RUGBY COUNCIL LEADER'S CONSIDERED RESPONSE

WHEN ASKED TO STOP SHOOTING THE MESSENGER!
AND RESTORE DEMOCRACY IN RUGBY:
GET RID OF ONE PARTY CONTROL SYSTEM:
OPEN DEBATE ABOUT WHERE THIS TOWN IS GOING!

OPEN ACCESSIBLE COUNCIL? HARDLY!
Rugby needs a PUBLIC INQUIRY into the new Cemex planning applications that are to be submitted in July in parallel at Warwickshire County Council for one, or two?, 365,000 tonne waste processing plants. Also a full environmental impact assessment for the cumulative impact of the existing cement plant, the EMISSIONS from the waste burning permutations, and newly proposed 365,000 tonne waste processing plant with its vents and chimney and huge increase in lorries and pollution.

LIST OF RUGBY CEMENT/CEMEX DONATIONS TO BE MADE PUBLIC?
Perhaps for the public record and scrutiny we could have a list of these "timely" donations, and the key persons involved, and how donations might "cloud their decision-making ability"? Recent examples are £150,000 for Church Lawford,
and a £22,500 mini-bus which saw a well-known councillor feature in the Cemex Community Matters newsletter, proudly beaming away as he clutched the keys. Who knows how this may have "encouraged" the widely proclaimed and public support of Cemex, and their plans to burn hundreds of tonnes of waste each day in the Cemex co-incinerator, when he warmly thanked them for their 2nd June 2006 presentation, and said "If we don't get hysterical we can get this through."


OFFICERS AND COUNCILLORS IN DENIAL? The facts should be made known, and questions answered about the alleged maladministration that has been going on over many years, at both WCC and RBC, involving both officers and councillors. The councillors have either been involved in this malpractice, or have "looked away", and in either case they have not done their jobs properly, and have not been supervising or reigning in the wayward officers, who have not carried out their duties correctly.


WARWICKSHIRE COUNCIL OFFICERS:
in 1996 "silenced" Mr Underhill, Chief Planning Officer at RBC. WCC officers actually wrote, (WCC files and I have copies), that, for pecuniary motives (signing first of a section 106 agreement), they had persuaded him not to speak up at the meeting with Rugby Cement, when he had insisted that the plans for the new cement plant and the photo montages were DECEPTIVE, and did not show the TRUE IMPACT, and that the construction of the plant would DESTROY the whole town of Rugby for generations to come! "I think we have persuaded Haywood not to speak until after we have signed the Section 106 agreement," before it goes to planning committee, and then it will be too late for him to say anything!


RUGBY BOROUGH OFFICERS FOOLED
the public in 1999 when they engaged, in secret, in the "Rugby Cement IPC application" process, to which Rugby's Environmental Health Office, in grave dereliction of duty, made no response to the consultation, concealed it from the councillors, and public, and made no attempt whatsoever to minimise and limit the pollution and impact from this cement factory. They then refused to answer any questions about this deception and finally admitted what RBC had done, and then
were reported in the press as saying "those responsible for this were either dead or retired" but would not say who they were, who had acted against Rugby residents best interests. Are those people now receiving a pension?

RUGBY COUNCIL WANTS WASTE BURNING?
as it rushed through officers own personal comments under "assumed delegated power": e.g. the WCC/Cemex bag filter application, without any involvement with Councillors - presumably in an attempt to get as much waste burnt in Rugby as possible? The Environment Agency's Public Register concealed
in RBC EHO office said that the Cemex plant would close if it could not fit the bag filters in order to burn the waste, as it would become uncompetitive, being restricted to coal burning only. Without the bag filters
it would not be able to meet the WASTE INCINERATION DIRECTIVE emission limits for co-incinerating waste cement plants. Warwickshire County Council decided to grant the planning permission without any environmental impact assessment, consideration of the true impact on Rugby, its air quality, health, and without due consideration of the letters from the public and from lawyers, and without any consultation with Rugby Councillors.


TOWN NEEDS TO DECIDE WHERE IT IS GOING AND WHAT IS IN BEST INTEREST!
Is this Council damaging the town and the future, and failing to improve Rugby children's life chances? WCC set up these "Locality panels" adding yet another layer of bureaucracy at huge cost to the rate payers, and with what benefit? While discussion is commendable there needs to be some joined-up thinking and action, as we are one town, and need an overall plan. Should these panels be used for PROPAGANDA?
Dunchurch locality panel at Flecknoe saw Cemex gave its "deceptive" presentation on the waste plant applications for Southam and /or Rugby (only your black bin rubbish my foot?!) to a handful of folk, were unable to ask many questions, and were hurried along.


CLASSICAL MUSIC TO FRIGHTEN AWAY YOUTHS!
At 19th March meeting of Rugby Town West Locality Panel the Committee at the High School suggested they play classical music outside the Kingsway shops to frighten away teenagers by exposing them to "culture" in such a way as to make them ashamed to be hanging about there. All this at Public expense, and organised by whom, and for what purpose?

RBC CONSULTATION :
PUBLIC DEBATE ABOUT RESTORING DEMOCRACY IN COUNCIL:
It is recognised that too much one-sided control is a very dangerous thing, that "absolute power corrupts", and it is widely held view that this Council is not being run properly, with officers seizing too much delegated power, and not being held to account.

Shall we now, having learnt from past mistakes, re-examine the unwise decision to hand all power to the TORY party, in the Cabinet system, and to open up the debate and try to get democracy restored to the Council, which used to work much better when it had meaningful representation from all parties? RBC have been asking people what they
think about the Council - so now is the chance to make amends!

NOT ONE, BUT TWO HOUSEHOLD" WASTE PLANTS!

CEMEX ANNOUNCES SIMULTANEOUS APPLICATIONS EARLY JULY
YOU WILL HAVE AT LEAST 12 WEEKS:
Addressing about 20 people on June 5th at the Dunchurch "Locality" panel in the tiny village of Flecknoe Cemex, making a presentation, announced that the two applications for the MBT PROCESSING OF HOUSEHOLD WASTE would be submitted about two weeks apart, in order to assist Warwickshire County Council - but the applications would be regarded as simultaneous. "Both have merits" - Long Itchington (Southam) is brown field, 12 miles from co-incinerator, but Malpass Rugby is on a landfill, earmarked for industrial use, and is conveniently next door.

CHRISTMAS GIFT FOR WINNERS!
The public have many happy months ahead, a significant period, in which to comment - as the decision will be announced by WCC at Christmas, as a GIFT for the winning community!

There will be two planning applications, two Environmental Impact Assessments, publications, exhibitions, information on web, as many means as possible to communicate with you what is going to happen, and allow you to give your views. We have to build this and to burn waste to save the nitrogen dioxide emissions, which of course are already "way below our emission limits" (err?) but we can save them more. And Carbon Dioxide - we can save that too - by calling these wastes "carbon neutral"! It is much better for us to burn this waste than to continue burning South African coal. It is sustainable and saves this waste from going to landfill, and emitting methane a green house gas 20 times more damaging than carbon dioxide.

WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL to be helped with landfill target, to save them and the public from being fined. And we provide 750 jobs locally. "CLIMAFUEL" is on trial now at Rugby as a 30% replacement. (FUNNY SUMS: actually it is on 100% replacement as the 16 tonnes coal needed in the CALCINER is being replaced by 6 tonnes tyres, and the balance of approximately 10 tonnes is being replaced by 15 tonnes climafuel each hour) After the "climafuel trial" there is to be a lengthy consultation in which we will provide data to PROVE there is no NET DETRIMENT!


DEAD BODIES NO PROBLEM:
GORDON COLLETT CHAIRING did not want to "get bogged down" or to allow too many questions. One questioner was worried about living in the prevailing down wind area: This process does not smell like a landfill, and Southam has a chimney ready for use, but we can vent the emissions through the roof at Rugby, as about 25% of the waste will be "moisture" that has to be "dried off and vented". No we will most definitely not have a chimney at Rugby - OK - oh err maybe we will have a "small one". The plant is at negative air pressure and no emissions and odour will escape. EVERYTHING IS KEPT IN! It is all in a sealed building.
Only 25% of waste will be moisture drawn off, and vented. The two plants may vary, and use a different technology.

One questioner said waste was to come from all over the country, and asked what guarantee there was the bins would not contain toxic materials? How would Cemex deal with "dead bodies", and other things like "dog muck" that get into "wheely bins". Apparently household waste is an "homogeneous beast" and "odd extraneous" materials like that, and metals, and "large items", would be sorted out by the MBT process, and turned into the "climafuel".


1,000 TONNES OF WASTE IN TEN LORRIES!
Another question revealed that Southam was the preferred option, and that the 70 clay lorries (each way each day) would only increase "to 80 or 90", or should that read "two 80 or 90? Another odd sum - how do you get 1,000 tonnes a day of bulky waste into 10, OR EVEN 20, lorries? Half the MUNICIPAL WASTE will be suitable to burn , 25-30% will be recycled and "a little 5%" will be landfilled.

INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL WASTE in the application/s got no mention at all!
This is all about your black bag rubbish, and what Cemex can do for you!

OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS NOW FOR COUNCILLORS ASRUGBY COUNCIL OFFERS PUBLIC INQUIRY TENTATIVE SUPPORT:
In response to public concerns and a growing demand for a Public Inquiry Craig Humphries, leader of Rugby Borough Council said:

"This application in the terms described in the question would be a matter determined by Warwickshire County Council. So far as I am aware no application has been made to date. If, and when it is, the Council will wish to consider its response both as a local planning authority and as a Council. At this stage I will not be seeking to commit the Council to seeking a Public Inquiry."

LILIAN OF ARC

CALLS FOR URGENT PUBLIC INQUIRY!
OVER WASTE PLANT AT SOUTHAM OR AT RUGBY!

A RUGBY TIMES EXCLUSIVE
revealed that Lilian has challenged conventional candidates for the new parliamentary seat of Rugby, as Tory Jeremy Wright moves over to Southam.
They likened Lilian to Joan of Arc, riding to the rescue of Rugby, tirelessly working for Rugby residents, and well-known nationally as a determined environmental campaigner, challenging the government to properly implement the European Directives, and Aarhus Convention, and to allow British citizens their rightful Access to Justice, and right to redress of "environmental crimes", without becoming bankrupt.
Lilian, always serving Rugby, seeks no personal gain, being rewarded only by the grateful thanks of those suffering the environmental
detriment, loss of amenity, poor air quality, and health effects, delivered by the "dubious actions" of the local authorities, the Environment Agency and
the industrial polluters. The usual Warwickshire County Council practise of failing to consult the public, and of "nodding through" retrospective planning permissions to the benefit of industry, and at great cost to the public, must end - NOW!

RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL TO SUPPORT PUBLIC INQUIRY?
QUESTION FOR CABINET 2ND JUNE 2008:

Cemex are submitting a planning application for a huge waste processing plant for 1,000 tonnes a day of household, commercial and industrial waste, to be "imported" from all over the country to an urban area on Parkfield Road. From this total 360 tonnes of Refuse Derived Fuel will be burnt each day in the Cemex co-incinerator, leaving a residue of 640 tonnes to go where, for recycling and landfill?
Rugby residents are very concerned about the cumulative impact of the Cemex operations, which have never had any Environmental Impact Assessment , and we are calling for a full open debate about the comparative merits of using the much larger rural site at Southam, or the smaller urban site at Rugby which is in an area already polluted, with high levels of particulate, daily exceedances of the PM10 objective, and also in the nitrogen dioxide AQMA, where pollution is set to rise significantly due to the routing of the new Western Relief Road along Parkfield Road.
As Parliamentary Candidate and an behalf of Rugby in Plume I am calling for a full open debate, and an urgent PUBLIC INQUIRY. Will this Cabinet, and Rugby Council, support the people of Rugby and call for a Public Inquiry - as "Rugby has had enough!"
Lilian Pallikaropoulos

Cemex Starts Rugby-Southam War

CAST YOUR VOTE NOW: ON A LOCAL SOLUTION TO A LOCAL PROBLEM?

RUGBY OR SOUTHAM WASTE PLANT?
To be discussed IN SECRET on Friday 24th May at Rugby Town Hall.
CEMEX ask WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL to approve their planning application for a 1,000 tonne a day WASTE HANDLING/PROCESSING PLANT: 240,000 tonnes year MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE MATERIALS, and 125,000 tpa of imported SRF type material or "Climafuel" from other MBT facilities.

DEVELOPMENT - SIX FEATURES:
Reception and Process Building; Materials recycling facility; Blending House; Buffer storage area;
Bio-filter Area to house Environmental control systems such as water and air; plus who knows how many juggernauts!


PROCESSING (MBT Mechanical Biological Treatment and MHT Mechanical Heat Treatment) and BLENDING 125,000 tonnes a year imported ready-made "climafuel" for "blending" in with some of the 240,000 tonnes domestic, commercial and industrial wastes, in order to provide 130,000 tonnes of "climafuel" for burning in the calciner at the Cemex co-incinerator : where it is being used as a 100% replacement, at 15 tonnes per hour (360 tpd) along with 6 tonnes of tyres (144tpd), to replace 16 tonnes of coal (504 tonnes waste daily to substitute for 384 tonnes coal). Grimsby Port Authority' has a three year contract to handle the importation of Dutch/European "climafuel" for South Ferriby and Barrington plants.
WHY IMPORT WASTE, and where does the rest go?

SSSSHHH! TOP SECRET TEA PARTY!

CEMEX TAKE OVER SCRUFFY-TOWN HALL!

"RUGBY TO BECOME EVEN MORE A CEMEX WASTE DUMP!"
SAY COUNCILLORS, AS COUNCIL TAXES USED, YET AGAIN, TO SUBSIDISE RUGBY CEMENT.
23 MAY - PRIVATE PRESENTATION!
NO PUBLIC! NO PRESS!
NO WITNESSES!

MARK THE BALLOT ON CODE OF CONDUCT:
THE TEN GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF RUGBY COUNCILLORS, OR NOT?
1. Selflessness - serve only public interest; never confer advantage or disadvantage.
2. Honesty and Integrity - avoid appearance of improper behaviour.
3. Objectivity - decisions on merit.
4. Accountability - to the public.
5. Openness - open and justify actions.
6. Personal Judgement - take account of public's view.
7. Respect for others - equality and not discrimination.
8. Duty to uphold the law - act in accordance with public trust.
9. Stewardship - use resources prudently.
10 Leadership - secure or preserve public confidence.
11 NONE OF THE ABOVE?



JOIN THE "KEEP CEMEX HAPPY CLUB!"
Despite the highly contentious and controversial nature of this latest Cemex proposition, our pleas to all 48 Councillors for openness, honesty
integrity, and transparency fall on deaf ears as they continue to discriminate against the public, serving only Cemex, as they squander our Council
Taxes on secret meetings - just as Warwickshire County Council does - in an apparent aim to "keep Cemex happy!"


ERIN BROCKOVICH NEEDED IN RUGBY!
With the continued public involvement, and wide-spread support, united we continue to "fight for the future of Rugby!" We do our best against the great odds put up by those who, using public money, are self-serving, ignorant of the scientific facts; those in authority, who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo by intimidation, deception, and control. Matt Wright's letter in the Rugby Times "History will have the last word over Lilian" is very heartening, praising as it does our "passion to fight wrong doing", our "refusal to take the line of least resistance and to roll over and die", and our unshakeable "belief in people power and justice for ordinary folk!" The fight against the wrong-doers goes on! In another letter Martin Pope asks Cemex for a re-spray, and questions the damage to his lungs, as he comments on the nature of the cement dust on his classic car - which he likens to "grinding paste" when washed off with a sponge and water.

ERIN BROCKOVICH, mentioned by Matt in his letter, is famous for the Julia Roberts film on hexavalent chromium poisoning in a water supply. ERIN has been called to HELP RIVERSIDE cement plant locals, and is currently investigating the high rate of cancer, and high blood levels of hexavalent chromium, evident in the residents who live down wind of the TXI Riverside Cement Plant. These carcinogenic emissions are among the many other poisonous pollutants found in cement plant emissions, and in the so-called "white dust" that descends on residents near cement plants everywhere. (see Los Angeles Times - Rubidoux). There are no monitors in Rugby for any of the toxic pollutants and metals that are being emitted 24/7, nor for cancer-causing vaporised mercury, arsenic, lead, dioxins etc.


COUNCILLORS TO NOD THROUGH MORE POLLUTION AND DIRT?
In the meantime what do the 48 Rugby Councillors do about the environment, dust, and emissions that pour out onto Rugby residents? They care not a jot as they squander yet more of our Council Taxes, subsidising Cemex, inviting them to "take tea", and permitting them to take over the Town Hall (23 May), and giving them unfettered access in order to lobby the Councillors, in secret, with "private pre-application discussions and presentations".


RUGBY SUCKERZ!
Why does Cemex not hire a room accessible to the public? Hardly likely while Rugby residents pay up for them to have secret Council meetings. How far this "SECRET SHOW" will influence the Councillors remains to be seen, but with such self-serving wimps at the helm it seems inevitable that the proposed 1,000 tonne a day waste processing plant on the Malpass landfill site on Parkfield Road, New Bilton will be nodded through, nicely situated alongside the cement plant so all the emissions can accumulate and blow
over the town in the prevalent "favourable" westerly winds. ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF SCRUFFY TOWN!

Suck it up Rugby!

RUGBY TOWN TOPS LEAGUE TABLE FOR DIRTIEST STREETS IN WEST MIDLANDS!

WE SEE IT HERE, WE SEE IT THERE, DIRT AND DUST ON EVERYWHERE!

The Rugby Advertiser 8 May 8th, quoting UNION GMB survey labelled Rugby, "SCRUFFY TOWN", as Rugby was "pipped at the post", and deprived of actually being branded the dirtiest town out of the 34 entrants, being beaten only by the more filthy streets of Birmingham, Coventry, Bedworth and Nuneaton. 19% of the Rugby streets fell below the acceptable level of cleanliness."There are still too many councils not putting enough effort and resources into keeping the streets clean, and that has got to change!"

SAMPLE OF LETTERS IN PRESS:
MASKS. MOON DUST, FAIRIES, POLLEN?

LEAVE LILIAN ALONE: I write for everyone in Rugby and beyond who are concerned for their health, safety, and quality of life. Here in Rugby we have a dedicated lady, Lilian P, showing concerns over the Cemex factory. She does not "ride the gravy train" and I do not think (Rugby Cement gifts of) "flowers" or "roof tiles" will silence her. Please invite a Sioux Indian to visit Rugby to read the smoke signals coming from the chimney and tell people the truth? Otherwise we have no chance! (Lawford resident)

THE ANSWER IS BLOWING IN THE WIND:
THIS TIME I suppose we have to blame the pesky Sahara desert for the measurable thickness of dust deposited on our cars? Perhaps Cemex's bunkers, hoppers and chimneys act as a natural barrier, a bit like the Pennine Chain, and Saharan sand is precipitated on one side only, like rain in Manchester? Still I cannot sit here musing all day, I have to collect yet another Beclazone inhaler for my wife, who seems to be getting through rather a lot lately. Must be that pesky Saharan dust! (Shakespeare Gardens)

COVERED IN DUST - YET AGAIN I awake to find my home and car covered in filth. I am an arthritic pensioner meaning all cleaning jobs are difficult. Consequently I have this week paid £15 to have my windows cleaned and £6.50 for my car - for what? Perhaps Cemex are now employing fairies to sprinkle moon dust over us all for good luck? That could well be the next ridiculous excuse they expect us stupid rate-payers to accept. Lilian P wisely advises us to move away, or to wear masks. I cannot afford to move else I would be off like a shot. And as for wearing masks it should be Cemex management wearing those so we don't recognise them in public. There again why bother? They don't hang about of live in the firing line do they? (Cherwell Way)

LAST WEEK Cemex brazenly denied they were responsible for dust that was clearly seen leaving their factory, was reported by the public, and which landed on cars and property. They always say "complaints investigated - case not proven" - so eye-witness accounts mean nothing. During the UK-wide dust episode the Environment Agency were inundated by calls, as reported in the Rugby Advertiser. "Annoyed residents from all areas of Rugby say they believe it came from Rugby Cement because it USUALLY does!"


CEMEX WASTE PLANT FILTH!!
1,000 TONNES A DAY: planned for Rugby Malpass Site, by Cemex, who will begin the process by the usual "secret" meetings with Rugby Councillors (May 28?) in order to "soften them up", in the usual way, by pre-consultation consultation, and in the pre-application application, before they finally submit the application giving the public just three weeks to respond.

CAN RUGBY TAKE ANY MORE DUST AND POLLUTION IN THE AIR, ANY MORE DIRT AND FILTH ON OUR STREETS?

IS IT MERE CO-INCIDENCE THAT THIS TOWN HAS GONE STEADILY DOWN HILL SINCE THE NEW RUGBY WORKS WAS OPENED IN FEBRUARY 2000?

MYSTERY DUST EXPLAINED?

AS MERELY SPRING CLEANING?

UK-WIDE COMPLAINTS ROLL IN - POSSIBILITIES REPORTED IN THE PRESS:
Cemex co-incinerator trials of tyres and RDF in Rugby?
Grangemouth oil refinery restart?
Drakelow power station - oops - its closed down?
Farmers burning stubble - in May?
Dunbar Lafarge Cement - sulphur and plume grounding reported?
SEPA: "particles are mix of sand, road dust and plants."
MET OFFICE: Saharan sand.
MET OFFICE: Spain.
Pollen from Europe?
Smoke from Europe - Russian fires?
Chemical weapons testing?
Volcano in Chile?
Cyclone in Burma?
Olympic flame?
Sponsored chimney sweep?
Housewives spring cleaning?


WASTE FUELS : "DREAD" TERMS?
The HEALTH PROTECTION AGENCY reportedly, at the the 11th Institute of Environment and Health meeting at Cranfield, outlined the "problems" of communicating to the public that the burning of waste in cement kilns SHOULD lead to no increased health effects. So there we have it, straight from the horses mouth - there are health effects but these should not increase - over what level? And how is this assessed?

This issue had consumed so much of their time and energy, but "there is public concern which we ignore at our peril. In many ways what we've seen is an object lesson in how not to do it, and more recently how to do it - through COMEAP. The cement industry has not covered itself in glory in the past and the Profuel/Cemfuel/Climafuel are on their way to becoming "dread" terms."

COMEAP: TIGHT CONTROLS NEEDED!
The HPA when first set up was welcomed by residents and protesters as a new independent body to review scientific evidence, but this view has now begun to erode, and the HPA is seen as an "ally of industry!" COMEAP has been approached five times on the issue of waste in cement kilns. Given the numerous combinations of different types of waste fuels and processes COMEAP has found it hard to be able to give the "all-clear" for all fuels and all combinations based on the data provided. They are shortly expected to publish a report giving the okay for waste fuels, but crucially it will say that MANAGEMENT CONTROLS WILL NEED TO BE TIGHT.

PUBLIC CONCERN TO END? WRONG!
The HPA are said to be "waiting with baited breath for the report which hopefully will go some way towards ending public concern."

PUBLIC CONCERN WILL NOT END!
The HPA said there were many "claimed" advantages for burning Refuse derive Fuel, waste tyres meat and bone meal. "Cement kilns require a huge amount of energy and high temperatures and long residence times means that many potentially toxic products are either destroyed or absorbed in the cement and clinker."

But all this ignores the very real threat posed by the unmonitored Low Level Point Sources which emit constantly as the clinker is ground into cement "dust" which carries on each bag hazard warnings! These emissions also must contain "the toxic products" that are supposedly safely absorbed into the cement dust? The addition of unquantified/unspecified industrial wastes at all stages of the process as substitutes for, or in addition to, many of the raw materials has never been assessed by anyone. At RUGBY there was no consultation, and no planning permission for storage, no chemical analysis, and no EU waste codes; - as COMEAP concentrate their attention on the "alternative fuels" as described above. These over 100% coal replacements (16 tph coal replaced by 6 tph tyres and 15 tph RDF) in any case do not even go into the kiln, but are burnt in the calciner at lower temperatures , with short residence time, and the gases go in a contraflow to heat up the raw materials, before being emitted via the main stack - or escaping sometimes as fugitive emissions.

COAL TO BE USED ON START-UP:
The IPPC permits specifically state that "no waste is to be burnt on start-up, or shut down, and when the kiln is running at less than 200 tonnes an hour raw meal feed." No satisfactory explanation has ever been given for this, so one can only conclude there is "something" much worse about the emissions from the wastes than the coal? Otherwise why would they start to pay £60 a tonnes for coal when they could be £90 a tonne better off by being paid £30 a tonne to burn waste instead. We also "await the COMEAP report with baited breath" and it remains to be seen if COMEAP had better go back to the drawing board?

RUGBY.. DIRTIEST GRUBBIEST TOWN

TOWN COATED IN MYSTERY DUST - YET AGAIN!
THAT'S OFFICIAL!

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY IN DENIAL - YET AGAIN!

* "Our 2006 air quality survey (see RBC web) does not support Lilian's suggestion that she is merely a spokesperson for an actively-concerned public : it indicates that most people are broadly satisfied with their local environment and air quality."

* "Local residents have failed to show any continuing interest in operations at the Rugby plant."

* The Agency simply does not believe people in Rugby are bothered at all about the cement works, nor about being covered in dust and pollution, and claims "the extent of the residents' concerns is questionable".

* "There is no evidence of widespread public support or concern in Rugby."

* The Agency criticised the Rugby public's lack of response to the continuous consultations on yet ever more Cemex applications, describing Rugby residents as having no "active interest"!



RESIDENTS UP IN ARMS - YET AGAIN! as yet another bank Holiday is spent washing their cars and windows after an over night coating with dust. The "dust", which was so thick that residents could not even see out of their car windows, has coated cars, conservatories, caravans, window ledges and any other flat surfaces, and has been reported across the whole of the town after a still, airless night.


ENVIRONMENT AGENCY BESIEGED - YET AGAIN!
Complaints have deluged the Environment Agency switchboard, with calls right across the town from Long Lawford, New Bilton, Bilton , Hillmorton - postal codes CV22, CV21, and CV23.


LORDS JUDGEMENT RIGHT - YET AGAIN! * "After all the inhabitants of Rugby had been living with A cement works for a long time..."
* "In other words there was already so much dust in the air of Rugby..." that perhaps adding a few more hundred tonnes a year makes no difference?
* "The local people were sceptical and reluctant to be experimented upon."


DR EVANS OF RUGBY CEMENT EXPLAINS - YET AGAIN!
that Rugby Cement did not consider it necessary to tell the public AT ANY STAGE, - not during the "secret" WCC planning application/s, nor during construction, nor during the secret IPC, nor during the grossly misleading IPPC application that they cunningly called "tyre burning application" - about the levels of dust to which they would be constantly exposed from the Low Level Point Sources, and about the frequent exposure to "fugitive dust".

House of Lords 19/20:

QUOTE: "The application said nothing however about the effect of adding the contribution of emissions of PM10 from LLPS to the ambient air quality.
The consultants had not been asked to include these emissions in their computer model. Dr Evans explained in his second witness statement: 'The rationale for this was that releases from the main stack were considered to be of more significance than those from other point sources such as the cement mills, where there would be lower discharge volumes and concentrations. We considered the general risk assessment approach to be satisfactory and in line with general guidance.' One reason for excluding the LLPS from the company's modelling exercise MAY have been the GREAT DIFFICULTY of doing so with ANY PRETENCE AT ACCURACY.

Whereas emissions from the main stack are continuous (???!) and from a single fixed point above all surrounding buildings, the emissions from the LLPS are from a number of different places at different heights for irregular periods of time and MAYBE (???!) affected by the layout of the buildings. An attempt at modelling MAY therefore not have been able to produce very helpful information."

LILIAN'S COMMENT :"A LIKELY STORY" - YET AGAIN!
Is this a joke? So they built a 2,000,000 tonne a year capacity cement works, with NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT!
Then they admit that neither the EA nor Rugby Cement, and much less so the hapless Warwickshire County Council planners, had ever considered WHAT EMISSIONS were to come out of it from the various sources, and WHERE the emissions were to fall and what environmental, air quality and health impact this would have on the long-suffering Rugby residents?

Even though the plant had, by the time of the IPPC application, been running for 18 months still there was NO REAL LIVE DATA available from the 19 LLPS as they have NO MONITORS at all! Rugby Cement "attempted" to do some dispersion modelling of what they said was "from the the installation", but it was in fact of the "main stack only", in order to convince the "sceptical public who were reluctant to be experimented upon" that there was "no problem".
No information was in the public domain, and with repeated complaints by the dust-coated public the Agency then decided to "dispersion model" the emissions from the LLPS - in two secret AQMAU reports - which shocked both them and Rugby Cement so much that they decided to hide them. "Rugby Cement expressed great concern about this information getting into the public domain!" Even at the end of 2002 the Agency could not get information
out of Rugby Cement as to what was being emitted from where, because no-one had EVER considered it as important, and Rugby Cement struggled to find any "ACTUAL DATA" to give to the Agency. The Agency's top scientists in the AQMAU team said this application fell far short of what would be considered adequate, and there were so many gaps in the data - despite the plant having run for THREE YEARS!!

However the Health Protection Agency, under its former name of the Chemical Hazards Research Unit at Birmingham University had already pointed out in response to the IPPC application, in 2001, (the application that ONLY they ever saw!!) that the mills and other low level sources were emitting at far too high a rate and were likely to be very detrimental to the air quality in Rugby. No level of particulate is safe!

PIGGY IN THE MIDDLE?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

"OPINIONS" OF THE LORDS ON APPEAL

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

Lots of things were hidden!

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


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


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


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

* A CASE OF BATS, NOT BAT!

Press release

Rugby Cement - House of Lords judgement

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

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

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

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


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

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

REVOCATION OR DISCONTINUANCE?

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

ALL FOOLS DAY

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB

THEY WEAVE, WHEN FIRST THEY BEGIN TO DECEIVE!

CEMEX : PUBLIC NOT PERMITTED AT "SECRET" SITE VISIT TO VIEW UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION OF EQUIPMENT FOR 100% WASTE BURNING!

Only WCC Regulatory Councillors are welcome to see CLIMAFUEL plant - see Peter Barnes; Brian Moss; Jose Compton; Michael Doody; Pat Henry; Nina Knapman; Joan Lea; Barry Longden; Sue Main; Ray Sweet; Ian Smith; to attend Cemex site at 11.00 on 25th March. We have pointed out that this Cemex REFUSAL to allow any of the public on the site visit, that is now to be held in "secret", is "not fair", is unethical, and flies in the face of the need for transparency, openness, community engagement, public participation and Cemex's own stated position as being open to visitors.

WCC CONSTITUTION SAYS:
"Applicants and objectors will accompany the Committee only in order to facilitate access, point out physical features and answer factual questions. A site visit may exceptionally be followed by a factual presentation on behalf of the applicant (see section 26). At least one representative of any objectors should be invited to observe the presentation."
But DIVIDE the community and RULE is how Cemex always play it! WHY COULD IT POSSIBLY BE - that the meeting MUST be HELD IN SECRET?

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY PERMIT OVER 100% WASTE! as they issue a permit variation to burn over 100% waste at Cemex co-incinerator. The public were told in the public consultation CARRIED OUT BY CEMEX IN THE SUMMER OF 2006 that the "Climafuel" was to be a substitute for 30% of the coal, and was to be "household waste - your black bag rubbish". But afterwards they find out the permit has allowed various industrial and commercial wastes to be incorporated, with a 50% increase in chlorine - to name but one "difference". The copy of the application and consultation document version 1 June 2006 as carried out by Cemex during 2006 is, of course, not on the Environment Agency's Public Register. They have a new different version of the original application in which the new industrial wastes from dechromatation, decyanidation and neutralisation have been included.

And the public were told the 15 tonnes an hour would represent 30% of the thermal value. But given that the substitute fuel only goes into the combustion chamber, and not into the kiln, surely the replacement is ONLY in the calciner? It is difficult (to say the least!) to find out the "true facts" about what is being burn there, but it appears about 60% of the coal is burnt in the calciner, being approximately 18 tonnes an hour. This has been substituted by 6 tph of tyres, which have a higher calorific value, but leaving that aside - there are about 12 tph coal to replace. These are being replaced by 15tph of "climafuel", which has a calorific value between 15 and 23 MJ/kg. So there you are - over 100% replacement. What impact this will have no one knows, except there have been some increases in polluting emissions at Barrington and South Ferriby imported Dutch "climafuel" has been trialled, which is apparently "of a better more consistent quality than the RDF available in the UK". There is a three year contract to import it through Grimsby, where the bales are broken as it is unloaded into "walking floor" trailers for despatch for co-incineration at the cement plants. So much for A LOCAL SOLUTION TO A LOCAL PROBLEM!


PLANNING PERMISSION FOR 100% WASTE - WHO NEEDS IT?
Not Cemex anyway, who have built the "climafuel" docking and transfer equipment without bothering to wait for the planning application to be heard by the WARWICKSHIRE County Council Regulatory committee on ALL FOOLS DAY, as was planned. Instead Councillors, in an apparent breach of Protocol, are to go on a "site visit" on 25th March before the application has been even discussed at Committee. See Minutes Regulatory Committee WCC 4th March 2008. In response to a WCC letter 8th February advising Cemex that these "work are completely unauthorised" and that Cemex may "face enforcement action to secure their removal" and to "cease work to allow the submitted planning application to be considered" Cemex have his to say on 26th February:

* we are surprised complainants have seen it as it is low to the ground.
* we can erect the conveyor system under "permitted development".
* it is a relatively small building, area 745 square metres.
* it is extremely unlikely that the officers will recommend councillors to refuse it.
* the cement plant had planning permission in 1996, therefore no policy objection.
* there is very little likelihood of the operation causing harm by noise, dust, fumes or odour.
* once it was considered it was not permitted development we had already started building.
* the Government sees retrospective permission as an appropriate way to regularise "unauthorised development".

RUGBY AREA COMMITTEE 24 JANUARY:
complained that this Committee had an apparent lack of a meaningful role, and the members of the County Councillors were not being consulted on MAJOR planning applications. WCC lawyers said that these MAJOR applications went straight to the Regulatory Committee "who had the necessary officer support and resources and comprehensive reports and training." The Committee resolved to write to the Strategic Director of Performance and Development requesting the Area Committee be consulted, in particular on applications for planning permission in respect of significant developments affecting the Area." The $100 question: Does the "unlawful" erection of equipment and "retrospective" planning application to burn 100% waste at the Rugby Cemex plant constitute "significant development?"


HAZARDOUS WASTE FLY TIPPING AT SOUTHAM?
LACK OF PPC PERMIT AND PLANNING PERMISSION OF NO CONCERN TO ANYONE as the Regulatory Committee of WCC 4th March got themselves into even more hot water! The officers advised them to renew a "further extension to an old, already expired several times, 'temporary' planning permission for non-hazardous waste CKD which had been granted temporarily in 2000 just until all the waste CKD could be dumped in CLOSED LANDFILL in Parkfield Road Rugby. The Cement Kiln Dust from a coal burning cement plant could be dumped at Southam. After we intervened and explained EU Law and hazardous waste they became even more "mixed up" and admitted they could not understand what is the difference between the previously expired permitted CKD from the coal burning process, and the HAZARDOUS WASTE BYPASS DUST from a co-incinerating cement plant. "The EA had been asked to clarify the issue" which "had lead to even more confusion." They said that "The unauthorised depositing was not a fundamental problem as the EA and Stratford Council did not appear to be overly concerned." GREAT! So no need to COMPLY WITH THE LAW, and no need to have the LEGALLY REQUIRED PPC PERMIT or any legally required planning permission? Bob Stevens asked "whether the applicants (Cemex) would continue depositing at the site" that has no planning permission, and Ian Grace said " this was likely, and that it would be difficult to take action against the company to make them halt in view of the uncertainty surrounding the issue." The initial 2004 PPC application is still the subject of an appeal before the Planning Inspector Kevin Gordon, and yet a further abeyance till mid 2008 has been granted. One reason why the PPC application had been REFUSED by the EA was BECAUSE the site has NO PLANNING PERMISSION. It has no PPC operating permission either, and by October 2007 this became a legal requirement.

MP JEREMY WRIGHT ; ROCK AND HARD PLACE!
The very unfortunate and "shady" re-organisation of the parliamentary boundaries has taken the "Kenilworth" out of Rugby, and placed it in with Southam instead. This leaves ex MP Andy King, Labour, (lost seat to Jeremy in 2005) to slug it out in Rugby with the Jeremy replacement - Mark Pawsey Conservative. Meanwhile , as Jeremy sails away into the sunset at Southam and Kenilworth, this has coincided with Cemex's submitting two EIA SCOPING ASSESSMENTS for MBT/IHT at Southam - or at Rugby - or at both? Jeremy appears to be between a rock and a hard place. If he supports Rugby residents in their rejection of this application he will not do very well in Southam.

SQUANDERING PUBLIC MONEY AND WASTING OUR TIME IN SECRET MEETINGS:
At Southam and Warwick and Rugby secret meetings have been going on between various WCC officers, and Councillors, and Cemex, and local parish representatives (NIMBYS) who are apparently only interested in themselves, and "their little area", and are unable to "think outside of their box", and who "ONLY worried about the increase in lorries in their villages". They also insist on "keeping all the groups separate" so that there will be no joined-up thinking and holistic approach, and so that the COMMUNITY/IES will be REMAIN DIVIDED and SEGREGATED! So many "secret meetings" going on all the time , a massive waste of public time and funds, where officers of the EA, RBC and WCC are concerned - no Agenda, no minutes, no public, no notice, venues are hidden etc. This is a neat little ACTION PLAN, and in this way you can "tell'em what you want and no one will know any different!"

LIST OF VARIOUS COMMITTEES AND MEMBERS TO BE COMPILED.
We are tabulating a list of all these committees and groups and will be publishing a full list of who is involved and how to contact them.

WATCH THIS SPACE!

U-Turn

"NO EXTENSION!" now becomes "YES!"
PUBLIC PRESSURE FORCES BACK-TRACK
"It was clear that members were anxious to have more time to consider the MALPASS SCOPING DOCUMENTS. The problems in distribution have obviously exacerbated the situation and in order to provide community organisations, and individuals, with sufficient time to comment, I have agreed with WCC that the consultation period be extended by four weeks from February 29th to March 27th."

COMPETITION: WINNER TAKES ALL!
NOW PARITY IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE "TWO GROUPS" as SOUTHAM locals fight with RUGBY residents for the :
* PRIVILEGE and PLEASURE and
* HUGE ENVIRONMENTAL and FINANCIAL BENEFIT * that WINNING the PLANNING PERMISSION
* for the HALF A MILLION TONNES a year WASTE PLANT will bring to their homes, roads and area.

WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL last week:
" The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 require Local Planning Authorities to adopt a scoping opinion within five weeks... In the case of Southam Long Itchington the initial circulation list was extended mid way through the consultation exercise following discussions at a local liaison meeting. Given that these additional consultees would have had little time to respond a request was made to extend the consultation period, which Cemex were agreeable to. The consultation period ended up being six to seven weeks. In respect of Malpass Farm there has been no change with the consultation thus I am not convinced that is necessary to increase the consultation period. I have discussed this with Cemex who are not minded to agree to an extension of time. However, any comments/ observations received after the 29th February will not be ignored and will be considered by WCC and forwarded to Cemex for consideration and incorporation within the preparation of the Environmental Statement."

HOW MUCH IS IT ALL WORTH?
BOTTOM LINE! COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE!
OUCH! They burn about 30 tonnes of coal an hour at about £60 a tonne - £1,800 hour.
COST: COAL 24 X £1,800 = £43,200 A DAY depending on coal price/quality. They can SUBSTITUTE 6 tph tyres that attract a "gate fee" of about £35 tonne, so £210 an hour - plus coal saved £360 = £570 an hour SAVED £13,680 a day.
£43,200 fuel bill reduced by £13,680 = daily FUEL COST £29,520

ADD IN TONNES OF RUBBISH
Household waste RDF attracts a gate fee of about £30 tonne(?) They can burn 15 tph "climafuel" for the trials, but according to the web they will be able to double the substitution when the "sham trials" are over. The co-incinerator can achieve "over a 100% substitution" this way, but because the RDF is of variable and lower calorific value it can be substituted at a ratio of about 2 parts to 1 of coal. Could be another £450/£900 an hour income to offset against the coal?

CIVIL WAR IN WARWICKSHIRE OVER WASTE PLANT.
We have called for an INTEGRATED HOLISTIC APPROACH, with OPEN INFORMED PUBLIC meetings and TRANSPARENCY! For the SAKE of EVERYONE we need to get the "LEAST WORST OPTION". But obviously those with a "vested interest" in all this, and those who have their "little power bases", prefer to divide the community, and to pit "each community" against another for the benefit of Cemex! POLICY TO SEPARATE COMMUNITY: DIVIDED WE FALL!
Rugby Cement have set up various little "powerless" groups, such as the Southam Quarry Liaison Group - a group so "un-knowing" that they are not even aware that there is hazardous waste BYPASS DUST from the CEMEX CO-INCINERATOR being dumped in the quarry, with no lawful planning permission and no lawful operating permit.

QUARRY SPOKESMAN HAS HEAD IN THE SAND!
They say that the meetings have "enabled Cemex to project a responsible caring image with local people." "The interests of communities local to Southam do not neatly coincide with this expanding Vehicle Routing Group, which is a CONTENTIOUS ONE with no obvious straightforward solution that will meet everyone's wishes. It NEEDS TO BE KEPT SEPARATE!" The RCCF is also to be kept in the dark, and to be kept away from meeting with those at Southam, (Stratford District, a whole kilometre away from the Rugby Borough boundary!) who are soon to be afflicted!

CEMEX CAN DO ANYTHING THEY WANT
Geoff Yates of Lawford in the Observer "I was interested to read about the planned further expansion of the cement works or is it an incinerator plant? The thing that really amazes me was that the expansion of the Southam works was shelved because of the extra traffic movements that would have occurred. It would appear that the increase to a minimum of 1,000 truck movements per day that occurred at the Rugby works was OK, even though it is smack in the middle of a residential area! In the light of the above with regard to this new extension of activities and with the potential for even more pollution in the area I feel sure the local residents will get the 'usual protection from our local representatives and the department of the environment.'

It would seem that when Cemex say "JUMP" the only question they get asked is "HOW HIGH?""

TOWN CENTRE VIEW FOR ALL TO ENJOY!

CEMENT PLANT TO BE LISTED BUILDING!

RUGBY CEMEX CO-INCINERATOR FORUM UPDATE:

CEMEX DENIES ALL KNOWLEDGE OF INDUSTRIAL WASTES to be burnt in the Cemex co-incinerator. It seems the Environment Agency are to blame, as they just put an EWC waste code for industrial waste into the PPC Permit, along with the stated/consulted household RDF application, without being asked? Believe it or not? And, in any case, EW waste codes are meaningless - apparently!

CEMEX SAID NO! TO REQUESTS FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME IN RUGBY where they are "testing the water" for a possible HALF a MILLION tonne a year waste plant: 1,000 tonnes a day in;360 tonnes burnt; 640 tonnes OUT AGAIN in another form. You know it makes sense! IMPORT Up to 240,000 tpa of MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, or COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL waste materials, Plus about 125,000 tpa of imported SRF or Climafuel ready made: to produce 240,000 tpa of Climafuel. Of this 130,000 tonnes can burnt in the Rugby Co-incinerator - and the balance 235,000 tpa to be re-exported? Unless of course they decide to double the burn rate? When asked this they said they would do whatever the AGENCY allow them to do!

MALPASS WASTE PROCESSING PLANT PROPOSAL Out of 1,000 tonnes a day to be imported to Rugby apparently about 30% will be "steam with dust" to be emitted from a chimney, of indeterminate height, or from vents. When questioned about this proposed dumping of 300 tonnes waste a day onto us, they said it might not be as much as 30% as they need to keep some moisture.


WHY DID CEMEX AND WCC PLANNERS NOT TELL US ABOUT MALPASS? The debate became confrontational and acrimonious, as usual, because the forum members and the public realised we had been DUPED yet again! Despite two WCC planning officers attending the 29th January RCCF meeting, organised and controlled by CEMEX, neither they, nor Cemex itself thought to inform the Forum that this new application was "in" and the public consultation was to start on 31st January. Then bungled emails of gobbledygook were sent out on 6th February to a few selected people. What a deliberate mess!

SECRET MEETINGS!

CEMEX: PUNCHES BELOW BELT!

CEMEX : BENEVOLENT SOCIETY "COMMUNITY DONATIONS"
"PERSUADE BENEFICIARIES TO LOOK AWAY" - AS RUGBY ROTS!

ROUND ONE - RING SIDE SEATS ST OSWALD'S CHURCH HALL NEW BILTON WEDNESDAY 27 FEBRUARY 6;30 PM

SOUTHAM PEASANTS ARE REVOLTING AGAINST CEMEX'S LATEST PLANS FOR A 360,000 TONNE WASTE PROCESSING SITE!

So the NIMBYs told them "TO STUFF IT" and re-locate in the urban area of Rugby, in an area already polluted by industrial emissions from the Cemex co-incinerator, where an Air Quality Management Area is in place, and where thousands more residents, homes, schools, listed buildings, can be affected - on the grounds that Rugby is already ruined, blighted, destroyed, by Rugby Cement , and because we are already polluted, we are used to it, and to suffering 1,000 juggernauts night and day, so it won't make much difference to us! Will it?

RUGBY MP JEREMY WRIGHT HAS BEEN ASKED TO VENTURE BACK FROM KENNILWORTH, to intervene, and to arrange PUBLIC meetings, with all County, Borough and District/Town councillors, officers, and ALL the residents of Southam, the parishes, and Rugby who are soon to be affected to a GREATER of LESSER extent depending on WHO WINS? All fights to be held under the Queensbury rules!


BNP and TORIES SHARE COMMON OVERSIGHT IN RUGBY?
In the meantime there are gripping County elections going on for the seat of the Lawfords and New Bilton where the monstrosityis to be built, next to the co-incinerator. All the candidates cite, as a main concern, the significant damaging cement plant - except the BNP and Tory Lawford candidate who apparently have not EVEN noticed a giant co-incinerator sitting there! But could this "oversight" be due to the latest "benevolent donation" of £150,000 for Church Lawford's village hall?

MUSHROOM SYNDROME AT LONG LAWFORD PARISH COUNCIL! CHAIR MR DRAPER also seems to have a plank in his eye as he refused to let Parish Councillors even discuss the "proposed Climafuel plant", despite it being on the Agenda for discussion. Sally Bragg, Borough Councillor left the meeting just before the item, while Claire Watson, Borough Councillor, and the Tory hopeful for the County, did not show up. A member of the public who had waited for two hours to speak on this very urgent topic, was shouted down, and bawled out by the Chair who was laying down the law, presumably in the "interests of Cemex, and of having no democratic due process and no community engagement in Lawford".
Apparently "it's not their problem," despite the fact Lawford is only 200 yards from the site. Not surprisingly minutes from the "secret meetings" were nit distributed. LAWFORD councillors and residents alike have been treated like mushrooms, yet again, kept in the dark and bucket loads of pollution tipped on their heads at frequent intervals. But that is nothing compared to what is going to come next!


RUGBY UPDATE - WHAT GOES UP MUST COME DOWN.
CEMEX consulted the public on what they described as "Climafuel" to be manufactured from household waste: category EU Waste Code 19 12 10, "combustible waste, refuse derived fuel," with a maximum chlorine content of 0.8%, but when the ENVIRONMENT AGENCY issued the PERMIT it contained a 50% increase in Chlorine content, and a new EW category of 10 02 10 "combustible waste from the Physico/chemical treatment of waste including dechromatation, dcyanidation and neutralisation". Working in conjunction with the so-called Environment Agency they changed the specification to Industrial wastes. Having finished the public charade, laughingly called consultation, they altered the chemical contents.

THE HOUSE OF LORDS heard, in a full and fair hearing, held in the House of Commons over 3 days 21-23 January, how the people of Rugby have been cheated by the "authorities and Rugby Cement". The issues:
(1) Whether a PPC permit derived from EU law can be lawfully granted where (a) there has been a failure to provide the public with key environmental information and (b) where/whether such a grant may be a breach of EU Directives relating to the EIA and IPPC regime;
(2) the nature of the court's discretion to decline relief in JUDICIAL REVIEW after having found a breach of domestic (but not EU) law.



** READ THE RUGBY TIMES TODAY **
RUGBY IN PLUME IS LAUNCHING "A PETITION TO RE-OPEN THE RAILWAY" AT THE 27TH FEBRUARY RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM MEETING! the railway route between Southam and Rugby Cemen has ONLY been "safeguarded" because Rugby Cement and WCC wished to spend an extra £28 million of public money to preserve the rail route for use by Rugby Cement. Cemex are not amused about our PETITION and it is reported in today's Rugby Times that they will not even consider it because "its not commercially viable for them". BUT RIP have the backing of the village parish councils and Rugby residents,and also I am sure all the British people who have paid an extra £28 million towards subsidising Rugby Cement and its operations.

SOME LORRIES - LORRY TRAINS PERHAPS?
The Rugby Times "ANGER AT RUBBISH PLANT PROPOSAL" also reveals that Cemex says, of its plans to build a factory to turn 360,000 tonnes of waste a year, 1,000 tonnes a day into fuel: "would mean more lorries accessing the site, with about 11 extra loads a day!" WOW! LOOK OUT FOR THE 100 TONNE TRUCKS!