SIMPSONS TO TAKE OVER RUGBY

"HOW IS IT THAT ALL THE SMART PEOPLE HAVE NO POWER AND ALL THE STUPID PEOPLE RUN THE TOWN?"

..asks L Simpson in a letter to the Advertiser about Rugby.

"Forget Evreux, forget Russelheim - surely by the control Cemex seems to have over the Council, and in particular the planning office, isn't it now time for us to be brought into the 21st century and be twinned with Sprigfield USA - home of the Simpsons?! I returned to Rugby after nine years in the north west to be alarmed to see there was a huge "nuclear power plant" at the site where the little old chimney for Rugby Cement used to be. In fact that little old chimney had metamorphosed into that monstrosity that is seen for miles and miles around - a true blot on the landscape. Who allowed planning for that, and how could Rugby Council sell us out and let it happen?"

"It seems to me that over the years it has been a case that what the cement works wants the cement works gets, and as quickly as our local representatives and the Department of the Environment can make it happen, irrespective of local opinion and the population in general" writes Geoff, Long Lawford resident.

NEW BILTON SIDING IS OPEN SPACE: according to Rugby's Local Plan, 2006, which shows it clearly marked as disused and in green! But Network Rail say they have been using it for 8+ years so why did they not put the coal trains on it to Rugby Cement, and save 30,000 lorry miles each year in Rugby town centre? They seem to want it all ways!

WALKER SUPPORT SERVICES are involved and CONSTRUCTION is going on with no consultation nor planning application. Local residents have NOT even been informed despite the Public Register claim by EWS/ Walker to have carried out:
"Significant Interaction with external organisations:
* Cemex plant and personnel;
* also home-owners on opposite side of proposed works."

RBC: we do not know if it needs planing permission. We think it is open space and disused.

WCC: we do not know if it needs planning permission. There are so many lorries on the roads going to the cement works it would be better to put them on the railway. "Air quality problems in Rugby are directly related to the large number of peak hour vehicles and HGVs travelling through the town centre." And no we do not know why we put them there!

WESTERN RELIEF ROAD: we do not know how 400 lorries a week are going to cross the road from the new New Bilton Sidings to the cement works.

EWS: we have submitted out of date maps. We do not need any planning permission, or to tell any local residents who will be affected by noise and pollution.

CEMEX DEADLINE:
Last coal delivery Rugby station 21st December. First coal delivery New Bilton 3rd January.. If coal supply is to be stockpiled it will need to be 5,600 tonnes - 700 tonnes for 8 days!

OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS TO SHUT WORKS: LATEST for RBC EHO to grant LICENCE 21st Dec. "If the New Bilton Environmental Licence application response is negative there will be not be sufficient time to implement alternative arrangements." Shame!


This was all being "sneaked" through nicely, as they shut down the Rugby Cement Community Forum, concealed the information, and applications, and endeavoured to prevent all meetings and discussions, refusing to meet or talk with the community, and pretended the Environment Council was negotiating with the public in an "open honest transparent" manner, and trying to "move forward together." But move forward to where? The battle to wrest control of OUR Town, OUR environment, OUR air quality, and OUR health from CEMEX IS A TUG OF WAR MORE LIKE!

240,000 MILES OF CEMENT LORRIES IN RUGBY

THIS CENTURY WERE TOTALLY UNNECESSARY SAYS OUR RELIABLE SAUCE.

THE RAILWAY TO THE CEMENT WORKS "NEW BILTON SIDING" HAS BEEN FULLY OPERATIONAL SINCE BEFORE THE NEW CEMENT WORKS WAS BUILT!

ANY ENVIRONMENTALLY MINDED COMPANY COULD AND SHOULD, HAVE USED IF FOR COAL DELIVERIES - SAVING RUGBY RESIDENTS FROM 20,000 CEMENT PLANT LORRIES EVERY YEAR!

"The New Bilton Sidings is a part of the operational Network Rail network. This includes all tracks within the area, on both sides of the gates adjacent to the footpath crossing, and as far as the Lawford Road bridge. Beyond that point, the railway is disused, and has been formally closed. "

"The track layout was modernised and relaid in the late 1990's, and has been used by engineering trains, and for the transfer of road rail vehicles for track maintenance."

* Any suggestions why Rugby Cement have not used the railway to the plant? * Couldn't be anything to do with their PROFIT before our health and environment could it? * How much more would it have cost them to take the train to the works, instead of having 400 lorries a week in "lorry trains" through Rugby town? * Now they are being "forced", by the Rugby Station Remodel to use the line, and they try to pass it off a "gift" to residents? * Perhaps some kind of cost/benefit and environmental appraisal could have been done?
At the end of the day who is responsible for this fiasco, and unnecessary environmental damage and detriment? Who has failed to REGULATE and ENFORCE BEST PRACTISE?

NETWORK RAIL - provided the line last century.

RUGBY CEMENT - took the cheapest option for them - PROFIT!

WARWICKS CC - FAILED to make it planning CONDITION!

RUGBY BC - repeatedly gave Permits for unnecessary lorries.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY - say transport nothing to do with them, and that they never considered how to get 5 MILLION TONNES of material in and out of the works when they were helping Rugby Cement to build the new plant in this location.

Haven't they ever heard : Location, location, location?

CEMENT PLANT PLOT UNFOLDS!

RUGBY COUNCIL PERMITS 160,000 EXTRA LORRIES TO POLLUTE TOWN CENTRE

AS CEMEX TO BENEFIT BY £ HUNDREDS THOUSANDS TAX PAYERS MONEY!

AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT ZONE! NITROGEN DIOXIDE SOARS AS RUGBY POLLUTED BY LORRIES as Borough Council incompetents in the so-called "Environmental Health" Office cause polluting unsheeted coal lorries to jam town roads. Cemex finally admit to 600-800 lorry movements a day, up from a total 270 in 2003.

RAIL STATION TO CEMENT PLANT EWS applied in 1997 for a "permit to pollute Rugby" with a claimed extra 200 lorries a week to transport coal from the station to the Rugby cement plant by road. No BATNEEC assessment, as required by Law, was carried out. No Environmental Assessment as required was carried out. Simple Rugby Council gave Permit 31/EPA/3.4 & without a second thought permitted UNNECCESSARY
* extra 10,000 lorry journeys a year,
* extra 15,000 lorry miles a year in Rugby town centre.

In 2003 RBC EHO gave another permit 31/PPC/3.4 and the lorries had increased by then to a claimed 80 a day, five days a week = 400 a week. No public consultation, no BAT assessment, no consideration for the environment and no consideration for health even though air quality and lorries had become HUGE ISSUE S - RBC permitred the UNNECESSARY
* extra 20,000 lorry journeys a year
* extra 30,000 lorry miles in Rugby town centre.

RUGBY COUNCIL ENCOURAGES LORRIES IN TOWN
At a conservative estimate Rugby Borough Council has unnecessarily, and without any consideration for the environment, air quality, and the health of residents, even when it knew that an AQMA was necessary for heath protection, permitted at least 160,000 extra lorries on our roads for NO REASON AT ALL.

CONSERVATIVE CALCULATION:
1998-2001 10,000 X 4 = 40,000 extra journeys.
2002-2007 20,000 x 6 = 120,000 extra journeys.
TOTAL ten years = 160,000 extra journeys

Rugby Borough Council has always claimed it could do nothing about the cement plant traffic, and has always blamed the Warwickshire County Council Planning department for this environmental LORRY disaster, but now it emerges that the EHO actually DELIBERATELY permitted these unnecessary

240,000 EXTRA MILES run by CEMENT lorries in Rugby Town!

EWS FREIGHT TRAIN GRANTS FOR CEMEX SIDINGS In order to now remove these SLM's
SENSITIVE LORRY MILES off the town centre roads, valued at £1.74 per mile in the Calculation of Environmental Index, EWS have now received grants:
£266,625 EWS REPS B CEMEX
£199,584 EWS REPS B CEMEX
REPS is Environmental Benefit Procurement System. EWS also had cemex related grants of £150,000 in 2006-2007. For further information see Minister Tom Harris and Rail Freight Conference June, and Press release July 2007.

£417, 600 IN ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE TO RUGBY So how much has Rugby Borough Council cost the long-suffering Rugby Residents and Council Tax payers through its negligence - not to mention Health effects? How much has RBC cost the National Health Service?

240,000 miles at £1.74 = £417,600 calculated as environmental disbenefit for a start!

RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM And now RBC, in conjunction with Cemex and the so-called "Environment" Agency, haveshut down the Forum, after years of withholding information - or as they prefer to say "simply omitting to tell you" which in their book is not one and the same as hiding! As the editor of the Rugby Advertiser said 1 November:
"I THINK that some of the activities being carried out on behalf of CEMEX are taking place with undue speed and lack of decorum."

UNLAWFUL PLANNING AND OPERATING OF CEMENT PLANT It all re-inforces what I have always said, that the planning permission/s given by Warwickshire County Council were unlawful containing NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT, and no assessment for the transport to and from the works, and no BAT/BATNEEC assessment and no comparisons, as required by Law, with other possible sites and other modes of transport. A condition could have been applied to insist on the use of rail access, but this was not done, it now turns out deliberately, because the freight/cement plant could not get a GRANT to renew the line IF it was a planning condition to re-instate. Grants had been available all through the 1990's and the money offered was not taken up. Presumably because the Rail Freight Operators did not want the extra inconvenience and cost to them of using the New Bilton sidings?

WARWICKSHIRE CC OBJECTED TO COAL UNLOADING IN RUGBY WCC/Rugby Cement could have had, and probably did have in 1996 a "gentleman's agreement" to re instate rail links, and this might explain why WCC sent a very irate letter of OBJECTION to RBC when the first 1997 application for the unloading of coal at Rugby station , and transport through the town came in. WCC said "it makes no sense to bring all those coal lorries into the town centre and roads of Rugby when you can:
RE-OPEN THE NEW BILTON SIDINGS to get the coal directly into the plant."

RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL IGNORES COUNTY But Rugby rotten Council took no notice of the WCC OBJECTION and although to this day RBC continue to lay ALL the blame for RUGBY'S TRAFFIC and AIR QUALITY problems at the door of WCC, it is now revealed that RBC have DELIBERATELY DONE this to Rugby. No wonder they wanted to shut down the RCCF! SHARPISH!

DISUSED RAILWAY NEW BILTON

OR PUBLIC FOOTPATH?
Local walkers keep on bashing down the fence in order to access Network Rail's disused siding at New Bilton Rugby, where the re-modelling of the Rugby Station has caused the Rugby Cemex cement coal trains to be diverted from December, if permission can be obtained. Local ramblers claim to have been using the path regularly for 20 years, but EWS have advertised a public consultation into the LA-PPC permit to re-open the long disused line, now their access dispute with Network Rail is resolved.

In the meantime Cemex and WCC have attempted to temporarily close the Black Path that runs in parallel with the railway, along the edge of the quarry, with a drop of hundreds of feet, as apparently the quarry edge is subsiding, and walkers are in danger. The quarry path, fenced only with a small wire fence, has officially been cut off for six months, but no solution has been found. Cemex must either shore up and fence the path, or divert , possibly onto Network Rail's land. Seemingly the price tag of the rumoured £100,000 is too much. But several people have already
died in the other old cement plant quarry in Rugby, so the price tag would
surely appear reasonable.

Despite the "supposed" public consultation just starting, with EWS railways and RBC, into the LA-PPC application which has not been properly completed, it seems that Network Rail is already pushing on, clearing the line and cutting down trees in readiness for the 1600 tonne coal trains.
One wonders how safe the quarry path will be when the heavy trains start rumbling alongside there if it is already subsiding under the pressure of footfalls?

The Ordinance Survey map marks the railway as disused, so it seems the row will rumble on for a long time before the coal trains rumble along! What contingency plan do Cemex have if this plan to get 800 tonnes of coal each day into the works gets the thumbs down from Rugby Borough Council and the Rugby residents?

CEMENT FIRM PALTRY CONTRIBUTION £650,000
With the chaos currently being caused by the construction of the Western Relief Road, for which Rugby Cement is paying only a paltry £650,000 towards the construction of a roundabout at its plant, Rugby residents are wondering if Warwickshire County Council has sold out "Rugby town" too cheaply?

RBC TO CAUSE CEMENT PLANT CLOSURE?

AS LOCAL AUTHORITY POTENTIAL REFUSAL OF EWS LA-PPC APPLICATION STARVES CEMENT PLANT OF COAL.


DISUSED RAIL SIDING APPLICATION DISCLOSURE SHOCKS REDROW RESIDENTS! The advert to re-open the disused long-closed railway, described in the Rugby Observer 18/10 page 59 as New Bilton Sidings, off Lawford "Lane", was placed by applicant EWS, and is to request a new LAPPC Permit at a new site to bring in coal and other materials for burning at Rugby Cement. RBC is to consider the application which has arisen because the remodelling of the Rugby railway station HAS effectively cut the Cemex coal supply route!

People living in the new Willans Works Redrow Houses were very surprised to hear about this, as no neighbourhood notices had been sent out, and the Local Authority Searches had not revealed these plans, even though it now seems that they had been discussed frequently with Network Rail and EWS since 2004. It appears RBC had been kept in the dark by all those involved, despite this application having been considered for several years. EWS states that they do not need any planning application, to re-open the disused siding, and RBC officers are now looking into this claim.

ACCESS DISPUTES PANEL ADP13 KINGS CROSS 29 FEBRUARY 2006.
The controversy is set to grow as there is apparently some considerable difficulty about how this rail siding can be accessed, and egressed, by the 1,600 tonne train with 22 wagons. It seems that the train departing from the sidings would have to run for some of its journey in the wrong direction, i.e. down on the "UP TV Fast" line, from Newbold to High Oaks, where it would cross to the "Down TV Slow" line. We understand from the publicly available documents that the margins for these movements have been examined by by NETWORK RAIL, and recorded in an email on Tuesday 10th January 2006 sent to EWS.


NETWORK RAIL SPECIALIST QUOTE:
"I have carefully examined the requirement for a margin for a 1600 tonne freight train starting from Rugby Up Yard in a northerly direction and would advise as follows: The route taken is to depart the Up Yard via RN4179 signal to move onto the UP TV Slow as far as Newbold Junction, thence via RN9187 where the train would run in the wrong direction on the Up TV Fast, and finally via RN9669 at High Oaks where the train would cross to the Down TV Slow.

In my professional opinion the time required for such a move would be Rugby Up Yard xx.00, Newbold Junction xx/05, High Oaks xx/07. When we examine the margins for such a movement we estimate that a 10 minute clear slot will be needed in total on the UP TV Slow to get to Newbold Junction and a separate 7 minute clear slot on the UP TV Fast. We have examined the existing (not ideally flighted) presentation of trains and feel that such a movement can be accommodated in most daylight standards hours when no exceptional trains exist, e.g. not morning or evening peak, or when a fast Glasgow or Holyhead runs."

While Rugby residents concede that Network Rail's business is in running the railways, and not in the politics of it all we wonder if Network Rail should be going to such great lengths to accommodate this unlawful Cement factory, and its supplier, EWS?

This situation has arisen because Warwickshire County Council has unlawfully granted various planning permission/s, and the Environment Agency has granted various unlawful IPC/IPPC Permits, for a cement factory cum co-incinerator, with no Environmental Impact Assessment. The public were never consulted at all on each/every aspect, and there was never any proper study for the rail access of 1,600 tonne trains, or for the road access for the 800-1,000 daily juggernauts (5/6 axils) to this New Rugby Works, which was opened in the 21st century,(February 2000), on the upwind western edge of a densely populated urban area's smokeless zone.

WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR VOICE OF REASON TO BE HEARD?
Exactly what does it take to show that this huge co-incinerating cement factory is SIMPLY IN THE WRONG PLACE! It presents an ever increasing risk to the residents of Rugby, and now apparently to the travellers on the railway, as the authorities bend over backwards as they try to accommodate Cemex's burning desire for over 7,000 tonnes of raw materials and fuel each, and every, day. Rugby's long-suffering 90,000 residents, battered, pulped, misinformed, mislead, bamboozled, stifled, squeezed, bankrupted, cheated and controlled by the so-called "Authorities", now find themselves totally dominated by Cemex, who have now, in secret consultations, cancelled all the publicly announced meetings of the Rugby Cement Community Forum, in favour of some informal discussions with the Environment Council.

RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL NOW HAVE THE BALL, but do they have the balls?
RBC at last have it within their power to halt this madness and blight, and to simply REFUSE the LAPPC application! At a stroke
STARVING the energy-hungry monster of its fuel/s, and forcing its closure! A happy ending as RBC rescues Rugby for its inhabitants!

DUMPING GROUND?

(please click on image to enlarge)

REFUSE DERIVED FUEL OR TRASH BURNING?
The Environment Agency has decided to turn Rugby into a "DUMPING GROUND" for household and commercial waste, as Cemex wins right to burn London's trash. Cemex imports waste from Holland, through the Associated British Ports, on a three years contract, because, as the Agency says in a letter 22 October:
QUOTE:

"It has become clear that the UK waste industry can't reliably produce this material to a standard that can be used to fuel cement kilns. Cemex has taken a commercial decision to obtain this material from overseas. This is a matter for them, and the AGENCY is CONTENT for this material to be imported under the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste controls. The waste is shipped for "energy recovery" and agreed to on the basis that the waste has been produced to a specification and has a positive calorific value."

(The Agency is referring to RDF trials at Cemex South Ferriby and Barrington, where emissions of metals have soared, lumps of metal appeared in the clinker, stops/starts increased, "fuel" feeding mechanisms have broken down, etc as the locals have been experimented on during these "trials")

QUOTE:

"You are unhappy, it seems, that we are not incorporating the TRANSPORT IMPACTS of this operation into our assessment relating to the cement plant in Rugby. You are well aware that this cannot be done within our regulatory regime, and we have discussed this many times already."

But it is not only me, but also the 60,000 RUGBY RESIDENTS who are justifiably MORE than "UNHAPPY" with the 24/7 convoys of hundreds of juggernauts shaking our town, roads, houses to virtual collapse, and polluting our air, as caused by the Environment Agency.

LACK OF JOINED UP THINKING AND FAILURE TO CARRY OUT ANY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Could it possibly be that the Agency ponders "Environmental impact assessment - what is that?
No we see no point in looking at the overall Environmental Impact. It does not suit our overall aim for Rugby. We like to keep all the environmental impacts as separate as possible, and that way we can keep on adding bits, bits bits, with no sum total! We are subjecting Rugby to the boiling the frog treatment! We have got away with it for years because there has been no intelligent opposition. Even is the 90,000 residents of the whole Rugby Borough came and protested we would take no notice of them. We are the Agency, and we are unaccountable, and free to use and abuse the Rugby environment as Rugby Cement sees fit."

THE AGENCY WANTS MORE PEOPLE TO DEBATE as, fresh from working with Cemex and Rugby Council, behind the backs of the Rugby residents, elected councillors, and the whole Rugby Cement Community Forum, it has now featured on Radio Rugby asking for more people to come forward to join the cement factory debate. The Agency is disappointed that more people do not appreciate the "environmental improvements" that have been made by the Agency's turning Rugby into a waste dump? The Agency's survey of April 2006 showed 70% of the people interviewed are concerned about the cement plant and its impacts on our town, loss of amenity, damage to air quality and health etc. Do we hear a round of applause for the Agency in Rugby? I think not!


The Agency letter quoted above neatly sums up the position as the Rugby residents are failed yet again by the authorities, which continue to use and abuse Rugby, its residents, its environment, its roads, its air, its health, its amenities, and its democratic rights, in its bat-and ball game with Warwickshire County Council. But Rugby residents have had enough of being kicked about by these unaccountable bullying quangos. WCC keep on giving planning permissions, and the Agency keeps on giving operating permissions, all with no proper open debate, public access to information, and no environmental impact assessment.

RUGBY RESIDENTS PICK UP THE BALL AND RUN!
The Rugby Advertiser on 18 October did a brilliant article concerning the DRAMA, ANGER , and REBELLION at the Rugby Cement Community Forum, as the Rugby residents fight back in a show of PEOPLE POWER! The ball is rolling - thank you Rugby Advertiser - so we pick up the ball and run. We have scored a "try" for Rugby! Come on - the scrum has begun!

CEMEX WANT CLEAN SHEET

AS WET TORY COUNCILOR KICKED OUT OF BED


"DRAMA, ANGER AND REBELLION" as democracy compromised at the Rugby Cement Community Forum (front page Rugby Advertiser 18 October) which saw County and Borough Councillor Timms sacked, after a vote of no confidence in her as Chair, in the heated forum meeting. As the ring leader of the Conservative Cabinet's unilateral secret decision to cut off the funding for the secretariat of the Forum, leaving Rugby residents high and dry, and at the mercy of Rugby Cement, she was dismissed in a rousing display of "people power!"

As the Editor pointed out:

"This whole episode is not a great advertisement for the Tory-led Council. They need to show more transparency and start taking the public more seriously. RUGBY CEMENT is a BIG ISSUE in Rugby, and not one which should be taken lightly. People power won
the day, as it always should. I think the powers-that-be should heed the warning and start having a change of attitude."

As Rugby Tories face accusations of "selling the public's health to save money", leading long-standing Councillor Ish Mistry commented "The public does not know what the Town Hall's administration is up to!" While Neil Sandison, also long-serving, declared "What the Tory cabinet has done is morally and ethically wrong!"

Cemex claim this turn of events, and change in direction, heralds a new Ground Zero. They are now responsible for the Forum's secretariat and provision of a publicly accessible and neutral meeting place under the auspices of "The Polluter must Pay!" Cemex are consulting the Environment Council as to how the Forum should "move forward and work together". £15,000 funding, is provided to do this, but £7,500 of it is provided by the Rugby Council Tax Payers from the existing Health Protection Budget to choose new forum members who are, apparently, to have "a less confrontational approach"?

AS Cemex have just won the right to burn London TRASH, and to become a DUMPING GROUND, it is not ONLY the saga at the Forum that will leave a BITTER TASTE in the mouth of the Rugby public!

RUGBY TOWN HANDED OVER TO CEMEX

ADVERT
JOIN THE CEMEX CO-INCINERATOR CLUB! WET BEHIND THE EARS AND UNINFORMED MEMBERS NEEDED FOR EXCLUSIVE NEW CLUB

£7.500 from PROTECTIVE HEALTH BUDGET of Rugby Council tax payers funds is being made available to help Cemex and the Environment Agency to select "green" compliant and malleable members for CEMEX'S exciting new venture. We have had the Cemex diversion into horticulture, with Carlos the plant director for Rugby in Bloom, and now they are cultivating mushrooms.

COUNCIL LEADERS SHOW INITIATIVE?
The Council lead Rugby Cement Community Forum is to be abolished as "Community", and "long-standing councillor", members are to be excluded from the Forum. Conservative penny-wise pound-foolish Councillors, advised by officers who have an axe to grind, try to save a few quid by this novel idea of handing over the whole Town of Rugby, - its inhabitants, its environment, its roads, its air - to CEMEX!

Applications for membership of the Cemex Co-incinerator Club are invited from all walks of life, but priority and preference will be given to those who can clearly demonstrate certain attributes : It is absolutely essential that applicants display no prior knowledge of, and no experience of:

* the IPPC Permitting process
* EU and UK Environmental Law
* Public Participation Directive
* Environmental Impact Assessments
* Health Impact Assessments
* cement plants and co-incinerators
* emissions from stacks and low level sources
* health effects of cement plant emissions and carcinogens
* stack testing compliance
* air quality and source apportionment
* history of the unlawful planning decisions at WCC
* history of RBC EHO's continual dereliction of duty
* history of HMIP and the Environment Agency
* history of Rugby Cement Chair's position on Board of Agency
* the Agency's "guidance" such as Substitute Fuels Protocol
* unlawful actions by Agency (Rugby Cement/ RBC?) at IPC in September 1999
* the names of all those involved in this unlawful cement plant's construction
* the names of those involved in its unlawful operation and IPC/IPPC Permits.
* the Agency's Public Register and how information is withheld

Preference will be given to those with sawdust between their ears, and illiteracy, although not a prerequisite, will be an added advantage.


Join the Cemex Co-incinerator Club today and enjoy the many financial benefits that this can bring, with thousands of pounds available for Community projects for those who comply with their rules of their game. Apply today to become a Cemex mushroom - be kept in the dark and have bucket loads of fertiliser (CKD?) tipped over your head at regular intervals!

RUGBY AIR THICKENS AS AIR TURNS BLUE.

The bus stop on Lawford road..

RUGBY TORIES BAN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TO SAVE - ONE POUND!

DUST NOT PERMITTED ON TORIES
The Environment Agency sees no dust! and see no cement plant. Unconfirmed reports say Rugby CONSERVATIVES, overheard in Conference, say: "There are no dusts on us! Cement plant dust is not permitted to fall on Conservative voters. We have a different way of life, and breathe different air from ordinary Rugby residents. We are clean." Conservative/ Agency envoys have special top-secret plan, to randomly locate three one metres disks to measure "falling dust" in Rugby. Cement Boundary site monitoring requested for seven years is not permitted as the Agency sees no cement works! Tories see no dust. Bets now being taken on outcome of "random dust survey."

AUTHORITIES CHASING OWN TALES?
The Environment Agency refuses to answer any questions about where similar Frisbee dust gauges have ever been used before. The officer said he had no information about any definition of "nuisance dust"; no data about where the frisbees have been used before; no idea to what effect these have ever been put; Faber Maunsell, the Agency's contractor, would ONLY be allowed to answer ANY questions once they had finished the monitoring in a few months time; RBC said they have no idea, but that "nuisance dust" is merely a matter for "officers' professional judgement", and in unenforceable under any existing Law, and has no definition whatsoever. So what are they trying to catch? FALLING STARS?

RUGBY RESIDENTS RIPPED OFF YET AGAIN!
FABER MAUNSELL, the "unlucky" consultants, who seemed to have learned nothing from the three year fiasco of their/our own £500,000 air quality saga, said that they can answer no questions. "We are contracted to RBC who are our clients." SO THE AGENCY IS NOW NOT THE CLIENT AFTER ALL THE CHARADE!


Faber are not allowed to speak, or to give out any information about the monitors. Rugby residents must "Pay up and shut up!" as the Agency and the Council collude to deliberately waste even more of our cash, and to prevent any PUBLIC CONSULTATION and to prevent any worthwhile information from being given out Meanwhile the Agency pretends that they are funding the latest farce. You be the judge - look at the above photos: Is Rugby dirtier than elsewhere?

RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM UPDATE:
HEATHER TIMMS: (of WCC - a main perpetrator in this "game") SHE SAYS COUNCIL TAX PAYERS AND ALL PARISH COUNCILS HAVE NO RIGHT TO ASK WHERE THEIR MONEY IS SPENT!! Following on from the "Silence of the lambs" we now present WCC CLLR TIMMS' own response telling Rugby people to keep on paying, and to STOP asking where their council taxes are being wasted.

From:
To: "Cllr Chris Holman" "Patricia Wyatt" Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: Sustainable Environment Panel 27.09.07 Item 10. RCCF.

Dear Pat and Chris
As explained at the meeting, it is for Council to decide how to use rate payers money. And this applies whether it is A POUND or TEN THOUSAND..
It is apparent that officer time used in supporting RCCF runs counter to the principle of the "polluter pays" which I feel none of us would disagree with. Therefore the BREAKDOWN of AMOUNTS etc becomes TOTALLY IMMATERIAL and indeed requires further officer cost for no perceived benefit.

The decision is to facilitate the transfer of the Forum to be fully community owned based on this principle. (????) The expenditure agreed is a maximum figure agreed to facilitate this transfer and is not an annual grant. (NB : This refers to £7,500 from existing Protective Health Budget to appoint new uninformed members for the NEW Cemex controlled forum.)

The questions for the scutiny officers I am not able to respond to and may be areas Chris that you wish to investigate?
With best regards
Heather Timms

IN REPLY TO QUESTIONS FROM RUGBY PARISH COUNCILS' REPRESENTATIVE:
From: Patricia Wyatt Sent: 28 September 2007 20:32
To: Cllr Chris Holman; Cllr Tina Avis; Cllr Ish Mistry; Cllr Neil
Sandison; Cllr Noreen New; Simon Warren
Cc: Cllr Carolyn Robbins; Diane Pask; Lilian Pallikaropoulos
Subject: Sustainable Environment Panel 27.09.07 Item 10. RCCF.

"Dear Councillor Holman, - Chairman of Rugby Borough Council's Sustainable Environment Panel.

LACK OF INFORMATION IN THE REPORT. ITEM 10.

Having attended the Sustainable Environment Panel meeting last evening, the decision taken by members of the ABOVE MENTIONED panel was based and taken on, THE PROPITIOUS reason spoken of by Councillor Robbins, ie "Affecting this Council's, namely Rugby Borough Council's expenditure".

1. Can you explain a breakdown of that supposed Rugby Borough Council's expenditure?
2. Is Rugby Borough Council prepared to make a grant of £7,500 per annum?
3. How much is the cost to HIRE,
a. The Council Chamber,
b. Committee Room 1.
c. Committee Room 2.
for an evening meeting scheduled for two 2 hours?

4. How much money was set aside in the 2007/2008 budget to hold RCCF meetings including refreshments per annum?
5. How much of 2007/2008 budget will this decision have under spent? I wish to record my personal appreciation of the five knowledgeable respresentatives to whom this email is addressed, and their contributions made to the meeting. What happens in the future remains to be seen. Party Politics showed abundantly clear just how undemocratically, decisions are made.

Finally, I point out how inappropriate/inaccurate the last four items on the Agenda Management Sheet (Agenda No. 10 (set on green paper)) are as printed. May I recommend this matter to the scrutiny officers.

1. There are Financial implications - that is what it is all about!!
2. There is a risk of maladministration.
3. There certainly are environmental risks and implications.
4. There could be legal implications from the report... ref. SR letter and other.
5. At 2.1, what is meant by RRCF? (twice is same paragraph overleaf)
Mrs. Patricia Wyatt.

LUNATICS NOW IN CHARGE OF ASYLUM? RBC EHO TALKING HEAD SEAN LAWSON (5.10.07): Email to RCCF members:
"A decision for the Council to hand over the responsibility to Cemex has now been made and approved through the Council's democratic process." (oh???) For "operational reasons" the meeting of 1st October was changed to 16th October - without telling any of those involved. "Your emails were not ignored", but we like to play our cards close to our chest.

"The Council determined to withdraw its secretarial function from the RCCF. Rather than just to cease its support we have decided to hold a final meeting on 16 OCTOBER 5.30 pm TOWN HALL. Any future meetings and arrangements can be discussed then. I look forward to a lively debate and discussion at that time.

I DO NOT EXPECT THAT THIS RESPONSE WILL SATISFY ANY OR ALL OF THE RUGBY RESIDENTS CONCERNS."


BUT TOUGH! RBC CONSERVATIVES AND MEALY MOUTHED EMPLOYEES HAVE ABANDONED ALL AND EVERY DUTY TO THE ELECTORATE, ENVIRONMENT, AIR QUALITY, HEALTH, AND TO THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED IN RUGBY!!
RUGBY RESIDENTS ARE NOW: ON THEIR OWN!

SACRIFICED!

SEVEN TORY DWARFS..
..wanting more cash for their teas sacrificed the Rugby Cement Community Forum to Cemex at last night's Council meeting. Sean Lawson wrote a bigoted report making many unsupported and unjustified false claims, not least that the RCCF "cost too much", but he refused to provide any figures or costs. Nor to say what part of the "excessive costs" were incurred by his unnecessary presence at the RCCF meetings. Maybe his salary should be cut - seeing as how he costs too much?

All this left Councillors uninformed and ridiculous, floundering in the dark, and wondering what exactly they were talking about - as usual! Labour and Lib Dems spoke up well on behalf of the Community, and on the damage that Cemex does to Rugby. One long-standing councillor said that Rugby Cement had always lied! This "handover" to Cemex was an unmitigated disaster, and that the Tories haven't seen anything yet. They spoke about how the community would rise up against the Tory dictators in Rugby.

Tory dwarfs:
TIMMS the ringleader: Robbins; Bull Sewell; Allen; Cranham; Hazelton; Spiers; Watson. The new boys looked so embarrassed and uncomfortable, being whipped in to toe the party line, that they only managed to hold up their hands about three inches off the desk to vote.

Robbins argued that "the polluter should pay" but could not say why they were not insistent that Cemex pay for the Forum as it is now. £7,500 is to be used from the HEALTH PROTECTION budget to find some new, more compliant, naive, uninformed people to "actively support Cemex" on the the new Cemex controlled Forum. At least they at last acknowledge that the cement company is a polluter and IS a HEALTH ISSUE..

Labour's Tina Avis, Ish Mistry, and Lib Dems Neil Sandison, Noreen New and Chris Holman all spoke up well to try to protect the community from the growing excesses of Cemex, and are making a minority report to the FULL COUNCIL. All the committees at RBC have a majority of Tory members on them so they can just vote through what they want. Tories clearly do not have a majority in the IQ stakes - in fact they are very poorly represented as far as intelligence is
concerned - which was well demonstrated by last night's abysmal display!

WHAT PRICE HAS BEEN PAID?
Not only that but also the Agency had been working in secret with Cemex and RBC, behind the backs of the Councillors and community representatives, and breached the Council's Code of Conduct. A total lack of respect, and the usual failure to consult.

Typical Agency behaviour!

What price Rugby's silver medal in the national IN BLOOM competition? The main sponsor was Cemex. So far the Council refuses to say how much Cemex has paid them. Instead of properly funding the RCCF Cemex have given Rugby people a few dead flowers - weeds even! How cheaply this Tory Council has sold out Rugby residents, disposed of any democratic or community involvement, and handed control of the Forum to Cemex.


ENVIRONMENT AGENCY SPOTLIGHT
This year's just published Spotlight revealed a growing perception that the report has lost its way. The problem is that the Agency has erred, and strayed from Spotlight's original purpose - to put public pressure on poorly performing firms. Unfortunately by including case studies of good performance, and by covering other issues such as data on releases, waste production, and site management, the report lacks analysis of what the data means in context of the Agency's strategic objectives. It chose to focus this year's report on climate change, despite the fact that it does not regulate most green house gases.

TOP TEN POLLUTERS 2006
Cemex Rugby £400,000
Thames Water £191,600
United Utilities £137,300
Van Dalen £100,000
Castle Cement £ 99,000 PADESWOOD DIOXINS
Anglian Water £ 75,000
Wiggins Transport £ 63,000
Wessex Water £ 56,250
Agresol £ 54,000
Southern Water £ 52,625
Cemex Rugby £ 50,000 Fine reduced June 2007.
Coe of Ilford £ 48,000
Erith Haulage £ 48,000

The Agency claims pollution incidents have (just) reduced to an all-time low. However that is not the experience in Rugby - it's simply that the Agency puts the burden of proof onto the public. We have to prove where the pollution has come from, and the polluter usually denies it! The Agency covers for them. And then, for example, during the pollution incident of 10th March 2007 when Cemex "admitted" to dropping eight tonnes of pulverised coal on our heads, heated in the recirculated gasses from the combustion process, the Agency STILL, seven months on, has not managed to assess the size of the particles; the chemical content nor the potential health impact. Apart from a little enforcement notice Cemex remains unpunished.
How many tonnes constitutes a pollution incident? Eight tonnes are not enough, so no chance of any action for the daily grime!

RugbyTown.org.. Now in Video!

Wow..

Is this the beginning of me taking things to a new technological level?

I want to thank Documentally.com for taking the time to put my video clips together and also John and Lucy (more clued up R.I.P. menbers) for giving me the idea..
If you have a story you want me to 'Vlog' (Video Blog.. new word I have learned) perhaps your health is directly affected by the works, the traffic or you have piles of dust and particulates piled up against your door?

Email me at lilian (at) rugbytown.org (change at for @) or leave a comment and I will rush round with my camera and record the evidence or your story to add the the growing archive of wrong doings forced upon the people of Rugby.

READ ALL ABOUT IT

STARTING TODAY, WE Publish ONLINE A SELECTION OF RUGBY RESIDENTS LETTERS WHICH HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED IN NATIONAL OR LOCAL PRESS.

(Let us know if some slip us by..)





EAST JOURNAL:

To the Editor,

BUILT IN THE WRONG PLACE.

During my visit to the Environment Exhibition held at the NEC, Birmingham a few years ago, Baroness Barbara Young said to me quote “Pat, you and I are never going to be able to agree with each other because the Rugby Cement works should not have been built there”. (Adjacent to 60,000 Rugby Town People)

Fellow campaigners and I have for the past seven years tried in vain to protect our Environment, especially in and around RUGBY, Warwickshire. I have been extremely active as a founder member of Rugby in Plume trying to stop tyres and municipal solid wastes and other "alternative fuels" fro being burnt in the nearby cement factory. (Now a Co-Incinerator)
During 2002-2006 I represented the residents of Long Lawford on Rugby Borough Council. The constant deluge of changes made by the cement industry (profit before Health) makes everyone concerned, because of the known problems of dioxins, particulates, dust, nuisance, odour, hundreds of additional daily movements of lorries and fall-outs over the residents. The "expansion" of the existing cement works, (under the disguise of the word “Up-Grade”) commenced in 1995 was the start of something BIG, unbeknown to the people who happen to reside in the area. The growth of the cement works, to treble its size, was accompanied by a great lack of any proper consultation, a great deal of misinformation and a huge amount of economy with the truth. There has been so much “Impropriety” through the years, now scrutiny and thorough investigation is urgently required. The Environment Agency does not protect our environment, WHY?, Is it because they are unaware of what goes on.? Is it because the are politically constrained or short of resources? They are unable to make and administer any meaningful safeguards, because the applicant constantly requests variations. The threat of claims for COMPENSATION causes fear, and an inevitable paralysis in the minds of many otherwise worthy local councillors, and who pays for this showcase, we the public. The residents feel powerless to bring about change to their dilemma, because it is always the applicant who gains meaningless permits. Frustration is the flavour of the day followed by apathy. Local residents have attempted to use the Judicial Review process in order to have the dreadful decisions of recent years reversed. So far that process has been unsuccessful, but the effort continues. Such complicated matters, brought before Judges in a condensed form for a few hours, remain so difficult for them to share our experiences and to fully understand our grievances. The powers and duty of the Environment Agency need strengthening to enable them to serve the defenceless public on a stringent level playing field. The Health Protection Agency was formed to assist and advise the EA with it’s work load, but it has failed Rugby citizens. They have not applied the precautionary principle in order to safeguard the citizens of Rugby, especially the young and elderly and to provide protection for future generations.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs. Patricia Wyatt.
Long Lawford Parish Councillor.

IS TYRE BURNING SET FOR 100% INCREASE?

OR DO THE £1,000,000 TYRE HOPPER, CONVEYOR & ELEVATOR FACE DEMOLITION?
RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING PERMISSION REFUSED! PULL IT DOWN!

Well if it's good enough for Bury St Edmunds' Councillors, SURELY it's good enough for Rugby and Warwickshire! Or is something wrong with these councillors in Rugby?

Tesco's at Bury St Edmunds recently built an unlawful extension, and then applied for retrospective planning permission, no doubt assuming it would be just nodded through. Now Tesco is in shock as for once someone has stood up to them, and called their BLUFF, and a halt to such under-hand attempts to bypass correct procedure and attempts to bypass PUBLIC CONSULTATION!

Smart Councillors went against the "advice" of their own council's planning officers, (who were only too willing to recommend turning a blind eye), and told Tesco to pull it down! The David and Goliath battle has begun - with mighty Tesco set to appeal, and presumably to bankrupt the local authority? Tesco now "wishes to work with the local council to resolve the impasse. And how might they achieve that - some cash for the "in bloom" perhaps?

RUGBY AND BURY ST EDMUNDS But local people said it wasn't in keeping with the surroundings, either in scale or material, was too big, was as ugly as you could imagine, doesn't fit in with anything, and the developer should have been more sensitive to the local residents where it dominated the backs of peoples gardens blocking the light and spoiling the enjoyment of the neighbourhood.
RUGBY HEINOUS CRIME!
In addition in Rugby the "unlawful development" permitted by the gutless councillors also rains down pollution near and far, day and night, and has 1,000 HGVs a day - and blocks out light even in the Conservation Area!
WARWICKS COUNTY COUNCIL seemingly useless, uninformed, untrained, blissfully ignorant of planning law and EU directives, and cowed by Rugby Cement's power and clout, subserviently gave a retrospective planning permission, (with no informed public consultation), to not only permit the retention of the extra unlawful constructions, in which to convey and burn the waste, that Rugby Cement said they had built "for £1,000,000 at our own risk", but they also managed to permit - presumably in blissful ignorance - the cement plant to morph into a CO-INCINERATOR - without so much as a mention of the word, and without any public consultation.

JOHN DEEGAN (Blind leading the blind!)
(Warwicks CC R410/02CM025 Rugby Cement) Received retrospective planning application Sep.2002 for plant to convey/burn tyres, that required planning permission. See Regulatory Committee Report Appendix B on 28/01/03 to understand how little these planning officers comprehend about what they are doing. DEEGAN even argued that there was no need for any public consultation, and advised gullible councillors that turning the cement plant into a co-incinerator does not require any consideration except - "the visual and the operational impacts of the development, rather than the burning of shredded tyres."

He crassly justifies his "attitude" by saying that RBC Environmental Health Office is satisfied the development will have little impact". It will apparently cause no dust either - nor run off into the River Avon when 600 tonnes are stored outside on the ground to breed mosquitoes!
He does not understand what 600 tonnes chipped tyres is like - stored in a town's residential area. Sad case!

DO I HEAR IT FOR WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL OFFICERS, and their lead-by -the-nose 62 County and 48 Borough Councillors.
Not to mention Member of Parliament Andy King?
BOO BOO BOO!

MAKING MONKEYS

(click to enlarge print and wear!)

..OF RUGBY RESIDENTS YET AGAIN!

Speaking of Rugby residents a reliable source informed "They have been duped yet again. It is easy when you know how. We do it all the time. Making monkeys is us!"


PUBLIC CONSULTATION ANYONE?
The new-Labour Environment Agency promised much - "better regulation; open transparent governance; access to information; public participation; adequate effective meaningful consultation; environmental protection; air quality and health improvements; stricter controls on industry...."
The EA already had the Cemex Application to increase tyre burning by 100% was by 12th July, but "somehow" it was omitted from the July 18th RCCF meeting, and now we are being scrambled to consider it on 29th August, with only five days notice. No time to inform the public either! Typical.


RBC ON EXTRA TYRE BURNING * "While it is accepted that the statutory period for consultation is 28 days it is not considered appropriate for the voluntary sector, which have valid reasons to consider this application. Under the Warwickshire Compact Agreement 12 weeks is normally provided for consultation, in line with Government recommendations. "
* "Only 2 weeks is proposed for the trials. This is considered very short especially as new bag filters have been fitted and the proposal is a SIGNIFICANT increase in tyres as a substitute fuel. (100%.)"
* "The previous tyre burning trials had shown an increase in respirable particulates. The area has elevated levels of particulate. The Council requests the impact of the trials on particulate emissions be closely monitored and carefully considered."


BUNCH OF FLOWERS BUYS OFF TOWN - COMMUNITY MATTERS?
The Cemex Rugby Cement Plant Community Matters newsletter has dropped on the mat of the lucky few thousand houses in the areas CV21 and CV23 nearest the works. Funny it is not delivered in the town centre, nor of course in the nearby Rugby School conservation area, where residents seemingly do not need to know, and do not breath the same air? The latest charitable donations, £125,000 to Church Lawford Village Hall, and unspecified sums to RBC for the Rugby in Bloom competition are proudly announced. Never let it be said that these "timely select donations" are not specifically designed to buy-off, divide up, or compensate sections of the Community.

As the World Business Council for Sustainable Development admitted, the cement industry is not sustainable in the long term. It advised the cement industry to target decision makers, divide up the politicians, and to deal with protesters by isolating them or by engaging them in things the cement industry wants them to do, to keep them busy, and to keep the population happy by telling them plausible stories for the future.


TIME FOR REFRESHMENT?
Cemex say: "In a recent report to RBC Sean Lawson, Head of Environmental Health Services set out the options for the future of the Rugby Cement Community Forum or RCCF.
The RCCF was set up over five years ago to provide a means for the community and the company to meet, exchange information and examine any issues concerning the plant's operation. It was, he states, a short term measure which should now be reviewed. A number of options were presented and these included carrying on in its present form, disbanding it completely, or passing the responsibility (and the expense) to the company.
He believed that the Forum had become 'adversarial in nature' and this had contributed to it not achieving its objectives.

It is certainly more common practice for such liaison to be facilitated and financed by the company involved and it was this option that was accepted. However a final decision has been put off until later in the year. If the original decision is upheld, independent research would be carried out to establish the make-up and organisation of a new liaison group and how this can best serve the needs of the community."

WISHFUL THINKING CEMEX!
This "Option" has been "called in" by some environmentally aware Councillors. The Tory Cabinet have had their knuckles wrapped over their hasty and non-constitutional decision to disband the RCCF. A scrutiny exercise is being conducted into this apparent abuse of process, and into the aims and objectives of those who started this action.

BUNKUM!
As for Sean Lawson's Report to RBC Cabinet Rugby in Plume say how will handing over control to Cemex improve things? And if the RCCF has been ineffectual it is because:
* The so-called exchange of information is incomplete, stilted, censored, often misleading, and has to be dragged out, like pulling teeth.
* Neither the EA nor Cemex (nor hapless RBC) are capable of answering a basic straight question with a straight answer.
* Their objective appears to get away with telling us as little as possible.
* They do not tell us about incidents at the works, malfunctions,emission limit exceedences, and vital Public Register information is never presented.
Forum members have to dig it out.
* They hide data for months and even years.
* The Agency takes months and years to investigate pollution incidents and in the meantime tells the RCCF they may not discuss them.
* The consultations appear targeted at holiday periods, presumably in the hope the public eye is "off the ball!" and the RCCF numbers are down.
* The "consultations" fit neatly in between the four annual RCCF meetings, the dates of which are planned over year in advance, so that in effect the Forum as a body never ever discusses the variations and applications.
* The RCCF was never said to be only a "short-term measure".
* The RCCF declined the offer of reverting to the previous model where RMC would not permit the public, controlled the agenda, the venue, and minutes.
* The RCCF suggested Cemex should fund the RCCF as it is now - in line with the Polluter Should Pay principal - in an open and publicly accessible venue.
* The RCCF asked RBC how much the Community, (only trying to protect itself), has had to pay to subsidise Cemex, and its ever ongoing new applications for variations, planning permissions, changes to equipment, storage, waste raw materials, waste "fuels", increased emission limits. extra HGVs etc? How do these compare with the industry hand-outs?

SET UP NEW COMMITTEE TO FOOL PUBLIC
The track record of the Rugby Cement, the Environment Agency and RBC shows that they resort to setting up a new committee when they are discretely trying to slip in something unpalatable.

LIAISON GROUP 1999 QUITE UNAWARE and UNINFORMED
They had a Rugby Cement Liaison Group controlled by the works, and in June 1999 they tried to get away without following the LAWFUL PROCESS, and to evade the IPC Consultation for the new plant. So they formed a new committee involving many uninformed Councillors. Karen Stone, (Sean Lawson's predecessor), was then Director of Environmental Health, along with a Mr Cudlip who was in declining health. Dianne Colley was the Chief Executive and is now living comfortably on a pension after taking early retirement on ill-health grounds when it had all become too much for her! And for us!! Karen Stone was involved in secret meetings with the Agency about why this IPC application is "different", and "special", and why it is not following the "standard procedure."
FAILINGS AT IPC IN JUNE 1999
* IPC was "mentioned" once in passing at an early 1999 Liaison meeting, but the RBC and EA officers did not bring the consultation to the attention of the members, and Councillors. * They all now refuse to answer questions about why this deceit took place... and who decided they should do it.
* The Agency refused to provide copies of the IPC application being "duly made", and refused to give any copies of the "fees" that should have been paid for the IPC application.
* Neither RMC nor the Agency have any copy of the essential IPC advertisement, and the Agency admits to having no responses from the public because, as we now know, the public and the "gullible" Liaison Group had been bypassed completely, and kept in ignorance.
* RBC finally admitted that some officer/s at the Council had decided to completely ignore the IPC application they had received in June 1999 for the one month consultation. They have no records, no minutes, and no memory of who made that decision nor by what procedure this decision to "do nothing" had been arrived at.
* Whoever decided to act in this way wilfully committed the Rugby residents to many more years of unnecessary excess pollution, and deliberately damaged the environment, and air quality for Rugby people. What motivated them to get a lesser protection and a much lower standard than should have been enforced at that time?
* RBC and the Agency bypassed the lawful process. The Agency claims that Rugby Cement was responsible for the failure to advertise the mandatory consultation, for the IPC application which was completed on 16 June 1999. But surely this demonstrates the Agency's failure to regulate?

RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM OCTOBER 2002
The Liaison Group bumbled along, controlled, ineffective, secretive, minutes unavailable, until the time the public were in revolt as they had been told there was a "tyre burning application". Straight after its construction the cement plant was suddenly to become a co-incinerator. The growing public awareness was that they had been duped by: Warwickshire County Council planning office; by Rugby Borough Council planning and environmental health; by the Environment Agency's failings; and by Rugby Cement.

Even the Liaison group was not told there was an IPPC application - and were given copies of a tyre burning summary, and colour sheets about the joys of alternative fuels. The full IPPC application was deemed duly made on 31 August 2001, but the public were not informed. The "Tyre Burning meetings" were being held and for a year the Agency, unbeknown to the Liaison Group and the public, was collecting extra information from RMC, in correspondence dated 21 December 2001; 1 March 2002; 5 March 2002; 28 March; 3 May; 31 May and finally 5 June when the Agency advised RMC to revise the whole site plan for the application. So you see the level of ignorance even included not knowing exactly what the site included, and what the public and Council were actually supposed to be being consulted on.

The June 2002 Liaison Group meeting was cancelled without warning, and a new committee was set up seven months later in October 2002. Initially this was run by a Public Relations Company, Green Issues, hired by RMC. These carried out the first two meetings "in order to get the Critical Success Factors through" before new members understood the significance of them. Only the few hand-selected councilors were permitted to vote, and the voluntary sector community group members were treated as second class citizens. The January and April 2003 RCCF meetings saw the Agency evade all questions until after the IPPC Decision had been made - August 2003.

OTHER NEWS - FILTER BOOST
"Rugby Cement plant's new £6.5 million bag filter is performing well beyond expectations by achieving 80% reduction in dust emissions, despite having operated well inside the dust emission level allowed by its Environment Agency Permit." "The bag filter is replacing the kiln ESP, which collects dust, mainly chalk, to recycle back into the process". One wonders to which permit they are referring? Meanwhile the gases from the clinker cooler ESP and bypass ESP emit from the main stack, without passing through the bag filter.

A LITTLE SYMPATHY IS CALLED FOR
Cemex confirm that "at present adequate supplies of material of a consistent quality are limited in the UK, due to the slow progress in the development of mechanical biological treatment plants to process waste and meet the industry's rigorous specifications for a quality fuel, and Cemex is already HAVING to import waste (Climafuel) from Holland for burning at South Ferriby and possibly Barrington." Spare a thought for them "having" to import household waste!

SURVEY OF RESIDENTS IN THE VICINITY OF CEMEX PLANTS
The newsletter contained a Liaison Group Questionnaire for residents to complete. "It is important to us to be aware of your views"....fill in and post, or download from http://www.cemex.co.uk/su/su_co.html

LOST - ONE CEMENT PLANT.

£50 REWARD.

(I see no cement plant?)????

LAND REGISTRY DENY VERY EXISTENCE OF RUGBY CEMENT!
WCC, RBC, & AGENCY CARRY ON IN SECRET, AS EVER!
PUBLIC NOW BLAMED FOR TYRE TRIAL DISASTER!
COMPANIES HOUSE CONFUSED AS TO OWNERSHIP OF THIS NON-CEMENT PLANT.

The Land Registry are in denial. They say they have no details of any cement plant at Rugby, despite the new plant changing hands twice since compulsory registration. The Environment Agency omitted it from the Pollution Inventory. Warwickshire County Council admit it never had any consultation in the planning stage, or over the addition of the equipment to make it a CO-INCINERATOR. It never had any kind of environmental impact assessment at any stage. The EA and Rugby Council admit they hid the June 1999 IPC consultation, and made no attempt to limit the damage to Rugby's environment and air quality. The Agency conveniently omits to put public notices on the Public Register. 62 County Councillors and 48 at Rugby have bags over their heads; and gags!


So here is the latest news from "no cement plant" at
Rugby Works OS Grid ref: SP 4487 2757
Cemex UK Cement Ltd (company reg: 475212)
Cemex UK Operations Ltd (658390)
Chinnor Transport (475212)
Rugby Limited (475212)


NEW TYRE TRIALS
One month consultation has now started by the EA as Cemex wish to double tyre burning, to 25% substitution. The baseline will be with 3 tonnes an hour tyres, and there will be two weeks testing after that at 6 tonnes. This trial will be different - so they say using a novel approach - it is to be "well-conducted!" Ha! 600 tonnes of tyres will now be stored in the open, and the restrictions on run-off into the sewer will be removed, presumably to allow all drainage from the tyres into the water course.


HOW TO JUDGE TYRE TRIAL SUCCESS
Cemex comedy sketch writer: "This trial will build on the success of the previous trial." The seven previous CSFs (Critical Success Factors) will be removed and replaced by such little gems as: CSF 1 "The current specified emission limit values will not be exceeded for any reason DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE to tyres." So there is a challenge to the public. How is anyone to know, when even the Agency does not know.

AGENCY say:
"Emission limits apply to the Works at ALL times, with the ONE (teeny weeny little??) exception:
"The limits do not apply during shutdown or startup. Startup is complete at 200 tonnes an hour of dry raw material." That is at about 80% of full rate.
No mention is made of fuel/s! Nor for how many hours these shutdowns/startups occur.
Also when asked repeatedly for how many hours a day/week/month/year no emission limits count the Agency said to go to the Public Register and try to work it out. Finally, after seven years of badgering the Agency admit to having no idea at all about how many "unlimited" hours there have been since February 2000. They have, at last, asked Cemex to provide it. We would only note that in the tyre trials data the 1,000 hours was interrupted by 53 stops - with no data made available - so watch this space.

CSF 5: "There will be no increase in reportable incidents or JUSTFIED complaints relating to the use of tyres."
So that nicely puts the onus back on the public to collect samples and evidence.


£50 REWARD FOR SIMPLE SUMS:
The Environment Agency needs help. They cannot work out how many tonnes of clinker were made in the two "supposedly comparable" 1,000 hour periods of the trial
Can you help them work out how many tonnes of clinker in each of the 1,000 hours?
* 1,000 hours baseline produced 3291 tonnes bypass dust = 1.37% clinker produced.
* 1,000 hours tyre trials produced 3006 tonnes bypass dust = 1.59% clinker produced.
The Agency have asked Cemex to help them. One wonders why the Agency has permitted the permanent burning of tyres when the Trials and the with holding of all the crucial data were condemned widely by all the consultees. (Even Rugby Borough Council agreed with us for once! And the Primary Care Trust,Tyre Burning Review Group, Rugby Cement Community Forum etc etc)


POLLUTION EVENT 10 MARCH 2007 UPDATE.
Six months on and the Agency admit that they still have no idea of the chemical breakdown and particle size distribution from the Cemex pollution episode. Cemex confessed that an estimated eight tonnes of milled coal "escaped" from a silo and rained down on sleeping residents up to three miles away. The Agency do not know the answers to questions about the health and environmental impact, nor when, or even if, they are going to prosecute.Rumour has it that frustrated Rugby residents are taking a private action through the Magistrates Court. Against Cemex and against the Agency for permitting this type of incident to keep on happening to "innocent victims".

NO SURPRISE!

AIR QUALITY GETS WORSE IN RUGBY.
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREA BOROUGH WIDE FOR NITROGEN DIOXIDE, AND NOW ALSO PM10 INCREASES CAUSE CONCERN:
RBC say previous tyre trials increased particulate emissions. Main stack, bypass area, and cement mills increase burden and health impact of particulate of which THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL!

PM 10 Readings in MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METRE
AQMS 1 Webb Ellis Road :
25 March 72 Micrograms cubic metre
27 March 59
28 March 67

Has Maximum PM10 hour at 120 and PM2.5 at 72.

AQMS2 NEWBOLD ROAD : 11 EXCEEDENCES
25 January 54
3 February 66
4 February 62
6 February 80
7 February 68
25 March 82
26 March 57
27 March 70
28 March 77
30 March 59
31 March 53

PM10 maximum hour 206!
Why is this the ONLY TEOM with NO PM2.5 monitor?

AQMS 2 has massive NOX at 1138 for one hour!
NO at 683 and NO2 at 141 for the hour.

AQMS 3 LAWFORD SCHOOL
3 February 53
4 February 58
6 February 53
25 March 83
27 March 63
28 March 68
31 March 52

PM10 maximum 142 for the hour, and 62 for PM2.5 with a daily average of 42 for PM2.5!!

AQMS 4 Avenue Road
25 March 77
27 March 57
28 March 64

Avenue Road maximum hourly was 130.
Highest PM2.5 was 57.1 hourly and daily average 39.3!!!

CEMEX EXCEEDS EMISSION LIMIT VALUES

DIOXIN and FURAN EXCEEDENCE (admitted 4 July)
The ELV for the most toxic substance known to man was exceeded on 22 March at the CEMEX RUGBY works in the twice yearly tests from 0915 to 1540. After they removed the what they call "measurement uncertainty" they still had readings of 0.43 ng/Nm3 ITEQ (1&2) and 0.5ng/Nm2 WHOTEQ (1&2)

CARBON MONOXIDE EXCEEDENCE
Also on 13 June 2007 main stack test hourly average AFTER they removed confidence interval (-10%)was carbon monoxide 629 mg/m3 as an hourly average.

CEMENT MILLS EXCEEDENCE
Also they now admit (4th July) that the mills are also exceeding their permitted levels as well. On 28/03/07 from 16.15 to 18.20. Cement mill 4 running at 52.6mg/m3 particulate, after removal of confidence level.
23/03/07 Mill 5 separator at 34.2mg/m3 after removal of confidence level.

If you add back that 30% that means they have taken away as a "confidence level" they would have initially had a reading of 75 mg/m3 at mill 4. If you add the "uncertainty" instead of taking it away it gives a reading of 98 milligrams per cubic metre on mill 4. That is 98 THOUSAND MICROGRAMS in each cubic metre - to drift across Rugby, and to be resuspended in our air! Cemex say: "INVESTIGATIONS CONTINUING WITH CONTRACTOR INTO REASONS FOR HIGH RESULTS"

CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORS FAILED during tyre burning at 21:01 on 15th June. They did NOT stop the tyre feed until 21:50 which contravenes the Permit.

NO CONFIDENCE IN THE AGENCY TO REGULATE!
NOR IN CEMEX' OVER READING, OR UNDER READING?
There is no reason why the instruments might not be under-reading. Why should they assume they are over reading - merely to facilitate the company, and make the results look better - or rather to "look less bad"?

THE IPPC PERMIT OF AUGUST 2001
Included a permanent permission to burn 40% tyres so why are they again bothering us with yet another SHAM CONSULTATION?

Cat out of the bag.

IS THIS FRAUD?
Cemex case for tyre burning NOT PROVEN! Of course while the Jury was out both Cemex and the Agency refused to give the public any emissions data.

Now why could that possibly be?

Because the Agency Emissions Report of 4th April 2006 now at last finally revealed, to a very suspicious public, actually shows what we said all along - there is no proof that tyre burning improves emissions. In fact there is more proof to the contrary! It makes some emissions worse!

ALcontrol Laboratories were contracted, number 11812, to take the periodic samples of coal and tyre burning emissions for the Agency.
These were supposed to be the proof of the tyre trials much heralded "environmental improvement"!

In fact coal burning seems cleaner.

COAL BURNING (BASELINE)
Nitrogen dioxide 841and 472Mg/m3

TYRE BURNING TRIAL
Nitrogen dioxide 459 and 540mg/m3

COAL - particulate 12.6; 18.8; 18.1; 16.5 mg/m3
TYRES - particulate 30.0; 43.4; 26.0; 30.0 mg/m3.

COAL - TOC as carbon 5.0; and 2.7;
TYRES - TOC as carbon 13.5 and 13.1;

COAL - TOC as toluene 5.48 and 2.9;
TYRES - TOC as toluene 14.8 and 14.4;

COAL - benzene 32.1; 0.1; 157; 43;
TYRES - benzene 88.2; 220; 110 ; 56;

In particular they claimed that the nitrogen dioxide was reduced by 25%. A funny calculator they used? Now they use the "claimed success" of the 2005 tyre trials to increase by 100% the burn rate, to 6 tonnes an hour, with the possibility of two further increments. And also to burn household and commercial waste - possibly to be
sourced from Holland as their waste is of a higher quality - suitable for getting good "trial" results.

Cemex' letter to the Agency 28 June 2007 says that they still cannot meet the Improvement Condition to reduce NOX from 800 to 500 mg/m3 which was required in the original Permit - by August 2005.
They ask for another extension to August 2008. They grumble about the low allocation of CO2 in Phase 2 of the EUETS, and cite that as a reason to burn increasing amounts of biomass. They claim the monthly NOX without tyres averaged 779mg/m3, with tyres April-June 2007 averaged 611mg/m3 - a 21.6% reduction.
But their own monthly emissions reports appear not to concur with this claim. "We anticipate a further reduction in oxides of nitrogen, although it cannot be guaranteed to be on a scale as seen previously."

