Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Issues => Topic started by: alan@marple on December 08, 2011, 10:16:14 AM
-
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/governmentcitizensandrights/yourrightsandresponsibilities/dg_4003239
"Everyone also has certain rights of access to environmental information under the Environmental Information Regulations.
For example, information about air or water quality, noise and waste as well as any policies, decisions or activities that could affect them.
If you request information about the environment it cannot be refused just because of what it would cost the public authority to comply."
-
Alan, you need another button in your poll labelled 'yes it can be a useful tool, but unfortunately it is frequently abused by timewasters'.
-
Dave, I assume that you like me, are an OAP as we both seem to spend so much time on here, but I do admire your candour, scintillating wit, your compassion and sensitivity towards others.
How fortunate we are to have this freedom of speech, which is sometimes abused by rudeness and ignorance, but it is always a thought provoking experience to read your comments interspersed with sincerity, humour and courtesy.
Do you think we could get Mark W to organise and chair debate as a social evening perhaps at the Ringers on a non political subject perhaps with a view to raising a few bob for the band.
And Dave I don't mind if you a Lib Dem or even a "Labourite" I would still take pleasure in meeting you and buying you a pint (before you buy me one)
Have a nice day
-
Dave, I assume that you like me, are an OAP as we both seem to spend so much time on here, but I do admire your candour, scintillating wit, your compassion and sensitivity towards others.
How fortunate we are to have this freedom of speech, which is sometimes abused by rudeness and ignorance, but it is always a thought provoking experience to read your comments interspersed with sincerity, humour and courtesy.
Do you think we could get Mark W to organise and chair debate as a social evening perhaps at the Ringers on a non political subject perhaps with a view to raising a few bob for the band.
And Dave I don't mind if you a Lib Dem or even a "Labourite" I would still take pleasure in meeting you and buying you a pint (before you buy me one)
Have a nice day
A Marple Question time? Good idea!
I agree with Dave. I'd vote it being a good idea but badly abused in practice.
-
I agree with Dave.
Duke we really must stop all this agreeing - it's very boring. ::)
-
Alan, you can buy me a pint any time! As for the debate at the Ringers, I'm not so sure. Maybe if we don't mention s*p*rm*rk*ts or H*bb*rt L*n*!
-
Hi Alan
Stockport Council refused to reply under the EIR 2004 on grounds of cost with regards to the toxic waste dump school at North Reddish. They knew the site was contaminated as they refused three planning applications in 18974 on grounds of contamination. When I tried to point out the site was contaminated (correctly) they banned all questions from me on grounds of cost. It turned out after one hell of a fight that the site was entirely contaminated with lead, arsenic and deadly brown asbestos.
In addition the cost rose from £5.5 million in October 2005 to £7.5 million in December 2005 to £8.6 million by June 2006 and then on to £9.9 million. Why? I asked. Don't be vexatious they replied. One would have thought they would be asking those questions - they weren't.
The didn't remove the brown asbestos properly - just two blokes with a bin bag and a stick wandering around the site:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0rCPnP5H9o
Those kids and surrounding residents will probably get lung damage and possible develop mesothelioma. One fibre of asbestos can cause cancer. Asbestos cannot be destroyed. If it enters the lungs it is there for ever. The body doesn't like it and tries to surround it with tissue. That is when the damage occurs.
-
Again regarding the toxic waste dump school which opened in September 2011, by half term 25 parents had removed their children due to bullying. This has since risen to 30 children having been removed. That was before the ceiling collapsed yesterday:-
http://menmedia.co.uk/stockportexpress/news/s/1467244_pupils-evacuated-as-ceiling-collapses-at-reddish-primary-school
I suppose more parents will have lost confidence in it now.
I and local people stated that a 550 pupil primary school was simply too big and there would be bullying. We asked FOI questions about this but I was banned for being vexatious. I am still banned.
I learn today that more children are to be taken out and several teachers hate the school. The three schools it replaced were either excellent or doing very well in difficult circumstances. What they have created is a dangerous school that no-one, not even the teachers, want to attend according to what local people are telling me. Why weren't the existing three schools refurbished? I don't know because I am not allowed to ask on grounds of cost.
