RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL SEEMS ONLY A SUB GROUP OF RUGBY CEMENT.HOW DID Rugby Cement plant get permission?
You might well ask.
Lilian did and this is what she got:
In order for Rugby people
To be kept in ignorance.
Lilian to be silenced by RBC
By all means. Now described as:
Vexatious Repititious ASBO!
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 10:57 AM
To: 'Andrew Gabbitas'
Cc: 'All Councillors'; 'Patricia Wyatt'; 'WRIGHTJP@parliament.uk';
Subject: Is RBC a sub-group of Rugby Cement and the EA?
Dear Mr Gabbitas
Thank you for your letter dated 11th May 2006 which reads as follows:
Dear Mrs P
Between the 26th April and 1st May 2006, you sent me, and OTHERS, a total of 15 emails. It is beyond my capacity to write an individual separate reply to each of these messages. On looking at them , I have come to the conclusion that I, and my colleagues, have already given you replies or
information on the subjects requested. Your correspondence with me has reached the stage where it is repetitious and vexatious and I can add nothing to what I have said to you in earlier correspondence.
Andrew Gabbitas
Acting Chief Executive.
I would comment as follows:
You will see, if you care to read a little more carefully that my letters and emails have NOT been answered at any stage, by any of the people to whom they have been addressed, and for this simple reason I have been compelled to ask the same questions, and to request the same copies of documents on several occasions. You may remember the old adage : "If at first you don't succeed try and try again?"
If you would take it upon yourself to see to it that we get the answers and the information we request we would be able to stop writing to you, where the buck stops - as head of this council, and to the "unspecified others" to whom you refer, and on whose behalf you are now, most oddly, assuming the responsibility of replying.
Why would any Chief Executive take it upon himself to answer letters and email that are not actually addressed to him, or even to Rugby Borough Council, but to other Agencies, and are only copied to him for his information and for the fullness of records? Are you going to write back to
letters I have addressed to my granny also? In order to HIDE the unlawful practises that this Council has indulged in for so long you have decided, in consultation with other various "people" who do not speak the truth, to slur me, and to defame me, and thus you assert that I am "vexatious and repetitious." This is merely the latest SCAM you are using to get RBC off the hook, and to try to escape from telling Rugby people the truth about how RBC colluded to get this unlawful plant built and operated in Rugby, and how RBC colluded to blight the whole town, to ruin the environment, air quality, and impact the health of Rugby people.
You have sought to threaten me, and have had secret meetings with the four leaders of the groups, and with lawyers based on what "lies", all in order to hide the TRUTH.
RBC is refusing to give me the data that RBC hold on me. I made the request on 24th February and you have still not allowed me any access to it. It should have been provided within 20 days. Now it is already 80 days.
RBC are also refusing access to the Public Register Information regarding the cement works, IPC permit and secret reports.
The Environment Agency have deliberately also hidden the Public Register information regarding the cement works.
The Agency has also hidden the "MONTHLY RETURNS" which show the amount of toxic pollution being emitted by the cement works onto Rugby people. These have been hidden since July 2005 when they started:
# tyre trials# petcoke trials# allowed a five/eight fold INCREASE in the permitted emissions of VOC (toxic volatile organic carbons).
RBC and the Agency have hidden from the general public the results of the Survey carried out in Rugby in February 2006 that shows that 73 % of Rugby people are concerned : about 65,000 people are worried, and that it is not JUST me, or any other " Disgruntled Activists" as RBC cares to portray.
And so you seek to claim that I am "vexatious and repetitious".
I suggest the people write to you and ask the same questions as I have asked. Are you going to have the same description slapped on lawyers, and any of the 90,000 people of Rugby, who "dare" ask the same pertinent questions as I have done? Are you going to refuse ALL requests for information as you have done to me?
You had the secret meetings organised by the Chair of the Environment Panel: Carolyn Robbins (see 9th January RBC Cabinet Committee Minutes) who is also, by some strange co-incidence, Chair of the Rugby Cement Forum.
Who is working for who here? Is Rugby Borough Council working for the benefit and Environment of Rugby residents, or is RBC merely a sub-group of Rugby Cement? And may be a sub-group of the Environment Agency as well?
Lillian
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:59 AM
To: 'Andrew Gabbitas'
Cc: 'All Councillors'; 'WRIGHTJP@parliament.uk';
Subject: RBC refuses to answer questions and misinforms public
Dear Mr Gabbitas
Thank you for your letter of 26th April.
I think you will find you are in breach of the FOI Regulations, for which RBC has already been taken to task on at least one other occasion. Your reply to my email, that I have typed in below, does not answer the questions and a mere local authority Cabinet cannot ignore the Law of the Land and make a "silly little decision not to answer any questions, and not to tell the truth". In the meantime it appears that Rugby people are to be poisoned by toxic fumes from waste burning, and petcoke burning, because of the RBC cabinet decision to hide the information and to cover up what RBC
has done?
Now we have:
1) The EA unlawfully hiding from the PR the monthly monitoring emissions data for the Rugby plant since July 2005.
2) The EA claiming Cemex can use the poisonous petcoke as they got a (secret)IPC permit in conjunction with RBC.
