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.
1 comment:
RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM :
CONSTITUTION
1. The RCCF provides a forum for representation of local community interests in relation to the Rugby Cement site. The local community served by the RCCF is the area served by RBC. This area is served by WCC, RBC and 40 Parish Councils.
2. RCCF OBJECTIVES are:
# to serve as a channel of information on issues that may affect the local community or the environment.
# to allow scrutiny of plans and arrangements in case of an emergency.
# to provide an opportunity for representatives of the community to question Rugby Cement or agencies such as the Environment Agency about activities that may impact upon the community.
It seems RBC has breached the Constitution?
Lilian
Post a Comment