Failure to comply with the law regarding the compulsory purchase of the ransom strip.

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

The request was refused by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council.

Dear Stockport Borough Council,

I have advice regarding the compulsory purchase land from the Communities Department in London that: “The acquiring authority must serve notice on the owners/occupiers of the site along with others who may be affected by the proposals and indicate the time within which objections to the CPO may be made……If there are objections to the CPO by owners/occupiers etc the Minister will arrange for a public inquiry.” Please may I see any documentary evidence held by Stockport Council as to why the owner/occupier of the dwelling in which ransom strip is situated adjacent to the proposed school at Harcourt Street was not contacted and why when a statutory objection to the compulsory purchase of the land was received from that householder, no public inquiry was held into the CPO, as is demanded by law?

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

FOI Officer, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 2593).

As you have previously been informed, your requests for information about
Harcourt Street are considered to be vexatious under section 14(1) Freedom
of Information Act 2000 and manifestly unreasonable under Regulation
12(4)(b) Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and will not receive a
response. This decision has been through the Council's internal review
process and was upheld. It has also been investigated by the Information
Commissioner's Office at your request; the ICO upheld the Council's
decision in its Decision Notice.

Yours sincerely,

Claire Naven

Claire Naven

Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

show quoted sections

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

The Council declared me vexatious after I wrote many times to them protesting that a man subsequently proved innocent had been sent to prison as a result of their actions, that they were intending to knowingly build a school on a contaminated site extensively tipped from 1954 to 1974 with industrial waste on which they intended to carry out no contamination remediation whatsoever. They have been forced to admit recently that the site is entirely contaminated with arsenic, lead and asbestos. The school should have opened in September 2008 and 550 children would have been exposed to those chemical dangers. They also were hiding the fact that they were going to have to borrow £5 million for the school, having previously said £6.9 million would be coming from capital receipts and they were hiding the fact that they failed to comply with the law with regards to the compulsory purchase of a strip of land they knew perfectly well was in a householder's garden. They should have held a public inquiry, which they would probably have lost, so they simply took the land.

The Council was told on 14/01/10 by a senior Information Commission complaints officer that I could ask questions on this subject.

I shall be taking this matter to Mr. Thomas, Information Commissioner, himself.

Stockport Council has a lot to conceal, but I shall expose what they are trying to cover up. It doesn't matter how long it takes.

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 'Failure to comply with the law regarding the compulsory purchase of the ransom strip.'.

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/fa...

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

FOI Officer, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your email below (ref 2593).

As we have previously explained to you on a number of occasions, the
Council has already carried out an internal review of its decision to
refuse all your requests on the subject of Harcourt Street on the grounds
that they are vexatious and manifestly unreasonable. Your subsequent
complaint has also been investigated by the Information Commissioner's
Office which issued a Decision Notice and upheld the Council's decision.
On this basis, the Council will not be carrying out an internal review as
it has nothing further to add.

If you wish to pursue a complaint you are entitled to complain to the
Information Commissioner's Office: [1]www.ico.gov.uk.

Yours sincerely,

Claire Naven

Claire Naven

Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

show quoted sections

Dear FOI Officer,

Since the far from impartial internal review process at Stockport
Council, the Council has been forced to disclose documents to a
public inquiry which show the entire site to be highly contaminated
and that £5 million in funding is not available, contrary to their
previous assertion - they only disclosed those facts after the ICO
ruling. The Information Commission has said twice that the Council
needs to answer questions on this subject. One has to wonder what
the Council has to hide. I shall make a complaint to the ICO about
this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

"Council bosses decided NOT to hold a wide-ranging investigation into the death of a boy who died after an asthma attack at school, the MEN can reveal.

Stockport council officials considered carrying out a serious case review into the 11-year-old's death THREE times – but each time decided against.

The news came after an inquest jury found a catalogue of errors and neglect by staff at Offerton High School 'significantly contributed' to Sam's death.

He was left to sit in a corridor after suffering the attack while teachers failed to call an ambulance.

Parents Paul and Karen Linton are now considering legal action against the council.

The M.E.N understands officials in charge of safeguarding Stockport children did not believe the case met the criteria for a full serious case review...."

Manchester Evening News

The same people responsible for the above are the ones refusing to answer questions about this school to be built on toxic waste. The Information Commission has said the next step is to lodge an official complaint with Stockport Council about their refusal to respond, but the Complaints Officer won't even reply.