Saturday, February 11, 2006

Picture Submissions

Thankyou for taking the time to send in art work...

This is a little abstract but I think we get the message.

1 comment:

Lilian said...

One MONTH later this came in...

13 October 2005

Dear Mrs. Palliakoropoulos,

I have been asked to reply to the questions which you put to the Rugby Area Committee on 14th September because they are similar to questions put in a recent letter from Richard Buxton in the context of ongoing and prospective legal proceedings.

Your first question was:

It would appear from the WCC planning files, and the Environment Agency Public Register, that WCC has given permission for a 6,000 tonne daily production in the cement plant in Rugby, which requires a total of about 1,200 heavy Lorries through the town and along Lawford Road each and every day. That equates to about one a minute, but there are more in the daytime hours, and less at night. Rugby Borough Council has written to say that the plant has nothing to do with them, and that the County Council has permitted it here, and thus is the responsible body. WCC has presumably considered all the issues carefully before granting permission for this, and I would like to ask by what exact process you arrived at this "unacceptable" decision, and how you think the total overall pollution, and 1,200 HGVs and the loss of amenity, serves to enhance the environment, air quality and health of Rugby residents?

The process is set out in the planning files that you have inspected on several occasions and particularly in the committee reports and minutes for the decisions in 1996. I am aware (e.g. from your e mail to various officers and councillors on 24th August this year) that you have a detailed knowledge of these records and I am not sure what we can add about the decision-making process.

We do not think that pollution and heavy goods vehicles add to the quality of residential life and your suggestion that we do caricatures the reasoning behind planning decisions. As a planning authority, we have to consider the nature and extent of environmental impacts, in the context of mitigating and offsetting measures, and balance that against all other material considerations.

Your second question was:

In 2003 the WCC also gave the plant permission to become a CO-INCINERATOR by the grant of a planning permission for the equipment necessary to feed wastes into the plant, and now we have a cement plant whose main purpose is to make cement (6,000 tonnes a day of it) and the other purpose is to "dispose of waste". The WCC now has a pre-application in for the fitting of bag filters to allow, according to the application, "to meet the Waste Incinerator Directive emission limits for the increased use of various types and quantities of wastes and to allow for the increased production" caused by the new pipeline that RBC says is the County's problem. What environmental impact assessment and measures are you going to take to protect the people of Rugby before you allow the plant to increase the use of all wastes, and to increase the production up to the annual design capacity of 2 million tonnes, up from what it is currently about 105,000 tonne a month, to the permitted 180,000 tonne a month?

We have issued a "screening opinion" requiring submission of an environmental statement and I know from your correspondence with Mrs. Kaur that you are in the process of examining the submitted statement. With the application only recently validated and registered, it would be premature to attempt to identify what other measures might be taken at this stage.

For the record, we did not issue a permission for the plant to become a co-incinerator. As you know, it was our view that the co-incineration proposed did not amount to a change of use requiring planning permission. I appreciate that you regard granting permission for the conveyor and hopper as tantamount to permitting co-incineration but it is important to be precise on this point.

I should say that we do not recognise the specific figures that you quote about vehicle movements and production capacity and this response should not be taken as confirming those figures.

I understand that you have now also asked for a reply to your original 16 questions and we shall provide the answers as quickly as we can. However, it is unhelpful and wasteful, and can actually cause delays, if you duplicate and supplement the work being done by Mr. Buxton. If you do feel it necessary to pursue separate lines of inquiry and correspondence from Mr. Buxton, I do think that it may be more appropriate and efficient if in future questions are directed either to myself or Jasbir Kaur and Matthew Williams, given the legal context and the procedural restrictions that apply, rather than use Public Question Time at the Area Committee.
Yours sincerely,
I Marriott
for County Solicitor & Assistant Chief Executive