-
Someone mentioned me and the A6 Bypass on this forum (I suspect a LibDem councillor). I don't know if anyone saw the recent Panorama programme on Private Finance Initiative projects or read the Treasury Select Committee report - both very damning of PFI projects. The A6 Bypass was to be built under PFI and was to cost £1 billion. We have had a very, very lucky escape in not having built that - it would have bankrupted the town for decades.
With regards to the A555 Poynton Bypass, they intend to fund it with Chinese money and money from the Greater Manchester Pension funds. How will those investors get a return on their money? I don't know and a chartered accountant of my acquaintance doesn't know how it would work either. I am going to ask Stockport Council. I expect to get my legs metaphorically slapped as usual for daring to question them. I shall keep you posted as regards any reply, should I be blessed by receiving one.
It is believed this road will move jobs out of Stockport and into the area surrounding Manchester Airport and its business parks. I wonder if anyone at the Council has considered this possibility.
-
Wonderful to see you on this site Sheila !
-
Someone mentioned me and the A6 Bypass on this forum (I suspect a LibDem councillor). I don't know if anyone saw the recent Panorama programme on Private Finance Initiative projects or read the Treasury Select Committee report - both very damning of PFI projects. The A6 Bypass was to be built under PFI and was to cost £1 billion. We have had a very, very lucky escape in not having built that - it would have bankrupted the town for decades.
With regards to the A555 Poynton Bypass, they intend to fund it with Chinese money and money from the Greater Manchester Pension funds. How will those investors get a return on their money? I don't know and a chartered accountant of my acquaintance doesn't know how it would work either. I am going to ask Stockport Council. I expect to get my legs metaphorically slapped as usual for daring to question them. I shall keep you posted as regards any reply, should I be blessed by receiving one.
It is believed this road will move jobs out of Stockport and into the area surrounding Manchester Airport and its business parks. I wonder if anyone at the Council has considered this possibility.
And vice versa would bring people in to the new supermarket . ;D
-
I'll just get this off my chest then will settle down with a glass of wine to watch Rev.
Were it not for the FOIA we would not know that the Leader of Stockport Council, if he attends a function in Manchester in the evening and has another function the next morning, stays in a 5 star hotel with a chaise longue at my expense. What, I wonder, is wrong with getting the 192 bus home?
In addition, the FOIA lets us know that senior council officers, who don't need them for their jobs, have Mini Cooper S Cabriolets, top of the range BMWs and Audi TTs at council taxpayers' expense. This has been going on since the 1980s. (Evidence available on request).
Also, they spend £23,000 per annum of our money on committee teas - fancy chicken satay and delicate cream cakes. A lot of the meetings they are feeding themselves for start at 6pm and end at 6.20. Eat before you leave home or buy a sandwich. Most of the councillors don't work. What is the problem with eating before they leave home?
-
I'll just get this off my chest then will settle down with a glass of wine to watch Rev.
Were it not for the FOIA we would not know that the Leader of Stockport Council, if he attends a function in Manchester in the evening and has another function the next morning, stays in a 5 star hotel with a chaise longue at my expense. What, I wonder, is wrong with getting the 192 bus home?
In addition, the FOIA lets us know that senior council officers, who don't need them for their jobs, have Mini Cooper S Cabriolets, top of the range BMWs and Audi TTs at council taxpayers' expense. This has been going on since the 1980s. (Evidence available on request).
Also, they spend £23,000 per annum of our money on committee teas - fancy chicken satay and delicate cream cakes. A lot of the meetings they are feeding themselves for start at 6pm and end at 6.20. Eat before you leave home or buy a sandwich. Most of the councillors don't work. What is the problem with eating before they leave home?
Or Dickie Leese wasting this sort of money on brushing up hos own inflated ego: http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/waste/2011/11/spending-4000-celebrating-saving-money-missing-point.html
-
Hi Alan
Stockport Council refused to reply under the EIR 2004 on grounds of cost with regards to the toxic waste dump school at North Reddish. They knew the site was contaminated as they refused three planning applications in 18974 on grounds of contamination. When I tried to point out the site was contaminated (correctly) they banned all questions from me on grounds of cost. It turned out after one hell of a fight that the site was entirely contaminated with lead, arsenic and deadly brown asbestos.
