AARHUS CONVENTION - UK Access To Justice

SHAM CONSULTATIONS TO END!

Due to the hard work of organisations such as CAJE, and the determination of specialist lawyers (Richard Buxton and David Wolfe among others) to ensure the full implementation of the European and UK's environmental laws, (such as the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and IPPC Directive) and to gain access to justice for the public at large, (Public Participation Directive) the tide seems to be turning against the failing UK government, and its short-comings.

The  quangos, such as the Environment Agency, are all too easily swayed by the prime movers in industry, and decisions are made not in a fair open transparent way, but in secret and by deception, and linked to the all too vested interests of the giant corporations. For far too long the arms of government have abused their power, and have carried out sham consultations with the public, and have sought to conceal what should be publicly available environmental information, which affects our air, environment, health and quality of life.  Are we now, at last,  to gain  full, proper,  consultation, as equals, and to begin open honest fair debate, with access to justice in cases where proper procedures have not been followed, or is it to be "business as usual", as they seek to continue to conceal, mislead, misinform and even to  misdirect the courts?
 
AARHUS CONVENTION
Follow these two links to read the full story.

Link One
Link Two

TIMES  :  WILD NOTEBOOK
Simon Barnes writes in Saturday's Times, August  28, how the sting is being taken out of green court cases. He refers to the courageous Lilian Pallikaropoulos of Rugby who challenged the Environment Agency's decision to turn the Rugby Cement plant (opened in 2000, and built without lawful  planning permission, without any EIA, and without public consultation, and granted IPPC without EIA, or any open honest  proper public consultation) into a co-incinerator - by stealth,  and without any EIA or  access to the essential  environmental information. The House of Lords "exercising  their discretion" found against  her,  and she faces a legal bill of £88,100 - on top of what she has already   paid the legal team to represent the public of Rugby. Anyone looking at the photos can see that this plant could never have been authorised by any legal means in the twenty first century.

Simon goes on:
 "In other words if you are thinking of taking on the big boys, don't!  Justice is not something you can afford.  Individuals, green groups and wildlife organisations  daren't  pursue  environmental  cases into the courts. It is far too dangerous. But this situation is illegal - as the united Nations agrees. As a result the UK must change the way its courts operate environmental justice. This is a small but highly significant triumph!"

CEMEX UNDER FIRE

RUGBY ADVERTISER SAYS: BLACK-BALLED!
COMMUNITY BANNED FROM COMMUNITY FORUM!

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY QUANGO SAY NO TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION!
The Environment Agency has paid £25,000 plus to take the community out of the community forum.
To become a member of this new "forum" (first meeting 9 September) all that is required is: ignorance; agreement; subservience; compliance, and just a modicum of adoration.
Plus an ability to accept "gifts" to recompense the select few.

GANG OF SEVEN?
Cemex's Ian Southcott: the Environment Agency's David Hudson (the officer involved since the unlawful permitting process began in 1995); Warwickshire County Council's "planner" Ian Grace: and part-timer Rugby Borough Council's Sean Lawson all combined with Cllr Claire Watson Borough and County Conservative Long Lawford; Roy Sandison Community rep against burning tyres (Green Party New Bilton); new-comer never been to any meetings Tom Mahoney RBC Newbold councillor; and Diane Pask (used to be Labour. then Lib Dem, then nothing - and of no elected position and having no constituency - lives in Brownsover - coated in coal dust) refuse to allow any of the previous long-standing members of the community to attend the Forum.
Quote: "we don't want anyone who knows anything, or anyone who can read and find out anything!" Unquote. Still after many months of asking they refuse to name the "chosen few".


REFUSE DERIVED FUEL
stored at Cemex goes up in smoke - IN SMOKELESS ZONE - burning for 2 days in June, with 5 fire engines in attendance. Closed nearby industrial estate and offices as the public were exposed to smoke. How does this bode for the planned Rugby Cemex plant where 300,000 tonnes of RDF are to be manufactured from 500,000 tonnes of commercial, industrial and a little household waste - imported from all over? That planning permission granted by WCC has still not been signed, so maybe they better change their minds - or risk poisoning and poluting the Rugby air even more?

