Stockport Council News

http://www.stockport.gov.uk/services/councildemocracy/your_council/documentsandfacts/budgetsfinancialmonitoringreports/councilspending#pcards

From: Jill
Barlow [mailto:jill.barlow@stockport.gov.uk] On Behalf Of FOI Officer
Sent: 20 May 2015 10:41
To: ‘Sheila Oliver’
Cc: FOI Officer
Subject: FOI/EIR 30599:Response

Dear Mrs Oliver

I am writing in response to your request for information
(ref FOI/ EIR 30599).

The relevant Council Service(s) has searched for the
requested information and our response is as follows:

The
information you have requested about Vale View Primary School is
deemed exempt under section 14(1) Freedom of Information Act 2000 and
under Regulation 12(4)(b) Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

01625 545 745

Yours sincerely

Jill
Barlow

CSS
Senior Officer – Information Governance

Stockport
Council

Town
Hall

Stockport

SK1
3XE

Tel:
0161 474 3319

Fax:
0161 474 4006

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your request for
information (ref FOI 30582).

The relevant Council Service(s) has searched for
the requested information and our response is as follows:

Are postal votes counted before the rest of the votes are
counted on election night, and if so which individuals are privy to the number
of votes cast for each party?

SMBC
can confirm that postal votes are not counted by candidate/party before the
close of poll on election day and so no individual is aware of the number of
votes received by any candidate/party before the count takes place.

The
process that is followed in respect of opening postal votes is specified in the
Representation of the People (England & Wales) Regulations 2001.
Essentially this provides that:

·
The envelope containing the postal vote statement
and the envelope containing the ballot paper(s) is opened

·
The postal vote statement is checked to ensure it is
signed and dated and the number on the statement matches that on the ballot
paper envelope

·
The signature and date of birth on the postal vote
statement are scanned and the details compared to the master images kept by the
Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) as part of the postal vote application
process

·
If the postal vote statement is accepted, the envelopes
containing the ballot paper(s) then passes to the next stage of the process

·
When the postal vote statements have been scanned and
adjudicated, the envelopes containing the ballot paper(s) are then opened and
the number of ballot papers received are counted FACE DOWNWARDS so that any
candidates/agents observing the process is not able to see which
candidate./party the elector has voted for. The ballot papers are not sorted
into candidates/parties but the total number of ballot papers received is
calculated and the ballot papers sealed into ballot boxes ready to be included
in the count when it commences after the polls close.

If
the signature or date of birth on the postal vote statement does not match that
held by the ERO the postal vote is rejected. Any elector whose vote is rejected
for these reasons is contacted after the election so they are aware their
vote was disallowed and if necessary they can provide a fresh signature.

Yours sincerely,

FOI Officer

Regarding this article http://www.insidermedia.com/insider/north-west/136715-stockport-contractor-collapses-after-gb-building-solutions-insolvency/

Did GB Building Solutions have a cosy relationship
with Stockport Council and the then Leader, now Lord Goddard? They were going
to develop a site lethally gassing 75% Methane – building on it, amongst other
things, an old people’s home. I think when I started shouting about the
contamination the plans for that were quietly shelved.

The firm did not have enough money to continue with
the project and were supposed to receive £750k of public money. Why on earth
were they chosen to develop such a potentially dangerous and
expensive-to-deal-with contaminated site then?

http://www.sheilaoliver.org/blackstone,-offerton.html

http://www.sheilaoliver.org/blackstone-gb-building-solutions.html

http://iloapp.sheilaoliver.org/blog/blogging?Home&post=1605

http://iloapp.sheilaoliver.org/blog/blogging?Home&post=65

http://iloapp.sheilaoliver.org/blog/blogging?Home&post=15

http://iloapp.sheilaoliver.org/blog/blogging?Home&post=6

http://t.co/2mkC4JMuwb

See what the naughty Stockport LibDem councillors get up to.

“Muse Developments Limited was registered on 20 May 1992 with its registered office in London. The business has a status listed as “Active” and it currently has 7 directors. It was founded by Mr David Taylor, Mr James Harry Gill, Mr John Dalton Early, Mr James Joseph O’brien, Mr Roef Petersen, Mr Paul Parry. The business currently employs 50-99 people. Muse Developments Limited has 21 subsidiaries.”

Directors of Muse Developments

https://www.duedil.com/director/913027136/nigel-john-howard-franklin
https://www.duedil.com/director/906888693/matthew-ellis-crompton
https://www.duedil.com/director/916914860/david-hoyle
https://www.duedil.com/director/908435777/john-christopher-morgan
https://www.duedil.com/director/907421641/clare-sheridan
https://www.duedil.com/director/916915219/sarah-anne-shankland
https://www.duedil.com/director/917774184/stephen-paul-crummett
https://www.duedil.com/director/915263861/david-kevin-mulligan

Email received – 05 May 2015 12:27

Dear
Mrs Oliver,

I
am writing in response to your request for information (ref FOI
30581).

The
relevant Council Service(s) has searched for the requested information and our
response is as follows:

The ‘Who’ element
of your request can be answered by information that is publically available from
the Planning Search on the Councils Web page. This
information is therefore exempt under Section 21 of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 as it is information that is already reasonably accessible via the
following link: http://planning.stockport.gov.uk/PlanningData/AcolNetCGI.gov

Concerning the
‘Why’ aspect of this request, SMBC does not hold this information as this
request would need to be directed to the applicants/developers. However there
may be justification for the proposed development contained within the planning
application which is publically
available from the Planning Search on the Councils Web page. This
information is therefore exempt under Section 21 of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 as it is information that is already reasonably accessible via the
following link: http://planning.stockport.gov.uk/PlanningData/AcolNetCGI.gov

Your request title
mentions Compulsory Purchase Order however as far as the relevant service can
ascertain there is no Compulsory Purchase Order in place for this location.

Yours
sincerely,

——————-
From: Sheila
Oliver
Sent: 23 April 2015 21:29
To: FOI
Officer
Subject: Compulsory purchase/demolition of property opposite
town hall for construction of offices

Dear FoI
Officer

I believe buildings
from the 1840s opposite the town hall are being demolished in order to build
more office space. The entire town is full of empty office blocks. Who came up
with this proposed development and why?

Kind
regards

Sheila

Carrs Wood, Poynton.

From a total area of 2.3 hectares, 0.08 hectares of ancient woodland is
built over but the damage extends much further. Woodland Trust recommend new
roads come no closer than between 50 and 150m. Since the ancient woodland is
only 300m wide half the area will be damaged by the road.

Another area of ancient woodland was identified at the confluence of
Norbury and Poynton brooks. This has been totally ignored.