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

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.

Waiting for an internal review by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council of their handling of this request.

Dear Stockport Borough Council,

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

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

FOI Officer, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 2553).

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

Dear Stockport Borough Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Stockport Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'Proposed school not big enough to accommodate all the children who need to attend'.

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

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

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

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

FOI Officer, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your email below (ref 2553).

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.

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

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

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

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

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

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.

Dear FOI Officer,

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

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

FOI Officer, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your email below (ref 2553).

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 at
this time.

Yours sincerely,

Corporate Information Services

Corporate Information Services

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Dear FOI Officer,

The Council is now downgrading the nursery on this site to merely a

nursery class against the wishes of everyone consulted. They are

also changing the Learning Resource Centre into a classroom. This

indicates to me that the school was never big enough for all the

children who needed to attend, as I said and proved all along.

Could I please have an interntal review of your decision to refuse

to repond to this question.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

show quoted sections

Dear Corporate Information Services (not Ms Naven as usual)

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Dear FOI Officer,

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

I look forward to hearing the response to my question.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Dear Stockport Borough Council,

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

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

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

Dear Stockport Borough Council,

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

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

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

New Primary School - Harcourt Street, Reddish Design Sub Group

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

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

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

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

Our Reference: FOI 881

Dear Mrs Oliver,

Freedom of Information – Birth Rates

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

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

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

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

FOI Officer
Town Hall
Edward Street
Stockport
SK1 3XE

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

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

www.ico.gov.uk

01625 545745

Yours sincerely,

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

The school is designed for 525 chilren when we see above 565 needed to attend:-

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

Page 1 of2
sheilaoliver
From: "FOI Officer" <foi.officer@stockport.gov.uk>
To: "sheilaoliver"
"Donna Sager" <donna.sager@stockport.gov.uk> Sent: 21 September 2007 10:11 Subject: FW: FOI/EIR Ref 718 Size of proposed School
Our Reference: FOI/EIR 718
Dear Mrs Oliver,
Freedom of Information - Size of the proposed school
»th
I am writing in response to your request for information dated 8"1 September 2007 detail below.
1) The size of the whole site is on the planning application form. For information 2.97
hectares
2) The new school is designed for 525 children with 50 fulltime children's centre places.
3) At This stage it is building costs and some equipment. The Council is still waiting for
final figures regarding exact land costs.
4) The Total internal floor area of the building is 3184m2 including the children's centre
and changing rooms.
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 foi.officer@stockport.gov.uk in the first instance or write to:
FOI Officer Town Hall Edward Street Stockport SK13XE
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,
Andy McAIpine
10/09/2008