EYE-SORE!
BEAUTIFUL BRITAIN magazine says: Pull down the Cemex plant in Rugby - its in top ten of the worst eye-sores in the UK.

CEMEX DEBTS:
How many noughts is that?!

BYKER AGAIN?
HAZARDOUS WASTE BYPASS DUST DIVERTED via BI-PRODUCTS RECOVERY SERVICE ! No IPPC permit necessary - no landfill tax due if BPD is spread on the land in Cumbria and Lancashire. Of course they use Environment Agency exemptions to escape any controls and regulation - and they claim they "wash it", and do what with the leachate? chr

SMELL A RAT IN RUGBY!

CONSERVATIVE RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL AT CENTRE OF ROW as the council leader, Craig Humprey, decides to take over the role of Chief Executive as well. Only to "save money" you understand? No application, no advert - no equal opportunities - no qualifications necessary. Surely this is maladministration? Meanwhile the meetings are held in secret and Humphrey's pay packet is not disclose4d even to the councillors.
Smell a rat?

Dr Paul Connett talks Environmental Crime in Rugby


PROFESSOR PAUL CONNETT VISITS RUGBY to find out what all the fuss is about. It doesn't take
long - as the Cemex co-incinerator hits you in the eye!

ILLEGAL and RETROSPECTIVE PERMITS/PERMISSIONS are all there in black and white and continue to be frequently granted by Warwickshire County Council and the so-called "Environment" Agency. Look at the WCC web site and follow the history on the mineral planning site, and in the Regulatory Committee papers. The names of those involved locally in this great environmental disaster are all revealed, and while the Agency obscures its participants, the names of the "partners in crime" can all be found at the Agency office near Lichfield.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY CONSULTATION now begins into MAKING PERMITS AS LAX AS POSSIBLE by setting the non binding ONLY-GUIDANCE "new national standard for cement plants co-incinerating waste" - with as many "get out" clauses as they can muster! The first thing they want to do is to REMOVE MOST MONITORING/SAMPLING - so that should help no end to AVOID any possible "enforcement action." Then they will allow many more hours without any ELV (emission limit values) so that should help even more. The Rugby Permit has now an additional 8 hours without ELVs after the 200 tonnes an hour raw meal feed that counts as a "start up" - because the plant may be unstable for a few hours after start-up , so cannot meet the standards. Although they said waste would not be burned at start up it is now permitted for an extra 8 hours allowing PICs (products of incomplete combustion) to rain down. All they have to do to avoid any sanctions is to say "we were just starting up - or just shutting down" and thus the Agency can do nothing. There is no control at all for much of the time - as the ELVs are not in place. No one is allowed to know what hours the plant is started, nor how many hours a day/week it is running without any ELVs at all.


RUGBY PLANT FAR FROM NATIONAL STANDARD
Oh what a surprise - the ten year old state-of-the-art plant is now found not to be BAT (Best Available Technology) after all, despite all the Agency has claimed about it, both in the courts and to the public and Rugby Community Cement Forum since 2000! "Once this national position is established we will begin to review the IPPC PERMIT at Rugby to see how far the plant is there from the new standard." And then we will give them many more derogations and exemptions to let them get away with it as usual?!

CEMEX GAS FLOW PARANOIA
Cemex refuse month after month to discuss the gas flow rate. They say "we do not know what it is" - so obviously they do not know what the pollution is either? As emissions continue to increase year on year the Agency and Cemex both try to hide the reason for this increase. EITHER they are increasing the pollutants in each cubic metre - which goes against the IPPC requirement to PREVENT and where not possible to MINIMISE - OR they are increasing the number of cubic metres of gas flow per second - because of the INCREASED production and the INCREASED waste burning and increased SUBSTITUTION. Now they are on over 100% substitution - i.e they are burning about/over double the tonnage of wastes than they were of coal i.e 1,000 tonnes a day of waste instead of about 450 tonnes a day of coal in the calciner. The kiln (about 240 tpd coal) is not affected as they cannot burn waste in that. All along the Agency said no-one is allowed to look at the TOTAL hourly/daily emission rate of pollutants as they wish to reserve the right to increase and increase the pollution in Rugby. The gas flow rate for sampling and monitoring requirements as set in the 2003 IPPC permit BL7248 (Schedule 3 page 2 of 6). Now the Agency wants only "gas flow, as measured, or otherwise determined to relate concentrations to mass release." Meanwhile the increases in pollutants affect the long term GLC and much more affect the short term GLC in Rugby.

