Stockport Council News

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/terminally-ill-ex-stockport-councillor-10879227

Nicola Turner, Head of Growth at the ludicrously named – Services to
Place
Stockport
Council
Fred Perry House
Edward Street
Stockport
SK1 3XE

T:
0161 218 1635
M: 07866 999609

agrees with Anwar Majothi that not one document pertaining to the moving of the fuel supply pipeline for Manchester Airport to enable the construction of the A6 MARR roadscheme can be disclosed. Not one document! The Council has a legal requirement to keep information in an easily accessible manner. Yet Ms Turner can’t even find one document to disclose. I really wonder what we pay the extortionate salaries of these unaccountable panjandrums for.

Mr Majothi was involved not only with the toxic waste dump school offences under the Fraud Act 2006 but also the bulling to death of sick, innocent Mr Parnell.

http://www.sheilaoliver.org/-multi-m-planning-fraud.html

http://blogging.sheilaoliver.org/#category2

Stockport Council officers – what’re they like eh?

Is Lord Goddard asking questions in the Lords on behalf of Orbit Developments?

Lord Goddard of Stockport Liberal Democrat 3:07
pm, 2nd December 2015

To ask Her Majesty’s Government
what is their assessment of how the policy to allow offices to be converted
into housing has worked so far, and whether they intend to extend the policy
beyond next year, when it is due to lapse.

Baroness Williams of Trafford The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

My Lords, we announced on 12 October that we would make permanent the
permitted development right for the change of use from office to residential
use. From April 2014 toJune 2015, 3,971 schemes
have secured the permitted development right, which will deliver much-needed
new homes.

Lord Goddard of Stockport Liberal Democrat

I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware that the British Council for Offices has
estimated that 6 million square feet of office accommodation has been lost? In London, it is more
disastrous than that: 834,000 square metres have been lost, 40% of which was
due to evictions. They are thriving businesses trying to deliver for the
economy, which have been thrown out by unscrupulous landlords trying to make
profit from running around the planning rules. This is an unintended
consequence of a policy that was right when it was brought in. We should look
again because clearly that was not the idea. It was to create jobs and homes,
not to create the complete opposite, which is what is happening.

Baroness Williams of Trafford The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

I thank the
noble Lord for that useful supplementary question. As he and I know, in
Stockport and Trafford the policy has worked very well and has helped to
deliver much needed footfall and population to some of our town centres. The British Council for Offices estimates that the right has resulted in 7,600 much-needed homes,
including in London and the south-east. The office market continues to develop,
as noted by the British Council for Offices, with modern office developments
being brought forward, but where there is evidence that it is necessary to
protect the amenity and well-being of existing business areas, as the noble
Lord said, local planning authorities can bring forward Article 4 directions to
remove the right and require a planning application. Twenty local planning
authorities have already done this.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/found-mayors-thousands-charity-cash-9094497

Another £73m to solve traffic problems which should have been sorted out by the A6 MARR. What on earth is going on Councillor Sue Derbyshire, Leader of LibDem Stockport Council?

And I learn from the newspaper article above that Nick Whelan is involved.

The Nick Whelan who may well be considered by some people to be lethally incompetent? He was in charge of the traffic around the new toxic waste dump school at Harcourt Street, North Reddish. Circa £28,000 was paid to an external consultant to tell a load of lies about the traffic situation around the new school. Having got the report they wanted, corrupt Stockport Council took this utter rubbish to the planning meeting where ovine LibDem councillors passed the scheme on the nod.

Days before the planning meeting Whelan admitted he had had no idea how big the school was going to be or what a dangerous traffic situation would be created. Why not? I had told him many times and it was his job to know.

Within weeks of the school opening the local police had complained about the dangerous traffic situation. But shhhh. The corrupt LibDems at Stockport think it is “vexatious” to mention the dangerous traffic situation around a new primary school.

How could some might say prize nincompoop Nick Whelan not have known that most of the cars from the houses within the red lines had to exit the estate up the narrow lane past the new school entrance?

How could, some might consider, utter plonker Nick Whelan not have realised that placing a 550 pupil primary school, babies nursery, children’s centre etc at this lethal point would cause traffic problems? This was the situation before the new school was built:

Leave Nick Whelan in charge of a £73m traffic scheme? Heavens to Betsy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY11uw8HL1k

Please copy the link into your browser to see a Council video where LibDem Executive Councillors admit their road for votes will increase traffic in the Borough, bring in traffic from outside of the area and the rest of the roadscheme will not be completed until 2040, if ever.

LibDems, what’re they like?

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I write regarding your request received on the 28th
October 2015. I have provided the Council’s response as follows:

The cost of the bridge is still subject to completion of detailed
design and final approvals from Network Rail; therefore this information is not
currently available as the associated costs are still in development and would
not be disclosed until appropriate sign-offs from all parties. The cost of the
bridge and associated risk allowances are covered within the overall scheme
budget.

I hope this is helpful.

Kind regards

Anwar

Anwar Majothi

Corporate Complaints Manager (CSS)