Saturday, March 25, 2006


Conspiracy against Rugby residents?

The plot thickens! First in 1995 they try to get a Permit to operate a cement works, and then they try to plan it and build it in 1998, all without Joe Public's knowledge or interference. How come Rugby residents were not consulted? Who done it? Was it Rugby Cement, the Council officers, the Agency officers, the Member of Parliament, Mickey Mouse, the Government, or the Councillors? WHO kept Rugby residents in the dark?

RBC 3.3.06 were asked to reply to the : "considerable number of irregularities that have gone on in relation to the permitting (both in terms of planning and pollution control permitting) of the Rugby works over the years."

It was pointed out that the grant of the original IPC authorisation was flawed, not least because there has been no public consultation, nor consultation of RBC, on the application - contrary to legal requirements. (1) clarify whether or not RBC were consulted in relation to Rugby Limited's IPC application: if so (2) provide a copy of the consultation documents/ and RBC's responses (3) if no such response/s exist/s, explain why; (4) let us know what, if anything, RBC did to ensure that the public were consulted in relation to the IPC application. (Stage 1 was submitted 24.1.95; stage 2 submitted 19.7.95, stage submitted 3 2.1.96 and the authorisation eventually granted 8.9.99. The Public Register contains nothing relating to the information we are requesting.)

RBC 10.3.06: "I am not aware of irregularities in relation to permissions for the Rugby cement works. I have passed your letter to the Head of Legal and Administration, who will respond to our questions direct." (Only a mushroom can be unaware of irregularities in Rugby?)

Environment Agency 3.3.06 were asked:
"We have asked on two previous occasions for a copy of the press advertisement/s placed by Rugby Limited in the application of IPC authorisation, but we still have not received them. If it is the case that the Agency does not hold a copy of such a press advertisement, and in any event, please provide us with a copy of whatever evidence the Agency relied on in concluding that there had been a fulfilment of the Public and Local Authority consultation requirements under the IPC regime in relation to Rugby Ltd's IPC application."

Agency 8.3.06 reply : "I am now in a position to clarify matters, and I trust this response, notwithstanding the unfortunate delay, provides the information you are seeking. It appears that the Agency does not hold a copy of the press advertisement of the Rugby Limited application for IPC authorisation."

Agency 23.3.06 (thinking again perhaps?): "Please note that the Rugby IPC application was received and deemed duly made by the Agency in January 1995. At that time the statutory requirements for consultation on such applications were as follows.

* First the applicant (Rugby Ltd) has to place an advertisement in at least one local newspaper (regulation 5 of SI 1991 No 507).

* Second, the regulator (in 1995 HMIP but ultimately the EA) had to consult the persons prescribed in regulation 4 (l).

* Third, the regulator had to consider any representations made to it, within the period allowed, in determining the application. This would "obviously" include any representations made by members of the public.

It was not until April 1996 that SI 1991 No 507 was amended by SI 1996 No 667. This amendment had (in particular) the effect of requiring the applicant's advertisement to be placed on the Public Register, However, this requirement applied only in relation to applications made after that date.

There was therefore no requirement for he Agency either to hold, or to have placed on its Public Register, a copy of the newspaper advertisement, responsibility for the placing of which lay SOLELY with Rugby Ltd.

The Agency did, as you have seen from the documentation already provided to you, consult statutory consultees. I am not aware of any representations on the application having been received from members of the public. (Comment: I wonder why not???? The mind boggles - even Gareth did not say anything at all?)

To ensure that you have no complaint about the Agency's response on this subject, following your letter I arranged for a further review of Agency files to be carried out, including not just public Register material - which is seemed reasonable to assume would contain all the information you were seeking - but all other files relating to the regulation of the Rugby works.

This further search has in fact revealed some additional material. As you will see there is further correspondence between the Agency and the statutory consultees which "for some reason" was not on the Public Register file at this point. There is also information relating to the "Public Liaison Committee". This supports the conclusion that the Agency fulfilled its statutory consultation duties.
I trust this clarifies matters."

Rugby Limited 23.3.06 were then asked for the copy of the advertisement that the Agency say they MUST have placed in te newspapers in Rugby........

Watch this space for next week's exciting instalment on why Rugby is THE very best place to grow mushrooms!


Anonymous said...

WELL DONE for exposing this despicable and "criminal" scam. I bet some people are sweating now!

So the next questions...
Who knew what?
Who merely turned a blind eye?
Who got what "gift" to agree to this monstrosity?
Will they now "voluntarily" speak up and admit how much they got to sell the people of Rugby down the river? Or will it have to be forced out of them in the Courts?

Can you publish the names of the individuals and Councillors and the officers involved in Rugby please? Also I heard that Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and Agenda 21 are also involved? Please list their representatives, and what part they have played.


Lilian said...


The "Public Liaison Committee" referred to here was in fact a "secret committee" of the "intellectually-challenged", set up at the cement works, with a specially hand-picked bunch of "people". But surprise, surprise, no Minutes are available. All the Members have apparently, in the first documented case of mass amnesia, "lost all the Minutes" and also lost all their memories? Can anyone really be that dumb for that long, or is it a case of being "persauded" to lose all paperwok, and to lose all memory? Collective hypnosis maybe? Or some pollutant in the air perhaps? Filthy lucre maybe?


Lilian said...


Macca comments below that the EA officers now appear to accept their responsibility at Rugby.. but I am afraid that is only a wish, not a fact!

"You will not ask any questions.. and if you do we will not answer them !"is the latest from the Agency's Lower Severn Area Manager. "Despite these clear requests and several subsequent reminders you have continued to send enquiries to the Agency, including recent emails to colleagues in the North-West!" One would have though that even a basic knowledge of geography would have told him that the Clitheroe cement plant is actually in the North West and NOT in the Lower Severn region. Oh dear!

The Agency continues to try to "shoot the messenger" because they cannot answer the most basic questions without showing themselves up for what they are - in the pocket of industry.

"We will not respond to any enquiries from you, and we hope you apreciate our reasons for the action outlined in this letter."

The reasons are, of course, not given, but obvioulsy they mean that they will do whatever it takes to stop the truth getting out about the Agency involvement with the unlawful granting of the 1999 IPC Permit and 2003 IPPC Permit for Rugby Cement to operate, a plant that the Agency helped to construct - without a valid planning permission.

And also, as a side issue, how the Clitheroe cement plant is also operating without a proper permit, burning 12 tonnes an hour of Meat and Bone Meal when it only had a trial with 2 tonnes. The planing permission there is also under scrutiny, as it seems not to include what they are burning.

The Agency kindly suggests the Parliamentary Ombudsman might like to look into the Agency's behaviour. That will keep her busy for months, if not years, as there is so much to tell her.


Lilian said...


"Of course we did not say anything as we were never given the opportunity, and we were told it was an inevitability - a small old cement plant for a slightly bigger new one, that we could not object to. I think they said that there was a presumption in favour of development. That was at the planning stage, but of course they never built the design they had circulated to just a few homes in 1995. They built a plant three times bigger. There was no Environemntal Statement and WCC and the councillors are responsible for that. It is necessary to publish their names?

As for consultation on the 1999 IPC Permit to operate it is clear that they just missed that stage out, and then suddenly a few months later they tried to get away with it again with the 2001 IPPC consultation as well, calling it a Tyre Burning Consultation. What were the officers and councillors at RBC doing - aiding and abetting! They advertised all the meetings as tyre burning meetings. The RBC Environmental Health Office, despite the clue in the title, does not apparently understand what its job is? Surely it cannot be that the officers do not understand the permiting process? And if they cannot even carry out such a standard procedure, and have shown such total incompetence, then what about the air quality assessment as well? They would have a vested interest in covering their tracks, to get themselves off the hook, and one would expect them to have "cooked" that too!

"IPC/IPPC, air quality - no bother for RBC EHO - we can fix it!"


Keith Kondakor said...

I have seen how they hide consultaiton when looking at the waste incinerator planned for warwickshirew waste. WCC have such a complex wed site that no one will find details of meetings. they put notices in libarys for just 3 days - avoiding weekends. They make sure it never uses words the public understand. Incinerators are called "thermal treatment". They also send such boaring press releses to the press that they know they will not get published.

Keith Kondakor