In addition the cost rose from £5.5 million in October 2005 to £7.5 million in December 2005 to £8.6 million by June 2006 and then on to £9.9 million. Why? I asked. Don't be vexatious they replied. One would have thought they would be asking those questions - they weren't.
The didn't remove the brown asbestos properly - just two blokes with a bin bag and a stick wandering around the site:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0rCPnP5H9o
Those kids and surrounding residents will probably get lung damage and possible develop mesothelioma. One fibre of asbestos can cause cancer. Asbestos cannot be destroyed. If it enters the lungs it is there for ever. The body doesn't like it and tries to surround it with tissue. That is when the damage occurs.
Sheila, you know full well the findings of experts who surveyed the site. You simply refuse to accept the findings despite them having qualifications and experience in this sort of thing. How much has your interferance added to the budget & cost to tax-payer?
-
Sheila, you know full well the findings of experts who surveyed the site. You simply refuse to accept the findings despite them having qualifications and experience in this sort of thing. How much has your interferance added to the budget & cost to tax-payer?
Let us not become over-confident in the findings of experts. This is reminding me of Rochdale's asbestos fiasco and the bogus planning claim "of particular note is the absence of any asbestos contamination".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spodden_Valley_asbestos_controversy#Urban_village_plans
-
"Sheila, you know full well the findings of experts who surveyed the site. You simply refuse to accept the findings despite them having qualifications and experience in this sort of thing. How much has your interferance added to the budget & cost to tax-payer?"
The first report was only one borehole. The second report, forced on the Council by local residents, stated the area where the school was going had been shown to be safe - April 2006 - carried out by GMGU part funded by Stockport Council. The report the Council was forced to carry out in October 2009 after I went to see the chaps at the Environment Agency and the Council was forced to prove the site was not contaminated for a public inquiry showed the entire site to be contaminated with lead, arsenic and brown asbestos. I have already put up the clip of the inadequate removal of brown asbestos up here. I can lodge all the relevant documents with the webmaster should you wish to contest what I am saying. It is all there in black and white.
The first report from April 2006 actually said the children could be protected by prickly bushes from contamination hotspots. The contamination experts employed by the Council inititally stated the site was safe. It wasn't.
My interference has saved the children being put on completely unremediated toxic waste. How much do you cost that at?
You sound like a councillor!
-
Re FOI and the Audi TTs, top of the range BMWs and Mini Cooper Cabriolets for council officers, many of whom don't need a car for their job, how about this...
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/council_taxpayer_funded_cars_for_2#outgoing-160449
It sounds from this review that the scrutiny report of the scheme was carried out by officials from the car lease company - they wrote the report for the council officers. How does that work then? It doesn't seem very impartial or proper to me. If I have got hold of the wrong end of the stick, please put me right.
-
Re three or four night luxury hotel stays by councillors and council officers:-
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/hotel_stays#comment-21542
Have a look at the 4 star hotels they stay in - The Old Swann, Harrogate,
http://www.booking.com/hotel/gb/theoldswanhotel.en.html?aid=311076;label=hotel-108571-gb-lfQdOKwrzewXZSaSwRyKqAS2620363110;ws=&gclid=CM3Jkvnj9awCFQMPfAodD3nsRQ
The Jolly St Ermins Hotel, London
http://www.sterminshotel.co.uk/?gclid=CNH8rJvk9awCFcMMtAodshcGSQ
And they say I waste money asking questions!
-
Re the cost of the toxic waste dump school going from £5.5 million in October 2005 to £7.5 million in December 2005 to £8.6 million by June 2006 on to £9.9 million - did they apply the correct financial procedures for such schemes I asked? Surely somebody other than me must have been keeping tabs on the costs, which were rising like Topsy.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/primary_capital_programme_was_pr#comment-20699
Don't be vexatious, they said, so I am like the famous King - Non the Wiser.
-
I asked this FOI question because local parents had contacted me about the dangerous state of this footpath. The matter had been raised with the local LibDem councillors in, I think, April 2010 but nothing had been done.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/footpath_at_the_side_of_woodley#comment-23578
I have asked this question to try to help local people, who are not being properly served by their local councillors, to try to get something sorted out regarding the footpath, which surely can't cost that much.
There is money for luxury hotel stays, for fancy teas, for Audi TTs, and top of the range BMWs and Mini Cooper Cabriolets but not to sort out what local people consider to be a dangerous footpath, particularly in icy conditions.
I don't think I am wasting public money by asking this question.
-
Sheilaoliver - 326 Freedom of Information requests
Wow! - You've been busy Sheila
:o
-
Hi Sheila,Have you any opinion on Dustys post under the topic alternative use for the Hibbert Lane campus?A councillors partner thanking her partner via chair of the MAC for doing the job they are paid to do.She could of thanked him over breakfast.You couldn't make it up.I find it incredible that she actually wanted it to be made public.She must think we are stupid and don't know that they are connected and run a hotel together! They are not camera shy. I am talking about councillor K Dowling.How can we have any respect for him when something like this is made public?You Go Girl!
-
Sheila - why not raise one more FOI request:
Ask how much it has cost the council tax payers to respond to your FOI requests.
I'll bet its a lot more than a few nights in hotels and a few leased cars.
-
Harry come on now, you are sidetracking the issue. Is it not right that these hitherto unknown revelations be brought into the realms of transparency.?
Mark my words, the majority of public spirited people, will very soon appreciated the efforts Sheila Oliver has carried out to protect generations to come.
One of the greatest civil evils in the world today-in my opinion- is corruption! and the actions of those who condone it!.
She is dedicated, sincere and although I have never met her, she works in an area desperately suffering from financial constraints and striving to help and support those less fortunate than many of us and yet she still continues to "fight the good fight" in her own time
-
Great post Alan,Credit where it is due!
-
Sorry Alan, but for someone to bring 'unknown revelations' to light then they have to be 100% correct. Otherwise I label them as 'over imaginative obsessive'. And we already have a few of those.
For example: Sheila has managed three times, in just a few posts, to accuse council officials of having 'top of the range BMWs'. One of her own requests resulted in SMBC publishing a list of all council leased cars. Guess what? Not one 'top of the range BMW' on there. But we can't let the facts spoil a good story.
-
I have asked this FOI question:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/collapsing_toxic_waste_dump_scho/new
I shall keep this site posted if this question is also declared vexatious. It will be.
The LibDems proclaim they believe in open and honest government - they don't.
-
Harry
The top of the range BMWs were quoted in the Stockport Express article on the subject and they are keen fact checkers. This was not my FOI request but someone else did that great job. I had previously asked why the former Monitoring Officer had a luxury car when she did no business mileage, but that was also held against me as being vexatious.
My point is that all this information on current developments should be at their fingertips anyway. They should know the state of the contamination and the reason for the cost of projects spiralling out of control. The councillors should be asking these questions and I should go back to reading Dostoyevsky. When they do, I will.
More to follow
Sheila
-
Interesting reading here...
http://lawrenceserewicz.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/if-a-foia-request-costs-293-how-much-does-it-cost-to-answer-a-letter/ (http://lawrenceserewicz.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/if-a-foia-request-costs-293-how-much-does-it-cost-to-answer-a-letter/)
£293 to answer each FOI request!
-
NPS Stockport charged circa half a million pounds in property fees for the toxic waste dump school. When I read the Council's accounts I was astonished to find another circa £165,000 for architect's fees for the school on top of that. I am not terribly good with money, so I passed these figures past a chartered accountant, who was horrified. Why the large sums paid to NPS Stockport for this school? I have not figured that out yet but I am working on it. There are also several issues which were raised by a civil engineer about the safety of the school, even before the collapse of the ceiling last week. Did you and I get good value for this huge sum of money paid to NPS? Who was responsible for checking the work was done correctly? It has appeared at one stage that it was the headmistress' responsibility. If that is true, then the situation is ludicrous. How could she be expected to possess the required knowlege? I am still working on that one but will keep you posted.
Again, the councillors should be asking these questions and I should be reading Dostoyevsky.
