BATTLE OF THE GIANTS:

EA; WCC; TREASURY; CEMEX and MRS P: she who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day!

FOUL PLAY AT WARWICKS COUNTY COUNCIL

WCC are STILL in total disarray over waste plant refusal at Southam as the OFFICERS ATTEMPT to "re-write history" - the "exact reasons" why the county councillors went against the officers recommendation and said NO!! to the Southam application. For 18 months WCC officers and CEMEX insisted the two applications were identical, but on the 17 November MOB RULE was theme of the day as the councillors were over whelmed by Southam supporters.

Of course they cannot invent reasons why Rugby is a "better site" as actually it is by far the "worse site" - but cheaper for CEMEX who always get what they want!

DECEMBER 14 REGULATORY CHAOS IN "CARRY ON COUNCILLORS!!" (See WCC web)

WCC Discriminates : by the naming of only one person (no prizes for guessing who) out of all the public present. Why? WCC keeps incorrect/incomplete minutes for 17 Nov - none of councillors' reasons for refusing Southam minuted; motion against Rugby omitted: WCC causes distress to the six Councillors present at both meetings - who were unable to agree minutes/reasons for refusal. (Councillors Joan Lea; Jose Compton; Eithne Goode;Clare Hopkinson; Mike Perry; Chris Williams.) WCC's solicitor P Endall says they "cannot give the reasons for refusal of Southam waste plant today due to intense work pressure." HA!


START A BRAVE NEW YEAR?
One thinking councillor asks "where does this planning decision stand if no reasons have been given?" Jasbir Kaur says "Minutes now public - we only have to give correct planning reasons, correct terminology for the reasons for refusal, that members gave. (hmm!) We are minded to give no reasons, but to leave it over until the next meeting - next year in 2010!" Councillor: "Its about the process, and if it was not formally agreed and reasons given for refusal I cannot see that it is refused and legal?" "I agree! This is an incorrect process and is not minuted - the reasons for refusal - and it is not valid." Rugby Councillors Cllr Robbins and Hazelton then BRAVELY left the room - because they did not want to hear what was said about it. (HOW VERY ODD??)


CLLRS TRAINING - TO REOPEN APPLICATION
Cllr Sweet said " We have training and If you refuse a planning permission you have to give the planning reasons - I was not here - so will the full application come again before this committee to give the reasons?" Cllr Joan Lea Chair said : " that the reasons had been given VERY CLEARLY at the meeting - but just not written down - just not minuted." HOW VERY VERY ODD!! J Kaur said : "the reasons given were traffic, and others things, and whatever they were we have to make them clear and give them to you." P Endall: " Jasbir can correct me if I am wrong; the decision to refuse must be set out. It is complex, therefore not the reasons stated by the councillors in cases of great complexity. This is too complex and sometimes it is necessary to take the reasons given by the members and take them away and re-write them - write them in planning terms that would not be subject to a legal challenge."


CEMEX NOT TO CHALLENGE - BUT PUBLIC MIGHT!
"How many days do they get for making a challenge?" Officer: "I do not think they will challenge as they had the Rugby permission." Cllr Jose Compton: "I appreciate there are pressures on the officers - but now I would not be happy to say that it was what they said. If there is pressure on the officers they should have finished that off, not bring in more things." Cllr Williams: "So what is happening about the Decision Notice?" Officer: "It does not have one yet - they could appeal against non-determination." "We may be in danger of trespassing on legal time limit." Cllr: "So where doe it leave us?" Peter Endall: "This is slightly different because there were 2 applications and given that the other was passed they will not be challenging."


LESS THAN IDEAL - OR COMPLETE FIASCO?
Cllr: "I cannot accept it!" Cllr: "And I cannot accept it!" P Endall: "It is less than ideal not to give the reason." "Do we need an extraordinary meeting to look at it - to look at reasons for refusal. There is a 40 day time limit, and this is dreadfully bad practice." Councillors cries of "Here Here!!" P Endall: "We will go way and discuss and send out an email today to say whether we need a SPECIAL (in secret???) meeting to give the reasons for refusal - if this is necessary?"


OMBUDSMAN - MALADMINISTRATION
I commented that "Such malpractice and maladministration is disgraceful and unacceptable behavior." Mrs Lea shouting me down from the Chair said I was not to speak! BUT she seems to forget that they have a duty to the public as well - not just to their masters - Cemex!!! OMBUDSMAN should investigate this ABUSE OF PROCESS - yet another WCC environmental disaster, in which the officers misled and misinformed the councillors, by trying to "pretend" the two applications were identical so as to get around the EIA REQUIREMENT to compare the applications openly, and honestly, so that the councillors and public had guidance from the professionals involved. Instead the two applications were treated as "completely separate", but as "completely identical". Many public meetings went on in Southam while Rugby residents were REFUSED any public meetings. County Councillor Gordon Collett , still clutching the keys to the £22,500 CEMEX minibus, (he who said of waste burning in the 2006 meeting - "thank you Cemex - if we do not get hysterical we can get this through!" came in very heavy handed to not only one, but two Rugby Community Cement Forum meetings and insisted that there could be NO PUBLIC MEETINGS IN RUGBY! He said it would be "scare mongering" and "rabble rousing" to allow the people of Rugby to meet and discuss the issues. The very limited Cemex presentation at Rugby was ONLY for Rugby and not about Southam - so how could anyone compare? The whole thing was a stitch-up and a con by Cemex and WCC officers and some disreputable councillors.

GAME IS UP!
There was no comparison; no proper Environmental Impact Assessment; no BPEO; no Proximity Principle; no consideration of the full cumulative Cemex health impact; no consideration of sensitive lorry miles; no consideration of alternative transport; no consideration of the CORBY effect of digging up the CKD landfill; no consideration of harm and loss of amenity; WCC officers said to ignore Rugby Boroough Councils 70 page report. Once again Warwickshire County Council bow down to their masters at Rugby Cement and engage in malpractice to the great disbenefit and harm to RUGBY and its 60,000 residents - as 48 Rugby Councillors "run away!"