Sheila Oliver's Campaigning Website

Go to content

Main menu

Toxic Waste Dump School



DANGEROUS TRAFFIC SITUATION



A development contravenes planning regulations if it displaces traffic from the site on to the surrounding roads. Coaches will have to enter the site to take children on school trips or to the swimming baths. Each time cars will have to be displaced in the already crowded surrounding streets.



The school opened in September 2011.  By December 2011 a report from the police had been put before the Council expressing serious issues with the traffic around the school and concerns about safety at this location (please see below).

"What is the Council going to do about these concerns and will the Council be implementing the turning circle which was put before the planning committee as a solution to the traffic problems the Council was going to cause at the site", I asked.  "Don't be vexatious", they replied - Goddard, Boylan, Derbyshire, Webb, Khan, Weldon, Bodsworth, Roberts, Smith, Candler, Pantall et al.

Proposed drop off area "inadequate" discovered only  three days before the planning meeting.

Only on 24th July 2007,  only a couple of days before the decision making planning meeting, did Nick Whelan, Head of Highways at Stockport Council, discover theat the drop off area within the school was not going to be adequate.  This is despite my having a meeting with him and a local resident the previous January to explain the traffic issues to him.


The Highways Officer, who again "didn't realise" about the traffic situation at the school. Why not when we had already pointed matters out to him the previous January in a meeting?

 



The traffic from most of the houses within the red lines has to exit via narrow Mill Lane, on which the school entrance is situated. Local people and I pointed out to the Council and planning officer Jim Seymour, and Nick Whelan in particular, the existence of all these houses forced to use that one narrow exit road.  Our comments were completely ignored.



This was the traffic situation before the school was built. The entrance for the 550 pupil primary school, Childrens' Centre, nursery and all other supposed functions on the site e.g., health visitor centre, is at this point on narrow Mill Lane, which is also part of the Trans Pennine Way cycle path.  Why on earth was this lethal traffic situation brought into being?  This site was never safe for this school, from the traffic point of view.



An ambulance stuck in traffic - even before the school was built.



This was the state of the traffic on Mill Lane before the toxic waste dump school was built.  "You are ignoring all the traffic from the hundreds of houses at the bottom of Mill Lane", I said, as did other local residents. "Don't be vexatious", they replied - Goddard, Derbyshire, Weldon, Webb, Sager, Khan, Schulz, Pantall, Smith, Candler, Bodworth and Uncle Tom Cobley and all.



Parents WILL be allowed to park in the turning area, should it ever be provided.



Parents will also be NOT allowed to park in the turning area, should it ever be provided, meaning that children as young as five will need to walk alone up Mill Lane.  Does anyone at Stockport Council actually know what they are talking about or even care?  This involves the safety of very young children and no-one actually gives a carrot.  Every time I raise this matter I am publicly branded "vexatious".



I told the Council these traffic problems would arise. They branded me as "vextious". They lied.

How did this school ever get through the planning process?  Were inducements paid to get it passed?



The Council intended to create in addition to the school, a nursery offering 78 places with wraparound care 8am to 6pm, additional childcare provision for 0 - 2 year olds, a childminder network and drop in facility with access to training and creche provison support, a parent'/carers' attendance at training/support sessions, a parents'/carers' support base offering parenting courses and Family Learning Support such as parent and child play sessions and Information sessions on childcare, jobs, benefits etc, midwiferly drop-in sessions, baby clinic/group, health visitor drop-in sessions and speech and language support for children.

Where, I ask you, would they all park?  The Council has created a very dangerous traffic situation.  They were warned and ignored all the genuine concerns of local people.



When I asked this question on 7th January 2012, the Council knew that many local residents and the police had complained or expressed concern about the traffic situation.

I wonder why they chose to brand this question vexatious? What on earth is going on in planning at Stockport Council, when valid children's safety issues are considered "vexatious"?



MISCELLANEOUS OTHER IRREGULARITIES


There is no asset management plan for the toxic waste dump school. Why not?

