Concerns about contamination on a 550 pupil primary school site

Dear Stockport Borough Council,

At the diversion of footpath inquiry held on 06/01/10, the
Council's barrister informed the Inspector that I would be able to
check the Council was doing everything that it should with regards
to contamination remediation as the Harcourt School scheme in North
Reddish progressed. I have been informed today by the FOI Officer
that I will have no access to any such documents in future. I have
genuine concerns about contamination, given that Stockport Council
intended to educated 550 young children on a site tipped with
industrial waste from 1954 to 1974 on which no remediation work
whatsoever had been carried out and am also concerned that the
Council failed to comply with BS10175 in informing the Environment
Agency of their proposal and failed to carry out contamination
investigations on a grid pattern in accordance with BS 10175. It
turns out there is site-wide contamination with arsenic, lead and
probably site-wide asbestos, which the children would have been
exposed to daily from September 2008 when the school was supposed
to have opened had it not been for my intervention.

May I please see any correspondence between the barrister and
Stockport Council regarding whether he was authorised to make this
statement to the public inquiry. I am concerned that the inquiry
has been misled.

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

Dear FOI Officer,

With regards to the alleged vexatious nature of my requests
regarding this issue, I would draw your attention to the fact that
the Council has recently been forced, because of a public inquiry,
to disclose that the site that it proposed to educate 550 babies
and young children is indeed extensively contaminated. The Council
intended for the school to open in September 2008 and had it not
been for my "vexatious" efforts children would now be spending many
hours each day on a site contaminated with lead, arsenic and
asbestos on which no contamination remediation measures had been
carried out. They intended to protect young children from
contamination hotspots by means of prickly bushes. The plants would
have soaked up the contaminants and lost their prickly leaves,
exposing young primary school children to toxic hotspots. The
Council knew from records in its own archives, which were drawn to
its attention, that the site had been extensively tipped with
industrial waste from 1954 to 1974.

In addition the school was to be paid for by £6.69 million of
capital receipts and this figure has now been reduced to £1.6
million. Again, in trying to expose that fact I was not, to my
mind, being vexatious. The Council will now have to finance the
scheme with extensive borrowing at a time of a looming possible £45
million black hole in its budget.

I intend to write now to Mr. Thomas, the Information Commissioner,
himself explaining how I have striven to protect these innocent
children from the carcingenic effects of being exposed to chemicals
likely to bring about incidences of bladder cancer in them

The Director of Children and Young People's Directorate, a man who
serves on several important Government think tanks, said it would
take 84 hours at £25 per hour plus £300 photocopying costs for a
council officer to redact the files regarding this proposed school
before I could see them. Request refused not only to me but any
other resident in the town or possibly the country. How many
secrets can there be for a school development that would take a
council officer working full time for almost three weeks to remove
them? I wanted no photocopies but just to read the files. I had
seen the files in the months previously and just wanted to re-read
the files and see any additions. There were about four folders. The
Council failed to carry out an independent review of the issue for
six months - an unacceptable time frame. Once lifted it then
re-introduced the ban which has been in force for possibly three
out of the past four years.

All council meeting questions on the subject are also banned, which
is an infringement of human rights to question elected
representatives.

I am now taking the issue to Mr. Thomas and will keep visitors to
this site appraised of developments.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Dear Stockport Borough Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Stockport Borough
Council's handling of my FOI request 'Concerns about contamination
on a 550 pupil primary school site'.

A Senior Complaints Office at the Information Commission stated on
14/01/10 that I could continue to ask questions on this subject.
What has Stockport Council got to hide regarding this matter, which
is, as one can see from the nature of the question, a very
important one for the safety of children?

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

Dear Stockport Borough Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Stockport Borough
Council's handling of my FOI request 'Concerns about contamination
on a 550 pupil primary school site'.

Please note that the Information Commission Team Leader has stated
to me in a letter dated 15/2/10:-

... "Notice relates specifically to the request you made on 1st
December 2008 and does not make any finding regarding future
requests. If you have made further requests and these have been
refused you should ask the Council to review their requests and if
following this review you remain unhappy with their response you
can bring a new complaint to the Commissioner."

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver