Proposed school not big enough to accommodate all the children who need to attend

Dear Stockport Borough Council,

In the Design Sub Group meeting minutes dated 28th April 2006 it
stated that a way of dealing with the problem of the 555 children
who needed to attend the new amalgamated was that numbers could be
restricted to 525 or that temporary classrooms be provided until
the roll drops to around 525. Because of the demands of Sport
England,which would take up space, the option of temporary
classrooms is no longer available. The birth rate in the area is
rising sharply. What did the Council finally decide to do with the
30 or 36 pupils who were promised a place if they wanted one but
for whom there is no longer a place available at the proposed new
school? I should like to see any documentary evidence regarding the
Council's proposed solution to this problem.

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 'Proposed school not big
enough to accommodate all the children who need to attend'.

A senior Information Complaints Officer stated in writing on
14/01/10 that I could continue to ask questions on this subject. It
appears to me that across the board the Council has an awful lot to
hide regarding this issue, especially when they are illegally
refusing to answer Council meeting questions on this matter, which
is an abuse of human rights.

Stockport Council needs to learn to start being open; this is
potentially a £12 million waste of taxpayers/counciltaxpayers'
money. Proper consideration should have been given to all the
issues including obtaining best value.

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

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 'Proposed school not big
enough to accommodate all the children who need to attend'.

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/pr...

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

Dear FOI Officer,

The Council is now downgrading the nursery on this site to merely a
nursery class against the wishes of everyone consulted. They are
also changing the Learning Resource Centre into a classroom. This
indicates to me that the school was never big enough for all the
children who needed to attend, as I said and proved all along.
Could I please have an interntal review of your decision to refuse
to repond to this question.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Dear Corporate Information Services (not Ms Naven as usual)

But, the Council gave untrue information to the Information
Commission about this case. Councillor Mark Weldon has admitted in
the Manchester Evening News that the Council expected all along
that brown asbestos would be found on the site, there was a circa
£5 million shortfall in the funding which the Council denied and
the school is not big enough as I said because now the nursery
school is being downsized to a nursery class and the Learning
Resource Centre is changed to a classroom.

It is an offence to lie under the Freedom of Information Act. The
Council was fully aware of the true position and misled the
Information Commission. I am not surprised Ms Naven will no longer
put her name to this.

As this further information has come to light regarding the school
not being big enough, please hold another internal review.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Dear FOI Officer,

From the Executive Meeting on the 6th of December Councillor Mark
Weldon deigned to reply to a question about the Harcourt Street
School, therefore, with his having replied, I assume the Council
can no longer say it won't respond to these questions. You can't
apply these exemptions in such a hit and miss manner.

I look forward to hearing the response to my question.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Dear Stockport Borough Council,

On 15/7/2010 a planning application was submitted for a temporary
classroom on this site - therefore the school is not big enough.
This is, therefore, more evidence that I was not being vexatious in
raising matters about this school. Please now reply to this and the
other relevant questions on this subject.

Can I once again remind you that it is an offence to lie under the
Freedom of Information Act.

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

Dear Stockport Borough Council,

This is the text from the Information Commission. You clearly
should now be answering questions:-

Information Commissioner's Office
Promoting public access to official information and protecting your
personal information
15th February 2010
Case Reference Number RCC0296506 / FS50232537 Stockport Borough
Council
Dear Mrs Oliver
Thank you for your letter of 7 February 2010. In your letter you
state that since the issuing of the Decision Notice in relation to
case FS50232537 on 10 November 2009 further evidence has come to
light which you feel no proves you are not vexatious. You also
state that since the Decision Notice was issued all your subsequent
requests for information made to the Council have been refused on
the basis that the requests are vexatious.
The Decision Notice found that at the time of your request, which
was 1 December 2008, your request was manifestly unreasonable and
therefore Stockport Borough Council were correct to refuse to
disclose to you the information you requested by virtue of 12(4)(b)
of the Environmental Information Regulations. All Decision Notice
must consider the circumstances at the time the request was made
and cannot take into account circumstances that post date the
request. If you are unhappy with the findings of the Decision
Notice you should appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (Information
Rights). Any appeal should be lodged with the Tribunal within 28
days of the date of the Decision Notice. The contact details for
the Tribunal are found at the bottom of the Decision Notice.
In relation to your second point, that the Council are now refusing
all your requests for information on the basis that they are
vexatious, the Decision Notice relates specifically to the request
you made on the 1 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 the
requests and if following this review you remain unhappy with their
response you can bring a new complaint to the Commissioner.
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF t:0845 630 6060 f:01625 524510 e:[email
address] w:ico.gov.uk

This is the evidence that it never was big enough:-

New Primary School - Harcourt Street, Reddish Design Sub Group

th
Notes from meeting held 28" April 2006 at 1.30pm

Attendance
Jill Jones Judith Dawson Sharon Connolly David Mellor Gail Ellams
Colin Manning Ruth Ashton Chris Woolard Andy Mackenzie
Apologies
Phil Beswick Sue Johnson
Discussion
AJM outlined the clarification to the brief following the last
Project Board meeting. The decision is that the project must follow
the DfES BB99 guidelines for a 2.5FE primary school plus a wholly
integrated Children's Centre as briefed. This building will
therefore be designed to teach 525 children with an entry of 75 per
annum.
CM produced C&YPD's projections of 563 children if all children
currently at Firtree and North Reddish are offered places. This
produced the following options (with comments) for a decision by
the Project Board. It was noted also that the projections were for
an intake in the first year of 81. Clearly 6 children will be
allocated places elsewhere. This should be noted when nursery
places are allocated it was felt.
Note, following the meeting CK advised that the latest projection
was 555.
1. Restrict numbers to 525 by offering some children places at
other existing schools
Advantages. Achieves target figure at no extra cost to the building
Disadvantages. Breaks the promise of a place for every child

Comment. The group didn't necessarily want to go back on a
previously written promise.
2. Provide temporary classroom until roll drops to around 525
Advantages. Allows every child a place. Keeps class sizes to the
normal levels. Cheap build cost compared to new build. Building
could be removed when numbers fall. Disadvantages. Could lack
inclusion if not suitably designed. Planning permission may be
problematic. Comment. This option was the favourite of the group,
subject to funding.
3. Increase class sizes and mix year groups
Advantages. A no-cost solution.
Disadvantages. Whilst suggested by CM as possible he felt that
cramming children in would be unacceptable from an education
standpoint.
Comment. Hastily withdrawn as an option by the teaching contingent
but accepted by
the Building team. Further discussion required. It was also
discussed that the ICT
suite could be used as teaching space for the first couple of years
with ICT networked
into the classrooms. This was discounted by the teaching staff.
4. (additional) New build classroom to accommodate extra children
Advantages. All children offered a place accommodated in inclusive
classrooms.
Disadvantages. Exceeds brief. Very expensive. Will be left with
surplus
accommodation.
Comment. Accepted as unlikely to be considered further.
CW tabled the two current options. One single storey, the other two
storeys. Both schemes were debated and comments (particularly
office accommodation - cellular opposed to open plan). The group to
consider their comments for the next meeting.
CM stated his concern over the 57m2 classrooms. Agreed that BB99
will be applied (57m2).
CM asked CW to summarise the reductions from the previous scheme to
the current BB99 proposal.
The group asked CW to investigate a roof terrace as part of the two
story scheme. AJM stated this will not be funded as it was outside
of the brief the group asked for a design that could be adapted at
a later time.
The placing of the school on the site was discussed and the
possible restrictions noted. AJM outlined the right of way
restrictions, particularly from the rear of every property backing
onto the field. This did not concern the group as they felt the
landscape team would be sympathetic with the non-school land.

This shows the birthrate in the area is rising and not falling:-

Our Reference: FOI 881

Dear Mrs Oliver,

Freedom of Information – Birth Rates

I am writing in response to your request for information dated 19th
December 2007 as detailed below.

Please find below the number of live births per year for the North
Reddish locality which is based on information provided by the PCT.
This is academic year data. The figures for North Reddish are as
follows:

Year No. Live Births
2003/04 200
2004/05 188
2005/06 185
2006/07 224

If you are unhappy with our response or the way we have handled
your request you are entitled to ask us to conduct an internal
review. Any internal review will be carried out by a senior member
of staff who was not involved with your original request. To
request an internal review please email [email address] in the
first instance or write to:

FOI Officer
Town Hall
Edward Street
Stockport
SK1 3XE

If you are unhappy with the outcome of any internal review you can
complain to the Information Commissioner. To do so please contact:

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

www.ico.gov.uk

01625 545745

Yours sincerely,

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver