Looking under the bonnet of local councils

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Department for Communities and Local Government,

Eric Pickles said we should become armchair auditors and look under the bonnet of local councils. Mine won't let me. My local MP, Andrew Stunell, junior DCLG minister approves of the secrecy.

Please see below. Stockport Council has built a school on toxic waste, massively overbudget and not big enough. I am banned from seeing any documents. Below is the content of several documents I was fleetingly able to obtain. As you will see the school was never big enough. I will email anyone the original evidence should they so wish. I have raised this matter before with the DCLG, who kicked it into the very long grass at Government Office for the North West who haven't responded and have not even bothered to respond to a FOIA request. So, I am back to Mr Pickles. What does he intend to do about councils who waste public money, engage in secrecy to cover up what they have been up to and refuse to let members of the public scrutinize them? Surely Mr Pickles has some sort of Plan B in the eventuality of people like GONW not bothering to respond. I would like details please of his plans to deal with this sort of abuse of power.

----------------------------------------------------------
New Primary School - Harcourt Street, Reddish Design Sub Group

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 is the response to a FOI showing that the birth rate in the area is rising sharply:-

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,

Sheila Oliver

Dear Department for Communities and Local Government,

I want to look under the Council's bonnet; the Council won't let me. Mr Pickles said we should be armchair auditors and the Council won't let me.

Mr Pickles said he couldn't help and referred me on to Government Office for the North West. It is a comprehensive reply but on the issues of a dangerous toxic waste dump school, built too small, breaking planning laws and at the last minute one which meant the council taxpayer had to borrow £4 million to fund, are not addressed. I went to the Local Ombudsman who took several years to decide nothing was wrong. I went to the District Auditor who despite masses of evidence refused to reply. It proved easier to get details of the Trident Weapons programme than to get a response from Stockport's District Auditor.

So, I am back to square one. I will post up the documents on the Audit Commission, the DCLG the Ombudsman's What Do They Know websites, so people could see, if they wanted, exactly what these toothless and indolent watchdogs turned a blind eye to.

The Information Commission are, in my opinion, our only trusted watchdog.

So, where do I go next Mr. Pickles?

-------------------------------------------------------

LETTER BY E-MAIL

Ms. Sheila Oliver

7 March 2011 Jo Lappin
Deputy Director
Housing, Planning & Transport
Cheshire and Warrington and Liverpool City Regions
Piccadilly Gate
Store Street
Manchester
M1 2WD

Tel: 0161 952 4005
Fax: 0161 952 4255
[email address]

Dear Mrs Oliver,

Further to the letter of 10 January from Martin Harding in the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG), I have recently been forwarded your correspondence. I am now writing to provide you with a considered response to a number of communications which you posted on the “Whatdotheyknow.com” website and to your correspondence of June 2010 to Eric Pickles. Please accept my apologies for the slight delay in responding, which is due to the need to consult with policy colleagues in DCLG on the issues raised.

You have raised a number of issues concerning contamination of the site for the proposed school at Harcourt Street, Reddish.

I should firstly explain that responsibility for day-to-day planning and development control matters within its area rests with Stockport Council. DCLG has no jurisdiction in investigating individual complaints against a local authority or reviewing decisions given by them. This can be investigated through the Local Government Ombudsman, if it is felt that the Council has not carried out its duties as it is legally obliged to do so. I understand that you may have already raised this matter with the Ombudsman.

In permitting and monitoring development involving contaminated land local authorities are required to have regard to national planning policy. PPS23 ‘Planning and Pollution Control’ and it’s Annex ‘Development on Land Affected by Contamination’ encourages local authorities to pay particular attention to development proposals for sites where there is a reason to suspect contamination, such as the existence of former industrial uses, or other indications of potential contamination.

The local authority is responsible for ensuring that the development is safe and suitable for use for the purpose for which it is intended. It is for the Council to satisfy itself that the potential for contamination and any risks arising are properly assessed, and that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to neighbours.

I note that in this case conditions were imposed in respect of measures to deal with the contamination and it is for the Council in consultation with the Environment Agency to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the planning permission.

You also raised concerns about publications issued by Stockport Council and the level of expenses incurred by councillors.

Local authorities are required to have regard to the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity when producing publicity, including council newspapers.

The Government recently consulted on changes to the code that would limit the frequency of council newspapers to once a quarter. This Code has now been laid before Parliament and only when it has been debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament will the new measures come into force.

Allowances are intended to offset the costs incurred by councillors performing their public duties. The levels of allowances are recommended by the authority’s independent remuneration panel. In setting allowances, local authorities must have regard to the recommendations of their independent remuneration panel.

Councillors should, of course, have the confidence to set sensible allowances that ensure they are not left out of pocket for performing their duties, and it is important that able and talented people are not discouraged from being councillors and representing their communities, and that members of the public are left without representation as a result. However, they should also ensure that allowances are set at a level that can be justified and that the public deem fit and proper.

Ministers have called on councillors to set an example by not increasing their allowances this year in view of the economic situation and the pay freeze on council officers’ pay. Minister for Local Government Grant Shapps has said that ‘It is not justifiable for hikes in councillor allowances when public sector workers are facing a two-year pay freeze. We're all in this together, and those who hold public office need to lead by example.’

Measures are in place to ensure accountability and transparency. Local authorities are accountable to the local electorate for their decisions regarding their members’ allowances scheme by the requirement in the legislation to publish the details of their scheme and the recommendations of their independent remuneration panel in the local press. Authorities are also required to make this information available for inspection at the offices of the authority. Authorities are required to keep records of the payments made to all councillors and to make the information available for inspection to any elector in its area at all reasonable times and at no charge. Finally, at the end of the year to which the scheme of allowances relates, authorities are required to publish the total sum paid to each councillor in respect of each of the allowances under the scheme.

In relation to the general concern which you raise concerning expenditure by the Council, these are matters for the Council’s auditor. As explained in the response to you from Mel Lea of DCLG, following the disbandment of the Audit Commission members of the public will continue to be free to raise concerns about financial waste with the Council’s auditor. Whilst the Council will be free to choose their auditor, this will be subject to safeguards to ensure the competence and independence of the auditor.

With regard to the expenditure by the Council on the SEMMMS road scheme, the Department for Transport (DfT) intends to work in partnership with local communities to develop a new framework for the funding of major local transport schemes over time, one that will have a reduced role for central government and give a proper voice to locally elected representatives and business interests, with Local Enterprise Partnerships (individually or in consortia) playing a key role over strategic investment choices in functional economic areas.

In the mean time, given the uncertainty of longer term funding, DfT has reminded the authorities that any further development costs will be entirely at their own risk.

With regard to the issues you raise concerning the Council’s handling of requests under Freedom of Information legislation, these are matters which fall to the Information Commissioner and it would therefore not be appropriate for me to comment.

Similarly the issues you raised concerning the compulsory purchase order for the school site and nursery class provision in Stockport are matters which you will need to address to the Secretary of State for Education.

I hope that this information is helpful. Once again I would like to apologise for the delay in providing you with a response to your communications.

Yours sincerely,

Jo Lappin
-------------------------------------------------------

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Cost October 2005 £5.5 million:-
------------------------------------------------------

STOCKPORT METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
STATUTORY PROPOSALS RELATING TO FIR TREE PRIMARY SCHOOL AND NORTH REDDISH INFANT AND NORTH REDDISH JUNIOR SCHOOLS
NEW COMMUNITY PRIMARY SCHOOL
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 ("The Act"), that Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, being the Local Authority, intends to make the following changes:
In accordance with section 29(1) of the Act to discontinue Fir Tree Primary School situated at Browning Road, North Reddish, Stockport, Cheshire, SK5 6JW, North Reddish Infant School and North Reddish Junior School situated at Longford Road, North Reddish, Stockport SK5 6XB, with effect from 31 August 2008.
Any child who would have attended Fir Tree Primary School or North Reddish Infant or Junior School will be offered a place at a new community primary school to be opened on a new site at Harcourt Street, Reddish, Stockport (see below).
Children attending the new community primary school and living in its priority area whose homes are more than two miles walking distance from the school (for pupils aged under 8 years) or three miles from the school (for pupils aged 8 years or over) will be offered assistance with transport from home to school in accordance with statutory requirements and the Authority's policies.
In accordance with section 28(1) of the Act to establish a new Community Primary school for 525 boys and girls between the ages of 4 and 11 years with effect from 1 September 2008.
The new primary school wttbe situated at Harcourt Street, Reddish, Stockport. Children attending the new community primary school and lying in it» priority area whose homes are more than two miles walking distance from the school (for pupils aged under 8 years) or three miles from the school (for pupils aged 8 years or over) will be offered assistance with transportfrow home taachool in accordance with statutory requirements and the Authority's policies.
The number of pupils 10 b» admitted to the school at age 4 years from 01 September 2008 and in subsequent years will be 75. The Indicated Admission Number will bo 75 which is the proposed Admission Number for the school.
The admissions authority of the proposed school will be the Local Authority. It is not proposed that the admission arrangements forth* new school will make provision for selection by ability.
As the single Community primary school in the North Reddish area the school will bring together children from two separate neighbourhoods with differing social deprivation profiles. Through fully integrated provision it will improve understanding of historically distinct communities and facilitate closer social integration. The continuity created by being an all through primary school will mean that parents have a longer association with a single institution. The co-location of the children's centre will further develop continuity for children in the 0-3 age range and further promote the school's role at the centre of the North Reddish area community. The new school will continue to operate as part of the cluster arrangements with neighbouring schools sharing initiatives and engaging in joint activities as appropriate.
The new school will be an all through primary school for pupils aged between 4 and 11 years of age. In addition it will provide 12 places resourced for pupils who have a Statement of Special Educational Needs identifying severe learning difficulties as the principle learning need.
It is also proposed to co-locate, in the new building. Fir Tree Nursery School developed as a Children's Centre for the North Reddish area.
The statutory proposals outlined above and the non-statutory changes to Fir Tree Nursery School are all interdependent.
Within six weeks after the date of publication of the above proposals (by 15* November 2005), any person may object to or make comments on the proposals outlined above by sending their representations addressed for the attention of Chris Keeble to:
STOCKPORT METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
CHILDREN & YOUNG PEOPLE'S DIRECTORATE
TOWN HALL, STOCKPORT SK1 3XE
Within one month after the end of the representation period, the Local Authority will send to the School Organisation Committee for the area copies of all objections and comments made (and not withdrawn in writing) within the representation period, together with the Authority's observations on them.
5th October 2005
Andrew Webb Paul W. Stonehouse
Corporate Director, Children & Young People Council Solicitor and Secretary

Explanatory Notes
1. BACKGROUND
Consultation has taken place with parents, staff, governing bodies of the schools directly affected together with the wider community in the North Reddish area. This has included meetings, drop-in sessions and the provision of a written consultation document and response form which was also posted on the Council's website.
Following these consultations, the Council has concluded that the educational interests of children living in the areas served by Fir Tree Primary and North Reddish Infant and Junior Schools would be best served if the three schools were discontinued and were replaced by a new community primary school located at the new site. It has therefore published proposals to this effect.
STAFFING AND CURRICULUM
(i) At present, the 3 schools have a combined total of 24.99 FTE teaching staff, and a further allocation of 1.49 teachers for the resourced base (based on 8 pupils). Projected pupil numbers for the 2008/09 academic year suggest that the new school's budget could support 21.16 FTE teachers with a further allocation of 2.24 teachers for the resourced base (based on 12 pupils).
(ii) Fir Tree Primary School and North Reddish Infant and Junior Schools teach the national curriculum in full. The new community primary school will also do so. The new building will also help to improve standards as it will address shortfalls in current curriculum delivery areas and staff workspaces as well as providing an up-to-date flexible educational environment for children from 0 to 11 years of age.
ADMISSION TO PRIMARY SCHOOLS
(i) Any child who will be registered at Fir Tree Primary School or North Reddish Infant or Junior School in years R to 5 during the 2007/08 academic year and who would have remained at the school in 2008/09 if it had not been discontinued will be guaranteed a place at the new primary school. The parent of any child guaranteed a place in this way will be able to express a preference for a place at any other Stockport primary school (or infant / junior school as the case may be). The Council will determine whether or not a place can be offered by reference to its usual admission arrangements.
(ii) The parent of any child who will be entering primary school in Year R in the 2008/09 academic year will be able to express a preference for a place at a primary school of his / her choice. The application will be dealt with in accordance with the Council's usual admission arrangements,
PREMISES
The overall cost of the project Is expected to be in the region of £5.5 million. Approximately 45% of this will \i /
be met from DfES grants with the balance provided through the Council's capital programme, "~~Ax
UNIT PROVISION FOR PUPILS WITH SEVERE LEARNINO DIFFICULTIES ^
It is proposed that the new community primary school will provide up to 12 places resourced for pupils who have a Statement of Special Educational Needs Identifying severe learning difficulties as the principle learning need. Any child who would hive attended the SLD Unit at Fir Tree Primary School in the 2008/09 academic year If it had not been discontinued will be offered a place at the SLD Unit at thi new primary school.
PROPOSALS FOR CHILDREN'S CENTRE
It is proposed to oo-locata, in the new building, Fir Tree Nursery School developed as a Children's Centre for the North Reddish area. It is not felt to be reasonably practicable to modify the building currently used by Fir Tree Nursery School to accommodate the Children's Centre.
In addition to maintaining a 78 place nursery for 3 & 4 year olds in the area the centre would provide: wraparound care (8 am to 6pm); create additional childcare provision for 0 - 2 year olds; create a childminder network and drop in facility with access to training; and provide Creche provision to support parents'/carers' attendance at training/support sessions,
The centre would also provide: a base for a variety of family support work such as family learning, parent & child play sessions; and, information sessions on childcare, jobs, benefits etc.
Child and family health services could include: midwifery drop-in sessions; baby clinic/group; health visitor drop-in sessions and speech & language support for children. The nursery/centre would remain a separate legal entity with it$ own headteacher, possibly operating under a federated Governing Body for the whole site.

-----------------------------------------------------

Cost 12th December 2005 - £7.5 million:-

-------------------------------------------------------

NORTH REDDISH SCHOOL
ACCOMMODATION ORDER OF COSTS ESTIMATE

12-Dec-05 2:03 PM

CHILDRENS CENTRE
Classroom areas 203 m2
Offices/meeting rooms 111 m2
External covered area 60 m2
Outdoor storage 15 m2
PRIMARY SCHOOL
Basic teaching 1131 m2
ICT/food tech/science/group/D<S(T 92 m2
Halls 291 m2
Learning resource/library/SEN/group/sensory 157 m2
Admin and staff 220 m2
Storage 253 m2
Kitchen 71 m2
Toilets 133 m2
Circulation 565 m2
Plant 47 m2
Partitions 94 m2
Total New School Area (includes w«lims) 3443 m2 1650.00 5680950.00
EXTERNAL WORKS PRIMARY SCHOOL
New road 2000 m2 70.00 140000.00
Nature area 725 m2 25.00 18125.00
Hard play area 1190 m2 35.00 41650.00
Sames court 1650 m2 40.00 66000.00
Playing fields 2120 m2 6.00 12720.00
Security fence 550 m2 120.00 66000.00
Sates 3 Nr 1500.00 4500.00
Equipment
c Item 45000.00
EXTERNAL WORKS CHILbRENS CENTRE
Tarmac area 185 m2 35.00 6475.00
Safety surface 185 m2 60.00 11100.00
Grass/nature trai 1 185 m2 25.00 4625.00
Equipment Item 20000.00
Fencing (1.00m high) 130 m 60.00 7800.00
6as supply Item 10000.00
Electric supply Item 10000.00
Telephone Item 10000.00
Water supply Item 10000.00
New sewer and connection pipework Item 10000.00
Abnormal foundations (piling) Item 100000.00
Site drainage 8240 m2 12.00 98880.00
Building drainage 3443 m2 10.00 34430.00
Preliminaries on external works Item 145000.00
Total Contingencies say 6553255.00 318000.00
Total Build Cost
OTHER COSTS 6871255.00
Newt survey Item 1000.00
Ground investigation Item 23000.00
Traffic survey Item 25000.00
Topographical survey "tern 5000.00
Planning consultant Item 15000.00
Planning fees Item 12500.00
Property survices fees Item 550000.00
BUII&IN6 WORK TOTAL 7502755.00

