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
Stockport
SK1 3XE
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:-
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/armchair-auditors-are-here-to-stay
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.
- 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.
Yours
Sheila Oliver
c.c. Councillor David Meller
Town Hall
Stockport
SK1 3XE
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
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
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
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
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
25% discount available if you buy direct from the publishers:
