PIGGY IN THE MIDDLE?

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MESS?
WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL EXHIBITS CONFUSION as they claim that, from their point of view and for the purposes of planning, the Cemex Rugby plant is only a cement plant, and not a co-incinerator. This is in spite of the fact that WCC Regulatory Committee granted a retrospective planning permission in January 2003 for £1,000,000 of unauthorised tyre burning equipment, the construction of which turned the plant into a co-incinerator, months before it gained its "dubious and much disputed" IPPC Permit in August 2003.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION PERMITTING AGENCY meanwhile has said it IS a co-incinerator governed under the Waste Incinerator Directive, apparently because WCC made it an existing co-incinerator before the Agency gave it the IPPC permit to become one? Not surprising neither WCC or the EA wishes to shoulder the blame, and to admit responsibility for the destruction of the built environment, amenity, roads, whole town's atmosphere, quality of life and air quality in Rugby! The cement/co-incinerator and/or its massive plume can be viewed and enjoyed from most streets in the Borough, casting a pall over the entire town - and no-one is responsible apparently - unless we blame the dead who, according to the House of Lords, built "a cement plant" there in the time of Dr Arnold.

GOVERNMENT FAILINGS EU DIRECTIVES
All this "confusion" at the expense of Rugby residents seems to be attributable to the failure of the UK Government to implement the various European Directives correctly, which are designed to protect the AIR, improve the Environment and the health of the EU citizens, as well as to give them the right to access to information, full and fair consultation, and access to justice when all this goes wrong. One needs look no further than Rugby to find all the evidence one needs of abuse of process and environmental detriment. It is common knowledge that formal letters have been written and infraction proceedings are taking place over various issues the EU has with the UK. This might serve to focus their minds a little! Though judging by their lamentable performance so far it may take a little time to get things put right and give the British people the same rights as in other European countries!

MYSTERY OVER COATED CARS
In the meantime they play ball over our heads as Cemex tops up the air with "pollen"? Yes that's right - pollen - according to the Rugby Observer 24 April.
"Mystery surrounds the discovery of an ash-type substance which blew over a number of parked cars in Bilton on Tuesday morning. Some residents immediately though Cemex was to blame, although Cemex bosses say the cause could be pollen! A local resident said "It looked like an ash tray had been tipped on top of my car.I looked at other cars on the street and they all had light dust specks on them too."

Later on at 1.30 on the same day workers had tried to put an isolation valve on a tanker during maintenance to silos, but dropped cement powder on the floor creating a giant cloud of dust which engulfed the building. Witnesses said "You couldn't even see any of the cement works because of this massive grey cloud. It then started drifting off over Lawford." Cemex said there was no evidence of dust being sprayed anywhere outside the plant and no complaints had been received. Meanwhile the EA had lots of complaints which are being investigated."

HOUSE OF LORDS
in their "truly amazing judgement" were right on one thing, at least, when they said "there was already so much dust in the air of Rugby!" Meanwhile the Jury's out - pollen or dust?


TXI RIVERSIDE CEMENT CALIFORNIA
Check out the The Los Angeles Times April 15 2008 : "Local residents fear nearby cement factory is making them sick!" They have just found out that their cement plant "dust" contains very high levels of the highly toxic carcinogen Hexavalent Chromium which causes cancer, rashes and other ailments. Residents meetings have been heated and some are asking if their cancers have been caused by this "dust". Cement bags carry labels warning of these dangers to those who work with the product, being mainly healthy young males, but what effect does it have on the vulnerable, already infirm or elderly, babies, children, or pregnant women?


ENVIRONMENT AGENCY WEB SITE
Go to www.environment-agency.gov.uk and put your postcode in to the "What's in my backyard" pollution inventory to find out what the MAIN stack is emitting, and the Cemex landfill. This does not include the so-called "dust" which blows all over from the mills, and from the other various LOW LEVEL POINT SOURCES which have no monitors at all. One recent bi-annual sample taken at the plant has a mill running at 57,000 micrograms/m3 of particulate - after taking off the 30% uncertainty confidence level ! (And dioxin over the permitted level) As for the FUGITIVE "dust" - this is obviously unmeasured and largely unmeasurable. Eye witness accounts mean nothing! Pollen indeed!

"OPINIONS" OF THE LORDS ON APPEAL

"LOCAL RUGBY PEOPLE WERE SKEPTICAL AND RELUCTANT TO BE EXPERIMENTED UPON!"

"CEMENT HAS BEEN MADE AT RUGBY SINCE THE TIME OF DR ARNOLD."
" After all the inhabitants of Rugby had been living with A cement works for a long time, and although it seems to have had SOME teething troubles the new state-of-the-art plant was, in principle more environmentally friendly than the old one."

DOWNLOAD JUDGEMENT AT: www.richardbuxton.co.uk
The FIVE LAW LORDS divided judgement has far-reaching implications for the environment; air quality; health; public consultation procedures;lack of access to information; necessity to reveal the truth about the main environmental impacts; implementation of Freedom of Information regulations; requirement to properly inform; the fairness of withholding crucial information; etc.


RESIDENTS SOLICITORS DUTY TO POINT OUT FACTS!
See www.solicitorsjournal.com
"One of England's leading solicitors has been castigated by two Law Lords for abusing the procedure of the House of Lords." (see details Lord Hoffmann point 66 and Lord Hope 73) Richard Buxton said that he could quite understand the House of Lords not wanting the case to be re-argued at the eleventh hour - after he took the opportunity to comment on the "in confidence" draft judgement which asked for "errors and ambiguities" to be pointed out.
* "We took the view that European law is so clear that the Supreme Court has to "get it right" - including rectifying a situation where an Environmental Impact Assessment Directive has not been properly applied. We felt it was our duty to the court to point out these facts. We are quite frankly taken aback to have received such scathing comments, but had we not done what we did, we would have been open to criticism."

GOVERNMENT LAWYERS COMMENT:
Fiona Banks, who works with Kassie Smith (www.monckton.com) who opposed Rugby residents, has written a disturbing commentary:
* FIONA says: "Fairness does not require the internal workings of a decision-maker to be disclosed as part of a public consultation"
* "Lord Hoffmann's statement that 'when the whole question of public involvement has been considered and dealt with in detail by the legislature, I do not think it is for the courts to impose a broader duty' is bound to have repercussions well beyond the facts of this particular case."

* "Similarly Lord Hoffmann's comment that 'the AQMAU documents were part of the decision-making process, prepared after a lengthy period of public consultation.If the Agency has to disclose its internal working documents for further public consultation, there is no reason why the process should ever have come to an end' opens a POTENTIALLY FRUITFUL DEFENCE FOR PUBLIC BODIES WHO HAVE FAILED TO BE WHOLLY TRANSPARENT IN THEIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS."

FIONA says: "Lord Hoffmann however considered that because the present case did not INVOLVE the CONSTRUCTION of ANYTHING, it fell outside of the EIA Directive." LORD MANCE: " Second the plan to change to tyre burning DID IN ANY EVENT involve NOT INCONSIDERABLE PHYSICAL ADAPTATION of the company's site and plant. This is described in part 4.1 of its detailed application to allow burning of tyres. They were to be discharged into a covered reception area, from which they were to be transferred by crane or mechanical conveyors into a storage area (holding up to 300 tonnes) fitted with smoke detectors linked with an alarm and with a water spray system. From that they were to be extracted mechanically and conveyed to a metering system inside the pre-heater tower, and then fed to the combustion chamber via an airlock system. All this, including the vital combustion chamber, was NEW!!"


FEW FACTS OF THE CASE:
* QUOTE "For the most part the activities were those of the IPC Permit." Not so, and in any case the IPC was completely hidden and was an unlawful "under-the-IPPC-wire" Permit granted in secret in Sept.1999!
* After all the inhabitants of Rugby had been living with A cement works for a long time." true, a small cement works - not a two million tonner built with no EIA and no planning permission in the 21st century!
* "It seems to have had SOME TEETHING troubles" and after FIVE years of "commissioning" it still has problems and frequent outages.
* "Although the company explained that burning tyres at every high temperatures would NOT produce 'unpleasant smoke', 'smells' or OTHER POLLUTION (??) the local people were "SCEPTICAL AND RELUCTANT TO BE EXPERIMENTED UPON!"
* "the ONLY breach of domestic law was the failure to disclose information about the predicted effect of the LOW LEVEL POINT SOURCE emissions of PM10 on the air quality."

Lots of things were hidden!

RBC SPENDS PUBLIC MONEY ON MONITORS TO HELP! BUT TO HELP WHO, AND BY WHAT PROCESS?
LORDS 64: "Rugby Borough Council commissioned consultants FABER MAUNSELL to make a detailed assessment of particulate emissions around the works. They produced a report in 2005." "BOTH REPORTS OF CEMEX and RBC/FABER MAUNSELL - CONFIRMED that the EQS (environmental quality standard as in regulation para 4 regulation 12 (7))) was not being exceeded."


"Faber Maunsell recommended that RBC should NOT designate an air quality management area around the works for PM10.The COUNCIL has accepted this advice." This is without any PUBLIC CONSULTATION and data was not made available, and no mention is made their EARLIER recommendation to declare a PM10 AQMA round the plant - before the instruments were recalibrated!


RUGBY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREA :
RBC POLLUTION " In November 2007 RBC published an An Air Quality Action Plan which designates RUGBY as an AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREA in respect of nitrogen dioxide, mainly caused by road traffic (800+ daily RUGBY CEMENT LORRIES?) but not in respect of PM10. The Plan says : "studies have shown no exceedences "AS A RESULT OF THE CEMEX PLANT OR THEIR OPERATIONS OF THE PM10 NATIONAL AIR QUALITY OBJECTIVES."


AIR QUALITY DATA HIDDEN!
UNDER THICK LAYER OF DUST PERHAPS?
NO reference is made to the lack air quality data, or late disclosure, and refusal to allow timely access to "adjusted" data; to the installing of the monitors in dubious locations; to the recalibration of monitors; to the non-equivalence to the European reference standards; to the wrongful use of equipment; to the removal of all and every RUGBY CEMENT/CO-INCINERATOR FORUM MEMBER from the AIR Quality group; etc
Just another example of the "public bodies failing to be wholly transparent
in their decision-making process?" As in the secret co-operation between RBC, the EA and Rugby Cement when they colluded behind closed doors to grant the secret IPC Permit in 1999, and then colluded and mislead again during the IPPC process in 2001?

* A CASE OF BATS, NOT BAT!

Press release

Rugby Cement - House of Lords judgement

*Residents of Rugby have lost their appeal about the way a permit which allows the Rugby Cement Works to operate was granted. They have claimed that information was wrongly withheld by the Environment Agency, that the permit-granting process did not comply with EU pollution control rules, and that an environmental impact assessment (EIA) was required - in circumstances where the works had never had one at all in relation to pollution control and was now operating as a waste disposal facility for waste tyres and is about to be used for incinerating household waste.

The Law Lords decided that although EIA might have been necessary (they were not sure) for the works becoming a waste disposal installation for old tyres, and some Law Lords thought that information withheld about the extent of particulate pollution should have been publicised, they agreed that there was in fact sufficient information in the public domain such that any requirement for EIA was fulfilled. Overall it was wrong, in their discretion, for the permit to be quashed and have to be reconsidered by the Environment Agency.

"This is a bad day for the people of Rugby" said Lilian Pallikaropoulos, who has been leading the campaign against the way Cemex, who now own Rugby Cement, obtained permission to operate the plant, and several other permissions dependant on it. "I have only just seen the judgement so it is hard to comment further, but it seems the House of Lords has ignored the very real concerns of local people living in the shadow of this huge plant and all the dust and other air pollution it causes and sided with the Environment Agency, which even the other courts agreed acted unfairly. I will be consulting with our legal team about what can be done."

Richard Buxton, the solicitor representing the residents, said that this judgement was a setback both for residents of Rugby and environmental law generally. "The House of Lords did, fortunately, recognise that they were possibly dealing with a waste disposal installation. Burning waste tyres cannot, as our opponents have claimed, be explained away as just a change in fuel. But otherwise it's a real shame. This could have been a signal to the world from the highest court in the land that environmental rules and procedures have to be followed. Instead the judgement is a step back from the strict approach to environmental law enforcement that the EU requires. The judgement reflects the old-fashioned slippery slope of British discretion which we thought the courts had realised was just not appropriate in these types of case. EU law demands you abide by the rules and it is surprising that the Law Lords decided to excuse what we (and the High Court and Court of Appeal) regarded as wholly unfair conduct by the Environment Agency in this case. Fortunately, even though this was a decision of the House of Lords, EU law offers ways forward on various fronts and we will be considering options carefully with our long-suffering clients".
01223-328933


THE THINGS WE WOULD RATHER YOU DID NOT KNOW!
On 15 April a shocked community member reported to the RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM subgroup how she had just discovered the surprising news, that had not been revealed to them before, (despite several opportunities for Cemex at RCCF meetings), nor apparently revealed to WCC officers/Regulatory Committee , that the "Climafuel" trials had actually started on 28th February - a month before the unconstitutional site visit (held with no witnesses) took place to inspect the unauthorised building. Apparently Officers and Councillors saw Climafuel stored there in the "unauthorised" building on 25th March but were not told, and but did not think to ask, if the Climafuel was being burnt already, and if not when would it start, apparently preferring to concentrate instead on the vitally important and pertinent question concerning where the objectors lived!

RUGBY PLANT DESCRIBED AS " LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN CEMENT MAKING"!
Oh dear - I don't think so - how wrong can you get? All wet and semi-wet pants are being closed down in Europe, but not in the UK, and there is a climate of suspicion, fear and distrust in Rugby - which has certainly not been helped by the events of the last two days! Rugby residents are suffering ever more from the presence of the monstrous plume which hovers ominously over the town as the chalk slurry is dried out above our heads, from the energy-hungry inefficient semi-wet process plant, which never was and never could be Best Available Technique! It is a case more of BATS than of BAT!

REVOCATION OR DISCONTINUANCE?

WCC TO TAKE ACTION AS PLANNING PERMISSION NOW INVALID -
DUE TO MALADMINISTRATION; IMPROPER CONDUCT AND INACCURATE APPLICATION.

WCC ARE IN A RIGHT MESS NOW!
WCC are to be investigated; a formal complaint about the Conduct of the Councillors and Officers; breached its own Constitution; unseemly haste to rush through a Cemex planning permission without due process; wasted public time and money; carried out sham consultation; used improper procedures; Secret Site visit was improper, taking over an hour, when they were only supposed to inspect "one small building"; Councillors asked inappropriate questions - like where do the objectors live! WCC should have checked the accuracy, or otherwise, of the application
as we pointed out "irregularities" and "misinformation" to them.

Council officers made such misleading risible claims as "there had been a history of 'occasional concerns' raised by residents close to the plant"; strayed off the subject of their visit; refused to listen to our complaints about misinformation and misrepresentation of the facts, and inaccuracies in the application; refused to listen to requests for EIA, and proper Public Participation; ignored requests to consider the RESIDENTS AMENITY and the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.



CEMEX ATTENDED THE REGULATORY MEETING IN A GROUP!
WCC told Cemex (8 February) to "cease work to allow your submitted planning application (4 January) to be considered by the Regulatory Committee on 1st April.
CEMEX (26 February) said of the unauthorised building "how can the public see it as it is low level"? "It is extremely unlikely that permission will be recommended to be refused", as they to built, (unauthorised) a 400 tonne waste storage building because they claim they had an open ended 1996 planning permission for a cement plant and that there is no difference! We are only going to store and burn 130,000 mixed household, commercial and industrial wastes. Oh yes and 100,000 tonnes of tyres - all stored outside in a pile ready. Its all the same to us.

CART BEFORE THE HORSE
WCC have put the cart before the horse, as Councillor Ian Smith (Conservative Caldecott) requested a site visit BEFORE the application had been heard as scheduled for 1st April. This is in contravention of the Constitution. Site visits can only take place after the application has been discussed, and only then if the paperwork is not adequate to make a judgement.
The secret site visit should never have been made, and once Cemex refused access to any witnesses, the Councillors should have postponed the visit until after the Agenda item.
The Officers report came out very late - and then only after the site visit - causing chaos at the Regulatory meeting as the Councillors said they had not had time to read the late reports.
At the Regulatory Committee some members left the room after the Agenda item began to be discussed. Those members were then illegible to vote - but they voted anyway!

