Wednesday, November 29, 2006



Why are Rugby residents so very UNGRATEFUL?
This is ALL for your OWN GOOD!

The Environment Agency and Rugby Borough Council continue to work well with (for?) Cemex!
They insist this is an "informal non-consultation" into the Final Tyre Burning Report.
They all continue to collude, hold un-publicised meetings, and to hide as much damning data as they can.

RBC are rushing through extra un-publicised meetings :
e.g. such as 20 November "Climafuel Task and Finish Group" - designed to help get London's waste burnt here as soon as possible.
e.g such as 23 November extra item for Cemex added onto end of Agenda by Chair Chris Holman.
e.g. Agendas and Minutes not released.
e.g. the gaps in data on web site - click "sustainability" to get full Final Tyre Report.

e.g. JOLLY TO GERMANY - to see "another cement plant". LOVELY!
They perhaps have not noticed but we have a TWICE as BIG one in Rugby? RBC council tax payers "willingly" paid for the 7th November trip to Kollenbach Germany by RBC EHO Sean Lawson, and Councillors Carolyn Robbins and Chris Holman; and do not forget to mention Cemex Rugby managers Ian Southcott and Brian Hancock. (I presume we did not pay for them). A good time was had by all, courtesy of Rugby Council Tax payers - and STILL the LONG PROMISED report has not been produced. So why DID they go there - duty free bags of cement?

e.g. the Final Tyre Report (NOW 352 pages!) was placed on RBC Public Register on 8th November - but "no-one" was told about it till 21st November, when we were told by Sean Lawson that it had just come, but UNFORTUNATELY it was JUST TOO LATE for the COMMUNITY Tyre Burning Review Group to be reconvened as "we have to rush it through" - "The Agency and Cemex will not give us any time!"
e.g. The Council Tax payers funded a Facilitator for the Community Tyre Burning Review Group, to Review the DRAFT Tyre Report (168 pages) and we repeatedly asked Cemex and the Agency for data to make our work complete. They REFUSED to give us the data. Then after the end of 4 months of consultation "with no data" they suddenly found (24 October 2006) some data, that was related to August 2005 to February 2006 to stick in the Final report!
SHAME really they put it in THREE weeks TOO LATE for the Community Group to look at it!

It would be great to witness open, transparent, informed, honest, CONSULTATION. We dream on!
We continue to live with the NON co-operation on behalf of the environment and air quality and health of Rugby people!

Will we soon be hearing such rubbish as:
# "the use of shredded tyres has obviously only a BENEFICIAL effect on the environment in comparison to the fuels for which it is substituted, such as coal and oil and petcoke."
# "the Agency's ongoing and dynamic regulation of the works should be compared to the protesters demand for POINTLESS CONSULTATION, and DESIRE to create a WORSE ENVIRONMENTAL REGIME than that already existing in Rugby?

Rugby Advertiser November 23 Stuart Turner

A KEY group investigating the effects of tyre-burning trials has been "sidelined" by the Council, it has been claimed.
A 350 page document by Cemex outlining the effects of the trials has been lodged with the Agency who are due to make a full report on the scheme before the end of December.
However Sean Lawson, head of EHO at RBC, said "the short time scale and expense" made it "impractical" to reconvene the Tyre Burning Review group.

The group which includes councillors and member of the public was set up in 2004 to evaluate the results of of previous tyre-burning trials at the plant. Lilian P a member of the group said "They are trying to get rid of us and rushing this through at a CHRISTMAS PRESENT for Rugby people. By not letting us finish the work they are just WASTING MORE MONEY!"

Cemex hosted the trials last October (2005) as part of its ongoing investigation into the use of alternative fuels. It's hoped the process could supply a more cost-effective and environmentally-friendly source of fuel. However opponents claim the trials pose health risks to the town and need further evaluation.

Meanwhile Mr Lawson also hit back at claims of his department's "incompetence". Last week the Advertiser revealed that Mrs P had cost the Council £50,000 dealing with her multiple complaints and requests for information. Mrs P claimed this was partly due to the Council's EH department failure to answer her questions. However Mr Lawson said "As far as I am aware she has had all the answers to all requests she has made, although SHE MAY NOT LIKE THEM!!" "We have only a finite amount of resources and it is my job to balance that. It's for the people of Rugby to decide!"


Letters on this subject can be seen at

The following is a letter from Richard Buxton, a solicitor.
"It may help to clear the air to say part of the dispute between Mrs P and RBC is that the Council (as they earlier this year admitted) never responded to a PUBLIC CONSULTATION in 1999 on behalf of Rugby people. It is getting to the bottom of that that is causing such a rumpus.

IF RBC were to come clean about the details of what they did, and did not do, and why, then perhaps progress could be made. There are also various other issues relating to rugby Cement plant and air quality in Rugby where the Council just do not appear to have done their job.

