Costs of proposed school, Harcourt Street, North Reddish, Stockport

Sheila Oliver made this Freedom of Information request to Audit Commission This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

The request was successful.

Dear Audit Commission,

I have recently written to the District Auditor who covers Stockport raising issues about the escalating costs of a 550 pupil school to be built on a site entirely contaminated with lead, arsenic and asbestos on which rushed and inadequate comtamination investigations were finally done after Stockport Council was forced to. I am worried about unforeseen contamination costs, I am concerned that even before it is built - and the cost has risen from £5.5 million on October 5th 2005 to £7.5 million on December 12th 2005, to £8.2 million and £8.6 million just six months later and then rose to £10 million, even before the contamination had been discovered (although it was known by the Council all the time that it was there). The Council said £6.9 million was coming from capital receipts (the sale of redundant school land) but they were forced to admit in December 2009 that only £1.6 million will be coming from the sale of such assets and the rest will have to be borrowed. They are signing a blank cheque if they don't know yet the full extent of the contamination. The school is not big enough even before it is built and the birth rate in the area is rising sharply. There is a large, safe, cheap, not contaminated site available but for some reason Stockport Council won't use that.

I should like to see any memos, minutes, hand written notes of telephone conversations, meetings, emails, letters or any other written document between the office of the District Auditor and Stockport Council regarding this issue. I need to ensure that the Council is telling the truth to the District Auditor.

Many thanks and kind regards

Sheila Oliver

Freedom of Information,

Dear Ms Oliver

Thank you for your request for information dated 3 February 2010.

Your request has been allocated reference RFI 1248, please include this reference on any future correspondence. Your request was received by the Audit Commission on 3 February 2010. The statutory deadline for our response is 3 March 2010.

The Audit Commission is committed to the principles of the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) and will wherever possible provide all the information requested unless constrained by another statute or by an exemption within the FoIA.

We will contact you if we need to clarify any part of your request.

Yours sincerely

show quoted sections

Dear Freedom of Information,

Many thanks for your very prompt acknowledgment.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

FOI Northern,

Dear Ms Oliver

Thank you for your request for information which we received on 3 February 2010. It has been passed to me for further consideration.

The Audit Commission is committed to the principles of the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) and will wherever possible provide all the information requested unless constrained by another statute or by an exemption within the FoIA. Please note that some information you have requested may not be provided to you; this will only be information that can be withheld by law. In most cases the reasons will be explained to you along with your copy of any information that can be released to you.

Your request is being considered and you will receive a response within the statutory timescale of 20 working days, as defined by the FoIA. That date is 3 March 2010.

Yours sincerely

Richard Page

Freedom of Information Assessor Northern Region
Audit Commission
Littlemoor House, Littlemoor Eckington, Sheffield S21 4EF
Tel: 0844 798 6636
Office tel: 0844 798 4300 Fax: 0844 798 4301
E-mail to: [email address]

show quoted sections

FOI Northern,

1 Attachment

Dear Mrs Oliver

Please find attached my response to the request for information that you
submitted to the Audit Commission under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FoIA).

My response is necessarily technical in nature and mostly about the
legal position of District Auditors under the FoIA and other information
legislation. To summarise, the position is that the Audit Commission
does not hold, and has not withheld from you, any of the information
that you requested.

The District Auditor, Tim Watkinson, will hold some if not all of the
information. But he, and the information he holds, is not subject to the
FoIA. I have asked you to let me know whether you would like Mr
Watkinson to consider and respond to your request for information. His
response would be under the Audit Commission Act 1998, in particular
Section 49 (restriction on disclosure of information). He would also
consider whether any of the information requested comes under the
Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

Yours sincerely

Richard Page

Freedom of Information Assessor Northern Region
Audit Commission, Littlemoor House, Littlemoor
Eckington, Sheffield S21 4EF
Tel: 0844 798 6636
Office tel: 0844 798 4300 Fax: 0844 798 4301
E-mail to: [email address]

Please note: I usually do not work Mondays and Tuesdays.

show quoted sections

Dear FOI Northern,

Thank you for your response. I would like Mr. Watkinson to reply to this request. I cannot really understand how the financing of a 550 pupil school on a former toxic waste dump, which is not big enough for the numbers of children who need to attend in an area where the birth rate is rising sharply, when all council meeting questions on the issue have been refused under the Freedom of Information Act (council meeting questions are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act - people have a human right to question elected representatives) so this action has been taken illegally by John Schultz, Chief Executive of Stockport Council, Councillor Dave Goddard, Leader, Councillor Sue Derbyshire, Deputy Leader and Mark Weldon, Executive Councillor for Children and Young People's Directorate, can be the object of such secrecy. Democracy dies behind closed doors, and there seems to be a funny smell coming from Stockport Council!

On October 5th 2005 the cost was to be £5.5 million, by December 12th 2005 it had risen to £7.5 million. The cost rose steadily to £10 million, the Council said £6.9 million was to come from the sale of capital assets (redundant school land) and we find when the Council is forced to admit it that only £1.6 million is coming from capital receipts and the rest will have to be borrowed, with as yet unquantifiable contamination remediation costs, at at time when the Council admits it might be facing a £45 million black hole in its finances.

In addition, Mr. Schulz, Mr. Khan, the Council Solicitor, Mr Ajothi, Complaints, Mr Steve Houston, Director of Finance and all the Executive Councillors - Smith, Hogg, Weldon, Bodsworth, Foster-Grime, Pantall, Candler, Derbyshire are failing to comply with the Council's Fraund and Irregularity policy regarding an apparent mis-calculation of over a quarter of a million pounds.

I cannot for the life of me come up with any reason for yet further secrecy in this matter.

I look forward to hearing from Mr. Watkinson.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

FOI Northern,

Dear Mrs Oliver

Thank you for your e-mail. Mr Watkinson has a copy of your Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) request of 3 February 2010. I will forward a copy of this latest e-mail to him. Unlike the FoIA, there is no statutory deadline for auditors to respond with information under the Audit Commission Act 1998. There is, however, a deadline on auditors of 20 working days for responding with information that is subject to the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. For your request that deadline is 10 March 2010. Mr Watkinson will consider whether any of the information you request comes under the Regulations.

Yours sincerely

Richard Page

Freedom of Information Assessor Northern Region
Audit Commission, Littlemoor House, Littlemoor
Eckington, Sheffield S21 4EF
Tel: 0844 798 6636
Office tel: 0844 798 4300 Fax: 0844 798 4301
E-mail to: [email address]

Please note: I usually do not work Mondays and Tuesdays.

show quoted sections

Dear FOI Northern,

Many thanks for your further response.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

This is the current financial situation of the Children and Young People's Department at Stockport Council who intend to borrow £5 million to build a school with unquantifiable contamination remediation costs and which is not big enough for the children who need to attend in an area where the birth rate is rising sharply:

The Children and Young People Portfolio would need to retain almost £1.9m of efficiencies to deal with service pressures which first emerged during the second quarter of 2009/10. The pressures relate to the placement of looked after children, respite for disabled children, the school meals income target, special educational needs and special needs
transport to school. The third quarter revenue budget monitoring report indicates that these pressures are being managed within 2009/10 but that further plans and efficiencies are needed to address these issues on a more permanent basis going forward. Efficiencies have been identified ranging from additional income generation, service reviews, improved procurement and contract negotiation and practice changes. The Schools
Forum has also agreed that the growth in SEN/ Personalisation budgets can be top sliced to help deal with the SEN pressures.

Tim Watkinson,

Dear Mrs Oliver

I am in the process of dealing with your Freedom of Information request
which you originally sent to the Audit Commission on 3 February 2010.

Richard Page, one of our Freedom of Information Assessors, wrote to you on
10 February to explain that the Audit Commission (as opposed to the
District Auditor) held no information relevant to your request. Richard
asked if you wanted me to respond to your request under the Audit
Commission Act 1998, in particular Section 49 (restriction on disclosure
of information), as District Auditors are not subject to the Freedom of
Information Act. You confirmed that you did on 10 February.

Richard stated that I would also consider whether any of the information
requested comes under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, in
which case I would need to respond to you by 10 March 2010.

I have now reviewed all the information that I hold and am satisfied that
none of the information that you have not previously seen comes under the
Environmental Information Regulations 2004. I do, however, hold
information that Section 49(2B) enables, but does not require, me to
disclose to you and I am currently considering whether to do so would, or
would be likely to, prejudice the effective performance of my statutory
functions, and whether I need to seek the Council's consent to disclose
such information. I want to stress that I am approaching this from a
standpoint of disclosing the information to you wherever possible, but
there are certain processes that I must go through before deciding finally
what I can provide.

Responses to requests under Section 49 are not time bound, but I will aim
to write to you again by the end of March to update you on my progress and
provide what information I can.

I also acknowledge the separate emails you have sent to me directly since
your original email to the Audit Commission. I will consider the content
of these emails and will undertake any audit work that I consider
necessary to fulfil my statutory responsibilities.

Thank you for raising your concerns with the Audit Commission and with me
directly.

Yours sincerely

Tim Watkinson

District Auditor

show quoted sections

Dear Tim Watkinson,

Many thanks for your kind response.

The information will come out eventually in any case. The Information Commission has told them from two senior complaints officers to respond but they are refusing, presumably because there is much to hide. I am putting in complaints about them to the Information Commission. As the land is contaminated as I said all along, and as only £1.6 million is coming from capital receipts and not the £6.69 million they claimed and because of the illegal compulsory purchase of the ransom strip in someone's garden without even telling them, or holding a public inquiry when they received an objection from that householder, I expect to win my FOI case.

What has gone on here will come out in the open eventually and if it takes me 10 years I will get to the bottom of it. There should apparently, according to Government instructions, have been the option to renovate the three schools and keep them open, especially given the special historical nature of the Edwardian school and I have taken this matter to English Heritage. That option was never put to local people.

It is not as if the CYPD's finances are in a healthy state - quite the opposite.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Kind reards

Sheila

Tim Watkinson,

I am currently out of the office and therefore unable to reply to your
email immediately. I will try and reply as soon as possible after my
return on 10 March 2010. You can get in touch with me on my mobile 07768
032495 or please get in touch with Helen Kerins on 0844 798 7000.

Any Freedom of Information (FOI) requests should be sent directly to
[Audit Commission request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Tim Watkinson,

TIMELINE

1. 21st JANUARY 2005 – Request for m2 cost for single storey building including additional foundations. Cost based on floor area of 2600m2. Subsequently updated to 3006m2.

2. 30th AUGUST 2005 – Report to Executive Committee re proposed school. Estimated cost £5.5 million. £2.2 million grant from Dept for Education and Skills. Fir Tree site to be sold for £1.2 million, £0.6 to come from the sales of North Reddish schools, £1.8 million to be met initially through prudential borrowing till vacated sites sold.

3. 5th OCTOBER 2005 – Site notice to close schools quotes cost of proposed school as being £5.5 million, 45% to come from DfES grants and the balance from the Council’s capital programme.

4. 12th DECEMBER 2005 – Cost now £7,502,755 as per NPS document. Total school area now 3443m2.

5. 30th DECEMBER 2005 PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT - Constraints and budget fixed at £5,798,649, yet they knew from 12th December that the cost was £7,502.755.

6. 20TH FEBRUARY 2006 –Minutes of meeting obtained from NPS stating cost is now £7.5 - £8.0 million stating available funding £5.8 million plus possibly an additional £600,000 from Children’s Centre but not definite.

7. HIGHLIGHT REPORT 15/05/06 – 27/07/06 - overall projected costs £8.20million. Available funding £5.80million. Financial risk put at red.

8. 30th NOVEMBER 2006 - letter from Donna Sagar giving proposed funding sources.

9. 30TH MARCH 2007 – Agenda document point 8. states “obvious concern over funding. DS (Donna Sager) to look at possible other funding sources.” Point 10. asks for advice on how much of the information in the agenda document goes into the highlight report for the May’s project board meeting. Point 7. states that the temporary classroom has had to be removed to make way for the Sport England stipulations.

10. 13th SEPTEMBER 2007 – Email from FOI Officer regarding internal review of their refusal to disclose more detailed summary of costs.

11. 21st SEPTEMBER 2007 - Email from FOI Officer stating internal floor area of building is 3184m2.

12. 21ST NOVEMBER 2007 – copy of risk register showing high risk of further expense regarding drainage and contamination.

13. Document from Executive Meeting in 2008 stating that the sale of redundant school land sites may not realise the sums they thought. They are refusing to let me see background documents regarding this.

14. 17TH DECEMBER 2008 – Copy of letter sent to Cllr Millard, Chair of the Audit Committee following my public question at the Audit Committee meeting. No response yet received.

15. Copy of proposal for the amalgamated school, children’s centre and nursery showing overall costs expected to be £5.5 million.

The size of the school was initially to be 2600m2, then it increased to 3006m2, then it increased to 3443m2. In the FOI response dated 21st September 2007 the size is now 3184m2. In the report to the Executive 10th March 2008 the reason for the increase in cost by almost £5 million was inflation, increased floor area, the Sport England demands of £500,000 - £600,000, additional traffic work and new building regulations.

If the school were to be built on the Fir Tree site there would have been no contamination costs, no extra drainage costs, no traffic regulation order costs, no CPO costs, no village green costs, no need to lay on sewage, water, electric, telephone, no need for the £600,000 costs to appease Sport England, no need for outreach costs to deprived members of the community following the loss of vital community school and community buildings as mentioned in the Fir Tree Governors minutes and no compensation costs. They are only getting £1.2 million for the Fir Tree site. I assume this has now been substantially reduced. None of the above makes sense.

All of the above was before the Council admitted to the contamination on the site, which they knew about and intended to simply leave in situ. They will no longer be able to do this, so the cost of this school has now shot up exponientially. I will bring legal action if council taxpayers'/taxpayers' money is wasted in such huge amounts

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Tim Watkinson,

I am currently out of the office and therefore unable to reply to your
email immediately. I will try and reply as soon as possible after my
return on 7 April 2010. If you have an urgent query please call 0844 798
7036.

Any Freedom of Information (FOI) requests should be sent directly to
[Audit Commission request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Tim Watkinson,

I have still heard nothing from you and the Council is progressing with this ludicrous waste of circa £5 million of taxpayers'/counciltaxpayers' money. I raised these issues a long, long time ago with the previous District Auditor and with you. When can I expect the response promised for the end of March? If this wasn't so pressing I wouldn't be hassling you, but it is. In days it will be too late to do anything about this.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Tim Watkinson,

Dear Mrs Oliver

You did receive a response from me by the end of March as promised. On Tue
09/03/2010 I said:

"Responses to requests under Section 49 are not time bound, but I will aim
to write to you again by the end of March to update you on my progress and
provide what information I can."

I replied on Mon 29/03/2010:

"I promised to write to you by the end of this month with details of
progress. I am still determining which information I hold would be
appropriate to share with you, and I have yet to obtain the Council's
agreement in relation to this.

I will write again as soon as I have more information to provide."

But this is just in relation to your request to see specified information,
requested under FOIA/Section 49. I have already responded to you regarding
the substantive issues you have raised with me. Indeed I wrote to you in
January and told you:

"We have had previous exchanges of correspondence on this topic and I have
concluded that there was no action for me to take as the Council's
appointed auditor. In your letter you pose a number of detailed questions.
As I have previously explained it is not for me to answer such questions.

My responsibilities - which derive from the Audit Commission Act 1998 and
the Code of Audit Practice - are closely defined. Essentially I am
concerned with the financial transactions of the Council in the year of
audit, including assessing the overall arrangements which it has
established to secure probity, legality and value for money. I also give
an opinion on whether the accounts `present fairly', that is have they
been drawn up in accordance with the proper legal and accounting
frameworks and are they properly supported by the underlying information.
I do not have a general power to review action taken by the Council and
would in only become involved in individual cases if there is evidence of
illegality relating to the Council's accounts or allegations of fraud
and/or corruption. I have no remit to carry out an investigation of a
particular scheme other than to enable me to fulfil my responsibilities in
relation to the accounts and my assessment of the `value for money'
arrangements of the Council.

However I will consider the contents of your letter, in the context of my
responsibilities, and consider your current concerns, to the extent these
are additional to those issues I have already considered through my audit.
In particular I will make further enquiries regarding the costs and
financing of the scheme to ensure there are no issues that would require
me to raise concerns with the Council."

You have continued to provide me with further information and I have
acknowledged these and have told you that I will consider the content of
these emails and will undertake any audit work that I consider necessary
to fulfil my statutory responsibilities.

In some of your recent emails you have indicated to me and others that I
have not dealt with your concerns to your satisfaction. I am sorry if that
is the case, but I have explained the nature of my responsibilities and
have sought to give you as much assurance as I can, within the context of
these responsibilities.

I will write again in relation to your request for information when I am
able to do so.

Yours sincerely

Tim Watkinson

District Auditor

show quoted sections

Dear Tim Watkinson,

Thank you for your reply. I note you have yet to obtain the Council's agreement. Why are these things being kept so secret? Why have we had to wait so long for the Council's agreement? I cannot play this waiting game because the school building will be commenced within days. I note you have to assess procedures giving value for money. People are repeatedly dying after coming into contact with the Children and Young People's Department at Stockport.

http://www.stockportexpress.co.uk/news/s...

http://www.stockportexpress.co.uk/news/s...

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/n...

The Coroner is rightly concerned - I think this is the third death he has had to comment upon. These are very serious issues. A Department which would appear to be in such a financial mess should not be unnecessarily borrowing circa £5 million.

I have raised this issue before with the District Auditor without success.

I look forward to receiving any information you and Stockport Council decide eventually (presumably when there has been a commitment to proceed with the project) to release.

Given the current state of public finance, we need very, very close scrutiny of what is going on and please don't forget you all work for us. This is public money and the entire process should be open and accountable. It is ludicrous that Stockport Council should be allowed to prevaricate and decide what information will be released and what won't.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Dear Audit Commission,

I have still not received the response promised by the District Auditor by the end of March.

I think it was the same District Auditor who told Stockport Council on 5/11/2007 that "An item in the accounts breaks the law if, for example, it records spending or income that:....was spent on something that the Council has the power to spend money on, but which was so unreasonably high that it was unlawful."

I believe the cost of this school to be so high that it is unlawful. I think there are enough enemies of the LibDems now to help me prove that it is unlawful.

I look forward to the response from the District Auditor, should I ever be fortunate enough to get one.

With very warmest best wishes

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

Complaints,

Dear Mrs Oliver,

Thank you for your email.

As you have written to us via the whatdotheyknow website, I have been able
to track your correspondence with Mr Watkinson and I have noted his email
to you dated 15 April 2010. In his email he explained that he had
written to you at the end of the March but unfortunately he had yet to
obtain the Council's agreement in releasing certain information to you. He
then said he would write to you again when he had more information.

I believe the responses you have received are perfectly reasonable and
have been written in a timely manner by Mr Watkinson. I can only recommend
that you now await further correspondence from Mr Watkinson as per his
instructions in his email.

Accordingly, there is no action to be taken by the Audit Commission at
this time.

Yours sincerely,

Dan Allbon
Public Enquiries Officer
part of the Chief Executive's office

Audit Commission
Westward House
Lime Kiln Close
Stoke Gifford
Bristol
BS34 8SR

T: 0844 798 3131
E: [1][email address]
W: [2]www.audit-commission.gov.uk

For Freedom of Information (FoI) requests please email
[3][Audit Commission request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Complaints,

Thank you. I would prefer to deal through this excellent website and will post up on here when, if ever, Mr. Watkinson reponds with the information Stockport Council will allow me to see. This is a public issue - there should be no secrecy. We are circa £5 million adrift here, which is why I am asking the questions. I don't suppose the Council will want to let me see evidence of their presumed incompetence/or possibly worse. Something very, very strange is going on here and I would like to keep these matters in the public domain.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Complaints,

THIS EMAIL HAS BEEN AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO
THIS EMAIL

Thank you for your email to the Audit Commission Complaints Unit.

The Complaint Unit deals with complaints against the Commission, its
appointed auditors and members of staff, as set out by the Audit
Commission complaints procedure.

If your complaint can be investigated within the remit of the Audit
Commission's complaint procedure, we will respond within 5 working days
advising you of the appropriate action that will be taken.

If your complaint is about a local authority or NHS body, you should
contact the authority direct and inform them of your concerns.

Any Freedom of Information requests should be sent directly to:
[Audit Commission request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Complaints,

I don't really want to waste a few years of my time on a complaint, which is unlikely to produce any result. I think the only truly effective regulator is the Information Commissioner.

I will just keep posting on this site how long I wait for Mr. Watkinson's response and the quality of information Stockport Council lets me have (if any) about the very strange financial irregularities of circa £5 million.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Complaints,

THIS EMAIL HAS BEEN AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO
THIS EMAIL

Thank you for your email to the Audit Commission Complaints Unit.

The Complaint Unit deals with complaints against the Commission, its
appointed auditors and members of staff, as set out by the Audit
Commission complaints procedure.

If your complaint can be investigated within the remit of the Audit
Commission's complaint procedure, we will respond within 5 working days
advising you of the appropriate action that will be taken.

