The residents of Woodford, St John, concerned about the dangers of misinformation and the failure to speak truth to power, wish to correct statements made by Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell during his budget presentation on 11 March 2025.
His remarks referenced a community meeting held in February to discuss the implications of the Rayneau plant [Rayneau Construction and Industrial Equipment Ltd] in our area.
In his speech, the Prime Minister made claims that were either misleading or frivolous. He suggested that “there were attempts to associate the MP of St John with the project as though she has land in Woodford and she is setting up an asphalt plant.” He further credited MP [Hon. Kerryne] James for attending a town hall meeting organised by concerned citizens.
To clarify, MP James, as both the parliamentary representative and the Minister for Climate Resilience, the Environment, and Renewable Energy, has a dual responsibility: to address her constituents’ concerns and to protect the environment. At no point have Woodford residents, in any official capacity, engaged in defamation nor character assassination of our MP. If she believes otherwise, legal avenues are available for recourse.
Residents have, however, repeatedly sought answers from MP James about developments in Woodford since mid-2024. Her consistent response — that she was unaware of the situation — is unacceptable. As recently as 6 February 2025, she was asked twice in one day, both in her office and at a meeting with farmers in the area, yet she maintained that she had no knowledge of the project. This reflects a troubling lack of engagement with constituents.
At the 8 February community meeting, MP James stated: “I thought it was constituents coming together because they were genuinely concerned about the issues about the development of the Rayneau plant. I realise that it was mostly to play political games and to misrepresent me.”
Reducing legitimate community concerns to political manoeuvring is offensive. Woodford is home to supporters of both major political parties, and the attempt to politicise this issue undermines the real dangers that this development poses to public health, safety, and the environment.
During his budget speech, the Prime Minister further dismissed residents’ concerns as “a lot of noise, mauvais langue, and bacchanal.” Such language is inappropriate when addressing citizens seeking government intervention on an issue affecting their homes and well-being.
At the 8 February meeting, Rayneau let the community know that they would have to contend with not just concrete batching and asphalt fumes but also quarry mining on the same site. The Prime Minister characterised the meeting as “meaningful, purposeful, and sensible discussions.” For the affected community, it represented a disregard for their concerns.
The Prime Minister must be aware of the extent to which the Rayneau company has operated outside the law, continuously ignoring planning mandates. While he stated in his budget address that there will be no “commissioning of the site until there is final approval from the Planning and Development Authority,” it is important for the Prime Minister to note that Rayneau has persisted in site work. The company has claimed on television that they are merely “cleaning up the site.” In reality, they are working — while an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is supposedly underway. This contradicts the legal requirement that an EIA be conducted before development begins, not after or during construction.
At a follow-up meeting on 22 March 2025, community residents reaffirmed their view that the government exploited their goodwill by using the 8 February meeting to justify and legitimise the Rayneau project rather than addressing its potentially harmful consequences.
As a community, we recognise the country’s critical infrastructural needs and have communicated our willingness to work toward finding alternative sites. During the 8 February meeting, Rayneau representatives boasted that they possess 300 acres in Woodford. If this is the case, we urge them to relocate the plant further away from residential areas. This message was sent to the Prime Minster; it would be regrettable if it was not delivered.
We are uncertain how the details of our 8 February community meeting were relayed to the Prime Minister, but there should be no fear in speaking truth to power. The concerns of Woodford residents remain clear: we demand honesty, fairness, and proper environmental stewardship in any development affecting our community.
