KILN FLUSH?

Taken the 23rd March
MADE YOU LOOK!

OBVIOUSLY
It is not Cemex Rugby - this time - But Castle Cement, Padeswood.

When the tonnes of molten rock come crashing down it has a devastating impact as the dust is forced out of every weak point, coating surrounding areas in dust, as many kilograms, or tonnes, of particulates escape into the atmosphere, to be carried by the wind onto unsuspecting nearby inhabitants. These sufferers are normally animals, but the UK (unusually) seems to have a policy of building BRAND NEW cement plants in built-up urban areas, so PEOPLE are the unwilling recipients of this mass pollution.

Sometimes cardox is used in an attempt to break up the clumps, or free up the blockages. Kilns are very sensitive to changes in chemistry and any chemical imbalance can cause these incidents, as workers attempt to maintain control of the kiln, trying to avoid a costly and time consuming shut down.

The 14 and 15th October 2005 incident at Cemex Rugby, which earned a £400,000 fine at Warwick Crown Court, was such an occasion, when dust spewed out from everywhere, landing on people up to three miles away. The associated diversion of hundreds of tonnes of reject clinker into the reject silo caused even more clinker dust to be forced out into the atmosphere, from an open door higher up in the silo.

Kilns are likely to suffer these and other events fairly frequently, and it is difficult to gain information about these events, as the companies are, for obvious reasons, not broadcasting them to the inhabitants. The answers to this are twofold:

A) install a stack cam that videos direct to the web, so they can be checked at any time.

B) install telemetry so that the public can read the data from the CEM continuous emissions monitors from the main stack live online.

WHO DUNNIT?

RBC FINALLY CONFIRM WCC AS THE ARCH-VILLAINS !
WCC PERMITTED CEMENT PLANT - IN SECRET!


BELIEVE IT OR NOT? RBC PLANNERS WERE NEVER CONSULTED; NOR RUGBY RESIDENTS!
WARWICKS COUNTY COUNCIL GAVE "OPEN-ENDED, UNSPECIFIED PLANNING PERMISSION", FOR RUGBY CEMENT TO "BUILD WHATEVER THEY WANTED", WITH NO RESTRICTIONS, NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT, NO LIMITS OR CONTROL OF ANY KIND, AND INCREDIBLY WITHOUT EVEN TELLING ANYONE IN RUGBY - NOT EVEN THE RBC PLANNING DEPARTMENT!

The old cement plant had on average 50 "small" lorries each day:
The new cement/co-incinerator has 600+ giant HGVs each day.
WCC told RBC the capacity would be exactly 2.9 times that of the old plant. So, 50 HGVs X 2.9 = 150 a day.

SO WHO WAS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH?
And why did WCC not tell the truth to RBC planners, Nor to the Rugby people?
Or could it be that even WCC did not know what was being built?


RBC DIRECTOR OF PLANNING HAS FINALLY CONFIRMED That RBC PLANNERS had nothing to do with it, and KNEW/UNDERSTOOD NOTHING about the planning application for "a" new cement plant in RUGBY;

See below interspersed in CAPITALS, RBC's response of 15 March to Original email Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 12:34 PM

Dear Mr Ware

Re: The Rugby Cement plant that has now become the 2.3 million tonne cement per annum Rugby CO-INCINERATOR! I would like to come and see all the files concerned with the Rugby Cement plant and landfills regarding the planning applications and permissions back to 1994.

It is increasingly clear that the public, and most (if not all?) Rugby Borough Councillors have been totally mislead by the applicant, Rugby Cement, and by the officers involved in the planning and permitting process from WCC, the EA and RBC. Now we face the unlimited use of the plant as a co-incinerator starting with a mix of tyres and London's household and Commercial waste, while the Decision Document for the tyre trials is still incomplete, and data requested is still being concealed by the Agency.

There was never any proper consultation carried out by WCC for the planning application, as quite simply, the public were never told the truth as to what the application was for. The information issued by Rugby Cement was misleading - to say the least. The application itself as made to WCC was incomplete, misleading, and lacking in environmental information such as emissions and air quality data, and health impact assessments, as well as incorrect statements about what they were planning to build and what fuels, raw materials, and WASTES they were to use.

I have been looking back through the files and a fax from WCC to you (RBC planning department) dated 09/09/99 has caught my attention. It states the following: "Further to my fax of yesterday please find an updated version of the note.The change is in the 5th bullet. The EXACT CAPACITY of the NEW WORKS is 2.9 times of the existing, and so existing clay traffic figures will be at the lower end of the range quoted in the original note.I trust this information is of assistance."

It does not state why you wanted this information but I would like you to state, if you know, what was the EXACT CAPACITY of the old plant and what was then the planned EXACT CAPACITY of the new plant - according to your records? Note that Mrs Karen Down of WCC never uses any EXACT figures but refers to them in the abstract!

ANSWER: "I HAVE NO FURTHER INFORMATION OTHER THAN WHAT IS ON OUR FILES,
WHICH YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN."

Also please state the annual figures for the cement production at the old Rugby works for 1990 to 1994 when the planning application was made.

ANSWER: "I HAVE NO FURTHER INFORMATION OTHER THAN WHAT IS ON OUR FILES WHICH YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN.!"

I have these figures from Rugby Cement - if you can confirm that they are the same ones as RBC was using in deciding this planning application?

1990 : 282,052 tonnes cement. 22,086 HGV movements. Average HGV movements 60 per day.
1991 : 202,052 tonnes cement. 15,808 HGV movements. Average HGV movements 34 per day.
1992 : 236,772 tonnes cement. 16,855 HGV movements. Average HGV movements 46 per day.
1993 : 267,664 tonnes cement. 20,010 HGV movements. Average HGV movements 55 per day.

ANSWER: "AS NOTED ABOVE YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN OUR FILES YOU WILL HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THIS COMPARISON YOURSELF AND RUGBY DID NOT DECIDE THAN APPLICATION".

An Average production would be 247,000 tonnes per annum. X 2.9 - as according to WCC fax of 09/09/99 makes a total of 716,000 tonnes per annum. So what has gone wrong with the calculations - and where?

ANSWER: "AS NOTED YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN OUR FILES SO YOU WILL HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THIS COMPARISON YOURSELF AND RUGBY DID NOT DECIDE THIS APPLICATION."


The original outline planning application was for 1,050,000 tonnes CEMENT, which was then altered in February 1996 to read 1,250,000 TONNES CEMENT.

The Public were then told by the Environment Agency in the IPPC Permit August 2003 that the plant is a 5,000 tonnes daily production CLINKER plant, with a 25-30% increase on that figure for the total to make the cement, and that the plant was an "EXISTING CO-INCINERATOR" by virtue of the application which actually designated it as that.

The 5,000 tonnes a day clinker would equate to 1,840,000 tonnes CLINKER and about 2,300,000 tonnes CEMENT per annum, the manufacture of which involves the transporting in and out by many hundreds of HGVs daily, and also obviously affects greatly the emissions, from the stack, low level sources, fugitives and lorries. So now Rugby residents have far worse emissions than from the old plant - which was being closed down because of its very high emissions, and in the name of "environmental improvement". Now we have a waste disposal plant, cum cement plant - where the MAIN purpose it to make cement and the other purpose to dispose of waste.

There has been much confusion over the planning and IPC permitting process, Rugby Cement stating that RBC EHO was "not a statutory consultee", but the EA saying "they were" and officially consulting them - although RBC EHO made no answer to the IPC application and consultation in June 1999.

# Could you please clarify what RBC planners understood they were assisting in giving permission for? Did the RBC officers understand what the application meant?

ANSWER: "THE INFORMATION RBC PLANNERS HAD IS ON OUR FILES WHICH YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN AND I DO NOT THINK IT IS LIKELY TO BE HELPFUL TO SPECULATE HOW THIS WAS UNDERSTOOD - AND RBC WAS NOT 'ASSISTING IT IN GIVING PERMISSION'."

# What was the RBC understanding of the average annual CEMENT production capacity of the old plant, bearing in mind it only ever made about 1,000 tonnes clinker each day?

ANSWER: " I HAVE NO FURTHER INFORMATION IN ADDITION TO THAT WHICH IS ON OUR FILES THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN."

# What is the annual CEMENT production capacity of this plant as now built?

ANSWER: "I HAVE NO FURTHER INFORMATION IN ADDITION TO THAT WHICH IS ON OUR FILES THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN."

# What was applied for in the planning application - as we seem to have here a "great intensification of use", which should have required a new planning application and consultation.

ANSWER: " I HAVE NO FURTHER INFORMATION IN ADDITION TO THAT WHICH IS ON OUR FILES WHICH YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN. I SUGGEST YOU REFER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT A NEW PLANNING APPLICATION AND CONSULTATION WERE REQUIRED TO WCC."

# The planning application clearly ruled out the use of wastes and any waste burning, so in your opinion have the public been properly informed, and doe the plant require a "Change of Use" for the co-incineration of waste?

ANSWER: "I DON'T THINK IT APPROPRIATE OR LIKELY TO BE OF USE FOR ME TO VOLUNTEER A PERSONAL OPINION ABOUT ABOVE MATTERS."

# RBC EHO officers apparently decided "in secret" with no meetings or records, or proper procedures involving any councillors, to make no input to the IPC application and consultation of June 1999. Was the planning department also involved in that decision to "make no response"?

ANSWER: " TO MY KNOWLEDGE PLANNING STAFF WERE NOT INVOLVED AND YOU HAVE SEEN THE INFORMATION WE HOLD ON OUR FILES."

# WCC also has no records and made no response to the IPC application and consultation although they were immensely involved in the process. It seems from the above that WCC did not know what was actually being built - even at 09/09/99 when the IPC Permit was just being issued - this is why we wish to ascertain if RBC planning office actually knew what was being built?

ANSWER: "YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE INFORMATION WE HOLD ON OUR FILES AND I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD."

I look forward to hearing from you with regard to access to the files within the statutory 48 hours, and any answers you may be able to give to my questions above. If you or anyone reading this wishes me to provide hard copies of my information, which has been copied from the WCC, EA, and RBC EHO files, they have only to ask. I can also fax Copies.

ANSWER: "YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN FULL ACCESS TO OUR FILES." JOHN WARE HEAD OF PLANNING.

Thank you very much.

Lilian

BLACK GREASY SOOTY DUST RAINS DOWN ON RUGBY

Except that it has not been raining!
Can it possibly be just Rugby Cement chimney sweeps at work?
Friday clean the car and go to bed. Saturday morning get up to find white car painted black.
Thank you Cemex.

The first official RBC version of events is that pulverised coal dust escaped as Cemex tried to feed it into the plant, and blew in the wind, covering everything in the area to the north east of the Rugby Cemex cement works, up to about two miles away. RBC, Cemex and the Agency have been inundated with calls from worried home owners, who are reported to be furious at yet another dumping. Its inside houses, on cars, window sills, conservatories, green houses, sandpits, vegetables, grass and in fact on everything - including on you if you happen to live there.

This black dust is merely the highly visible manifestation of the far worse small particles and nanoparticles that are emitted 24 hours a day in the tonnes of acid gas and air that fall on Rugby people, and around, depending mainly on the weather! These smaller particles are capable of penetrating the lung linings of humans and creating damaging effects in adults, children and even the unborn child. The toxic and carcinogenic heavy metals, dioxins, cadmium, thallium, etc adsorb onto the particles.

All this is taking place in the middle of a town of 60,000 people.

Ask yourself why do they not build cement plants in towns?

A prize for the best answer.


And why DID they build it here? Who thought it such a grand idea, and gave them permission? We asked Warwickshire County Council to answer our complaint against them that the planning permission is unlawful, and that what is built is not what was applied for, nor advertised, and is in fact not even the plant that was granted the "so-called" planning permission.

This is their considered response:

"Mrs Pallikaropoulos is wrong in so many ways that I/we can hardly begin to list them."

"We have given up trying to correct her because it is futile and disproportionately time consuming. However, this should not be taken as any kind of admission by us. Nor do I give any credence to her allegations against all of you."

John Deegan
Strategic Director for Environment & Economy
Warwickshire County Council
Web : www.warwickshire.gov.uk

We have the evidence, but WCC seem to be "in denial".
They provide no evidence to back up their claims.
Whose version of events do you believe?

Flying Pigs?

NOW RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM BANNED FROM DISCUSSING ANY ASPECT OF CEMEX CO-INCINERATOR OPERATIONS.
YES IT CAN AND DOES GET WORSE AND WORSE!

Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007
To: 'Karen Stone'; 'Sean Lawson'; 'David Burrows'; 'Cllr Carolyn Robbins'
Cc: 'WRIGHT, Jeremy'; 'Patricia Wyatt'; 'Helen.King Rugby PCT; 'Diane
Pask'; 'All Councillors'; 'Cllr Nigel Rock';
'matthewwilliams@warwickshire.gov.uk';
Subject: RCCF banned from discussing cement plant!