If your complaint is about a local authority or NHS body, you should
contact the authority direct and inform them of your concerns.

Any Freedom of Information requests should be sent directly to:
[Audit Commission request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Complaints,

I don't remember emailing the complaints department. I don't want to make a complaint - why should I waste my time in this way? I shall simply post up on this excellent site when and if I get the promised information from Mr Watkinson and exactly what it tells me about the apparent financial irregularities of circa £5 million.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Complaints,

THIS EMAIL HAS BEEN AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO
THIS EMAIL

Thank you for your email to the Audit Commission Complaints Unit.

The Complaint Unit deals with complaints against the Commission, its
appointed auditors and members of staff, as set out by the Audit
Commission complaints procedure.

If your complaint can be investigated within the remit of the Audit
Commission's complaint procedure, we will respond within 5 working days
advising you of the appropriate action that will be taken.

If your complaint is about a local authority or NHS body, you should
contact the authority direct and inform them of your concerns.

Any Freedom of Information requests should be sent directly to:
[Audit Commission request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Freedom of Information Officer

I have still not received from Mr Watkinson, the District Auditor, the information he promised me at the end of March - unaccountably what Stockport Council will allow me to see - which seems a strange way of dealing of the unlawful spending of millions of pounds in excess of what needs to be spent.

I have now learned that Andrew Webb, Director of Children and Young People's Directorate, wrote to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator in October 2009 asking for an extension on the schools closure date and failed to mention in that letter that either the contamination report had been received showing the entire site to be contaminated (which possibly added a couple of million pounds to the bill) or if he hadn't received the report at that stage in October, failed to tell the Office of the Schools Adjudicator that this report was pending i.e., failed to disclose material facts involving several millions of pounds. This issue needs to be brought out in the open and the District Auditor's response of letting me see what Stockport Council will allow me to see rings alarm bells in my head. It seems a strange way for a regulator to behave.

The contact is being awarded and the school is being started. Millions of pounds are being wasted and the District Auditor is not responding. Very worrying!

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Complaints,

THIS EMAIL HAS BEEN AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO
THIS EMAIL

Thank you for your email to the Audit Commission Complaints Unit.

The Complaint Unit deals with complaints against the Commission, its
appointed auditors and members of staff, as set out by the Audit
Commission complaints procedure.

If your complaint can be investigated within the remit of the Audit
Commission's complaint procedure, we will respond within 5 working days
advising you of the appropriate action that will be taken.

If your complaint is about a local authority or NHS body, you should
contact the authority direct and inform them of your concerns.

Any Freedom of Information requests should be sent directly to:
[Audit Commission request email]

show quoted sections

Sheila Oliver

Dear Audit Commission (not Complaints Department)

I have still not received the information Mr. Watkinson said he would consider providing. He is going to let me see what Stockport Council will allow me to see, which seems strange to me.

The Director of Children and Young People's Directorate failed to inform the Office of the Schools Adjudicator of material facts regarding contamination which potentially could cost millions of pounds to deal with and he said the Executive Councillors supported his comments.

Something very, very strange is going on at Stockport. I presume the school is being proceeded with - I am not allowed to ask even that reasonable question. It is completely unlawful for council taxpayers to have to pay millions of pounds too much for something - quite rightly.

What on earth is going on at Stockport Council and who is going to protect the public purse?

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Complaints,

THIS EMAIL HAS BEEN AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO
THIS EMAIL

Thank you for your email to the Audit Commission Complaints Unit.

The Complaint Unit deals with complaints against the Commission, its
appointed auditors and members of staff, as set out by the Audit
Commission complaints procedure.

If your complaint can be investigated within the remit of the Audit
Commission's complaint procedure, we will respond within 5 working days
advising you of the appropriate action that will be taken.

If your complaint is about a local authority or NHS body, you should
contact the authority direct and inform them of your concerns.

Any Freedom of Information requests should be sent directly to:
[Audit Commission request email]

show quoted sections

Freedom of Information,

Dear Mrs Oliver,

Thank you for your emails dated 29 April and 2 May 2010.

As you have written to us via the whatdotheyknow website, I have been able
to track your correspondence with Mr Watkinson and I have noted his email
to you dated 15 April 2010. In his email he explained that he had written
to you at the end of March but unfortunately he had yet to obtain the
Council's agreement in releasing certain information to you. He then said
he would write to you again when he had more information.

I believe the responses you have received are perfectly reasonable and
have been written in a timely manner by Mr Watkinson. I can only recommend
that you now await further correspondence from Mr Watkinson as per his
instructions in his email.

Accordingly, there is no action to be taken by the Audit Commission at
this time.

Yours sincerely,

Dan Allbon
Public Enquiries Officer
part of the Chief Executive's office

Audit Commission
Westward House
Lime Kiln Close
Stoke Gifford
Bristol
BS34 8SR

T: 0844 798 3131
E: [1][email address]
W: [2]www.audit-commission.gov.uk

For Freedom of Information (FoI) requests please email
[3][Audit Commission request email]

show quoted sections

Sheila Oliver

Dear Mr Allbon

It is terribly kind of you to reply, and please don't think me unappreciative, but we are no further forward. I didn't make any complaint to your office. Each time this wonderful website prompts me to put up the current situation regarding my inquiry, I simply answer truthfully that I have heard nothing. I shall continue to do this every time I am asked by the system.