-
Also, they spend £23,000 per annum of our money on committee teas
What a disgrace - they could answer 78 FOI requests for that - much more tasty :P
-
I don't know how many FOI requests SMBC received last year (and I'm certainly not going to submit a FOI request in order to find out ::)), but this report....http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/foi/foi-and-local-government/2010-foi-officers-survey.pdf
...indicates that in 2010 there was an average of 560 FOIs per local authority in England. Now this report (page 43) puts the cost per FOI at a mere £159.80. So if Stockport is 'average' (and we don't know that, of course, so this figure is hypothetical), then we Stockport council taxpayers will have forked out £89,488 (560 x £159.80) last year in order to deal with enquiries from Ms Oliver and others. You could fix a few holes in the road for that, or even give the councillors oysters and champagne for tea........ ;D
-
"During 2010, the Council received 930 FOI requests. Already during 2011
(Jan – Aug) we have received 827 requests, 611 of which were received
during the first six months of the year."
Taken from..
http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/documents/s5564/CRMG%20FOI%20update%20report.pdf
(http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/documents/s5564/CRMG%20FOI%20update%20report.pdf)
(apologies for poor formatting.. done via my phone)
-
Thanks tricky - your research technique is obviously a lot better than mine!
"During 2010, the Council received 930 FOI requests.
So at £159.80 a go, that means they cost us council taxpayers £148,614 in 2010. :'(
It's also thought-provoking to discover that Stockport gets 66% more FOI requests than the average (560). Why?
-
It's also thought-provoking to discover that Stockport gets 66% more FOI requests than the average (560). Why?
I think you know the answer to that one Dave.
-
Gentlemen-the pair of you- just who is winding you both up and getting you to fire the bullets! I suspect and elected representative!
-
NPS Stockport charged circa half a million pounds in property fees for the toxic waste dump school. When I read the Council's accounts I was astonished to find another circa £165,000 for architect's fees for the school on top of that. I am not terribly good with money, so I passed these figures past a chartered accountant, who was horrified.
Shiela, your FOI request have cost £98k, what does your accountant think of that? I'm a chartered accountant but if someone told me that an architect charged £165k for a school, I'd not know if that was horrific or not.
The 1/2 m for converting a brown field site may or may not be good value. How much does it cost to clear woodland to make way for development.
That said, I'm with you in getting rid of council waste but didn't you used to work for Richard Leese? I'm sure that's how you became expert at spotting waste and cor (cough) rupt practice. Did someone say £3.5m for a brochure on buses and trams (TIF).
The conclusion is that councils are not good at achieving economy, efficiency & effectiveness and let's get as much of the council privatised and minimised.
Small state please, we're British
-
The conclusion is that councils are not good at achieving economy, efficiency & effectiveness and let's get as much of the council privatised and minimised.
This is the route that some councils are taking. Selby district council now only employs 14 people. All the service delivery functions have been transferred to a separate organisation, called Access Selby. Presumably this will allow the council to accept bids for services in the future and therefore make considerable cost savings. Of course it also frees Access Selby to sub contract as it sees fit.
Full story at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16037553 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16037553)
-
The conclusion is that councils are not good at achieving economy, efficiency & effectiveness and let's get as much of the council privatised and minimised.
This is the route that some councils are taking. Selby district council now only employs 14 people. All the service delivery functions have been transferred to a separate organisation, called Access Selby. Presumably this will allow the council to accept bids for services in the future and therefore make considerable cost savings. Of course it also frees Access Selby to sub contract as it sees fit.
Full story at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16037553 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16037553)
I believe they are doing the same in Norfolk. It's a great idea, the council can avoid staff disputes, unaffordable pensions etc and get on with managing what services are needed. As long as it saves the taxpayer money and keeps / improves the standard of service, who can complain. I'd put the out of office assistant on those FOI requests.
-
freedom of information requests tend to follow several letter of requests for information and the subsequent refusals/fobbing off. so I'd suggest that if the councils, and government and agencies, were more forthcoming with facts and figures and information that we ask for then they wouldn't have to be FORCED to tell the truth therefore they could easily save money
More requests in stockport? hmmm.. maybe they refuse/lie more often? :D
-
"Have you any opinion on Dustys post under the topic alternative use for the Hibbert Lane campus?A councillors partner thanking her partner via chair of the MAC for doing the job they are paid to do.She could of thanked him over breakfast.You couldn't make it up.I find it incredible that she actually wanted it to be made public.She must think we are stupid and don't know that they are connected and run a hotel together! They are not camera shy. I am talking about councillor K Dowling.How can we have any respect for him when something like this is made public?You Go Girl! "
I think now I know the supermarket who can act towards the upper limit of naughty (you have to be careful of their lawyers) regarding planning aren't involved, I will stay out of the Hibbert Lane Campus fight. I don't know enough about it really.