IF, on the other hand they have, we would be DELIGHTED to see the evidence, but to date they have been UNABLE or UNWILLING to provide any ADEQUATE RESPONSE"

Richard Buxton
Environmental and Public Law

I believe that in time Lilian will be regarded as one of the great environmental campaigners.
Very few people have the perseverence, intelligence and sheer guts to stand up to the combined might and huge resources of a cement company, a local council that doesn't want to know and an Environment Agency that doesn't care.
As for the money - it has been estimated that the health costs from a large incinerator are about £30 million annually.
The health costs from a cement kiln would be far far greater. The £50,000 cost to the council bears no comparison.
To complain about this minor cost and yet ignore the huge health costs and health effects shows a hopeless misunderstanding of the issue by the Council.

Dr Jerry Thompson
(Member of the British Society of Ecological Medicine and author of 'Health Effects of Waste Incinerators')
40 Ragstone Road,

I have followed this debate from far away Tasmania for several years and I am astounded at the evasive actions of Rugby Cement, Cemex, the Environment Authority and especially Rugby Borough Council.

If they had all done the correct thing, obeyed and policed the law openly and not evaded the issue about the pollution and damage to the health of the ordinary Rugby citizens then Lilian Pallikaropoulos would not have had to ask her questions.
A town in the centre of the UK should exhibit 'world's best practice' in the 21st century and not treat its citizens and this planet worse than many third world countries.

Whatever it costs to protect the health and future of the children and people generally will be worth the expenditure in the long term.

Tasmania may be one of the cleanest and greenest places on earth and we sympathise with all the residents of Rugby for the way they are being treated.

Mike McBain
Derwent Terrace
New Norfolk

Is it any wonder that RBC has a £1.1 million pound shortfall when according to Mr Warren, the Council's chief executive, it takes four officers and 2/3 hours to reply to just one letter from a member of the public.
Admittedly Lillian probably knows more about the subject of
Rugby Cement works than the people we charge with securing our health in the community, but surely if they stopped prevaricating and running scared from questions posed by this formidable lady then this can only be good for the people of Rugby.
Using the cost of replying to letters as a means of denying the electorate access to public information is a very slippery slope which can only eventually, bring about the demise of all we respect about Local Government.
We need to know that the Council is completely above suspicion and the only way we can achieve this is with open and honest dialogue.
If you have nothing to hide, you should not fear the truth!
G C Prewett
Railway Street
Long Lawford

If there were more people like Mrs Pallikaropoulos asking questions we would not find ourselves in the position where a new born baby is allegedly born with more than 300 groups of chemicals in its tiny body, many of which are carcinogenic and/or known to cause brain damage and neurological development problems in a developing foetus. This contamination is primarily a result of slack regulations on industrial emissions and even weaker enforcement of this regulations.
I think the councillors and officers of Rugby should start looking more seriously at the number of scientific studies showing the huge amount of toxic compounds allegedly being released from cement kilns around the world rather than dismissing Mrs Pallikaropoulos's concerns.The latest news for your readers interest is that a Lafarge North America cement plant allegedly 'belches up to 263 kilograms of mercury a year into the atmosphere - about 10 times more than previously believed'.
Wishing you good health.
Ralph Ryder
Coordinator, Communities Against Toxics,
Ellesmere Port,

Mrs. Pallikaropoulos claims an injustice from the council and the environmental health not to mention Rugby Cement. But all have bent over backwards to try and help her.
She has also appeared on the news campaigning about a chicken farm in Northamptonshire - how much has she cost that council?
The cement works has been there since the early 1800s and is part of Rugby's heritage. I bet there are not many families in the town who have not any involvement with the plant. Can't you see Mrs P. - most of use do not agree with you, just accept defeat if you don't like the cement works it's simple - leave town.
It is people like you why we have not got a town centre, Western Relief road, ect. You have had very little support on your marches from the normal everyday people of Rugby.
I hope that when it is all over RBC sues you to recover the cost of it all.

Mr P Hancox
Westbourne Grove

I AM appalled by the amount of time and money spent by the council in addressing Mrs. Pallikaropoulos' concerns. Given that the £50,000 represents only 0.1% of his budget, I look forward to hearing from Mr. Warren how he intends to significantly increase his focus on Rugby's major environmental threat.

Julian Relph,

Lilian Pallikaropoulos may be a thorn in the side of Rugby Borough Council, but without her and Rugby in Plume's campaigning RBC would not have lifted a finger to fight the burning of tyres and other waste materials at the Cemex's cement works.
Rugby needs characters like Lilian who are prepared to question authority, and who will fight for a better environment for everyone in Rugby.
It may cost time and money to answer Lilian's awkward and detailed questions, but the cost of not doing so would be far greater. It would mean that RBC was unaccountable and its actions left unchallenged.
Perhaps that's what Simon Warren wants. But for those who care about our town and the environment that would be a disaster.
Rather than pandering to cheap attacks on Lilian and Rugby in Plume, people in Rugby should ask themselves why Lilian has to ask RBC all these questions, and why - unlike the fight against the airport - the council has never played a prominent role in the campaign against tyre and waste burning at Rugby cement.
It's a great shame that RBC doesn't have the courage and vision to lead the fight against the largest single threat to our town's environment and the health of its people: Cemex's Rugby cement plant. Instead, what do we get from the council's chief executive? Unpleasant and nasty personal attacks from an unelected official. Is that the kind of leadership we want for our town?
Adam Woolf,
Manor Lane,

No comments: