Agency Survey Backs Lilian!

RUGBY RESIDENTS WORRIED, CONCERNED
AND FED UP OF BEING POLLUTED.

LILIAN NOT DISGRUNTLED ACTIVIST!

Once upon a time, a long five years ago, Lilian innocently set off in quest of the TRUTH.

She planned to visit each in turn of Warwickshire County Council, the Environment Agency and Rugby Borough Council. How could she possibly have known that all that these locations were inhabited by gangs of unscrupulous and devious officers and councillors, peopled by individuals with no care and respect for due process, no care for the public, nor for the environment, nor for health, but were occupied by those whose own personal vested interest, and over-inflated egos and misconceptions of self-worth, compelled them to adapt ideas of grandeur, and to over ride the Law of the land, and to stop at nothing to hide the truth, and to ruin the town of
Rugby.

Soon Lilian became disillusioned by the disgraceful lack of professionalism in these places she visited. Each of these three authorities was fearful lest the others should blame them, and it should cost them money - a lot of money - and so Lilian became a victim in piggy in the middle, or as WCC prefer to call it "pass the parcel". Piecing together the actions of each has not been easy as of course they place all obstacles in your way, in order to prevent any truth coming out, and what they let you see, or even actually tell you, you need to take with a salt mine - or two! It is what they are hiding that is interesting. This is a gripping detective story of dirty deeds and foul play, worthy of a crime novel. How much did who make out of it? Who stands to gain what? Where there's muck there's money and this is about the very dirty, dusty grimy cement industry, and the WASTE industry! It is a filthy business, make no mistake.

Where there is muck there is money, and there is plenty of both in this.

I will put a few facts on the table and you can "be the judge".

1. Rugby Cement applied to WCC for a new cement plant in 1995.
2. The planning application to WCC was inaccurate and incorrect.
3. The Environment Statement was incorrect and inaccurate.
4. The people of Rugby were told "porkies" about what was to be built.
5. The photomontages showed that this was not what was actually going to be built.
6. The people of Rugby did not have time to respond - and in any case the "few" responded to what they PRETENDED they were going to build.
7. The Environment Agency used to be called HMIP till 1996.
8. The HMIP Advisory Committee had Christopher Hampson the Chair of RMC on it and he was subsequently on the EA Board and Chair man of that in due course.
9. Rugby Cement said all queries about the planning had to go to them.
10. Rugby Cement took the public, councillors and RBC officers to the plant and showed them an incorrect model.
11. The EA/HMIP say they received an application in January 1995 for an IPC permit - but they cannot find it.
12. The EA have no copy on the public register.
13. The EA say" The Application (that we cannot find) was received and deemed duly made by the Agency in January 1995."
14. The EA say that Rugby Cement had to place an advert in the paper and consult.
15. The EA say the "Regulator had to consider any representations made to it within the period allowed, in determining the application. This would obviously include any representations by members of the public."
16. The EA say "There was no requirement for us to hold a copy of the advert on the Public Register, the responsibility for which lay solely with Rugby Cement."
17. SEPA, Defra and the EA web sites all say that the Agency should have informed Rugby Cement to place the advert 14 days after the application was "deemed duly made".
18. The Agency itself - regardless of what they now say about any excuse about the ADVERT, seem to have carried out a partial CONSULTATION and to have consulted National Rivers in 1995, and English Nature, with no response.
19. The Agency say" we are not aware of any representations made by members of the public." BECAUSE of course the PUBLIC were not asked.
20. But from 1995 to 1998 Rugby Cement, assisted by the EA and WCC planning officers, kept on altering the size and specification and capacity of the plant.
21. Rugby people were told it was to be three times bigger : 300,000 tonnes maximum X 3 = 900, 000 t a year .
22. Rugby Cement have built a 1,800,000 tonne plant.
23. Stage 1 of the IPC application on 25th January 1995 was hidden from the Public Register.
24. Stage 2 was made 19th July 1995 - by now the stack was much taller.
25. Stage 3 was 8th August 1996 and by then the tower had TREBLED in size and the stack 30 % bigger than originally - it was 115 metres tall instead of the 91 metres chimney stack of the planning application.
26. WCC made a conscious decision NOT to tell the people of Rugby. KB who is still on the WCC said in response to shall we tell them, "as far as possible let sleeping dogs lie!"
27. Further information was requested by the EA on 15th March 1997 - Schedule 1 Notice.
28. RBC Karen Stone wrote and asked the Agency why this "Consultation " was not following the normal and proper procedure.
29. She had a secret meeting with the EA presumably to secretly discuss how to hide what was going on.
30. 16th June 1999 Rugby Cement FINALLY has the answers to the 15th May
1997 questions called the Schedule 1 Questions. They send these to the EA with this letter:

Dear Dr Davies
Application Under IPC for new plant at Ruby Reply to Schedule 1 notice:

"We have now collected all information needed to reply to the Schedule 1 Notice dated 15th May 1997 and attach this information. We have also included additional information that we request you taking into account in determining the application. This is the FINAL STAGE of application and we look forward to receiving your full authorisation for the plant in due course."
S Elliot
Works Manager 16June 1999

31. So the Agency the CONSULT : MAFF and HSE . But they do NOT consult RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL as they already have a SECRET agreement with Karen Stone.

THEY HIDE THE CONSULTATION.

32. But the EA claim that they had accepted the application in 1995 and that it was advertised to the public then in an advert, that NO ONE HAS SEEN, so why NOW are the EA consulting these other authorities - but not RBC?
33. If as the EA say it was "deemed duly made" what about all these changes in the FOUR YEARS - (1995 - 1999) such as the stack being 50% taller, and the tower being over 300 % more cubic capacity, and bigger on all sides, and the PRODUCTION going up to SIX times over the OLD PLANT, and DOUBLE what the planning application said?
34. The planning application and plans were revised over and over again by WCC and Rugby Cement - so the 1995 Environmental Statement and all the planning application was completely WRONG. It needed a completely new planning application, It is not remotely the same - not even the locations of the buildings are the same.

EA LETTER: of 23rd March 2006:

" This further search has in fact revealed some additional material copies of which I enclose. As you will see there is further correspondence between the Agency and statutory consultees which, for SOME REASON, was not on the Public Register file at this point".

OF COURSE it was not on the Public Register because they "CLAIM" that they had carried out the consultation in 1995, and did not want anyone to know that IN FACT they had NOT CARRIED OUT THE CONSULTATION AT ALL. How could they carry it out then as they did not know what they were going to build.
But the secret Agency file hid the evidence of secret consultation with Rugby Borough Council in 1997 and again in 1999 in which the Agency said "DO NOT SHOW THE PUBLIC. The PUBLIC HAVE 28 DAYS TO BE CONSULTED BUT DO NOT SHOW THEM!!"

EA LETTER continues: "there is also information relating to the public liaison committee. This supports the conclusion that the Agency fulfilled its statutory consultation duties".

BUT OF COURSE IT PROVED JUST THE OPPOSITE - THAT ALONG WITH WCC AND RBC THEY HID ALL THE DOCUMENTS - CARRIED ON SECRETLY, MISINFORMED AND MISLED THE PUBLIC. And set up a liaison committee who did not even know what an IPC application is in order to manipulate it. But Karen Stone and David Burrows from RBC were on there. Do they have any formal qualifications as they should have known better - or are they part of the cover up? Why did RBC officers fail to tell the TRUTH??? WHEN IS A LIE NOT A LIE?

35. I will not go on with the IPPC application as this needs a chapter all of its own, but again all three of them were at it: misinforming, misleading and misrepresenting the facts to the public. There is also the Misinformation given out by RBC officers and WCC officers for subsequent planning applications. I am afraid it is lies, lies, lies all the way. They do it all the time and they do not know when to stop lying. They have the habit.

CONCLUSION FOR THIS CHAPTER:

The EA, WCC and RBC have been and continue to be repeatedly guilty of crooked and unlawful practise seemingly specifically in order to damage the residents, the whole town and environment of Rugby, the air quality and the health of the residents. They have not followed due process and are all guilty of maladministration and worse.

IN ORDER TO TAKE THE SPOTLIGHT OFF THEM AND TO TRY TO STOP THE TRUTH COMING OUT THEY HAVE COLLECTIVELY: all tried to bully me, intimidate me, and threaten me; and have refused access to all data, even under the Freedom of Information Act in order to hide what they have done. All along they have tried to vilify me and say I am the only one concerned, and have tried to turn all people against me.

But the EA has just paid thousands of pounds of public money to try to hide what they have done. However the survey has not done what they wanted, and to the contrary has overwhelmingly shown that the 80,000 people of Rugby are very seriously Concerned and Worried about the cement works. The people will also soon be very angry when they find out exactly what these authorities have done to them, and how the 48 Rugby Borough Councillors have worked together to hide this and worked together to hurt the people of Rugby, and squandered thousands of pounds of public money.

TEST RESEARCH SURVEY CARRIED OUT IN RUGBY FEB 2006 SAYS THIS : IN SUPPORT OF LILIAN:

THERE IS ONE THING THIS SURVEY HAS MADE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR IS THAT THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH THE CEMENT WORKS FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE LOCALLY. IT IS NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, COMMENTS FROM A SERIES OF, ITS NOT MEANT TO SOUND NEGATIVE, BUT OF DISGRUNTLED ACTIVISTS, AS PEOPLE MIGHT SAY. IT APPEARS TO BE MUCH WIDER SPREAD CONCERN IN THE COMMUNITY. I THINK THE SURVEY HAS MADE THAT CLEAR, AND I HOPE IT HAS HELPED!

Yes it has. Thank you!!
Lilian