Friday, September 28, 2007


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

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

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

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

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

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

Typical Agency behaviour!

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

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


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

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

Friday, September 14, 2007 Now in Video!


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

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

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007



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


To the Editor,


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

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

Yours sincerely,

Mrs. Patricia Wyatt.
Long Lawford Parish Councillor.

Tuesday, September 04, 2007



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

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

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

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

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

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

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