----------------------------------------------------

May 2006 £8.2 million:-
-----------------------------------------------------

STOCKPORT

<Project Number> <Project Name>

Highlight Report for period from 15 May 2006 to 27 July 2006

Financial Summary
Budget £ Actual £ Variance £ (+/-)
Available funding This Month Projected overall costs (approx only at this stage) This Month Project (2.5 FE + CC) This Month
Expenditure E5.80M £8.20M £2.40M

Resource Summary
Budget (Man Days) Actual / Forecast (Man Days)
Effort To Date
Effort This Month
Effort Next Month

Product Ref. Product Milestones Status Baseline Date Forecast / Actual Date
Ecological survey Green May 06 June 06
Ground Investigations Green April 06 April 06
Traffic Survey Amber March 06 May 06
Land use/CPO \mber ? Non critical?
OJEU Green Start April 06 Start August 06
Design (feasibility scheme) Ambei June 06 Complete by end July 06
Submit Planning Application - July 06 8m Sept 06
Appoint Planning consultant Green Feb06 Mar 06

Commit to invest August 06

Status: R-Red; A-Amber; G - Green

Project: <Project number>

Page 3 of 5

Date Produced: <Date>
Author: <Name of Author>
Template Version: 1vO

-----------------------------------------------------

Cost March 2008 £9.93 million with a mistake in this document of a quarter of a million pounds which I can't get any response from the Council about despite their own fraud and financial irregularities policy:-

----------------------------------------------------

Project: <PrqfKt number*

Page 4 o»S

Date Produced: <Date>
Author <Name or Author*
Template Version: ivo

Page 11 of 13
Street Site and the Fir Tree School Site to comply with requirements of the planning regulations as well as the requirements of Sport England
(iv) additional traffic work in the area around the Harcourt Street site, (v) new building regulations .
It is not possibie to give a precise estimate of the finai costs at this stage due to a number of factors, however, on the latest information that is available, an estimate is in the region of £9.93rn has been identified.
The profile of additional costs which have emerged following the ongoing development of the scheme, include

Increased floor area from 2600m2to3185m2 Revision to the scheme £1.050m
IT/Furniture Due to additional areas and new specifications £472
Additional 167m2 Changing areas increase - Sport England requirement £280k
Design and Admin Costs Additional due to increased scope of works £60k
Mill Lane Development Planning Requirement £40k
Traffic surveys and work Planning Requirement £130k
Elevation Enhancements Planning Requirement £75k
MugaPitch Planning Requirement £50k
Football Pitch Planning Requirement £75k
Fir Tree Open Space Planning Requirement £260k
SUDS Additional drainage at Environment Agency Request (Flooding Risk) £75k
Services -including drainage Site requirement £231 k
Sprinkler System Change in Building Regulations £125k
Consultations, feasibility, ground investigations, survey etc £123k
CPO costs Due to Mill Lane Development £50k
CPO fees Due to Mill Lane Development £20k
Inflation to 2Q/09 (inci Part
y Anticipated revised start date £1.1 40k
3.2. Benchmarking
NPS have been asked to provide benchmarking data for the scheme. They have identified
22/03/2008

----------------------------------------------------

June 2006 they have a £2.40 million shorfall. Why I was asking? Don't be vexatious, they replied:-

---------------------------------------------------

<Proj«ct Number. <Prp»ect Name>
Htqhllghf Reoort for period from 15 May 2006 to 27 July 2006
At the "vUfMttof at ffw beginning of this report jw wHt have nfficated. In temu of Red,
Amto <y Green, ite status of each of those items below, tntitfs section of the raport you are
expected to provide supplementary informttton on those Hems Hut ha we status other than
Gnen. ' -_ -
Brief Description of Status
Timescale
Currently delayed by three months due to delays on the critical path by consultants and the planning application process.

Financial
Resource

Current estimate of scheme costs Is circa £2.40M over the available funding.
This difference cannot be designed out on the proposed site and therefore the project is undeliverable unless additional funding is sought
This figure is based on the current approximate cost plans that are to be re-estimated in greater detail following the design freeze.
When known this figure will be reported as a'Commft to
invest1 form to Instruct further design works etc.
No resource problems

His*
Planning permission. Risk of project failure if application is rejected but this is being managed by the appointment of GVA Grimley and a thorough consultation process.
Possible risk of the consultation process raising issues that could delay the project if a redesign of a particular aspect Is required.
Funding shortfall will lead to ultimate project failure if not addressed - i.e. unable to enter Into contract
Possible risk of the CPO faifing. This should not however be terminal for the project as the drainage issue may be resolved by other means and the site access is possible under our current ownership.

Project: <PrqfKt number*

Page 4 o»S

Date Produced: <Date>
Author <Name or Author*
Template Version: ivo

----------------------------------------------------

March 2007 - obvious concern over funding at the same time they were telling me not to be vexatious in asking about the rising costs:-

----------------------------------------------------

New Primary school Harcourt Street North Reddish
Agenda for pre-meeting 30 March 2007

1. Review of Village Green application. AIM to talk to JH to check if there is an
appeals process that should be programmed beyond the 13/6/07
2. Programme issues. See Provisional Gantt chart. Noted but see other comments
3. OJEU Process. Can we now proceed? DS to talk to AW to check the political
climate before answering this,
4. Planning matters. Can anyone put any pressure on SL to recommence the
process? DS to set up a meeting with SL, JH, plus this meeting's attendees to
resolve.
5. SE requested modifications to design. Noted. General feeling is to leave the
MUGA where shown on the planning drawings
6. CPO process for 'link' land. CPO additional land for MUGA? Confirm
programme - i.e. await planning. This can be discussed at the planning
meeting (see 4 above)
7. Confirmation of pupil numbers. Currently designed for 525 as brief.
Additional 'temporary' classroom removed to make way for SE changing
rooms. Is this classroom still required? If it is then another planning
application (or revised plan) needs to be deposited soon. DS to investigate and
report back to AIM
8. Review revised estimate. Major impact is the SE requirements and the
reprogramming inflation. Noted. Obvious concern over funding. DS to look at /
possible other funding sources
9. Date of Headteacher's appointment. ICT, loose and FFE specification - by
whom? This matter still to be decided but the eariest possible appointment will
be summer 2008. DS suggested briefing to be undertaken by C&YPD advisors
not outside consultants
10. Advice required on how much of the above goes in the highlight report for
May's Project Board. Agenda to be prepared in advance not a full Highlight
report
-----------------------------------------------------

Why wasn't I allowed to question this? Why am I still not allowed to question this? Why was the District Auditor happy with this state of affairs?

Dear Department for Communities and Local Government,

Could I please have a response? Taxpayers' money is still being wasted in huge amounts. The toxic waste dump school, the continued harassment of the town hall protester, asking him to attend a benefit hearing at the town hall, cancelling it on the day without telling him and then calling the police when he entered the town hall according to them without reason, the spending of £1,000,000 next year on outside consultants for the A555 which has no Government approval or funding. This is being done so as not to lose votes. They need to re-visit the traffic situation as it is now with everyone losing their jobs and fuel costing such a lot, there is less congestion on the roads as a recent report has confirmed.

Andrew Stunell, his local MP and Junior DCLG minister, has belatedly and quite rudely agreed to act on behalf of the town hall protester. There is no reason why his simple but important problems shouldn't be sorted out now. Andrew Stunell should be able to act and act swiftly.

They are repeatedly taking the town hall protester to court as well for unpaid council tax. As he has always been on full council tax benefit, how did this underpayment arise? They are doing things like using his 2007 council tax payments to cover the earlier (disputed) underpayment and then taking him to court for not having paid in 2007. What a waste of court time; what a waste of police time when Greater Manchester police are reduced to this:-

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningn...

Only in Stockport could these sort of things happen!

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

CONTACTUS,

Thank you for your email to the Department for Communities and Local
Government.

Our aim is to consider the issues you raise and to respond within 15
working days.

If we feel that the issues raised do not fall within the Department's
responsibilities, we will try to transfer your email to the relevant
government department and ask that they reply to you directly.

DCLG Contact Us Team.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Sheila Oliver

Dear CONTACTUS,

Hallo, Mr. Pickles. Mr. Pickles.... are you there? May I have a reply please. I want to look under the bonnet of my local council. I can't. What do I do now?

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver