Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
RUGBY SURVIVAL KIT!
CEMEX RUGBY 500,000 tpa WASTE PROCESSING PLANT -
NOISE; DUST; ODOUR; POLLUTION; LORRIES
ALL TO BE CONTROLLED BY HIGH TECH SOLUTION
WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL SAYS DUMP IT IN RUGBY!
WITH A GRUMBLE HOT-LINE FOR COMPLAINTS - A PROBLEM SHARED IS A PROBLEM HALVED!
"WHAT IS BAD FOR SOUTHAM IS EQUALLY BAD FOR RUGBY!" said the thinking councillor. These two applications were described by WCC officers as "IDENTICAL IN EVERY WAY" and there was "NO MEANS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THEM!" We cannot make ANY comparison because they are EXACTLY THE SAME - except for - the differences.
DESPITE THE CEMEX OFFER OF £1,700,000 SECTION 106 TO UPGRADE ROADS IT WAS THROWN OUT AT SOUTHAM ON GROUNDS OF: ODOUR; NOISE FROM FANS;
HEAVY LORRIES, NOISE, VIBRATION, LACK OF SLEEP; HOUSES FALLING DOWN; CANNOT CROSS ROADS; CHILDREN ENDANGERED; SCHOOLS INACCESSIBLE; ROAD DAMAGE, ACCIDENTS CAUSED; VERMIN; FLIES; AND POLLUTION, ESPECIALLY NITROGEN DIOXIDE LIKE THEY HAVE IN RUGBY IN THE AQMA - FROM LORRIES!! CEMEX HAS 800+ LORRIES IN RUGBY ALREADY SO A FEW MORE HUNDRED EACH DAY WILL REALLY HELP IMPROVE AIR QUALITY THERE!! SOUTHAM IS NOT TO BE A WASTE DUMP AND WE MUST PROTECT THE VILLAGES!
RUGBY COUNCILLORS FAILED TO SHOW UP
One WCC councillor said he could have had more concern for the people of Rugby if their Councillors had turned up. A planning officer CRITICISED RBC EHO's air quality report against the proposal for contradicting themselves. Councillors should NOT consider air quality and the AQMA for nitrogen dioxide from HGVs as an issue.
The Environment Agency would/could GUARANTEE the emissions in their forthcoming permit - no need to consider POLLUTION as the Agency would take care AFTER IT WAS BUILT! Just as they do with
the Cemex Cement co-incinerator? WCC thought that the "proximity principle" ONLY applied to building the waste plant NEXT to the Cemex plant, and did NOT apply to the proximity to the WASTE ARISINGS. Waste from ends of earth is fine - for Rugby.
LOCATION is very "nice and convenient" on a CKD landfill, next to the historic River Avon and cement plant that had always been there all their 70 years, and was so good to see and and had a lovely view from the tower. "Goose or dove wing grey" would match existing plant, and not show cement dust all over it. One lady councillor hoped the re-opening of the
landfill would not have a "CORBY" effect.
SO CONVENIENT FOR WASTE - a lovely new Western Relief Road right up to it and a beautiful roundabout. And they would have a lovely conveyor IF they could get it passed after FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT
over the West Coast mainline. That is RICHARD BRANSON'S PROBLEM!
EMISSIONS: HEALTH EFFECTS?
As long as we can say that "ground level pollution is less than the objective" we can do what we want, and also get £1,700,000 highways money.
Short term pollution incidents were not considered nor were any cumulative effects. Health?
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU?
INCREASE IN TOXIC EMISSIONS
YEAR ON YEAR - PERMITTED IN SECRET BY ENVIRONMENT AGENCY!
HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU?
DEFRA DOES NOT KNOW WHAT ENVIRONMENT AGENCY ARE UP TO IN DEFRA'S NAME!
DEFRA 15 October 2009: "The annual releases of the plant remain well below the MAXIMUM LEVELS allowed by the Permit. The Environment Agency assessed these maximum levels as environmentally acceptable when the ORIGINAL Permit application was determined." Actually, Defra is TOTALLY WRONG! The original IPC Permit was granted IN SECRET contrary to EU and UK Law in September 1999 , before the plant was built, and operated in February 2000. Quite simply there was NO public consultation of any kind, and NO Environment Agency assessment , as it was all carried out in July 1999 IN the GREATEST SECRECY and no MAXIMUM LEVELS were set!!
IPPC APPLICATION in 2001 : (granted August 2003) again there were no maximum levels, and no-one was told that 'year on year' they could WILFULLY INCREASE the pollution year on year "up to the (secret?) maximum level "!! The EA naturally cannot provide any paperwork of 'maximum levels' or of 'any of the public response to that'. Imagine the scene : "We at the Agency reserve the right to increase and increase toxic pollution onto you for ever, increasing and increasing up to a set maximum that we have decided, in secret and we refuse to tell you anything about it." Would have gone down a bomb?!
DEFRA GLOATING:
"The suggestion that an appropriate ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT for the plant has never been carried out has been thoroughly tested and dismissed. This was concluded from a Judicial Review of the Environment Agency's 2003 decision to grant a Permit under the PPC Regulations 2000. This has been repeatedly upheld by the Courts up to the House of Lords, who dismissed the final appeal in April 2008 and awarded the Environment Agency costs." "The Court of Appeal recognised that the EIA Directive is not absolutely clear in respect of the use of waste-based substitute fuels, but were unanimous that IF an EIA was required by the Directive, then the environmental assessment which formed part of the application for the PPC permit had met that requirement." ER no SORRY - once again this is all untrue.