3) They got an IPPC permit to burn waste in "half truths in conjunction with RBC" - who mislead the public to cover up the IPC failings, so that no one would know that it had no lawful IPC Permit, and thatthis was an IPPC Application.
4) Mr Gabbitas who refuses to answer all FOI requests, and a Cabinet who have decided to hide all the information, and "mislead and misinform" the public and other councillors at full council meetings.
5) Then RBC blame me for the "costs" of providing all this information, while the truth is that RBC is spending a fortune trying to hide and cover up what they have done. If RBC just answered truthfully and provided copies it would cost a minimal amount. The truth is cheap, it is the deceit and cover up that is costing Rugby Council tax payers so much money!
Any advice please?
Lilian
Mr Gabbitas of RBC has finally written back 26th April as follows:
Dear Mrs Pallikaropoulos
I refer to your email of 12th February 2006 regarding Freedom of Information requests.
Cabinet on 9th January 2006 resolved that:-
(1) A scheme of Frequently asked Questions be developed and published that covers air quality and other issues associated with Cemex's local activities.
(2) That any further information requests on these issues be not individually responded to, but published on a FAQ list and
(3) any request that is potentially abusive, defamatory or other wise likely to cause offence be not responded to.
The Council is dealing with numerous requests for information from you and these requests will be dealt with as Frequently Asked Questions as resources permit in accordance with the cabinet's Decision.
The information in this current request is extensive and relates to issues dealt with 5 years ago. The Council's stance on the issue of tyre burning reflected public concern at the time and was a considered and balanced approach to the issue
Andrew Gabbitas
-----Original Message-----
From: L Pallikaropoulos [mailto:lpallikaropoulos@dsl.pipex.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 11:58 PM
To: 'Karen Stone'
Subject: FW: IPPC application 2001 and IPC 1999
Dear Mrs Stone
I ask that you answer the attached email that was sent to you nearly one month ago. (Under the Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Regulations.) You should be able to answer all the questions yourself in say 15 minutes, as you have been involved in all these meetings and decisions. Mr Lawson will not know what this is about which is why he has such difficulty answering any questions from "before his time".
Thank you.
Lilian Pallikaropoulos
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006
To: 'Karen Stone'; 'craig.humphrey@rugby.gov.uk'
Cc: 'all.councillors@rugby.gov.uk';
Subject: IPPC application 2001 and IPC 1999
Dear Mrs Stone and Mr Humphies,
It seems that this Council and the public have been totally mislead, whether deliberately or not, by RBC officers and the EA. I think the people of Rugby deserve some answers. I would like to know the following please:
1. Why did you present the 2001 IPPC application as being "only a Tyre Burning application"?
2. Why did you commission an AEAT report into "tyre burning only"?
3. Why did the PCT commission an HIA into tyre burning only? "Is it better for the people of Rugby to breathe coal dust or tyre fumes?" Cook and Kemm.
4. Why did you totally misinform the public and all the Rugby Councillors about the nature of IPPC consultations, and what needed to be considered, and that the "whole IPPC permit was open to question and scrutiny?"
5. Why did you not tell the public that the information given out was incomplete, and that that information being given out was related to the "tyre burning" aspect only: see Rugby Group Limited, Rugby Works, Application under IPPC to allow burning of tyres. Incidentally that application did not include any mention of particulates at all though it listed pages of all the other main emissions from the plant, and the public consistently expressed concern about particulates and dust from the plant as a whole. The Councillors and public were not aware that the whole
application was on the Public Register, and that the whole operation of the plant was to be taken into account?
6. At the Indian Club 2001 Roger Wade said, at the opening of the meeting, that "this application is like IPC, and is now called IPPC, and so there is no difference. It has IPC, so let's get on with the tyre burning." What was the RBC response to the IPC application in 1999, and the public response to it? What public meetings did RBC call in 1999 to discuss the IPC application? Where is the Public Register containing this IPC information?
7. How did you brief councillors, such as the Environment panel, and also the Community Leadership Panel, that lead to the March 2002 "marathon meeting"? What was the objective of such a meeting?
8. What guidance did you use to advise you, on what the roll of RBC was at statutory consultee, and what guidance did you use also on how to advise the councillors and the public?
9. Why are the Minutes, Agendas and attachments, of the RCCF and the Rugby Cement Liaison meeting not available to councillors and the public at RBC offices?
10. What action is RBC prepared to take against the Environment Agency for its part in this deceit?
11. Please send an email copy of the Minutes of the meeting RBC held with the EA on 13th September 2001 as a pre-meeting in preparation for the Indian Club meeting of September 20th 2001.
12. What was the role of the Rugby Cement Liaison Committee in all this? What was the RBC's role in that Committee? Why were no Rugby Cement Liaison Committee meetings held from March 2002 until 23rd October 2002, during the crucial part of the IPPC application, until when it "evolved" into the RCCF?
13. What is the RBC role in the RCCF? (Rugby Cement Community Forum)
14. What is the RBC role in the TBRG? (Tyre Burning Review Group)
Thank you.
Lilian
No comments:
Post a Comment