It is not as if I am asking for details of the Trident missile programme. It is just about a school which is currently £5 million over the Council's budget even before they admitted to the contamination, which could cost millions. They said they had £6.69 million from capital receipts - they only have £1.6 million and senior council officers and the executive councillors took action to suppress this information. The school was needed for 565 pupils and in the official schools closure notice every child who wanted a place at the new school was promised one. They intended to put in place temporary classrooms till the birth rate fell but due to the demands of Sport England (bless 'em) there is now no room. The birth rate in the area is rising sharply; so they are building a school with no room to expand which wasn't ever big enough for the purpose it was to be used for. They can only take 525 pupils. This was always admitted in council documents to be a risky proposal, so why was there no Plan B? It would seem a simple financial safeguard in the circumstances.

In addition, they tried to leave the arsenic lead and asbestos in situ despite being fully aware of the contaminated nature of the site.

I am perfectly entitled to ask questions in a free and supposedly open society. Questions have been blocked for possibly now four out of the past five years by various dubious means. I am not rude, offensive or vexatious but I am tenacious.

This is public money; there should be no secrecy. The current Chief Executive of Stockport Council is blameless, but will he perpetuate this secrecy or for his £170,000 pa run an accountable Council? We shall see.

I look forward to hearing from Mr Watkinson and showing how much or how little information Stockport Council tells him they will let me see - a funny kettle of fish in my humble opinion.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Audit Commission

This website has asked me again if I have received this information. Again I have to post up that I have not. I am amazed at the level of secrecy here. This is public money involving millions of pounds overspend with unquantifiable remediation costs which is having to come from unsupported borrowing at a time when Stockport Council has admitted it might have a £45 million black hole in its budget over the next three years, and this is a project which is most certainly not fit for purpose at the outset.

The Council wants to keep the details secret and it would appear the Audit Commission will allow them to.

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Mr Watkinson

Whilst waiting for Stockport Council to respond, I thought I would post up more relevant information. I have documentary evidence of all I am saying:-

What Do They Know website – Financial Questions being refused by Stockport Council

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/es...

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pr...

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fi...

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ha...

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/wh...

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ha...

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ho...

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re...

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ri...

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ha...

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...
(I presume they will refuse this one too)

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mi...
(I presume they will refuse this)

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...
(I presume they will refuse this one as well)

TIMELINE - FINANCE

1. 21st JANUARY 2005 – Request for m2 cost for single storey building including additional foundations. Cost based on floor area of 2600m2. Subsequently updated to 3006m2.

2. 30th AUGUST 2005 – Report to Executive Committee re proposed school. Estimated cost £5.5 million. £2.2 million grant from Dept for Education and Skills. Fir Tree site to be sold for £1.2 million, £0.6 to come from the sales of North Reddish schools, £1.8 million to be met initially through prudential borrowing till vacated sites sold.

3. Copy of proposal for the amalgamated school, children’s centre and nursery showing overall costs expected to be £5.5 million.

4. 5th OCTOBER 2005 – Site notice to close schools quotes cost of proposed school as being £5.5 million, 45% to come from DfES grants and the balance from the Council’s capital programme.

5. 12th DECEMBER 2005 – Cost now £7,502,755 as per NPS document. Total school area now 3443m2.

6. 30th DECEMBER 2005 PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT - stated Project Initiation Document and brief received with constraints and budget fixed in the item 2, 3 and 4 at £5,798,649 on 30th December 2005, but we see from the NPS document that as of 12th December 2005 the building work total was £7,502.755 i.e., the scheme at its outset was £1,704,106 overbudget. Was admitted to be a risky venture but there was no Plan B.

7. Executive Meeting 20th February 2006 – Unsupported Capital Expenditure – To support a new school in Reddish to replace two existing schools until the sale of the surplus sites is realized.

8. 20TH FEBRUARY 2006 –Minutes of meeting obtained from NPS stating cost is now £7.5 - £8.0 million stating available funding £5.8 million plus possibly an additional £600,000 from Children’s Centre but not definite.

9. HIGHLIGHT REPORT 15/05/06 – 27/07/06 - overall projected costs £8.20million. Available funding £5.80million. Financial risk put at red. There was a £2,400.000 shortfall

10. 30th NOVEMBER 2006 - letter from Donna Sagar giving proposed funding sources. No mention of financial shortfall.

11. 21st March 2007 - email from the FOI Officer stating there would be an internal review of the Council’s decision to let me see no documents on this issue. I had previously received a letter from the Director of Children and Young People’s Directorate, Andrew Webb, stating it would take 84 hours of officer time at £25 per hour to read and redact the files and £300 photocopying costs. I wanted no photocopies – just to read the files. I knew he was not telling the truth because I had already seen all the files a few months before and just wanted to re-read them and see any new information. There were a handful of folders, which could not possibly equate to 84 hours of council officer’s time.

12. 30TH MARCH 2007 – Agenda document point 8. states “obvious concern over funding. DS (Donna Sager) to look at possible other funding sources.” Point 10. asks for advice on how much of the information in the agenda document goes into the highlight report for the May’s project board meeting. Point 7. states that the temporary classroom has had to be removed to make way for the Sport England stipulations.

13. 21st June 2007 Email from Chris Woolard – stating cost was now in the region of £8.5 million

14. 20th July 2007 – Email from me to the FOI Officer – asking for clarification of funding before the matter was put before the planning committee.

15. July 2007 - Email from me to the Executive Councillor, Councillor Weldon – asking about the funding before the matter went before the planning committee at the end of July 2007.

16. 26th July 2007 – Email from me to the Finance Executive Councillor – asking about the rising costs of the scheme from £5.2 million when the scheme was announced in the press and the current £8.5 million cost at this time. This represented a rise of £3.3 million in 21 months.

17. 31st July 2007 – Having forced the Council to allow me to see documents under the FOI by humiliating the LibDems at Westminster, they finally allowed me to see some documents, having initially claimed they would take 84 hours to read and redact. I went into work early at 7.30 am, so I could be at the Council premises by 2.30 to read them. I left out of consideration to the Reception staff at 16.50. The Council refused to let me see those documents again saying I had already seen them. How could they expect me to read in a couple of hours what they had claimed would take 84 hours to read and redact?

18. 22nd August 2007 – FOI response regarding the rising costs – no mention of the funding difficulties.

19. 15th September 2007 – Email from me to the FOI Officer – explaining why the £8.5 million cost of the proposed school is circa £3 million too high according to Government figures.

20. 13th SEPTEMBER 2007 – Email from FOI Officer regarding internal review of their refusal to disclose more detailed summary of costs.

21. 21st SEPTEMBER 2007 - Email from FOI Officer stating internal floor area of building is 3184m2.

22. 11th October 2007 – Email regarding the latest breakdown of costs

23. 6th November 2007 – Email from the FOI Officer stating they have not investigated the costs of putting the proposed school on the Fir Tree site

24. 6th November 2007 – Email from me pointing out that: “An item in the accounts breaks the law if, for example, it records spending or income that…..was spent on something that the council has power to spend money on, but which was so unreasonably high that it was unlawful” according to the District Auditor

25. 8th November 2007 – Email from FOI Officer stating the costs of expert monitoring of the venting of landfill gases into the school site for the 25 year life of the proposed school are at that stage unquantifiable

26. 9th November 2007 – Email from FOI Officer stating that the costs of the contamination remediation are at that stage unquantifiable

27. 14th November 2007 – Email from the FOI Officer saying the Council has not considered the potential cost of vandalism at this proposed site, which unlike most school sites is completely hidden from public view and any criminal activity on the site would go unnoticed.

28. 21ST NOVEMBER 2007 – copy of risk register showing high risk of further expense regarding drainage and contamination.

29. Document from Executive Meeting in 2008 stating that the sale of redundant school land sites may not realise the sums they thought. They are refusing to let me see background documents regarding this.

30. 10th March 2008 – Report to Executive Meeting - identifying estimated costs of the scheme and the funding streams. At (v) it gives the increased floor area from 2600m2 to 3185m2. At 3.2 Benchmarking it gives the figure of £1450/m2 as the figure they have adopted within the cost plan. So, that is an extra 585m2 x £1450 = £848,250 yet they have given the cost of that as £1,050,000. My attempts over a two year period to point out that apparent arithmetical error have met with a stonewall of silence and claims that I am being vexatious. That is over a quarter of a million pounds! The cost of the scheme in this document is now £9,930,000. This is another £1,430,000 since the previous estimate in September 2007 – 6 months previously. Please remember at this time no contamination had been admitted to, although the Council knew this to be a contaminated site. I knew this was a contaminated site and that these costs would push up the price exponentially.

31. 15th April to 15th May 2008 – Highlight Report of the Project Board – Available funding £9.94 million – projected overall costs £9.94 million. From which source has the full funding now materialized?

32. June 2008 Financial Procedures Rules – 1.4 “All staff within the Authority are required to maintain and promote the highest standards of financial management, integrity and administration in line with these Financial Procedure Rules, Accounting Standards and Codes of Practice.”

33. Email from the FOI Officer in response to the point above – “£3,778,000 will come from the sale of the Edgeley Centre and Taxal Lodge. £484,000 from the sale of Bruntwood Primary School will be put towards the project….it is therefore anticipated that the proceeds of future sales of education sites…will make up the shortfall.” This amounts to £4,262,000 towards the cost of the proposed school.

34. 5th October 2008 – email from me to the FOI Officer pointing out that in the Executive Meeting minutes of 18th August 2008 the Strategic Capital Group has considered the issue of the sale of redundant school land not realizing the expected sums due to the economic downturn and building/mortgage crisis.

35. 10th November 2008 – Report to the Executive Meeting – Capital Programme Report – “The “credit crunch” is having an impact on achieving the planned level of capital receipts necessary to support the programme, and it is likely that the economic position will continue to have an adverse impact (sic) the lifetime of this programme.”

The Strategic Capital Group will review all projects being supported by capital receipts and will report back to the Executive Councillor Finance with a plan to balance the funding position.”

36. 9th December 2008 – Question put by me to the Audit Committee about the funding of the proposed school – they declined to answer.

37. 17TH DECEMBER 2008 – Copy of letter sent to Cllr Millard, Chair of the Audit Committee following my public question at the Audit Committee meeting. No response yet received.

38. January 6th 2010 – Proof of Evidence by Donna Sager, Project Manager, given to a public inquiry regarding the diversion of a footpath.
7.2 … the lowest tender of the scheme is £7,731,569 (inexplicably down from £9,940,000). There is funding available of £768,431 to meet any future contingencies, or any additional requirements for land remediation. 7.3 It involves a capital expenditure of £8.5 million. Supported borrowing - £4,036,497, Grants £2,744,430.

