CEMEX SHOWS TRASH PLANS

1,000 TONNES A DAY
ONLY 11 EXTRA LORRIES!

Telegraph: "Cemex admitted the development would mean more lorries accessing the site - with about 11 extra loads a day." This follows on from many years of rows about the many hundreds of incessant Rugby Cement/Cemex lorries that Warwickshire County Council has permitted to pass unrestricted through New Bilton every day, and night, massively impacting on the lives and amenity of all local residents - not to mention the heavily pitted surfaces on the Lawford Road, in the Air Quality Management Area - traffic fumes!

Now a novel solution is to be found. The old cement plant had an average of about 80 small 20-tonne 2-axil lorry movements each day, but the County Council then gave planning permission for 800 40-tonne six-axil juggernauts, to go in and out of the site daily. They called this a "cement works upgrade!" Presumably in order to appease local residents and to prevent further complaints, and to cut down the number of lorry movements, the HGVs are to be made bigger - carrying approximately 100 tonne each? The good news is "Cemex also promised there'd be no increase in noise or emissions levels." Super quiet, massive lorries, with no emissions, as well! Great!

PLAN B. IS TO RE-OPEN THE RAILWAY
instead of having lorry trains? 27 May 2002 RMC write to the Environment Agency: "Traffic clearly is a planning issue. In a general sense we appreciate local concerns over traffic. It is our preference that the works become rail connected. We have had discussions with both parties - Strategic Rail Authority and Railtrack. We will work towards a viable solution for rail connecting the works if one is achievable. This would relieve traffic issues significantly." Shame they actually built a bagging plant on the actual rail connection that had always gone into the works! When? Not quite last week, but after they started building the new plant in 1996! Anyone know any planners - the County and Cemex both need more than a bit of help?

WASTE FACTORY BID FOR RUGBY
RUGBY TIMES : front page 5 August. "Cemex has unveiled plans to build a waste processing plant at its factory in Rugby. Pre-treated rubbish known as Climafuel is currently being imported from London and Wales to burn as a trial replacement for coal. But now the firm wants to manufacture it on-site IF it wins permission to burn the household and industrial waste permanently. A similar application has also been submitted for the firm's old cement works site at Southam, but only one would be built if both were approved by the County Council."

RUGBY'S OWN 42,000 TONNES
rubbish produced by the entire Borough each year is not enough! The Cemex factory can burn 15 tph, 360 tonnes a day, 125,000 tonne each year of RDF Refuse Derived Fuel. "The £35 million plant would import into Rugby urban area 360,000 tons a year of Warwickshire's (?) raw trash, sifting out 250,000 tons of non-recyclable wood, plastic, paper, textile, and card to make Climafuel. Cemex claims the processing is safe and that Climafuel eases pressure on landfill and creates fewer emissions." 125,000 tonnes of ready-made Climafuel will also be imported to be blended in.

DEPRIVED AREA, POOR AIR QUALITY
"Rugby is already an air quality management area for nitrogen dioxide. Also in various parts of the town, but particularly around the cement plant, there are high levels of particulate emissions. New Bilton and Newbold are already areas of deprivation. They shouldn't have more and more dumped on them!" says Rugby in Plume. Ian Southcott Cemex community affairs manager said: "Any odours are retained within the facility. The operation would be regulated and closely MONITORED by the ENVIRONMENT AGENCY!" Just as they "monitor" the cement works eh? That's all right then?
NOT! Just one monitor on the main stack that only works when the raw feed
gets up to 200 tonnes an hour - and no monitors on the other 15 or so small stacks? Or if there are monitors the data is not for the public to see.

FACTORY PLAN TRIGGERS CONCERNS
says Warwickshire Telegraph 5 August. County Councillor John Appleton said he would seek reassurances for the 16 acre factory at Southam quarry, as "this will have an impact on all residents living in the SOUTHAM area." The multi-national corporation aims to produce 250,000 tonnes every year from 300,000 tonnes of household, commercial, and industrial waste. In addition they would blend in another 125,000 tonnes of imported Climafuel brought in from other manufacturers outside the county.

MRS P FIGHTS FOR POOR AND PROPER CONSULTATION
Mrs P was quoted "Why don't they hand in both applications at the same time? I think they are trying to draw the process out so that people will lose interest and not bother fighting. The problem in Rugby is that people in the most deprived wards will be affected. The poorest areas are situated nearby down wind of the proposed site."

RUGBY REJECTS MORE DARK SATANIC MILLS as the BUTCHERS pet food factory application in Rugby, was thrown out, after no less than a record-breaking 21 Rugby Councillors deigned to attend: "We already have one dark satanic mill in Rugby - we will not allow another chimney - and no more pollution!" So where are these caring councillors now?
But of course this decision is in the hands of the ever-so experienced WCC REGULATORY
Committee - 'secret site visits', 'nodding through', and 'retrospective' are their forte!

PUBLIC INQUIRY might just provide the answer to the 35 million pound question:
SOUTHAM or RUGBY?

I'M NOT ON MY OWN

MAYBE SMOKESCREEN, OR DUST, THAT MAKES PEOPLE INVISIBLE TO ENVIRONMENT AGENCY?

RUGBY TIMES 29 JULY
She was told she was on her own, but Cemex campaigner Lilian Pallikaropoulos has proof it's not a one-woman crusade. Lilian said she was accused of being "the only one who cares" about tyre-burning at the Lawford Road plant. Now she has hit back with thousands of names on a petition.


She said: "They say I'm the only one who is bothered but we've got 8,000 signatures on this petition and I didn't even collect them, so I wasn't exactly forcing people to sign it!

Some of the public did stop paying attention, and naturally you will if you're being treated like dirt!"

Lilian added that Rugby in Plume would take its battle against the Environment Agency for approving tyre-burning to the European Commission, despite a £100,000 personal legal bill after the case was thrown out by the House of Lords. She said : "I feel very depressed at times but we have got to keep going!"

DEMOLITION PROGRAM CENSORED!
Funny too how Rugby Cement was nominated by very many people (I had only one vote!) for the competition to identify the "worst most ugly harmful building in the country", and came fifth over all. BUT, despite two days of filming in Rugby the program was "censored", and Rugby Cement was not allowed to be discussed, and the the film was not shown! The reason? It was said that it was not permitted to show it because it is "an industrial building"! So where did it ever say in the competition that the rules excluded industrial buildings? Northampton bus station was allowed to be discussed, and that film was shown - another industrial building.

HUNDREDS OF LETTERS IN PRESS
While I do write the "occasional" missive to the press I am not the ONLY person who writes, as people in Rugby well know. But pathetically the Agency selectively cuts out bits of the local papers to "influence" the judges decisions. "Now look what she has done!"

HEALTH PROTECTION AGENCY
Yet more and more reports on cement plants - co-incinerating waste.
Why is that then if no-one is interested?


BRITISH SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGICAL MEDICINE
Has regularly updated reports on the impact of emissions from cement co-incinerators.

See LINK: www.ecomed.org.uk


RUGBY HEALTH PROTECTION BUDGET USED:
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY PAYING TO CONSULT:
FUNNY isn't it how the Agency, that claims to the Lords that "no-one cares about the continuing operation of the cement works," is jointly funding the Reports, and Meetings and Workshops with the ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL as facilitator with the "Rugby community", as part of "stakeholder engagement". Yes that is right - meetings and workshops for those people who care not a jot? The money from Rugby Borough Council is ACTUALLY a £15,000 contribution from the HEALTH PROTECTION BUDGET! But no-one in Rugby cares about health - according to the Agency!

NOW LET THAT BE A LESSON TO YOU!

MRS P - AN EXAMPLE TO THE PUBLIC? DO NOT DARE TO QUESTION THE AGENCY!
OR ELSE!

PUBLIC to SPEAK OUT IN RUGBY: ARE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY CLAIMS TRUE OR FALSE?

The RUGBY ADVERTISER reported 24th July that: QUOTE: "The Environment Agency believes Lilian Pallikaropoulos is the ONLY person interested in pursuing legal action, and that the public should not pick up the bill.

Mrs Pallikaropoulos argued in the high Court and House of Lords earlier this year that the Environment Agency has hidden vital information from the public when they gave Rugby Cement permission to burn tyres in Rugby.

And although the House of Lords said the EA showed "real shortcomings" they ultimately sided with the EA, and disagreed that the plant in Lawford Road Rugby should stop burning the alternative fuel, and even close down. The EA have this week said Mrs Pallikaropoulos should pay all its legal costs on her own.

Mrs Pallikaropoulos told the Advertiser: "It is grossly unfair, and totally untrue, what the Agency has done to me by saying that I am the only person in Rugby who cares." The case against the EA had originally been brought to the court under the name of Rugby resident David Edwards with the backing of legal aid. But the EA argued that this was just a smokescreen so Mrs Pallikaropoulos could bring her own "private campaign" to court, and not pay the costs.
60,000 RUGBY RESIDENTS INVISIBLE TO AGENCY?

In a report by the EA lawyers it stated: "No one who actually lives near the works appears willing to continue the proceedings. In fact local residents other than Mrs Pallikaropoulos have failed to display any continuing interest in operations at the Rugby Cement works. In essence these proceedings constitute one relatively affluent and "committed" individual's own private campaign."
UNQUOTE

WE HAVE WAYS OF MAKING YOU TALK! AND IF YOU DON'T, WE WILL SAY THAT YOU DID!

TAKE PART IN OUR TRUE OR FALSE?

1. "Mrs P sought out David Edwards as a claimant."
The Agency quotes newspaper cuttings as 'proof and evidence' that I have 'most definitely' done this 'seeking out'.

2. She says she was "acting ostensibly on behalf of Rugby residents. Those residents were concerned about the likely impact of emissions from the plant. Those concerns cannot easily be equated with the public interest issues...."

3. However even if residents' concerns can be equated to "the public interest" the extent of those concerns in the present case is questionable."

4. The appellant says "that the permit in question aroused very substantial concern and controversy from residents and public bodies including Rugby Borough Council, and that she was acting in an almost entirely altruistic fashion so the matter could come before the courts". However there is no evidence of widespread public support of the case in Rugby or elsewhere."

5. It is respectfully submitted that the public's lack of response to consultations on more recent Agency determinations is more indicative of actual levels of actual interest."

6. Mrs P "put up the claimant David Edwards to secure funding"... and "in essence these proceedings constitute one relatively affluent and committed individual's private campaign."

7. In her submission she 'says' she has funded her costs before the Lords out of a legacy and that she will be put to serious hardship if she also has to pay the Respondents' costs.

8. Mrs P claims this is a "serious deterrent to access to justice".
Mrs P argues that the Respondenst should be denied their 'reasonable costs' and that these should fall instead upon the tax payer.

9. As regards the EU Directive as regards costs 2003/35/EC provides that any such procedure should be fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive.

10. Mrs P says the UK has failed to properly implement the requirements of the directive and this will be disputed by the government. The cost of litigating environmental issues in the UK is "minimised by inter alia" the availability of legal aid, and of the protective costs orders. The fact that in any event these were not available to Mrs P in the circumstances of this particular appeal does not undermine the Government's position in that regard."

11. Mrs P decided to take over the case from Mr Edwards and she was well aware of the risks that this involved. It can hardly be said that the costs would be a serious deterrent to access to justice.

12. The only part of the case where she has succeeded is in "the simple procedural irregularity by the Agency." and this is 'ONLY a breach of the common law rules of fairness' by the Agency in failing to disclose the AQMAU reports.

13. SO, in other words, deceiving the public, misleading and failing to disclose the MOST DAMGING DATA about the emissions and health impact is all right by us!

ENGAGING IN COMMUNITY RELATIONS?

OR FLOGGING A DEAD HORSE?

Yet more "sham" "pretend" "meaningless" public "consultations", perhaps "invented" to keep Rugby residents off the streets, and busy, as our time, money and energy are all squandered in yet more abuse of process. WHAT MEANINGFUL OUTCOME CAN THERE POSSIBLY BE?

RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM
60,000 residents involved in cement plant STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT.
Rugby Borough Council awarded £15,000 from the existing HEALTH PROTECTION BUDGET, and with Cemex and the Environment Agency jointly engaged THE ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL to undertake a review of stakeholder and community relations around the Rugby Cement Plant, and to make recommendations on potential ways forward.

"We did this by gathering information and feedback from a range of stakeholder and community members, through one on one telephone interviews. We then analysed this information, identified emerging themes and have made a series of observations and recommendations, all of which are included in the attached report."
The report is being simultaneously released to the funders of the review (CEMEX, the Environment Agency and Rugby Borough Council) and stakeholder and community members. It will also be available on The Environment Council's website at: http://www.the-environment-council.org.uk/rugby-cement-plant-stakeholder-engagement-review.html, Rugby Borough Council's website at: www.rugby.gov.uk and CEMEX's website at: www.cemex.co.uk

"In order to give all stakeholders (including funders) an opportunity to respond to the report and its recommendations, and give feedback, The Environment Council will be convening a workshop in late June.
The report and its recommendations are The Environment Council's advice, based on long experience of best practice engagement, on the optimal approaches and methods to apply to achieving robust, transparent and open stakeholder and community engagement. Acting on these recommendations may entail resource commitments and CEMEX, the Environment Agency and Rugby Borough Council will need to take a joint view on the best way to proceed."

"One of the key purposes of the workshop is to allow all interested parties to contribute their views and feedback specifically on the report and its recommendations, which will help inform decisions about future steps. The workshop will focus on gaining feedback on the report, and won't focus on issue-based questions such as activity currently going on around the cement plant, potential future resource implications, or reiterating information that has already been considered in the formulation of the report and its recommendations."

WAIT A MOMENT - IT DOES NOT ADD UP!
IS THIS THE SAME ENVIRONMENT AGENCY THAT SAYS "NO-ONE BUT LILIAN IS BOTHERED ABOUT THE CEMENT WORKS IN RUGBY!"

TYRE TRIALS CONSULTATION, or ABUSE OF PUBLIC?
Rugby residents are now to comment to Cemex on the "draft 6 tonnes and hour tyre trial report", but with what aim in mind? Year after year we "being consulted", bombarded even, by yet ever more SHAM, time-wasting, costly, soul-destroying, meaningless, false promises of public participation! Rugby Borough Council paid out £10,000 to a facilitator to produce the Tyre Burning Review Group's damning report on 3 tonnes and hour, which the Council endorsed! But to what effect? Perhaps they should look up the definition of "consultation" in a dictionary?

"PUT UP AND SHUT UP!"would be much more honest, and "business as usual!" End now the "tick boxes", of "community engagement"! The Environment Agency, RBC, WCC and Rugby Cement have well and truly flogged the dead horse of consultation in Rugby.

But here we go again - residents are to be consulted on the waste plant?

HA! HA! HA!

HORSE TRADING

BEGINS AT SOUTHAM AND RUGBY.
SECTION 106 PRICE TAG?
WHAT AM I BID?
WASTE PROCESSING PLANT
Southam and Rugby parallel applications due in any day. Focus is now on the "delicate negotiations" no doubt going on in the back room between Cemex and the County Council. What SECTION 106 payment will be offered in order to make "WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE UNACCEPTABLE, ACCEPTABLE"?

DEAL, OR NO DEAL?
So far, unsurprisingly, the County and Borough councils have refused to answer any questions about this current "negotiating process", and have failed to make it transparent. What price will be put on our heads, and who will decide what is acceptable, and who gets to keep the Section 106 cash? Rugby residents are still smarting, (and will until the cement plant is demolished), from the last County "sell out", when Rugby's environment, amenity, air quality and health, was compromised and traded by the County Council in the 1996 deal, that breached Community Law - had no Environmental Impact Assessment, or public consultation. All for a paltry £500,000 as a "contribution" towards Rugby Cement's Western Relief Road. (Later things were made worse when the relevant air quality impact and other related data was concealed by the Agency, County and Borough Council as they jointly turned the cement works into a co-incinerator without following the due IPC and IPPC and EIA process.) This pittance, (as that was what it was even at that time!) as all recall, was then put in the bank at WCC and the annual interest paid to Rugby Cement, as they argued over the route, putting it in the green belt to "conserve" the route for Rugby Cement, until the "sell by date" expired, and the pittance was due to be returned, unspent, in February 2006. Council officials are tight-lipped about the location of this illicit fund. Did they pay it back or not?

SINK TOWN?
And even more tight lipped about how the County has devalued the whole of Rugby, causing it to become a sink town, where people are afraid to speak up, some for fear of persecution by the authorities and others for fear of damaging the marketability of their property. Thousands now have to live next to a massive unlawfully built co-incinerator, which emits about one million cubic metres of polluting gas each hour from the main stack, and many hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of polluted particulate-laden air from the unmonitored Low Level Point Sources, with no fail-safe mechanisms, (even the much-heralded bag filters do not work 100% of the time, are not on the emissions from all the sources fed into the main stack for dispersion, and they are bypassed,) getting on for 1,000 juggernauts a day, and a massive polluting plume highly visible all winter. No wonder the powers-that-be want to keep this all "under wraps!"

RAILWAY OR CANAL?
The delay in construction caused by the interminable discussion about whether the Southam Rugby railway should be re-opened to connect the two Cemex sites of Southam and Rugby has cost the public, so far, £26,000,000 in EXTRA construction costs alone. And untold other costs in terms of traffic jams and dangerous pollution, social services, and NHS costs in terms of the health impact in the poor air quality in Rugby. Now they want to increase pollution in an area that is already DEPRIVED, over-polluted, and with pockets of ill health and social and health inequalities. Meanwhile Cemex and the County both make the hilarious suggestion of using the canals to transport the 2,000 tonnes a day of clay to Rugby, but the Waterways Board says this is impossible, a non-starter, with all the locks, and have pointed out that "err! the canals do not even go to the cement works - err!" So that brings us back to the railway again - that has been conserved by WCC and Rugby Cement specifically in order to transport the clay - and now the waste from the Waste Processing plant shortly to be constructed at Southam?

CONTROVERSIAL GAGGING ORDER!
THE WORDS CEMEX/RUGBY CEMENT BANNED!
The Rugby Advertiser 26 June reports that the chattering classes are at it again with their "whispering campaign" to gag me, to shut me up! They are determined to allow no discussion, and to keep other people from hearing my all too pertinent, awkward, revealing questions, which cause them such pain! Long Lawford Parish Council joins RBC and WCC (and the EA) and will not allow the public, (even their own parishioners), and those who they are supposed to serve, to ask any questions about Cemex, its plans and its operations. They all jump on the banning-band-wagon, and shout "Shoot the messenger!" A vain attempt to silence me!
PATHETIC!

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!