PUBLIC GET BLAME FOR SHOWING INTEREST IN ENVIRONMENT
"Due to insufficient supply of tyres 10 tonnes an hour could not be reached. It was envisaged at that time that perhaps 6 tonnes an hour would be achieved, and authorisation would be requested at that level. As it turns out, due to high levels of public interest, delays in permitting, and delays in undertaking the trial, only 3 tonnes an hour was achieved within the time constraints facing Cemex due to the Waste Incinerator Directive compliance date of December 2005. This issue was never foreseen in the original application due to the early date of that application."

RUBBISH!
It was only too well foreseen, and widely discussed at meetings, and the Primary Care Trust, RBC and consultees requested that Bag Filters be fitted as soon as possible to meet the criteria - ahead of their being "forced to fit them". And to reduce particulate emissions by hundreds of tonnes.
But Rugby Cement and the Agency argued strongly that bag filters would not work on this plant, would make emissions even worse, and that the ESPs were BAT (Best Available Technique) - that is until they were forced to meet the WID legislation, and to fit Bag Filters!

INTENTION TO BURN WASTE 100% OF TIME "subject to restrictions imposed by the WID which dictates periods when waste derived alternative fuels may not be used. Standby continuous emissions monitors will now be fitted to allow immediate switch over in the event of failure of any of the primary units.

This will minimise potential periods when waste derived fuels cannot be used and the feed has to be shut down, to periods covering start-up, shut-down, periods of feed less than 200 tonnes an hour, periods of malfunction and if emission limits are exceeded."

In short all the time when no emission limits apply! And what will happen to the nitrogen dioxide limits then? Nothing as they will not apply!

DIRECT LINE TO GOD PAYS OFF.

ENFORCEMENT NOTICE: has been issued, as the Agency considers another prosecution, regarding the latest large scale incident of 10th March, when 8 tonnes of pulverised fuel were dumped on sleeping Rugby residents up to 3 miles away - apparently out of an over filled silo - at the time the kiln was being shut down.
Cemex are required to review their maintenance and management systems (yet again!),and to stop repeatedly cancelling critical maintenance items, in contravention of condition 2.1.2.
Also the storage capacity of each of the fuel storage silos as specified in section 2.3 (C) of your IPPC application, is different to the actual capacity. This is in contravention to condition 2.3.1.

In the meantime they now ask to burn imported wastes, as well as doubling the tyres to 6 tonnes an hour, despite all these ongoing problems and the unconvincing tyre trials, when they could hardly burn 3 tonnes an hour.

JUDGES TAKE PITY AS CEMEX SPEND BILLIONS ON RINKER TAKE OVER.
"In our judgement, a fine of £400,000 was disproportionate. The sentence imposed by the Recorder will be quashed and a fine of £50,000 substituted." Court 4 July 18.
Cemex claimed that much of the tonnes of dust LAWFULLY came out of the stack, and not out of the open door - unlawful. Therefore, as no emission limits apply during any start up to a fed rate of 200 tonnes an hour raw meal, any amount of dust emitted out of the stack at the time of the instability was not a criminal offence, and is in fact "permitted pollution".
Why and how the "start up" was set at 200 tonnes an hour raw meal has of course never been discussed!

TRUTH CONCEALED BY CEMEX AND AGENCY.
£20,000 worth of Intercessions at St Andrews seem to have reaped a rich reward.
Cemex were today delighted to have the £400,000 fine, for dumping tonnes of toxic dust over sleeping Lawford residents on October 14th 2005, slashed to a paltry £50,000.


How did this case get through four hearings without the truth ever being told? The Judges kept on asking why the kiln went into melt down and became unstable, and out of control, and neither the prosecuting Agency, nor the defending industrialists, could bring themselves to admit (tell the TRUTH even) that changes in the chemical reactions caused by such as TYRE BURNING causes upset conditions and kiln instability. One Judge even described the cement plant as an "accident of history" and seemed to believe that the same kiln had been there since 1860. Presumably he would have great difficulty in understanding why the original single horse and cart should now have been replaced by 1,000 heavy lorries?

OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS FOR CEMEX?
Maybe with this £350,000 windfall they can fund the RCCF for a few more years?
And pay back some of what they have taken from Rugby residents?
The RCCF is "due for the chop" tonight at Rugby Town Hall 5.30 pm, as the Council can no longer fund the antics of Cemex and the Agency out of our Council taxes.
But it seems more likely they will swell their coffers?

IMPORT WASTE:
EUROPEAN CLIMAFUEL HAS LESS POTENTIAL TO CONTAIN ANY TOXIC ELEMENTS THAN THE UK WASTE SUPPLY FROM SHANKS AND BIFFA WHICH ARE INADEQUATE FOR CEMEX.

BARRINGTON: and SOUTH FERRIBY CLIMAFUEL TRIALS:
Quote:

"Unfortunately the trials have not progressed as smoothly as Cemex had anticipated due to various reasons, such as supply, and logistical constraints, and elevated emissions of HCl due to higher chlorine in the clay material, burner difficulties and kiln cooling. And also due to high moisture in the climafuel, and significant chunks of over-size material. most notably of a metallic nature, causing equipment to break down and frequent stops"

- during which of course no EMISSION LIMITS APPLY - so that's all right then?

Although emission limits appear to have been broken Cemex carefully worded its CSF (Critical Success Factor):
CSF 1: "The current specified emission limit values will not be exceeded for any reason DIRECTLY attributable to the use of CLIMAFUEL"
"The initial review of the South Ferriby CEM data from the trial period showed no breaches in emission limits that can be attributed DIRECTLY to the use of Climafuel."
So what causes all this upset and increased emissions then?

CEMEX MAKE GENEROUS PROMISE TO RUGBY RESIDENTS:
CEMEX SAY THINK YOURSELVES LUCKY!
CEMEX WARN IT COULD BE WORSE!
"As a participant of the Cement Sustainability Initiative Cemex is committed to the "guidelines" which specifically state that in relation to exclusions in use of wastes:

"CSI member companies will not use any of the following in our kilns as fuel or raw material, as a constituent of cement, or in waste recovery and disposal operations:

# NUCLEAR WASTE
# INFECTIOUS MEDICAL WASTE
# CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS DESTINED FOR DESTRUCTION
# UNKNOWN OR UNSPECIFIED WASTE.

CEMEX UK Cement also feels that this commitment to the CSI provides a level of understanding which should provide a level of reassurance to external stakeholders that operations are undertaken in an ethical and responsible manner!"

By the by - who are we dealing with?
CEMEX UK CEMENT LTD?
RUGBY LIMITED?
RUGBY CEMENT?

CEMEX in new takeover bid

Cement giant Cemex has now branched out into Religion! 20,000 pounds have been invested in GOD. Having failed to convince Rugby residents of the success of its tyre trials - after the emissions data was hidden for more than a year - the latest strategy involves getting God on their side as they invest in St Andrews Church Rugby - unless they are paying for forgiveness of their sins?

This piffling donation co-incides with their insistence on burning more tyres and wastes to "address the number of environmental pressures" placed on them by the Environment Agency, which is "pushing them to use a larger quantity of substitute fuels" - presumably regardless of the impact on Rugby residents and the extra emissions of pollutants such as ammonia and cadmium and thallium.

Meanwhile the hapless Agency struggles to define the "plant stability" on which it bases its Permits, and the officers still refuse to supply the RCCF with the AMESA dioxin tests that show emissions of dioxin of up to eight times higher than admitted by the Cauldon Cement plant where it was trialled - after a previous typical Agency "promise" to trial the equipment at Rugby Cement was broken.

Don't believe one word they say!

SMOKING BAN?.. NOT US!

According to the Rugby Advertiser :
PEOPLE IN NEW BILTON, LIVING NEXT TO THE CEMENT WORKS, in the first of NEW LABOUR'S MUCH HERALDED, and PRESCOTT'S PERSONALLY PROMOTED AFFORDABLE SOCIAL HOUSING ARE :

"FED UP OF BEING SWAMPED - as residents kick up a stink!"

"Investigating the smelly problem are non other than (the usually invisible) RBC LABOUR councillors: Ish Mistry and Don Williams. Long-suffering New Bilton residents are kicking up a stink over claims that inadequate piping in the area of the cement works has caused them to be regularly swamped with sewage" - amongst many other unsavoury and unhealthy pollutants.

Home owners in AVENUE ROAD say "toilet paper and other waste, and a slurry-like stench", and frequent dust clouds, and odours, "have blighted the area after REDROW homes started building their nearby housing development".

Some residents also blame ongoing pollution from Rugby Cement and its increasing emissions and waste-burning trials. "You don't always notice it - but at times there is an awful smell. It is frustrating - we feel like we are banging our heads against a brick wall."

RBC officers and the CABINET were refusing to answer questions as we went to press. They said that they do not have to talk to anyone, or to answer any emails;
do not have to answer any questions; and steadfastly refuse point-blank to answer anything!

Some Councillors noted that the people who "did this" to Rugby residents are either dead; or living on a fat pension paid for by the council tax payers.

Interesting Link