Capital receipts amount to £1,676,000 and not the £6.690,000 previously stated. This anomaly of circa £5 million from what was being told to the Executive Committee and to me.

39. 11th December 2009 – Annual Audit letter – Closing remarks “The economic downturn , public sector funding and the banking crisis are having a very significant impact on public finances and the bodies that manage them. It is envisaged that there will be wide ranging and more fundamental impacts on the ability of the public sector bodies to fund service delivery and capital programmes in the short to medium term, including pressure on income streams.”

40. Capital Programme 2008/09 – 2010/11 – Children and Young People’s Directorate is having to take £486,000 from another Council budget to balance its books

41. January 6th 2010 – Evidence stating the entire site is contaminated put before a diversion of public footpath inquiry.

The size of the school was initially to be 2600m2, then it increased to 3006m2, then it increased to 3443m2 . In the FOI response dated 21st September 2007 the size is now 3184m2 . In the report to the Executive 10th March 2008. the reason for the increase in cost by almost £5 million was amongst other things increased floor area. Yet we see from Point 5 above on the 12th DECEMBER 2005 – Cost was £7,502,755 as per NPS document. Total school area was put at 3443m2, so the area of the school has gone down 361m2 at £1450 per m2, which amounts to another apparent financial anomaly of £523,450.

If the school were to be built on the Fir Tree site there would have been no contamination costs, no extra drainage costs, no traffic regulation order costs, no CPO costs, no village green costs, no need to lay on sewage, water, electric, telephone, no need for the £600,000 costs to appease Sport England, no need for outreach costs to deprived members of the community following the loss of vital community school and community buildings as mentioned in the Fir Tree Governors minutes and no compensation costs. They are only getting £1.2 million for the Fir Tree site. I assume this has now been substantially reduced. None of the above makes any financial sense and in my opinion I am perfectly within my rights to question senior council officers and Executive Councillors regarding these irregularities. The Executive Councillors have used my apparent verdict of vexatiousness from the Information Commission to not only ban all FOI questions but all council meeting questions on the subject as well.

Kind regards

Sheila

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Audit Commission

Yet more secrecy from Stockport Council.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...

What on earth is going on there?

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Mr Watkinson

Stockport Council Executive Decision 25th March 2010 - tender acceptance - Proposed New Reddish North Primary School at Harcourt Street, North Reddish.

I warned that the signing of the contact was imminent. There are anomalies of several millions of pounds regarding this developement and I would like some sort of response from somebody about these. I was told this was to be forthcoming by the end of March.

It is my belief that this action has been unlawful in unnecessarily spending millions of pounds of council taxpayers' money. If I am wrong then I can't have tried any harder over the last five years to have established the true facts.

Could I please have some sort of reply to the financial irregularities detailed above?

Yours

Sheila

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

http://menmedia.co.uk/stockportexpress/n...

Stockport Councillors cost us nearly £1 million pa, but the Executive Councillors - Goddard, Derbyshire, Weldon, Foster-Grime, Smith, Pantall, Candler, Bodsworth, White et al think they don't have to be financially accountable to council taxpayers and refuse to respond regarding strange multi million pound anomalies.

I would appreciate some update from Mr. Watkinson, the District Auditor, as to why this is taking so long. It is a current issue. Nothing has to be looked up.

What on earth is going on?

Sheila

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Still no promised reply from Tim Watkinson, District Auditor for Stockport. I wonder if this will get in the Guinness Book of Records as the longest time it takes to reply. Will we go into decades, I wonder?

I have raised the matter with the new Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, as well as my local MP, Andrew Stunell, junior minister for Communities and Local Governement.

Kind regards

Sheila

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Audit Commission

Still no reply from Mr. Watkinson, which was promised for the end of March, but if you see the reply below from the MOD, they are willing to be more open on the Trident Nuclear Weapons programme than Mr. Watkinson is on the subject of a school on a former toxic waste dump which has more financial irregularities than you can poke a stick at.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/34...

Kind regards

Sheila

Dear Freedom of Information,

I have today received a package from the Audit Commission to my home address, which I haven't yet opened. I assume this is the requested information from Stockport Council's auditor. Many thanks.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Dear Audit Commission,

Just to update you, despite the shocking press story below:-

http://menmedia.co.uk/stockportexpress/n...

Jen Re, Corporate Director responsible, Eamonn Boylan Chief Executive and Councillor Mark Weldon are still refusing to answer questions on this subject.

I have to say the Audit Commission was no use whatsoever in this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Is my local MP Andrew Stunell having a laugh here? I repeatedly
asked him to make Stockport Council reply to questions, which they
have avoided for about four years:-

http://www.libdemvoice.org/andrew-stunel...

I shall ask him again for help and post his response, or lack of
it, on this site.

Have a look at this frightening You Tube clip of the brown asbestos
"experts" languidly and unscienficially removing brown asbestos
from the school site:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0rCPnP5H9o

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

I don't think the Stunell link worked. Try this:-

http://www.libdemvoice.org/andrew-stunel...

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Just an update. The toxic waste dump school is being built, the whole site was toxic and had brown asbestos, which this You Tube clip shows they haven't bothered to remove properly:-

www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0rCPnP5H9o

And, now we learn that they are having to turn a learing resource centre into a classroom and also provide a temporary classroom. I gave evidence to the District Auditor that the school was being built too small. What a shame he didn't feel able to act in the interests of the people of Stockport as opposed to helping to cover up what Stockport Council was up to.