Blog Image

Stockport Council News

Are LibDem Councillors Smart/Clark willfully blind to LibDem corruption?

LibDem Councillors, Lisa Smart LibDem PPC, North Reddish Primary School, SMBC FOI, Vale View School, Vicki Bates, Monitoring Officer, Stockport Council Posted on Sat, December 02, 2023 07:45

They promised in the full council meeting of 4th of October that they would represent me. No response yet to this letter to them.

Councillor Lisa Smart/Councillor Angela Clark
Stockport Town Hall
Edward Street

Date 10/10/2023

Dear Councillor Smart/Clark

You undertook at the full council meeting at Stockport Town Hall on 4th October 2023 to represent me.  My questions have been erroneously branded as being vexatious by Stockport Council from the last time it was under Liberal Democrat control.  It was claimed that I had been rude and offensive.  The Information Commissioner decided that I had not been rude and offensive, but was asking too many questions.   I have that evidence, as does Stockport Council.  The Council has no evidence of my ever having been rude or offensive.   I need you to examine the relevant evidence yourself and decide if the questions were rude, offensive, wasting councillor/officer time or in the interests of public safety or the public purse.  I draw your attention to the relevant government advice, which was in place at the time these questions were first raised:-

It is an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 to act deliberately to cause someone (in this instance the council taxpayer) a loss.

Section 2 – Fraud by False Representation It is an offence to commit fraud by false representation. The representation must be made dishonestly. The person must make the representation with the intention of making a gain or causing loss or risk of loss to another.

  1.  You are building the Vale View School too small deliberately, I told Stockport Council.  Your question is vexatious and you are wasting our valuable time with your constant questions, they replied.

My question to the full council meeting – deemed vexatious.

  • But the Council knew in April 2006 that the school was being built too small, so why was my council meeting question on the subject deemed vexatious in February 2008?
  • The birthrate in the area was rising sharply.

The Council stated in the minutes of a meeting on 26th April 2006 that 555 pupils needed a place at Vale View School, so the above FOI response would appear to be incorrect – also an offence to give an untrue response.

  • On 10th of March 2006 the Council knew the school was being built too small.  “I stress the need for confidentiality.”
  • After the school opened it was admitted that a share of 81 million pounds would have to be spent on school places including North Reddish.

I look forward to your decision as to whether this was well-researched questioning about which nothing was done, or my being a nuisance to busy and important council officers and councillors.  It is a simple matter for you to read through this evidence.  There will be no need to drag this out over weeks and months and I look forward to your response with interest.


Sheila Oliver

c.c. Councillor David Meller

Town Hall



Underage Drinking

Advice Helplines Posted on Tue, April 04, 2023 16:49

A useful resource here:

Safe Media Streaming

Child Online Safety Posted on Mon, February 06, 2023 16:36

Parental Controls Safe Media Streaming for Kids | Octane Seating

*Safe Cyber Safety Habits

*Ways to monitor a child’s internet use

*A film rating system

*Tips on device security and parental control options

Councillor Roberts was made aware of the sewage problem at least as early as 2016. (Comment 5).

Cheadle Hulme raw sewage, LibDem Councillors Posted on Thu, December 09, 2021 08:40


Demand more Learn moreGatley’s Lucy Boxes

Read more on thisPlanning application submitted for Gatley Golf Club

Read more on thisSign up for weekly emails

Read this postRead the blog


by Lib Dem Team on 21 September, 2016

The next Cheadle Area Committee meeting starts at 6pm on Tuesday 27th September 2016. It’s in the hall at the Kingsway School (Foxland Road campus) and, as ever, everyone is welcome to come along.

Lots of projects the Lib Dem team have been working on appear on the agenda this time.

  • A petition from residents calling on the council “to fill in the puddles on the Ladybrook/Mickerbrook footpath, as the path is currently impassable”.
  • Open Forum discussion on the current anti-social behaviour causing problems in the Councillor Lane and Lavington Avenue areas. Representatives from the Council and Police will be attending.
  • Funding applications from Cheadle Village Partnership (for the Victorian Market) and Cheadle & Gatley Junior Football Club (for a storage container).
  • Planning application 62110 – extension at rear and new shop front for 7a Wilmslow Road, Cheadle.
  • Proposal to improve signage to Abney Hall Park.
  • Report on how applications for the £25,000 to reduce loneliness among over-50s is progressing.
  • Application to make Newboult Road allotments an Asset of Community Value (ACV)
  • Discussion of options to stop people driving the wrong way along Gatley Green
  • Proposal to prevent parking along a section of Wilmslow Road near the Southgate Business Park
  • Proposal for short sections of yellow lines to prevent parked vehicles blocking access on Wood Street and around the car park by St Marys Church.
  • Proposal for double yellow lines at the junction of Chadvil and Milton in Cheadle
  • Proposal for double yellow lines at the junction of Hawthorn, Cedar and Burnside in Gatley – near Gatley Primary. This is to stop people parking right on the junction, which can be a problem at the start and end of school. The proposal came from the school children themselves as part of work they have done on how to make the roads outside the school safer.
  • Proposal for double yellow lines at the junction of Braystan Gardens and the A34 on the South Park Road Estate to improve visibility for cars leaving the estate.
  • Proposal for double yellow lines on the inside of the sharp bend on South Park Road to avoid the road being narrowed too much by parked cars at that point.
  • Agreement between councillors as to who will lay wreaths at each Remembrance Day service on behalf of Stockport Council.

You can read the full agenda here.6 Comments

6 Responses

  1.  Alex Masidlover says:September 21, 2016 at 9:00 am“Proposal for double yellow lines at the junction of Hawthorn, Cedar and Burnside in Gatley – near Gatley Primary. This is to stop people parking right on the junction, which can be a problem at the start and end of school.”This might help to address the symptom of the underlying problem (if the lines are enforced!) – however, the problem is that so many parents drop their children by car and that the streets within 500m (5 mins walk) of the school are all very narrow.Could consideration be given to opening the Scholes Field Pavillion car park to Gatley Primary Parents at pick up and drop off? Obviously there won’t be enough space for all and there will still be a minority of motorists who insist on parking nearer; as 10 minutes of their time is more important than the safety of children…Reply
  2.  Lib Dem Team says:September 21, 2016 at 9:03 amHi Alex – yes. I had a meeting with the school a couple of weeks ago and using the pavilion car park was one of the options we discussed, so it’s being actively investigated.Reply
  3.  Garry says:September 25, 2016 at 10:54 amMore yellow lines… yet the ones we already have aren’t being enforced. I’ve reported to the council directly and on these communications a few times. And still the double yellow lines are flouted on Oak Road. Many days shoppers and businesses park on them, in the evenings users of the Conservative Club park on them. This takes a long stretch of already narrow road down to one lane. Exasperated by being on the junction of a main road. So before we have more, can we enforce those already in existence.Reply
  4.  Iain Roberts says:September 25, 2016 at 10:57 amHI Garry – it’s the same as everywhere, I think. Most people observe yellow lines so having them is definitely better than not. For those who ignore the rules, they risk getting a ticket. If you see the rules being broken, there’s a form you can use on the council website to ask the traffic wardens to come out.But there’s no way to physically stop people parking on yellow lines if they are willing to take the risk of getting a ticket.Reply
  5.  Julie McDonald says:September 27, 2016 at 3:50 pmGood to hear of 12 residents petition from Ladybridge Park estate around Ladybrook Valley footpath. What can you do? I’ve already had Mary Smith Stephen Watkins Healthy Rivers Trust Greenspace EA out there and meeting 1/7/16 looking at state of matters including holes in bridge at Warwick Close. I’ve received repeated requests from dog walkers for works to be done which I’ve passed to Mary Smiths office. There’s also a serious problem of sewerage within the water and banks of the brook resultant from CSO’s there’s 11 of them in a 9km stretch. I’m waiting on responses from EA under FOIA and brook pollution from several other sources is expected to be covered shortly by TV early October.Reply
    •  Lib Dem Team says:September 27, 2016 at 8:26 pmThere’s a positive response on the state of the path: the council is hoping to properly resurface and widen it next year with money from the Cycle City Ambition Grant.Reply

Leave a Reply

Cheadle and Gatley Liberal Democrats

CategoriesLinksPagesCHEADLE AND GATLEY LIBERAL DEMOCRATS47 Church Road, Gatley, SK8 4NGCategories

Useful links


Printed, published and promoted by Mark Jones on behalf of Keith Holloway (Liberal Democrats) all at 47 Church Road, Gatley, SK8 4NG.

Published and promoted by Mike Dixon on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, 8-10 Great George Street, London, SW1P 3AE. Printed [hosted] by Via Studios, One Lincoln Place, 7 Hulme Street, Manchester M1 5GL.

If you enter your details on this website, the Liberal Democrats, locally and nationally, may use information in it, including your political views, to further our objectives, share it with our elected representatives and/or contact you in future using any of the means provided. Some contacts may be automated. You may opt out of some or all contacts or exercise your other legal rights by contacting us. Further details are in our Privacy Policy at

This website uses cookies to enable some features to work and to collect statistics about how people use the website. We do not collect or store personal information about you except when you choose to contact us. If you continue to browse this website we will assume that you are happy to receive all cookies. You can prevent cookies from being set by changing the settings in your browser.

Site RSS feed

Stockport LibDems pretend they care after years of ignoring local people on this matter.

Cheadle Hulme raw sewage, LibDem Councillors Posted on Tue, December 07, 2021 18:04

Local people have been asking the LibDem councillors for years and years to deal with this. Now, they decide to act.

Stockport Council (again)

Stockport Council Meetings, Uncategorised Posted on Tue, November 30, 2021 18:52

Disabled man’s carers let him pay for their food – despite him being ‘very vulnerable to financial exploitation’

Stockport council has been ordered to reimburse him

Carers of a disabled man let him pay for their food despite the fact he lacked the mental capacity to manage his finances.

Stockport council has been ordered to reimburse him for any meals he shelled out for over a 12 month period – and also ensure others have not been treated similarly.

It comes after the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) upheld a complaint against the authority from the disabled man’s father.

A report from the ombudsman notes how, in January 2020, ‘Mr D’ complained to the council about staff eating meals at his son’s expense.

The disabled man – referred to as ‘Mr E’ in the report – was living at a 24-hour supported housing unit, and was supported by two carers when out in the community.

The council responded that it would be ‘difficult to investigate’ the complaint without evidence of the dates and times this was alleged to have happened.

It added that staff brought their own food – which they ate with tenants at meal times as ‘good practice’ – so needed proof to back up Mr D’s claim.

However, the council later changed tack and chose to treat the issue as a safeguarding referral, rather than a complaint.

In a letter to Mr D in May 2020, the council confirmed that ‘Mr E regularly bought meals at fast food outlets for himself and, on some occasions, paid for food and drinks for the staff who supported him’.

It said the spending was in line with the care providers’ current policy, so there was ‘no evidence of financial abuse and this was therefore not a safeguarding matter’.

Mr D was invited to raise the matter ‘as a complaint rather than a safeguarding matter’ if he continued to have concerns.

However, in a withering assessment of its handling of the complaint, the LGSCO found ‘fault in the council’s actions’.

The report states: “The council accepts that Mr E lacked capacity to manage his finances. He was very vulnerable to financial exploitation.

“I therefore do not understand why the council thought it was acceptable to have a policy which said that support staff could use Mr E’s money to pay for food without consulting Mr E’s parents or without any decision that this was in Mr E’s best interest.

“At the very least, the council should have informed Mr D and Mrs D of its intention and should have invited them to a best interest meeting so that a decision could be made on how this type of expenditure was dealt with.”

The LGSCO report goes on the highlight an inconsistency in the council’s claim that Mr E’s spending on carers’ meals was in line with the provider’s policy.

This, it points out, is at odds with the initial reponse which suggested that it would not have been acceptable – and evidence was needed to back up claims it had.
And the ombudsman also finds fault with the council’s response to Mr D in May 2020.

The report reads: “I agree that the matter may not have been a safeguarding concern if there was no evidence of financial abuse by the staff.

“However, that did not mean there was no fault in the actions of the care provider and the council’s complaint response should have addressed this.”

The LGSCO found further fault with the communication of Mr E’s care plan – which it transpired should provide him with 38 hours 2:1 care each week to allow him to access the community.

The ombudsman found it was ‘not clear, from the plan, how many hours of support Mr E was entitled to and how the budget was calculated’.

And it also criticised the council’s complaint response dated February 2020 as it ‘said the care plan did not specify the hours of 2:1 support, which was not true’.

A breakdown in communication on behalf of the care provider also led to a delay in administering medication, meaning Mr E suffered blocked ears and dry skin longer than he should have.

The council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the ombudsman’s decision:

• Apologise in writing to Mr D and Mr E for the faults.

• Check Mr E’s records for 2019 and find out the incidents when Mr E’s money was used to pay for staff members’ food and drink and reimburse Mr E with this amount.

• Pay Mr E £150 to reflect the injustice suffered by the poor care provided in relation to the medication.

• Contact any other resident/their representative who has been affected by the policy (payment of staff members’ food and drink) and inform them of the Ombudsman’s decision and ask them whether they wish to make a complaint.

Stockport council has been approached for comment.

Surfing and Shopping Safely online.

On-line Safety Posted on Mon, July 19, 2021 08:19

LibDem Lord Rennard.

Andrew Webb, CYPD, Anwar Majothi, Barry Khan, Eamonn Boylan, Ged Lucas, LibDem Councillors, Stunell MP, Sue Derbyshire, Town Hall Protester Posted on Sun, June 06, 2021 16:05

Dear Sheila Oliver,

I am very sorry that you feel this way.

You have, of course, contacted me via this e-mail address at least once in the past (as well as advertising this address publicly).

I receive a lot of communications at my publicly available parliamentary e-mail address and I unsubscribe from those that I do not wish to hear from again.

I will of course treat this e-mail address as unsubscribed.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Rennard

On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:38 PM, Sheila Oliver <> wrote:

Rennard,  I object to your sending me this email.  I shall complain to the Information Commissioner about it.

Sheila Oliver

From: Chris Rennard [] On Behalf Of Chris Rennard
Sent: 25 January 2018 17:14
Subject: Published today – ‘Winning Here’ My Campaign Memoirs to 2006

Published Today  WINNING HERE My Campaign Memoirs      25% discount available if you buy direct from the publishers:

Enter the code WH118 when you click through to the shopping cart page on Winning Here, to buy the hardback at £18.99 (discounted from £25) or the eBook for £15     How did the Liberal Party survive in the 1970s? Why were the Liberal Democrats formed? How did the Lib Dems fight off David Owen’s SDP? What was the story of the 13 Lib Dem parliamentary by-election successes between Eastbourne in 1990 and Dunfermline & West Fife in 2006. How did the party grow from 19 MPs to 63? How did it become ‘the second party of local government’ with over 5,000 Councillors? What were Paddy Ashdown’s dealings with Tony Blair all about? How did Charles Kennedy come to lead opposition to the Iraq War and how did the party reach the peak of its electoral successes under him, cope with his health problems and the controversy of his enforced resignation?
My insight into all these issues is described in a volume of memoirs stretching from my father’s experience as a wounded POW in WWI, being brought up by my disabled Mum after my father died, orphaned at 16 and having to finish school living in my own flat.

I started running council elections in my teens, was a successful constituency agent at 22, the Lib Dem Director of Campaigns & Elections at 29, a peer at 39, and Chief Executive at 43 when the party was at the height of its electoral successes. 

Chris Rennard January 25th 2018       Find Out More    

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.


« PreviousNext »