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY AND INEFFICIENT WET PROCESS KILNS.
Meanwhile the Cemex Community Matters newsletter, distributed to only a few areas of Rugby, contained an Environment Agency propaganda update extolling the virtues of Cemex. This is no substitute for any discussions in Rugby. Most unfortunately for the Agency the ENDS magazine had a four page spread on Cement plants, commenting that Cemex had the worst gross emissions in 2006, and that they refused to be interviewed. This is because the Cemex plants are old-fashioned energy-intensive inefficient wet process, and in Rugby semi-wet process, and because they are built in places with no raw materials - so cannot be BAT. Cemex stated that "the plants were using BAT Best Available Techniques.... at the time of the investment." - so no comfort there. In Rugby there is a massive plume as the chalk slurry is dried out over our heads as they drive off the 40% water content. Recently the monstrous plume has been even bigger, menacingly hanging over the town, - could it be the 15 tonnes an hour of RDF -waste that also has a 15-20% moisture content - is adding to the residents problems, and damaging the town's present and future?

RUGBY RESIDENTS ARE BEING BULLIED YET AGAIN!
Why do we pay the Councillors?
Who are they working for?

ALL FOOLS DAY

LIVES UP TO ITS NAME !
WHAT COULD WE EXPECT AT WCC ON ALL FOOLS DAY? NOT A LOT! AT WCC IT WAS "BUSINESS AS USUAL" AS OFFICERS TOLD THE REGULATORY COUNCILLORS TO NOD THROUGH THE RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE CEMEX UNAUTHORISED "CLIMAFUEL" BUILDING AND CONVEYORS: "OUR POLICY IS TO BUILD FIRST AND THEN INFORM YOU!"

SO THAT CEMEX CAN ADD TO THE UK WASTE MOUNTAIN AND IMPORT COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND HOUSEHOLD WASTE REGARDLESS OF THE IMPACT ON RUGBY RESIDENTS.

HEAR NO TRUTH; SEE NO TRUTH; SPEAK NO TRUTH?

Following on from the Councillors SECRET SITE VISIT to view the unauthorised building officers and councillors failed to answer questions from objectors, nor to listen to the facts. The officer's report and the application contained misleading and inaccurate information. But what could we do? There are none so deaf as those who do not wish to hear!

A ROW ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY broke out - as is usual - about who is responsible for this mess - yet again? How were they to separate out the USE of the building from the PLAN for the building? WCC officers wrote a "persuasive encouraging report" to help gain permission. But then Councillors said the use of the building was nothing to do with them - so why did the officer major on the "benefits", and even deny that the plant is a co-incinerator governed under the WASTE INCINERATOR DIRECTIVE?


ADDRESS TO COUNCILLORS AND PUBLIC:
I am sorry that I am not with you today but I hope you are considerably more aware of what this Regulatory Committee is being asked to do by the officers than you were a few days ago when you attended the secret site visit, which has only served to jeopardise your position and standing within the community. You are instructed by the officers to grant a retrospective planning permission for a building at the RUGBY CEMEX CO-INCINERATOR to enable the burning of 360 tonnes a day, 130,000 tonnes of a refuse derived waste called CLIMAFUEL, consisting of mixed household, commercial and industrial waste, as a 100% replacement for 10 tonnes of COAL. This building has been constructed without any authorisation, and without any public consultation, any Environmental Impact Assessment, and without any Public Participation - which is a flagrant breach of the European Directives and as such in unlawful in terms of the EU Law , and under the UK Law.

WCC officers also state that the conveyors have no need of any kind of authorisation a they are merely General Permitted Development under the 1995 Town and Country Planning Act, but we challenge this as this Act has been superseded by the EIA Directive and the Public Participation Directives, and must comply with them, and cannot over ride the broad and far reaching European Directives that are designed to protect the public from unauthorised developments that impact on out environment, air quality, health and amenity. WCC appears to have a PECUNIARY interest in this development, according to the Cemex and WCC web sites and various other sites on the web which refer to the purpose of this planned building being to burn approximately 250,000 tonnes a year of Warwickshire's household wastes.