Dear Mrs Stone

RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM - THAT IS PROHIBITED BY RBC FROM HAVING ANY DISCUSSIONS AT ALL WHICH INVOLVE THE CEMENT PLANT !!

# This is a ridiculous waste and deliberate squandering of the Rugby Council tax money, and I am asking the Ombudsman to investigate the maladministration at RBC.

# Why are you and the officers and Carolyn Robbins controlling the Agenda of the FORUM and doing this to Rugby residents?

# What are all your motives?

1. Why was the RCCF not advised about the Cemex Southam planning application for the LANDFILL of bypass dust at WCC which went to the WCC Regulatory Committee on 27/02/07?

The application was made on 03/10/06 to WCC minerals planning committee and on 27/02/07 and they have passed it.

It still has to get an IPPC permit from the Agency which is now being applied for.

They said that Southam was the "least worst option", the other two options being Parkfield Road and also Lodge Farm! I did not know Lodge Farm was under consideration for landfill - I thought it was going to be restored?


4.30 RBC EHO expressed concern related to the impacts of carrying BYPASS DUST (hazardous waste) through the Borough from Rugby Cement works.

4.31 "In response to the Borough's concerns the applicant submitted further supporting information. This states there has been ONLY ONE KNOWN COMPLAINT OF DUST RELEASE SINCE 2001. This was identified as being steam rising from the vehicle rather that dust, which results from the dust being transported while still warm."
(Goes on to say risk of dust release small; HGVs have automatic covers: wheel washes; no dust; etc)

If you believe that then PIGS are truly FLYING in Rugby. The applicant has of course given FALSE and UNTRUE information in his statement. The RCCF and RBC EHO office know perfectly well there have been many complaints about it and cars being covered in white spots like paint as they go along to Southam, through DUNCHURCH, dropping the hazardous waste BY Pass Dust all the way to Southam. It has been discussed several times at the RCCF meetings.

What other "fairy stories" will they tell?
How can we believe anything they say?

2. The Decision Document for TYRE TRIALS also shows they had given FALSE and INCORRECT Emission Limit Values. Also they had quoted the wrong Permit and Permit number. Also they had made secret variation to the permit, behind closed doors and without telling anyone, and without any proper due process - with the Agency acting in SECRET.

3. Then there is the Cemex Climafuel application in South Ferriby that is on the South Ferriby Parish Council web site. It states, in April 2006 Cemex Cement Liaison minutes:

"The Source of the Climafuel is still being looked at. Our aim is for material to be sourced locally. However, for the TRIALS it is possible that the material may be sourced from EUROPE as they have well established arrangements for the production of this type of materials with a CONSISTENT QUALITY".
Presumably to use the good consistent quality in the trials, and to get a good result?

4. What is the RCCF and the RBC EHO going to do about it?
5. What confidence can you, or anyone else have in the data given by this company?
6. What confidence can anyone have in the EA to regulate fairly and properly?
7. What confidence can anyone have in WCC?

8. The EA state at South Ferriby (Minutes April 2006) that "all cement works are being regulated in the same way, and that a liaison group was a good communication channel" - SO WHAT HAS GONE SO BADLY WRONG AT RUGBY?

What confidence can anyone have in RBC: the EA and Cemex? The RBC and EA officers are concealing information and trying, very successfully, to STOP the RCCF from discussing anything at all about the cement works.
# We have had no discussion on tyre trials AT ALL!
# No discussion on Decision Document.
# No discussion of the variations that RBC/EA hid from us all.
# No discussion on landfill at Southam.
# No discussion on Climafuel application.

What do any other Forum members think - or indeed anyone who reads this think?
What a laughing stock they are making of the Forum, but it will back fire on those who seek to control the Rugby residents.

Lilian

In the meantime on page 8 of the Rugby Advertiser 1st March the Rugby Group Benevolent Fund is now seemingly run by Cemex, and is handing out a few hundred thousand pounds here and there to make sure the Community remains subdued and "on side", and does not raise too much of an objection to the burning of London's waste in Rugby. This will be handy as Cemex are preferred for the cement for the Olympics and it will be a piece of cake for them to pick up the commercial and household waste and bring it back here.

NO ONE SERVES RUGBY ELECTORATE!

"NO - WE ONLY SERVE OURSELVES!"
62 WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCILLORS;
48 RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCILLORS;
1 MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.

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.

TO WCC and RBC COUNCILLORS AND OFFICERS:
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?