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
No comments:
Post a Comment