MISINFORMATION and MISDIRECTION RESULTS: The House of Lords gave no reasons for their bizarre decision, but we can only assume they were wrongly persuaded by the "supposedly trustworthy" Agency lawyers? Result - Mrs P now has to pay over £100,000 because the EA, acting on Defra's behalf, has not told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and has MISDIRECTED the courts both on the substance of the case, and about the Rugby residents and about me personally. The EA has made sworn witness statements claiming such: No-one has any concern in Rugby, or elsewhere, about the ongoing (INCREASES) emissions at the plant; this is of no public interest; she is one wealthy individual, who is all alone, with her own private campaign; there is no interest in Rugby or elsewhere (except of course masses of interest to the UK government and European Courts!) and no one else is prepared to speak up about this injustice - and more such drivel! When asked to provide any PROOF for such ridiculous claims the EA has been unable to supply one bit of evidence - for the very obvious reasons.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY:
And Defra say the Environment Agency told us this? Pull the other leg!
ACCESS TO JUSTICE?
Not in the UK.
Not for anyone who tells the truth.
HUMAN RIGHTS?
Not applicable to Rugby!
HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU?
DEFRA DOES NOT KNOW WHAT ENVIRONMENT AGENCY ARE UP TO IN DEFRA'S NAME!
DEFRA 15 October 2009: "The annual releases of the plant remain well below the MAXIMUM LEVELS allowed by the Permit. The Environment Agency assessed these maximum levels as environmentally acceptable when the ORIGINAL Permit application was determined." Actually, Defra is TOTALLY WRONG! The original IPC Permit was granted IN SECRET contrary to EU and UK Law in September 1999 , before the plant was built, and operated in February 2000. Quite simply there was NO public consultation of any kind, and NO Environment Agency assessment , as it was all carried out in July 1999 IN the GREATEST SECRECY and no MAXIMUM LEVELS were set!!
IPPC APPLICATION in 2001 : (granted August 2003) again there were no maximum levels, and no-one was told that 'year on year' they could WILFULLY INCREASE the pollution year on year "up to the (secret?) maximum level "!! The EA naturally cannot provide any paperwork of 'maximum levels' or of 'any of the public response to that'. Imagine the scene : "We at the Agency reserve the right to increase and increase toxic pollution onto you for ever, increasing and increasing up to a set maximum that we have decided, in secret and we refuse to tell you anything about it." Would have gone down a bomb?!
DEFRA GLOATING:
"The suggestion that an appropriate ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT for the plant has never been carried out has been thoroughly tested and dismissed. This was concluded from a Judicial Review of the Environment Agency's 2003 decision to grant a Permit under the PPC Regulations 2000. This has been repeatedly upheld by the Courts up to the House of Lords, who dismissed the final appeal in April 2008 and awarded the Environment Agency costs." "The Court of Appeal recognised that the EIA Directive is not absolutely clear in respect of the use of waste-based substitute fuels, but were unanimous that IF an EIA was required by the Directive, then the environmental assessment which formed part of the application for the PPC permit had met that requirement." ER no SORRY - once again this is all untrue.
MISINFORMATION and MISDIRECTION RESULTS: The House of Lords gave no reasons for their bizarre decision, but we can only assume they were wrongly persuaded by the "supposedly trustworthy" Agency lawyers? Result - Mrs P now has to pay over £100,000 because the EA, acting on Defra's behalf, has not told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and has MISDIRECTED the courts both on the substance of the case, and about the Rugby residents and about me personally. The EA has made sworn witness statements claiming such: No-one has any concern in Rugby, or elsewhere, about the ongoing (INCREASES) emissions at the plant; this is of no public interest; she is one wealthy individual, who is all alone, with her own private campaign; there is no interest in Rugby or elsewhere (except of course masses of interest to the UK government and European Courts!) and no one else is prepared to speak up about this injustice - and more such drivel! When asked to provide any PROOF for such ridiculous claims the EA has been unable to supply one bit of evidence - for the very obvious reasons.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY:
"Mrs P repeatedly conflates quite discrete issues, explains complex issues inaccurately, and approaches scientific issues in a simplistic and unscientific manner. She attempts to equate absence of scientific uncertainty with certainty of harm, which is a profoundly incorrect approach. Fundamentally Mrs P fails to acknowledge - but she does not and cannot contradict - a plethora of evidence now showing that (a) the 'normal' operation of the Rugby Cement works does not cause and never caused a significant environmental impact and (b) that the introduction of wastes as fuel has produced significant environmental improvements in performance."
i.e YEAR ON YEAR MASSIVE INCREASES IN TOXIC POLLUTANTS out of all proportion to any claimed increase in production!!
And Defra say the Environment Agency told us this? Pull the other leg!
ACCESS TO JUSTICE?
Not in the UK.
Not for anyone who tells the truth.
HUMAN RIGHTS?
Not applicable to Rugby!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