BAG FILTER CON TRICK
For many years the EA and Rugby Cement argued that the new plant did not need bag filters as these were not BAT for this type of semi-wet huge-steam plume plant and would CLOG UP and would not work and would increase emissions, plume visibility, and cause the plume to fall locally and to ground more. The ESP was working as well as it possibly could and was at a very low level of emissions. Bag Filters were not only unnecessary but also they were a non-starter! Suddenly in 2005, after all the FALSEHOODS that had been told about the plant being BAT, particulate was running at 41.5 NM3 well over the BAT limit, so they NEEDED to rush through bag filters (only only 50-60% of the plant!) to meet the standards of the 2005 WASTE INCINERATOR DIRECTIVE for the cement plant that had by stealth morphed into a CO-INCINERATOR! There was no consultation in Rugby or at the Council, and they pushed it through - see WCC Regulatory Committee and Mineral Planning Permissions 22 December 2005. The GAS FLOW RATE in the application was said to be 84.6 NM3. (page 14).

TELEMETRY ESSENTIAL AND INFRA RED CAMERAS for public to know what is happening there! We need them reported live to web and fitted on the main stack and on the other most polluting low level sources such as the cement mills, and on the kiln bypass ESP, where the highly chlorinated polluted gases from the waste burning are diverted away from the calciner, to "bypass the kiln" and its "bag filters", and out into the air via the existing ESP - permitting many more toxic emissions into the air, and on to us. Last night the plume was disgusting, lofting and visibly falling in big chunks for miles across the town centre and hallowed Rugby Close!

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!
£300,000 FINE FOR HEALTH DANGER

BUT NOT IN RUGBY - ONLY IN WALES!

Apparently cement co-incinerator plant emissions in WALES Mold Flintshire DO have health effects - even the Environment Agency says so in WALES! EA barrister Barry Berlin, Professor Roy Harrison, and Amanda Gair consultant and the court agreed that the increase in PM10 PARTICULATE increased the risk to health - cancer, respiratory, and cardiovascular disease. The deadly PAH emitted is a genotoxic carcinogen and any exposure can cause cancer. There is increased risk to the public even though they had no evidence of increased ill health." Well they would say that and probably hadn't even looked? In Rugby the PAH is not monitored or measured, but is sampled twice a year, and is "said to be less than 50 kilos as an annual release"??

FAMILIAR - LINK.
It all sounds so very familiar : "persistent breaches of permit conditions resulting in dust emissions, smoke emissions from burning tyres and other waste materials and unacceptable noise levels." And "It was quite clear there was a potential risk or harm by virtue of the dust and also the carcinogenic materials in the smoke!"

http://www.flintshirechronicle.co.uk/flintshire-news/local-flintshire-news/20... that-could-increase-cancer-risks-51352-25646483/

In the Mold Magistrate's Court Judge Andrew Shaw referred the case to the Mold County Court as his "powers were insufficient." The maximum they can fine at Magistrates (courts of no record - which they love!) they could get away with it lightly with a maximum of £30,000 - and without any transcript!


RUGBY FOLK ARE TOUGH!
Compare this to the latest CEMEX Rugby Cement case - EIGHT TONNES of black oily sticky coal dust spread all over, both outside and inside the houses, up to 3 miles from the plant in March 2007.
It took the EA until March 2009 to prosecute them - and then they moved it away from Rugby to STRATFORD magistrates in June 2009 - where BOTH the EA Barry Berlin and the Cemex barrister PLEADED and virtually BEGGED the magistrate to "fine the very maximum £30,000 but PLEASE do NOT refer this to the Crown Court!" We want NO records of this case!!
In Wales "any increase in airborne PM10 can cause cancer and is associated with increased mortality from respiratory and cardiovascular diseases." One law in Wales - and another in England?


EA INSIST NO ONE CARES IN RUGBY!
Meanwhile on 12 February the EA appealed against the Supreme Court Judgement of 4 December, handed down on 15 January, which was minded to "set costs at nil". (see Landmark Chambers or Supreme Court web site).
The Agency insists in its sworn witness statement that no-one has any concerns about the cement plant emissions, not in Rugby or elsewhere, and that it is of NO public interest.
But although they say NO ONE but MRS P is concerned, they do want :
"information about the applicant's means and about the IDENTITY and MEANS of any who she represents!"
Would that be information about the "identity and means" of the claimed "nobody" - or is it about the 60,000 Rugby residents?

RUGBY DUMP TOWN

WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY PLANNERS OUTFOXED BY COUNCILLORS!

DUMP IT ON RUGBY!
On 21 January WCC officers finally "invented" some "reasons" that they attempted to "back-attribute to the Councillors" for 17 November Regulatory Committee Southam refusal of the Cemex 500,000 tpa waste plant application - in favour of DUMP IT IN RUGBY! Amazingly, for OVER 18 MONTHS planners had not managed to find even one tiny little reason to recommend refusal at either site - claiming BOTH applications were identical and equal and both should be passed!

SHOCK-HORROR LARGE OVER-SIGHT!
SUDDENLY OUT OF THE BLUE appears: (1) the long-standing STRATFORD LOCAL PLAN : "SOUTHAM site is NOT suitable for waste and must be used for light and general industries"; (2) the Southam location is NOT "in a preferred location for waste management"; (3) the proposed facility does NOT accord with STRATFORD LOCAL PLAN and " would result in the development of a large building of adverse visual impact"; (4) " the proposal would introduce a significant number of HGVs in the area."

ALL THIS HAS CREPT UP SUDDENLY
Officers advised : IGNORE Rugby's POOR air quality - AQMA for exceedence annual objective nitrogen dioxide and ignore health-damaging particulate and many daily exceedences of PM10 Objective. Top up to the maximum with pollutants - and rely on that that "great protector" of the Environment to hopefully safeguard Rugby's air. Yes! we are to be protected by none other than the ENVIRONMENT AGENCY that has, by stealth and concealment, permitted massive increases year on year of TOXIC POLLUTANTS in Rugby. No wonder the EA carried out no Environmental Impact Assessment, and desperately hid the DISPERSION MODELS (H1 assessment) and hid the Agency's AQMAU reports (Air quality assessments). The Rugby public would have been THRILLED if they had been told the truth:
"The AGENCY is permitting year-on-year increases in the toxic pollution, and we refuse to tell you how much and of what!!"


COUNCILLORS BANNED FROM WASTE PLANTS!
IN ABUSE OF PROCESS: No visits were arranged or permitted, (even FROG ISLAND refused to have the councillors on site as presumably did all the (6?) Cemex waste plant RDF producers) so councillors could not get any idea (sniff!) of what was being proposed. WCC planners, either in total ignorance of their own local plans (unbelievable) or deliberately, (equally unbelievable), ignored the Stratford Local Plan and recommended passing both Rugby and Southam to get round the REQUIREMENTS of the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT DIRECTIVE, (to compare the two sites) and therefore conveniently ignored the BPEO; and the cost/benefit assessment; the sensitive lorry miles; the proximity principle; the effect on Rugby of all this and another permanent CEMEX PLUME all over the down-wind town; the AIR QUALITY IMPACTS.


HEALTH INEQUALITIES INCREASED BY COUNTY
They also chose to IGNORE the health effects of dumping it ON RUGBY on vulnerable receptors, in the areas of multiple deprivation, of SERIOUS HEALTH INEQUALITIES caused by several confounding factors, including, no doubt by the hundreds/thousands of tonnes of TOXIC POLLUTANTS emitted annually from Warwickshire County Council's illegal cement co-incinerator - that ALL TOO OBVIOUSLY is an unlawful construction - that never had any valid planning permission or any kind of environmental impact assessment - and of course no PUBLIC CONSULTATION! That's the way they do it!!


MEANWHILE THE TEN YEAR ROW GOES ON! over the unlawfully constructed and operated Rugby Cemex co-incinerator. The EA is mulling over whether to appeal the 15 January Supreme Court judgement (see LANDMARK CHAMBERS) in this crucial and most important test case concerning the prohibitive expense of court action for the public, and NGOs, and the total lack of access to any justice in PUBLIC INTEREST cases in the UK, in Judicial Reviews of poor, and unlawful, government decisions on Environmental Issues.


RECAP of INCOMPETENTS
Warwicks CC granted (1996) an unlawful planning permission, without any public consultation, any EIA, and also subsequently repeatedly amended the grant - in secret. The EA granted (in secret) an unlawful 1999 IPC operating permit, also without EIA and public consultation, followed by another unlawful operating Permit (IPPC in 2003) to turn the unlawful cement plant into a co-incinerator, once again hiding the information about the environmental and air quality and health impact of what they had done.

AARHUS CONVENTION - ACCESS TO JUSTICE
JACKSON REVIEW: The UK government has so far failed to implement the AARHUS CONVENTION to which they
signed up to in 1998. You can read more about it from the COALITION FOR
ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. And also see LINK about what happens to any
private citizen who gets caught up in any Judicial Review proceedings and who tries to get
any ACCESS TO JUSTICE for a polluted community.

http://www.unece.org/env/pp/compliance/C2008-33/correspondence/CEcommentsJacksonReview%20290110.pdf

BRITISH PEOPLE PAY TO INCREASE POLLUTION!
the great British Tax payers ARE SUBSIDIZING INDUSTRIAL POLLUTERS, bailing out CEMEX
to the tune of BILLIONS through our forced subsidy of the RBS and HBOS
to which banks Cemex owes much of its $ billions of debt! Why are the
British tax payers doing this to ourselves and to the environment?

BATTLE OF THE GIANTS:

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

FOUL PLAY AT WARWICKS COUNTY COUNCIL

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

Environmental Vandalism!


<object data="http://boos.audioboo.fm/swf/fullsize_player.swf" height="129" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="400"><param name="movie" value="http://boos.audioboo.fm/swf/fullsize_player.swf"/><param name="scale" value="noscale"/><param name="salign" value="lt"/><param name="bgColor" value="#FFFFFF"/><param name="wmode" value="window"/><param name="FlashVars" value="mp3LinkURL=http%3A%2F%2Faudioboo.fm%2Fboos%2F78815-environmental-vandalism-in-rugby&amp;size=full&amp;mp3Title=Environmental+Vandalism+in+Rugby&amp;mp3Time=04.19pm+25+Nov+2009&amp;playerWidth=400&amp;mp3=http%3A%2F%2Faudioboo.fm%2Fboos%2F78815-environmental-vandalism-in-rugby.mp3&amp;mp3Author=Documentally"/>Listen!</object>

RUGBY SURVIVAL KIT!

CEMEX RUGBY 500,000 tpa WASTE PROCESSING PLANT -

NOISE; DUST; ODOUR; POLLUTION; LORRIES

ALL TO BE CONTROLLED BY HIGH TECH SOLUTION

WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL SAYS DUMP IT IN RUGBY!

WITH A GRUMBLE HOT-LINE FOR COMPLAINTS - A PROBLEM SHARED IS A PROBLEM HALVED!


"WHAT IS BAD FOR SOUTHAM IS EQUALLY BAD FOR RUGBY!" said the thinking councillor. These two applications were described by WCC officers as "IDENTICAL IN EVERY WAY" and there was "NO MEANS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THEM!" We cannot make ANY comparison because they are EXACTLY THE SAME - except for - the differences.


DESPITE THE CEMEX OFFER OF £1,700,000 SECTION 106 TO UPGRADE ROADS IT WAS THROWN OUT AT SOUTHAM ON GROUNDS OF: ODOUR; NOISE FROM FANS;

HEAVY LORRIES, NOISE, VIBRATION, LACK OF SLEEP; HOUSES FALLING DOWN; CANNOT CROSS ROADS; CHILDREN ENDANGERED; SCHOOLS INACCESSIBLE; ROAD DAMAGE, ACCIDENTS CAUSED; VERMIN; FLIES; AND POLLUTION, ESPECIALLY NITROGEN DIOXIDE LIKE THEY HAVE IN RUGBY IN THE AQMA - FROM LORRIES!! CEMEX HAS 800+ LORRIES IN RUGBY ALREADY SO A FEW MORE HUNDRED EACH DAY WILL REALLY HELP IMPROVE AIR QUALITY THERE!! SOUTHAM IS NOT TO BE A WASTE DUMP AND WE MUST PROTECT THE VILLAGES!


RUGBY COUNCILLORS FAILED TO SHOW UP

One WCC councillor said he could have had more concern for the people of Rugby if their Councillors had turned up. A planning officer CRITICISED RBC EHO's air quality report against the proposal for contradicting themselves. Councillors should NOT consider air quality and the AQMA for nitrogen dioxide from HGVs as an issue.


The Environment Agency would/could GUARANTEE the emissions in their forthcoming permit - no need to consider POLLUTION as the Agency would take care AFTER IT WAS BUILT! Just as they do with

the Cemex Cement co-incinerator? WCC thought that the "proximity principle" ONLY applied to building the waste plant NEXT to the Cemex plant, and did NOT apply to the proximity to the WASTE ARISINGS. Waste from ends of earth is fine - for Rugby.



LOCATION is very "nice and convenient" on a CKD landfill, next to the historic River Avon and cement plant that had always been there all their 70 years, and was so good to see and and had a lovely view from the tower. "Goose or dove wing grey" would match existing plant, and not show cement dust all over it. One lady councillor hoped the re-opening of the

landfill would not have a "CORBY" effect.



SO CONVENIENT FOR WASTE - a lovely new Western Relief Road right up to it and a beautiful roundabout. And they would have a lovely conveyor IF they could get it passed after FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT

over the West Coast mainline. That is RICHARD BRANSON'S PROBLEM!


EMISSIONS: HEALTH EFFECTS?

As long as we can say that "ground level pollution is less than the objective" we can do what we want, and also get £1,700,000 highways money.

Short term pollution incidents were not considered nor were any cumulative effects. Health?


HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU?

INCREASE IN TOXIC EMISSIONS
YEAR ON YEAR - PERMITTED IN SECRET BY ENVIRONMENT AGENCY!

HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU?
DEFRA DOES NOT KNOW WHAT ENVIRONMENT AGENCY ARE UP TO IN DEFRA'S NAME!

DEFRA 15 October 2009: "The annual releases of the plant remain well below the MAXIMUM LEVELS allowed by the Permit. The Environment Agency assessed these maximum levels as environmentally acceptable when the ORIGINAL Permit application was determined." Actually, Defra is TOTALLY WRONG! The original IPC Permit was granted IN SECRET contrary to EU and UK Law in September 1999 , before the plant was built, and operated in February 2000. Quite simply there was NO public consultation of any kind, and NO Environment Agency assessment , as it was all carried out in July 1999 IN the GREATEST SECRECY and no MAXIMUM LEVELS were set!!

IPPC APPLICATION in 2001 : (granted August 2003) again there were no maximum levels, and no-one was told that 'year on year' they could WILFULLY INCREASE the pollution year on year "up to the (secret?) maximum level "!! The EA naturally cannot provide any paperwork of 'maximum levels' or of 'any of the public response to that'. Imagine the scene : "We at the Agency reserve the right to increase and increase toxic pollution onto you for ever, increasing and increasing up to a set maximum that we have decided, in secret and we refuse to tell you anything about it." Would have gone down a bomb?!

DEFRA GLOATING:
"The suggestion that an appropriate ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT for the plant has never been carried out has been thoroughly tested and dismissed. This was concluded from a Judicial Review of the Environment Agency's 2003 decision to grant a Permit under the PPC Regulations 2000. This has been repeatedly upheld by the Courts up to the House of Lords, who dismissed the final appeal in April 2008 and awarded the Environment Agency costs." "The Court of Appeal recognised that the EIA Directive is not absolutely clear in respect of the use of waste-based substitute fuels, but were unanimous that IF an EIA was required by the Directive, then the environmental assessment which formed part of the application for the PPC permit had met that requirement." ER no SORRY - once again this is all untrue.


MISINFORMATION and MISDIRECTION RESULTS: The House of Lords gave no reasons for their bizarre decision, but we can only assume they were wrongly persuaded by the "supposedly trustworthy" Agency lawyers? Result - Mrs P now has to pay over £100,000 because the EA, acting on Defra's behalf, has not told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and has MISDIRECTED the courts both on the substance of the case, and about the Rugby residents and about me personally. The EA has made sworn witness statements claiming such: No-one has any concern in Rugby, or elsewhere, about the ongoing (INCREASES) emissions at the plant; this is of no public interest; she is one wealthy individual, who is all alone, with her own private campaign; there is no interest in Rugby or elsewhere (except of course masses of interest to the UK government and European Courts!) and no one else is prepared to speak up about this injustice - and more such drivel! When asked to provide any PROOF for such ridiculous claims the EA has been unable to supply one bit of evidence - for the very obvious reasons.


ENVIRONMENT AGENCY:

"Mrs P repeatedly conflates quite discrete issues, explains complex issues inaccurately, and approaches scientific issues in a simplistic and unscientific manner. She attempts to equate absence of scientific uncertainty with certainty of harm, which is a profoundly incorrect approach. Fundamentally Mrs P fails to acknowledge - but she does not and cannot contradict - a plethora of evidence now showing that (a) the 'normal' operation of the Rugby Cement works does not cause and never caused a significant environmental impact and (b) that the introduction of wastes as fuel has produced significant environmental improvements in performance."
i.e YEAR ON YEAR MASSIVE INCREASES IN TOXIC POLLUTANTS out of all proportion to any claimed increase in production!!

And Defra say the Environment Agency told us this? Pull the other leg!

ACCESS TO JUSTICE?
Not in the UK.
Not for anyone who tells the truth.


HUMAN RIGHTS?
Not applicable to Rugby!

RUGBY FIRE STATION - CEMEX BLAZING


photo by kind permission of geograph.org.uk
© Copyright Ian Rob <http://www.geograph.org.uk/profile/1208>


RUGBY ADVERTISER reports on "anger of protesters as fire service review plans are shot down in flames" - fire stations are cut from 19 to 12 in Warwickshire.
What does the Fire Service know about the highly flammable tonnes of waste and tyres stockpiled outside at the Cemex co-incinerator? Not a lot!
No-one seems to know who is responsible for the storage of so many tonnes of waste in this town?

WASTE OF SPACE!
CEMEX and ENVIRONMENT AGENCY require EVER MORE WASTE to fire up hungry co-incinerator. They apply for 65% replacement by RDF, of ever increased toxicity and hazards. Cemex require as much waste as they can get - where ever it comes from!! They are "in competition with the planned Coventry Incinerator" to get 300,000 tonnes a year of waste as cheaply as possible - actually be paid as much as possible to burn it. Where is the benefit to the community?

RUGBY'S WASTE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!
Cemex require 300,000 tpa commercial, industrial, and a bit of household waste residue (15,000 tpa in Rugby) to make into 150,000 tpa of RDF. BUT this waste is not of a required specification - and needs another 125,000 tpa of already made RDF to BLEND IN to obtain the required specification.

RUGBY'S RUBBISH IS SIMPLY RUBBISH!
NOT a "local solution to a local problem", after all BUT MORE LIKE a "local Rugby problem caused by other peoples faraway solutions!"
Remember Gordon Collett and the Cemex keys to a £23,000 minibus to "help the aged in his village"?

EVER BEEN CONNED?

CEMEX LATEST

SOLD CHEAP to Holcim $1.7 billion in Australian assets - to help get out of mess. Shares re-issued 1.495 billion so prices down 3.3%, running about $12 each.

EU COMMISSION AND NATIONAL ANTI-TRUST BODIES investigate CEMEX in Spain and raid its offices, along with offices of Holcim and other cement companies.
On suspicion of violating anti-trust legislation! Price fixing still being investigated in the UK from November 2008 raid.