CEMEX have previously given very different information about this Climafuel to the Rugby Councillors, residents, Rugby Cement Community Forum, RBC officers and the consultant employed by RBC to assess the application than appears to be the case now. The full facts are available on the RBC web Task and Finish Group Committee papers , and in the RCCF Minutes. Cemex said:
* household waste only - not the mixed household, commercial and industrial waste it is now declared to be.
* is to be only a 30% replacement - not the 100% replacement it is now.
* that the waste is sourced from Biffa Leicester and Shanks Dagenham to help get rid of the UK waste, - but now it is IMPORTED waste to make money for Cemex and for other countries' benefits.
* that they were to burn 15 tonnes of this "UK Climafuel household waste" as a replacement for 30% of South African coal - but the truth is that they are to burn 15 tonnes IMPORTED household, commercial and industrial waste (they have signed a three year contract to import it through Grimsby) as a 100% replacement for 10 tonnes of WELSH coal. They had the TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON emission limits MASSIVELY increased in late 2005 from 10 milligrams per cubic metre (there are about one million cubic metres of gas emitted every hour from the main stack) to a daily average of 50 mg/m3 and an hourly average of 75 mg/m3 - that is a 400% and 650% increase - because they said they were burning WELSH COAL> This limit remains now in place regardless of the fact that the coal is not, so they say, from Wales, and also when 100% has been replaced by IMPORTED WASTES.
* consulted the public in 2006 ONLY on household waste, produced by the MBT process, and then another category was added , IN SECRET , of wastes treated by the " physico/chemical process of dechromatation, decyanidation and neutralisation. "
* They will not say what these wastes are nor where they come from - see EA web site for more details.


RBC COUNCILLORS asked for information on the trials at the other Cemex South Ferriby and Barrington plants to be made available - but this has not been done.
RBC asked for confirmation that this was ONLY the UK's household waste that was to be burnt - as opposed to IMPORTED commercial and industrial waste - which has not been done.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY has refused to answer any questions from the public or to attend any meetings of the Rugby Cement Community Forum since July 2007. This CO-INCINERATOR plant is governed under the WASTE INCINERATOR DIRECTIVE.

The EA has refused to say why the waste burning emissions and PRODUCTS OF INCOMPLETE COMBUSTION are so much worse for the local air quality and environment and our HEALTH than the PICs from Coal? In the PPC permit Cemex have to stop burning tyres and wastes when things go wrong (start up/shut down/under 200 tonnes an hour raw feed, emission limits breached etc) and to start burning coal. Cemex have to pay £60 a tonne for coal instead of being paid about £30 a tonnes to burn the waste tyres and Climafuel... so they are about £90 a tonne worse off!! The EA refuse to answer any questions about why they have now permitted industrial and commercial wastes (imported) to be burnt , and not what they originally consulted the public on. The EA have refused to answer questions about why they increased DANGEROUS emission limits by 400-650% on the "pretext" of WELSH coal being burnt.

WE CALL UPON YOU TO DEFER THIS APPLICATION:
WE REGARD THE DEVELOPMENTS AT THIS PLANT AS UNLAWFUL IN TERMS OF BOTH THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND UK LAWS:

1) for a full investigation of the FACTS and ALL THE REPORTS related to the application.
2) for a full consideration by Rugby Councillors and Rugby residents and the RCCF - to comply with the PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DIRECTIVE.
3) for a full investigation of the WCC pecuniary interest.
4) for a full ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT - or at least the submission
of a scoping report.
5) for a DISPERSION MODEL TO BE SUBMITTED as clearly the buildings/conveyors etc will IMPACT on the dispersion and INCREASE pollution and HEALTH IMPACT locally. This has NOT been considered.
6) for a FULL DESCRIPTION of ALL THE WASTES - the QUANTITIES and EU WASTE CODES and CHEMICAL ANALYSIS and STORAGE being used at the CO-INCINERATOR are revealed and the necessary permissions applied for.
7) for a consideration of why Cemex is so opposed to the public seeing what is happening at the plant and only wishes to hold "secret" meetings with Councillors .
8) for a full investigation into how this plant has had SO MANY RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING APPLICATIONS with no EIA; no Public Participation; no proper procedures; with the truth being hidden from the Regulatory Councillors; and how has changed from being a "one million tonne a year capacity cement plant" as applied for in 1996, into a "two million tonne a year capacity CO-INCINERATOR burning 100% waste tyres and other imported non-domestic wastes".
9) for a full investigation into the allegations of the WCC's maladministration , and failure to follow the UK and EU Law has been concluded.
10) for the secret Duty of Care and Waste Transfer notes to be revealed for public scrutiny.

Thank you for your attention or is that inattention?
NO ONE IS LISTENING - ABOUT RUGBY! - THE WASTE DUMP!