Sunday, March 04, 2007



RBC is a Caring Council? NO!
RBC believes in public participation and consultation? NO!
RBC has 48 Councillors who run the Council? NO!
RBC has officers who run the Council? YES!
RBC acts in secret, without due process? YES!
RBC and WCC and the Agency are all TOO BUSY helping Cemex to hurry and push through its plans to burn London's household and commercial waste in the New Rugby CO-INCINERATOR to bother about the Rugby Residents. What do we residents matter so long as they all have a hand in our pockets? They prefer to help Cemex that than to consider and answer these "unpalatable issues" that have been sent to them all today.

WCC (and RBC/EHO) MUST RECONSIDER REVOCATION OF UNLAWFUL CEMENT WORKS PLANNING PERMISSION/S! I would refer to the current Cemex application to burn London's household and Commercial Waste in the Rugby CO-INCINERATOR.

1. It is our understanding from the planning permission that WCC have granted for this "New Rugby" works that the burning of wastes was SPECIFICALLY RULED OUT in the planning application, and subsequent planning permission/s. Please confirm.

2. The planning application of 1996 clearly states that is was for 1.25 million tonnes of cement, but now we find there is a capacity of well over 2 million tonnes. This "change in application and permission" has taken place without any Environment Impact Assessment, and without any public consultation, as the public were simply not advised by WCC as officers, acting "in secret", (apparently unlawfully) several times amended the planning permission to include this VAST increase in buildings, in production capacity, HGV pollution, and works pollution, and unmitigated health impact and environmental detriment. Please confirm.

3. Then the "RETENTION of the (unlawfully built) TYRE BURNING EQUIPMENT" planning permission that WCC gave retrospectively in 2002 was also unlawful, without any proper public consultation or without paying any attention to the RIP industrial consultant and planning consultants' letters sent to the Regulatory Committee, and was given only for "TYRE BURNING" - as nothing else was put before the committee at that time. But now somehow it is being used to embrace, and indeed welcome London's wastes.

I suggest that you therefore advise Cemex accordingly that there is NO planning permission in existence for the burning of household and commercial wastes from London, or indeed from elsewhere. Please confirm.

Councillors SWEET and BARNES were all for pushing this CO-INCINERATOR onto Rugby people, without any due consideration, or environmental assessment. Councillors Wells and McCarthy argued against it, but the other WCC Regulatory Councillors simply refused to listen to them, showing a total disregard for Rugby residents. I will list the Councillors who decided to do this to Rugby people, but it must be stated that JOHN DEEGAN was the officer who "persuaded and recommended" that the Councillors take this action against Rugby people. He did not declare the TRUE FACTS to the Committee - they were kept in the dark by the officer's "limited" report that falls far short of any acceptable standard.

4. The so-called Rugby Cement "Environmental Statement" included with the 1996 planning application was "specific to that proposal", according to a letter from WCC dated 24th April 2002. The ES and planning application SPECIFICALLY RULED out the burning of any waste fuels. WCC subsequently have simply given yet another unlawful planning permission, all carried out by WCC officers and Councillors to the great detriment of Rugby residents. Please confirm.

5. Regarding the 2005 bag filters application there was NO PUBLIC CONSULTATION nor any consultation with the Rugby cement Community Forum. That forum is DEFINITELY NOT permitted to talk about the cement plant at any of its meetings! The Director of RBC EHO alleged that there was "no time for consultation, not even with Councillors, because Cemex are in a rush to get this through!" In agreement with RBC lawyer Andrew Gabbitas she took it upon herself to act under "officers delegated power" to write a hasty letter on 19th October 2005 fully supporting the installation of bag filters - so that Cemex could get the wastes brought into Rugby as quickly as possible.

RBC EHO rushed their letter of support through despite lawyers' letters warning them not to do this. All this just four days after the massive pollution episode of October 14/15 2005 during the TYRE BURNING TRIAL that lead eventually to a £400,000 fine. This letter was written - presumably on behalf of ALL of the non-consulted 90,000 RUGBY PEOPLE - in order for RBC EHO to ENDORSE and SUPPORT WITHOUT ANY TRUTHFUL EXAMINATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT the fitting of the bag filters. This letter endorsed the waste burning in the town. The Rugby Councillors and residents were simply not asked as RBC officers do not care what the public of Rugby think, and the elected councillors just stand by and let the officers do as they wish - or rather as Rugby Cement wish!

WHO BENEFITED FROM THIS ACTION, AND BY HOW MUCH? RBC clearly knew (and kept SECRET) that the plant would have had to CLOSE DOWN without the bag filter as it would have been uneconomic to continue run it without the burning of the WASTES! It clearly states that, in a letter from CEMEX Cement to the EA which is now, after some considerable delay, and after being HIDDEN, placed on the files at RBC EHO. The RCCF was never told anything about any of this as the EA and RBC apparently have a policy of hiding as much information as they possibly can.

It would appear from the available evidence (RBC cleanses files periodically so that vital evidence has "vanished") that the RBC EHO Officer decided - ACTING ALONE without any committee meetings and without REVEALING THE LETTERS that RBC EHO had on file - to support the bag filter application, in order, presumably, to increase the PROFITS of the cement company, and to damage the Town of Rugby? The letter that was signed by Mrs Karen Stone Director of Environmental Health was drafted by Mr David Burrows (Commercial Officer) - without any references to the "greater scheme of things" and without any comments on the letter on their files that clearly stated that the plant would have to close down if it could not fit the bag filters to meet the (WID) WASTE INCINERATOR DIRECTIVE LIMITS which have been put in place for cement/co-incinerators in rural areas!

# Why did these officers act in unison, and in secret, and without telling even the Councillors the truth?

# And why did they act against the best interests of Rugby town and its residents?

# What was these officers' motivation and incentive to damage Rugby residents, and to damage Rugby "town's assets" - i.e. the land that belongs to Rugby and its residents?

# Why do RBC officers act in secret with no written procedures and no code of conduct, and with no minutes?

Bear in mind that the RBC EHO department had also shown grave dereliction of duty by failing to answer the IPC application and consultation of 24th June 1999, and had (SECRETLY ) conspired with Rugby Cement and the Environment Agency to "KEEP IT OUT OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN" and to hide it from the Councillors, and from Rugby residents. In short the RBC EHO had deliberately damaged the town and environment and health of Rugby people. In fact RBC made no effort at all to even "BOTHER to answer the consultation and to BOTHER to try to limit the damage that RBC was jointly, in co-operation with Rugby Cement, the EA and WCC, afflicting on Rugby people. NO they did not even BOTHER to tell Rugby Councillors and Rugby residents". RBC EHO simply threw the opportunity to protect Rugby town into the bin. WHY?

6. The hazardous waste BYPASS dust travels from Rugby, with hazardous waste dust (they call it steam) frequently spilling out of its lorries in Rugby and all through Dunchurch, and all along to Southam, and it is still being dumped unlawfully at Southam. The planning permission that WCC officers keep on unlawfully extending was for INERT waste only, so WCC and Cemex and the EA are seemingly in breach of the UK and EU Law? Please confirm. The dumping at Southam (and Parkfield Road Rugby) has been REFUSED an IPPC permit, so for three years WCC has been endorsing an apparently unlawful activity - polluting unlawfully Rugby/Dunchurch/Southam residents? Please confirm.

7. If you look back at all the committee meetings (see WCC web site) about the WESTERN RELIEF ROAD you will find that WCC have deliberately, as puppets of Rugby Cement, delayed this road by working for the benefit and profit of Rugby Cement. The WCC councillors and officers have cost the ratepayers and public purse MILLIONS of EXTRA pounds through this ridiculous action, and of course damaged the environment and health of Rugby residents due to the unmitigated traffic pollution that WCC planners and councillors have deliberately caused. WCC and RBC keep on saying that Rugby Cement is not the MAIN polluter but the traffic is, the traffic that WCC and RBC planners have forced deliberately onto Rugby people. Meanwhile Cemex itself says no children (or women, by implication) should live in 40 new flats built near the Rugby Cement works because of the POLLUTION!

£11,000,000 in the year 2000 - now £32,000,000!
WCC PLANNING OFFICER: JOHN DEEGAN: 31st May 2000: "In compliance with the request from Rugby Cement no action be taken to advertise the legal Orders for Rugby WRR until after 31st July 2000.

Legal Orders for the whole length of the WRR be advertised as soon as possible after 31st July 2000 if Rugby Cement has not by then given a firm undertaking in writing to the County Council that it will promote the re-opening of the disused Rugby to Southam railway line through the necessary statutory procedures and PAY THE ADDITIONAL COSTS INCURRED IN CONSTRUCTING THE NORTHERN SECTION OF THE ROAD AS A FIRST PHASE.

The implication of this delay is that the date for opening the road will be PUT BACK THREE MONTHS. There is LITTLE FINANCIAL RISK IN THE DELAY (only £21 million!!) because the agreements with the developers have a 10 year life and the contributions are indexed linked to a standard industry materials price index."

8. # MP Jeremy Wright has met with Karen Stone of RBC EHO to discuss these various IPC issues but he "cannot reveal the outcome" of these talks. So does he know the truth and refuse to reveal it?
#Councillor Chris Holman has also met with Karen Stone to discuss it and he REFUSES ABSOLUTELY to answer any questions about it.
# Ex-Councillor Mrs Pat Wyatt met with Karen Stone at a meeting in which Karen Stone and Sean Lawson REFUSED ABSOLUTELY to answer any of Pat's questions about the EIA and the unlawful cement plant permissions.
#Cllr Craig Humphrey, leader of the RBC Council "mislead and misinformed" RBC full council by reading out a misleading statement given to him by the director RBC EHO stating a misinformation that there "had indeed been an EIA". I queried this and was EJECTED from the RBC public gallery - even though I knew and stated that what had been said by the Leader of the Council was untrue! The Public are ejected and threatened with legal action if they apparently dare to utter the truth?
# RBC also considered putting an ASBO on me at their meeting of 9th January 2006 in order to prevent me from approaching the Town Hall, and to prevent my looking at any Council Records that might reveal the TRUTH.

If anyone reading this can answer any/all of the above points, and justify the actions of WCC planners and RBC EHO I would be most grateful to hear from you. There are 62 WCC councillors, 48 Rugby Borough Councillors, who are ALL well aware of what this is going on and so, by refusing to listen to us, and by not intervening, are presumably "guilty" of collusion, and it would appear also are "taking our money under false pretences" and "defrauding Rugby ratepayers"; as are the officers who are pushing all this through without following the due process of UK and EU LAW? The Councillors do nothing to reign in these "uncontrolled acting-alone without-consultation headstrong council officers". Who are the true "CHAVS and BULLIES" in Rugby Town?

We call upon all the Councillors and MP to meet with us; to listen to what we say; to look at the evidence; and to start an investigation into the unlawful behaviour of officers and the obvious maladministration at both RBC and WCC. The Councillors take all the money from Rugby and Warwickshire residents, but what are they doing for that money?

No comments: