of the existing business case could be required. Please indicate what you believe needs to be done, the assistance you can provide including the impact required from other consultants who may hold relevant information e.g. modelling, Environmental Assessment and a draft programme of how you would achieve the timescale indicated, costs for your assistance and the staff to be involved should also be included.
A transport assessment will be required for the planning application. As part of the overall scheme a complimentary measures package was created to support the scheme, this needs to be reviewed with support from local authority staff probably in workshops. The workshops need to review the existing schemes and indentify others and then another workshop to review the proposed new scheme developed by the consultants. The package of measures needs to include mitigation and complimentary measures and be affordable, appropriate and achievable. The final package of measures must be a discrete document that can be referred to in the Modelling Environmental Assessment and Transport Assessment and must be completed in a time and manner which accommodates all these needs. The draft transport assessment needs to be completed for the public consultation in Spring 2010 and finalised before the planning application in Summer 2010.
Please include in your proposal the elements you would include in the TA, your approach to the creation of complimentary/mitigation measures packages and the proposed timescales, costs and staff involved.
General
It is intended that whilst work has already recommenced on the scheme that these elements of work will commence on the 1st September 2009 or earlier by agreement.
———————————————————————————————————–
Fri 25/09/2009 15:52
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 2158).
The requested information is not held. No minutes were taken at the meeting.
If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request you are entitled to ask for an internal review. Any internal review will be carried out by a senior member of staff who was not involved with your original request. To ask for an internal review, contact foi.officer@stockport.gov.uk in the first instance.
If you are unhappy with the outcome of any internal review, you are entitled to complain to the Information Commissioner. To do so, contact:
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com] Sent: 02 September 2009 17:39 To: FOI Officer Subject: SEMMMS FOIA and EIR 2004 request
Dear Ms Naven
“A number of meetings are programmed to discuss procurement methods and from initial views it appears that early contractor involvement benefits the scheme progression through the planning process. However experience of other schemes suggests that an element of competitive pricing must be introduced to ensure best value out of the process.”
Please may I have the minutes of those meetings by email.
I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 2092).
Please find attached the information you requested.
If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request you are entitled to ask for an internal review. Any internal review will be carried out by a senior member of staff who was not involved with your original request. To ask for an internal review, contact foi.officer@stockport.gov.uk in the first instance.
If you are unhappy with the outcome of any internal review, you are entitled to complain to the Information Commissioner. To do so, contact:
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com] Sent: 10 August 2009 19:07 To: FOI Officer Subject: A555 FOI and EIR 2004 request
Dear Ms Naven
From the SEMMMs meeting minutes 23/7/07 it was decided:-
“A meeting is to be held in Stockport to discuss the assessment of the retail
impact of development. It was agreed that Richard Bradley will attend, both in
respect of SEMMMS and his involvement in the town centre model.”
Please may I have the minutes of that meeting.
Kind regards
Sheila
Project: Stockport Town Centre Modelling Support
Project Number: C5011-00
Technical Note: Transport Multi-Modal Modelling Overview
Introduction
Following the attendance of the Bridgefield Transport Modelling Workshop (Thursday 30th August 2007) Richard Bradley (ANSA Consultants) was requested to prepare an overview note providing brief details of the likely approach for multi-modal modelling of Stockport Town Centre. This is contained in the discussion below.
Modelling Overview
Currently the Stockport Town Centre Modelling System (STCMS) includes 2006 weekday and Saturday Highway Assignment Models (HAMs), accompanied by a compatible 2003 weekday Public Transport Assignment Model (PTAM). The HAM allows vehicle routing through the Stockport town centre area, and surrounding ‘areas of influence’, to be modelled. The PTAM models the route public transport passengers are likely to take, including the choice of sub-modes walk, bus and rail. Notably the PTAM does not include the capacity of vehicles, and therefore the effects of crowding are not modelled.
Current work includes the preparation of a Reference Case (RC) demand scenario, which represents a future year against which schemes can be assessed. This includes preparing future year travel forecasts that have not been fully constrained to travel costs, at least at the local level. It should be borne in mind that a plethora of traveller and land use choices are represented in the Greater Manchester Strategic Planning Model (GMSPM), used to provide ‘upper tier’ forecasts. However, GMSPM is too strategic to properly represent traveller decisions at a level appropriate for local planning and scheme design, hence the need for STCMS.
An initial task to further enhance the STCMS is to update the weekday PTAM to 2006. This should be possible using existing ticket information, passenger counts and service information. If crowding is currently thought to be a problem in Stockport, or potentially one in the future (depending on the level of modal transfer), this task would present the best opportunity to introduce vehicle capacity, derived from GMPTE data.
A further initial task is to prepare an automated mechanism to update the travel times in the PTAM to reflect those modelled in the HAM. This would also allow highway infrastructure changes, represented in the HAM, to be automatically transferred to the PTAM.
These two initial tasks would allow the current and future year costs of travel to be properly derived, and these could be used to indicate levels of accessibility. However, the separate use of the HAM and PTAM does not allow the transfer of passengers from the main modes of Car to PT to be understood, which would required the introduction of a demand model. Demand models vary greatly in their level of sophistication and understanding the appropriate level of detail is important. Therefore, it is proposed that the current ‘baseline’ demand for travel is analysed as well as the current and future travel costs and levels of accessibly, as derived from the HAM and PTAM. The RC demand would also provide a forecast of travel demand, affectively aggregated by travel mode. If there are significant increases in travel cost in a transport corridor or area with current or future high travel demand, and in particular if current highway congestion and delay is high, then a demand model is likely to be required.
The demand model is likely to only require the modelling of main mode transfer and park and ride, in particular because of the role of GMSPM. However, a steer from DfT will help determine whether this level of sophistication is appropriate.
The approached used to determine the need for a demand model can also be used to determine the need for a Saturday PTAM. This approach requires the transport supply element of the Saturday PTAM to be assembled, which is expected to be relatively easy. This would probably be best undertaken during the updating of the 2003 model to 2006.
The 2006 Saturday ‘supply only’ PTAM would allow Saturday travel costs to be prepared, excluding the effects of crowding. However, the travel demand would be a much more serious undertaking, including the need for passenger interview surveys. It is therefore proposed that a decision is made as soon as possible as to the need for Saturday PT data collection. It may be prudent to undertake such surveys this autumn in advance of this decision – to miss the autumn survey window would delay surveys to February 2008 at the earliest.
I acknowledge receipt of your recent emails. I will be considering the information as part of my investigation of your complaint.
Yours sincerely,
Anwar Majothi
Improvement & Performance Officer (Complaints)
Stockport MBC
Tel: 0161 474 3182
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com] Sent: 22 August 2009 08:07 To: Anwar Majothi Cc: mike carroll; Syd Lloyd; Gaz Butler; Cllr Sheila Bailey(EXT); Jennifer Williams; DAVID PENKETHMAN; peter.devine@gmwn.co.uk; Michael Warburton Subject: Vexatious with knobs on
Dear Mr Majothi
As there are plans to declare me vexatious with knobs on on1st September (I forget the correct terminology), I had better get everything out in the open before then.
Please see the attached. On October 5th 2005 the proposed school was to cost £5.5 million. On December 12th 2005 it had risen to £7.5 million. Why? I can’t see from any of the FOI documents I have seen (after a massive battle in which Mr Andrew Webb said it would take 84 hours of council officer time to read and redact what turned out to be about four folders, which I knew from the outset to be a lie) anyone explaining or querying this massive jump.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Mrs Sheila Oliver
Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner
According to his LinkedIn profile, Anwar Majothi is now a Senior Adviser at the UK Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) as of June 2023.
Previously, he worked at Stockport Council as the Corporate Complaints Manager / Officer.
LibDem MP Lisa Smart couldn’t care less about wildlife, as the case of Padden Brook shows. For 15 months she and her paid goons couldn’t have cared less about vital wildlife on this protected visual amenity land/W1 protected woodland untouched since the 1960s. Destroyed day by day whilst all she does is have photo-ops. Never vote LibDem if you value your green spaces.
“Furthermore, there is no headroom in the RFA to contribute towards its construction costs even when the current over-programming issue is resolved.”……..
“Based on a more realistic start of works date, the inflation-adjusted cost of the A555 MAELR scheme could rise to over £370m. The RFA, local authorities and any third parties could therefore need to find over £205m, with the local authority contribution likely to be at least £20m, split between Manchester City Council, Stockport MBC and the new Cheshire East unitary authority. For the scheme to proceed, the region will need assurances from the three local authorities that they are willing and able to provide sufficient funding to cover the local contribution.”
Please could I see those written assurances from Manchester City Council, Stockport SMBC and Cheshire East unitary authority that they are willing and able to provide sufficient funding to cover the local contribution.
Kind regards
Sheila
Emails sent Sat 15/08/2009 10:06
Dear Ms Naven
“The current estimated outturn cost of the A555 MAELR scheme is circa £325m (excluding optimism bias)”.
This quote is from the minutes of the meeting of AGMA Leaders 20/02/09. How much is the scheme to cost including optimum bias?
Kind regards
Sheila
————————————————————————————————
Email sent Sat 15/08/2009 10:25
Dear Ms Naven
Please see below the quote from the minutes of the Meeting of AGMA leaders 20/2/09:-
“The current RFA programme includes £33.8m for preparation costs and purchase of land and property related to the full SEMMMS Relief Roads scheme owned by the Highways Agency. For the A555 MAELR scheme, the Agency currently values its land and property portfolio at approximately £3m.
A number of uncertainties remain with regard to the deliverability of the A555 MAELR scheme, not least whether the region is able to commit”
Is Stockport Council having to purchase the land owned by the Highways Agency for the entire SEMMMS Relief Road scheme? Because, if so, in from the same document it states:
“there is no prospect of the region being able to afford the A6 Stockport North – South Bypass in the foreseeable future”
I have been quoted by Stockport Council under the FOIA a cost of £69 million for purchase of land and compensation for the A555. I wonder if you could clarify if this includes all the land owned by the Highways Agency for the entire SEMMMS road schemes.
Romiley residents are voicing growing frustration over what they see as a lack of progress in protecting the W1-designated woodland and amenity site at Padden Brook—while local MP Lisa Smart continues to appear in publicity events.
The woodland, a much-valued green space within the community, has been the subject of concern for over 14 months. Campaigners say the area, officially recognised for its ecological and community importance, remains at risk due to stalled efforts to secure its long-term protection.
Meanwhile, residents have noted MP Smart’s recent participation in a number of high-profile photo opportunities, including her visible support for national health campaigns such as Radiotherapy UK’s “Catch Up With Cancer” initiative. While many praise the cause, others argue her priorities should also include urgent local environmental matters.
One resident told the Gazette: “We all support good national causes, but we’d like to see the same energy put into safeguarding our local spaces. Padden Brook has been left hanging for too long.”
Campaigners are calling for firm action from local and national representatives to preserve the woodland, warning that delays could result in permanent damage to the area’s natural character.
Requests for comment from Lisa Smart’s office had not been returned at the time of publication.