However, that thanking thing drives me mad. At the Executive meetings it is all - aren't we all wonderful, yes, we are and thank you for saying it and haven't we done well and isn't it wonderful that other councils marvel at all we achieve and thank you council officer paid £100,000 pa for the wonderful report you have produced ....it goes on ad nauseum and they should stop it.
-
Regarding the FOI requests, the bypass the Council claimed would cost £179 million then it went up to £425 million and then it went up to £675 million and then to a billion - under PFI - we couldn't afford it. So, all those requests were worth the money.
Regarding the school - no-one was in favour - two 500 name petitions and 500 letters of objection - all ignored. Concerns of local MP and Friends of the Earth expert re contamination - all ignored. The council made the developers liable for the contamination costs - law suits pending there then, I suspect, as the Council knew back in 1974 the land was unsafe to build on (evidence submitted to the webmaster). Did they tell the developers that? Did they Buxton.
I will post up all my school requests giving a reason for the postings - all very serious issues. If anyone challenges the veracity of what I am saying, I shall submit documentary evidence in each case to the webmaster or anyone can email me and get the details. Children's lives - how much are they worth? If the Council doesn't want the questions then don't carry on with scandalous projects like this one.
-
My FOI requests
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/apparent_financial_irregularity#outgoing-166707
If anyone brings a financial irregularity to the attention of council officers or councillors, under the Fraud and Financial Irregularities policy, they have to look into it.
Agenda Document with reports, Executive meeting 10/3/2008 Agenda
Item 6
Item 6b 3.1 - the area has apparently increased from 2600m2 to
3185m2 and this is to cost an extra £1,050,000.
Item 6b 3.2 the cost per metre 2 is put at £1450.
3185 - 2600 = 585m2 @ £1450 = £848,250 and not £1,050,000.
There may be a simple explanation for this apparent miscalculation of circa £250,000 or there may not.
-
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/toxic_waste_dump_school_2#comment-21964
Three days before the planning decision making meeting the head of highways admitted the school drop off area was insufficient - he said he had had no idea how big the development was going to be. I had met him six months before with local residents to point out the ludicrous traffic situation they were causing - he didn't listen. Now the school is open and local people are having their cars damaged by traffic from the school and are being subjected to double yellow lines outside their homes. This is causing great inconvenience to local residents, as it does around Aquinas.
If the Council don't want the questions, then don't pass a development with inadequate traffic arrangements. (Documentary evidence available on request). The councillors should have taken the planning concerns of local people seriously, then this question would never have been asked by me. They completely ignored the presence of several hundred houses at the end of the very narrow cul de sac on which the school entrance is situation. Barking mad to have passed that at the planning stage. If they don't want questions asked, then they should all do their jobs properly in the first place.
-
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/footpath_behind_the_toxic_waste_2#comment-21213
The Council has blocked off access to houses on Mill Lane, via a footpath which is locked at both ends with massive gates. Due to what is presumably a corrupt planning process in Stockport in the 1980s, these houses were built back to front. At the diversion of footpath inquiry held on 6th January 2010 local residents explained what it would mean to them to have access to their houses barred. It would mean, for example, large items of furniture having to be carried circa a quarter of a mile, even if they could throw it over the massive gate, which they can't. That is bad enough but recently a lady in her 80s collapsed at home. The ambulancemen came but could not get access to her house. They had to find the one person with a key to this massive metal gate. Fortunately, that person happened to be in. The ambulance men submitted an incident report. What will happen if that old lady collapses again and they can't gain access or the Fire Brigade can't is anybody's guess. The councillors and council officers were made aware of these problems repeatedly. They caused the problem - I am asking the question. I don't think that is vexatious. I think that is trying to not let a little old lady die because for some unexplicable reason the Council has decided there should be no access to the back, which is really the front, of her house.
If anyone doubts what I am saying I can put them in touch will residents on Mill Lane who will confirm what I am saying.
-
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/are_the_councillors_and_council#comment-21152
Free teas, bless them!
-
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/primary_capital_programme_was_pr#comment-20699
As the cost of the school rose from £5.5 million in October 2005 to £7.5 million in December 2005 to £8.6 million in June 2006 to £9.9 million in 2008, which council officers and councillors were keeping track of these costs which were growing like Topsy and what was the explanation for them? Absolutely correct that I shouldn't be asking this question - the councillors should have been.
-
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/what_action_was_taken_by_smbc_wh#outgoing-135674
What action did the Council take when I reported to them the inadequate removal of brown asbestos including video evidence? If those kids get sick and the Council is liable, these cases will bankrupt the town. Surely, given the sensitivity of the site end users, the dangerous nature of brown asbestos and the clear evidence given, some action should have been taken by somebody.
Children's lives - what price them eh?
-
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/diane_wilmore_case_implications#incoming-183831
Following the landmark decision in the Diane Willmore case, local authorities are automatically liable when mesiothelioma is contracted in school buildings. Given this, you would have thought they would have been a bit more careful regarding the brown asbestos - bankrupting the town with damages claims - how much is that going to cost the council taxpayer? Valid questions.
If they don't want questions, don't try to put kids on unremediated toxic waste. Why not simply renovate the existing schools? Fair and reasonable question. Why weren't the councillors asking it?
-
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/offerton_precinct_the_current_si#outgoing-121441
This is about the dangerous and almost derelict Offerton Precinct. It could have been developed to a high standard using a local builder with the existing business on board with the plan. The LibDems blocked this and the site is left dangerous and almost derelict.
It is quite reasonable to be asking this question, which I must repeat. What are the local councillors doing about this? Local people deserve to be served better.
Not a vexatious or timewasting question.
-
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/toxic_waste_dump_school_strippin#outgoing-119655
They shouldn't have stripped and stockpiled the contaminated soil before it was analysed. This is unacceptable.
This question was designed to safeguard the health of the 550 primary school children, 78 babies and staff on the site. Not vexatious at all.
If they don't want to be questioned they shouldn't have put these kids on toxic waste. Contamination remediation can cost millions of pounds, which is why it isn't done properly. These kids would be falling sick in 20 years time when these councillors and highly paid council officers would be beyond reach.
It they had to put kids on toxic waste, they should have ensured the remediation was correctly carried out.
-
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/reneged_promise_made_to_planning#outgoing-118334
They promised the diversion of footpath inspector that contamination documentation would be released to me. It wasn't. I have witnesses to that statement both in the form of local people present at the hearing and the local reporter.
If they had complied with what they promised, then this question would never have been asked.
-
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/changing_of_the_fir_tree_nursery#outgoing-114961
They promised a Fir Tree Nursery School. They then reneged on this promise and said they could have a nursery class instead. There was a consultation in which local people made it clear they wanted a nursery school. The Council overrode this. Local people took them to appeal and won. The Council decided to hold another "consultation" and I use the word loosely, to make sure they got their own way.
Had they not stitched up local people regarding the nursery promise, this question would never have been asked.
-
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/greater_manchester_geological_un#comment-16667
There are longterm financial implications with respect to building on a still gassing former toxic waste dump - things like ongoing borehole monitoring. I think it perfectly reasonable to have asked if they had taken these issues into consideration.
-
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/memo_from_stockport_councils_env_3#comment-16661
When they were expressing concern at a public inquiry at a sister site, with an almost identical history, of gentoxins being vented with landfill gases, when there no such concern at a site for 550 primary school children and 78 babies?
How were they going to filter out the carcinogenic toxins from the gas at the school site?
The Council shouldn't put kids on a former toxic waste dump if they don't want to be asked questions about the process.
-
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/failure_to_comply_with_bs_10175#comment-16660
In their documents they intended to do a trial pit for contamination near the school entrance. They didn't own the land so they simply didn't bother (evidence for all I am saying available on request). They claimed to have complied with BS10175 which states they must obtain permission from the owner of the land to investigate it. Too much trouble, I assume, so they didn't bother to sink that intended contamination pit.
If they don't want questions, then do the job properly. Simples!
-
Sheila,
The Marple Website Forum is not the right place for your battle with the council. This should be taking place on a Reddish site or you should set up your own. If this is an issue that is important to Reddish people then you should be able to find someone with the skills to help you locally.
I'm sorry but I'm not going to allow you to hi-jack this site for your campaign.