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!
No comments:
Post a Comment