Stockport Council News

Corrupt Stockport LibDems began construction of their road-for-votes illegally too early and now it is expensively hitting the buffers. But who will pay the spiralling costs? I can’t afford to, can you? All to buy votes for a few corrupt politicians.

Lovely bird looks on as corrupt Stockport LibDems destroy ancient woodland for votes.

Remember, this is your money being wasted as the dodgy LibDem bypass for votes construction hits expensive problems.

Dear Laura

Thanks for your letter above. I would never, ever vote for LibDem PPC for Hazel Grove Lisa Smart, and here is why.

She is running a dirty election campaign. Do I want someone who is a nasty piece of work as my local MP? No, I have had enough problems with the horrible Mr Stunneybuns.

Do I want to vote for someone who is currently destroying ancient woodland and Green Belt? No. Do I want to vote for someone who intends to destroy the habitats of otters, kingfishers, breeding lapwings, owls and the Lesser Silver Water Beetle in order to purchase a few votes for her and her very dodgy political cohorts? No.

Do I want the beautiful Goyt Valley at Stockport destroyed? No. Do I want the beautiful, peaceful graveside of my lovely young son enhanced by a bypass yards away? No, although LibDem Leader Councillor Derbyshire wants that for her young son’s graveside. She is one strange woman!

Smart let her mask slip when I attended Mr Stunneybuns constituency office (which I pay for) to raise the issue of LibDem human rights abuses at Stockport – the bullying to death of a sick, innocent man. Smart couldn’t bundle me out of the door quick enough – her and her “partner” – another nasty piece of work.

When Smart has got what she wants from you, Laura, I doubt she will take your telephone calls.

I used to think you were a councillor with principles. It would appear I was wrong.

Yours

Sheila

Email received – 21 May 2013 09:43
Dear
Mrs Oliver,

I
am writing in response to your request for information (ref FOI
7165).

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

Over the past two
years to end of March 2013:

1) How many
“compromise agreements” have been signed?

382

2) What
evidence exists that employees access “independent” advice?

The signature of a
solicitor on the compromise agreement and receipt of their invoice. Independent
legal advice is a requirement within the compromise agreement
itself.

3) Can the
council guarantee that they do not provide any advice as to where employees
should seek advice regarding such agreements?

We do not provide
advice or recommendations. However, some employees do ask for the names of
solicitors other employees have used, in which case we direct them to their own
trade unions for advice and provide a list, but we are clear that this does not
constitute a recommendation and they can choose whichever solicitor/legal
adviser they wish, and it is their responsibility to ensure they are fully aware
of what the charges will be.

4) Are redundancy
payments calculated under a standard format or are there circumstances where
this might be varied?

Yes they are
calculated to a standard formula.

5) If so, what
criteria is used to justify the variation from the norm?

Yours
sincerely,

Simon
Oldfield

Freedom
of Information/ Data Protection Officer & RIPA
Coordinator

Stockport
Council
Town Hall
Stockport
SK1 3XE

Tel:
0161 474 4048
Fax: 0161 474 4006

From: Simon
Oldfield On Behalf Of FOI Officer

————————————————————-

From: Sheila
Oliver
Sent: 03 May 2013
19:47
To: FOI Officer
Subject: Fw: Compromise agreements
7010 – Response

Dear FoI
Officer

And supplementry to
my question below:-

Over the past two years to end of March 2013:

!) How
many “compromise agreements” have been signed?

2) What evidence exists
that employees access “independent” advice?

3) Can the council guarantee
that they do not provide any advice as to where employees should seek advice
regarding such agreements?

4) Are redundancy payments calculated under a
standard format or are there circumstances where this might be varied?

5)
If so, what criteria is used to justify the variation from the
norm?

Kind
regrds

Sheila

—– Original
Message —–

From: Sheila
Oliver

To: FOI Officer

Cc: leader@stockport.gov.uk

Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013
6:43 PM

Subject: Re: Compromise
agreements 7010 – Response

Dear FoI
Officer

Would the below
mentioned confidentiality clause preclude
whistleblowing?

By the way, £420,000
was spent on the A6 to Airport Road consultation exercise. How many of the jobs
of your decent colleagues could that money have safeguarded? But it has all
been blown on a doomed to failure roadscheme. And the Council says I waste
money!

Kind
regards

Sheila

—– Original
Message —–

From: FOI Officer

To: ‘Sheila
Oliver’

Cc: FOI Officer

Sent: Thursday, May 02,
2013 1:58 PM

Subject: FW: Compromise
agreements 7010 – Response

Dear
Mrs Oliver,

I
am writing in response to your request for information (ref FOI
7010).

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

The Council uses
compromise agreements as part of our standard approach for employees leaving on
voluntary redundancy grounds. Compromise agreements are signed by the employee
after taking independent legal advice, and by the employer. The standard
compromise agreement sets out the reason why the employee is leaving, any
payments due to the employee and details the property and information that need
returning to the Council as well as a standard confidentiality
clause.

Yours
sincerely,

Simon
Oldfield

Freedom
of Information/ Data Protection Officer & RIPA
Coordinator

Stockport
Council
Town Hall
Stockport
SK1 3XE
——————————————————–

From: Sheila
Oliver
Sent: 03 April 2013
18:04
To: FOI Officer
Subject: Compromise
agreements

Dear FoI
Officer

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9967901/14m-bill-for-gagging-axed-public-officials.html

Please see this
newspaper article. Has SMBC signed any such
agreements?

Kind
regards

Sheila

Email sent – 25 April 2015 18:59

Dear FoI Officer

In the light of this FOI reply below, please let me know what gas monitoring has been carried out at the Vale View School since it opened.

Many thanks and kind regards

Sheila
———————————–

“08 August 2007 18:10

Our Reference FOI/EIR 618

Dear Mrs Oliver,

FOI & EIR Request – Costs of North Reddish Schools

I am writing in response to your e-mail dated 11th July addressed to Cllr Weldon in which your request:

“How much is the removal of the toxic waste costing and how much will these new stipulations of Sport England cost?”

QUERY CONCERNING THE GMGU REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

Firstly regarding your query in relation to the condition of the site, as you are aware GMGU carried a ground investigation report of the site in question (a full copy of the report can be found at:http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/onlinemvm/getimage.asp?DocumentNumber=30867 )

This report concluded that:

“In summary, the GMGU consider the site to be safe to develop for a school with playing fields, provided some simple, precautionary measures are taken that will ensure that any residual risks are effectively managed.”

The report does not recommend removing ‘toxic waste’, but states that there are a number of recommended remediation options with regard to the site condition which “include limited landscaping and construction of a clean cover system”. In addition it recommends certain Gas Montoring to occur during and post construction.

I refer you to the report for full details of the recommendations and information regarding the condition of the site.

In addition on the planning file is a document entitled “Justification for Developing Local Open Space for New North Reddish Primary School” (the full report can be found athttp://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/onlinemvm/getimage.asp?DocumentNumber=49085 ), it is stated at paragraph 8.2:

“The overall costs for the School itself which will include for the pre-planning, planning and professional costs, dealing with contamination, providing services and the overall construction equates to circa £8.5 million. Additional costs which have emerged through the planning application process to meet national and local policy requirements and extended works at and surrounding the School equate to circa £625,000. Much of this investment relates to the new recreational facilities at the Harcourt Street site, including the newly laid out sports pitch, the multi use games area, the additional changing facilities and the landscaping works to deal with formalising footpath routes and planting to improve the visual appearance of the remaining open space area in community use. There are other significant costs in promoting and designing the proposals.”

Therefore there are no specific costs regarding removing ‘toxic waste’ but the estimate of £8.5 Million for the costs of the school includes the costs of implementing the recommendations of GMGU. The exact costs of the recommendations have not been separated from the overall estimate of the scheme. It should be noted that it is impossible to give actual costs for individual elements of construction of the school but as the detail designs develop, so will the estimate of the costs. “

In the end they had to admit the entire site was contaminated with lead, arsenic and brown asbestos –

Our Reference FOI/EIR
618

Email received – 08 August 2007 18:10

Dear Mrs
Oliver,

FOI
& EIR Request – Costs of North Reddish
Schools

I am writing in response
to your e-mail dated 11th July addressed to Cllr Weldon in which your
request:

“How much is the removal
of the toxic waste costing and how much will these new stipulations of Sport
England cost?”

QUERY
CONCERNING THE GMGU REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

Firstly regarding your
query in relation to the condition of the site, as you are aware GMGU carried a
ground investigation report of the site in question (a full copy of the report
can be found at: http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/onlinemvm/getimage.asp?DocumentNumber=30867
)

This report concluded
that:

“In summary, the GMGU consider the site to be safe to develop for a
school with playing fields, provided some simple, precautionary measures are
taken that will ensure that any residual risks are effectively managed.”

The report does not
recommend removing ‘toxic waste’, but states that there are a number of
recommended remediation options with regard to the site condition which
“include limited landscaping and
construction of a clean cover system”. In addition it recommends
certain Gas Montoring to occur during and post construction.

I refer you to the report
for full details of the recommendations and information regarding the condition
of the site.

In addition on the
planning file is a document entitled “Justification for Developing Local Open
Space for New
North Reddish Primary
School” (the full report can be found at http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/onlinemvm/getimage.asp?DocumentNumber=49085
), it is stated at paragraph 8.2:

“The overall costs for the School itself which will
include for the pre-planning, planning and professional costs, dealing with
contamination, providing services and the overall construction equates to circa
£8.5 million. Additional costs which have emerged through the planning
application process to meet national and local policy requirements and extended
works at and surrounding the School equate to circa £625,000. Much of this
investment relates to the new recreational facilities at the Harcourt Street
site, including the newly laid out sports pitch, the multi use games area, the
additional changing facilities and the landscaping works to deal with
formalising footpath routes and planting to improve the visual appearance of the
remaining open space area in community use. There are other significant costs in
promoting and designing the proposals.”

Therefore there are no
specific costs regarding removing ‘toxic waste’ but the estimate of £8.5 Million
for the costs of the school includes the costs of implementing the
recommendations of GMGU. The exact costs of the recommendations have not been
separated from the overall estimate of the scheme. It should be noted that it
is impossible to give actual costs for individual elements of construction of
the school but as the detail designs develop, so will the estimate of the costs.

STIPULATIONS FROM SPORTS ENGLAND

I have spoken to the
Council’s consultants, NPS, who have stated an allowance in the region of
£500,000 has been estimated for the cost of providing additional the
requirements as suggested by Sports England. It should be noted that this figure
is an estimate and the actual costs will be known once a contractor has been
chosen to do this work if Planning Permission is granted for the application.

FOI
Officer

Town
Hall

Edward
Street

Stockport

SK1 3XE.

Yours
sincerely