This is the questioner's response:-

"I am DEEPLY concerned that the SBC have commissioned a new multi-million pound PFI school WITHOUT any Asset Management Plans. Please correct me if I am wrong but Capital Funded projects SHOULD have a AMP and the SBC Policies and Proceedures require an AMP.

In the absence of any recognised AMP how can the SBC guarantee any transparency or accountability for public funds?

In the absence of any AMP, is the school not operating in a legal Void??  I understand that an AMP is a legal requirement."



The questioner's comments:-

"The ABHSF is a useless piece of information if the PA is not included because no reconcilation can be undertaken. Could that be the reason for the LARGE overspend. The Headmistress at the Vale View school is unable to audit or reconcile the project. Can you please explain that.Can you also please explain to me why the PA is not avaialable via electronic transfer or CD."



 
 

Local people have had access to the rear of their properties at Mill Lane blocked off. I and other people told the Council the problems they would be creating for these people.  I was branded "vexatious" for having raised the matter.  The consequences of the Council's actions in blocking off access to the rear of these properties is:-

1) An ambulance crew was unable to reach a lady in her 80s who had collapsed at home - due to presumed planning irregularities in the 1980s, these houses have been built back to front and there is very limited access.

2)  If these householders have large items of furniture delivered, for example, these items will need to be carried possible a quarter of a mile to their homes.



THERE ARE NO SPORTING FACILITIES AS THERE SHOULD BE

There are no promised sporting facilities at the new school? Why not?

 





Please see below:-


The Council misled the Secretary of State, saying they had received no objections from anyone who thought they had an interest in the land. They had received a Statutory Objection from a houseowner who felt he had had an interest in the land for decades.  This meant no public inquiry was held into the compulsory purchase order, which the Council was terrified of holding as they problably would have lost.  Stockport Council breaks the law and defames people who try to expose what they have been up to by branding them "vexatious" and a waster of public money.

Definition of fraud

"The Fraud Act 2006 defines fraud as activity aimed at securing a gain, causing a loss or exposing somebody to a risk of loss, through false representation, failing to disclose information or through abuse of position. Crucially under the new Fraud Act, no gain or loss actually has to happen for a fraud to occur, the act of fraud is entirely defined by the actions or intent of the individual."



THE SCHOOL WAS NEVER BIG ENOUGH, SO WHY WAS IT BUILT AND WHY WON'T THE COUNCIL SOLICITOR, BARRY KHAN, ALLOW ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT EVEN AT 21/6/12?





In the documents below, it is admitted that before the school is even built, it is not big enough for all those who wish to attend. They had already promised a place for every child who needed one in the school closure notice. They intended to house the extra children in temporary classrooms until the birthrate fell, but 1) the birthrate in the area was rising sharply and 2) the demands of Sport England meant there was no room for temporary classrooms.

"You are building this school too small", I said, "and here is the evidence."  "Don't be vexatious", they replied. Schulz, Goddard Sager, Webb, Weldon, Smith, Derbyshire, Khan, Pantall, Candler et al.  



The birthrate in the area is rising sharply, even back in 2006/2007. Why was a school built which was never big enough even before it was built for the number of pupils who needed to attend? "Why is the Council building a school at massive expense when it is not big enough and there is no room for expansion on the site", I asked.  "Don't be vexatious", they replied.




This school had to go on that site - however much it cost in terms of money, children's health, run over children, mesothelioma to the surrounding residents, the fact that it was not big enough, the fact that the drainage problems will probably rob local people of their playing fields, the fact that it broke planning law and that local people were cheated of a public inquiry on the compulsory purchase order, the fact that the mega-shed, prison-like school his hated by pupils and staff alike who are both leaving in droves.  One has to ask the question - what on earth has been going on here?

And when a planning consultant suggests putting political pressure on a planning committee to pass this lethal development and no-one at LibDem run Stockport Council turns a hair, alarm bells rang in my head, and that of the excellent local MP, and local residents and parents.

Is there corruption in planning at Stockport  Council? My belief is there most certainly is.  None of this has been done in the interests of the pupils, teachers, residents or council taxpayers - so exactly whose interests are being served?

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Back to content | Back to main menu