East Ridng rural village under threat

brynpoeth
Posts: 10980
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Postby brynpoeth » 8 Feb 2019, 5:34pm

Many people in prison should not be there, they need help more than punishment

Can you suggest a better place for it? Near a train station would be good, a brownfield site maybe
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we love life

Steady rider
Posts: 2169
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Postby Steady rider » 8 Feb 2019, 6:45pm

I agree with many needing help, some probably come out worse than when they went in.

Frances Crook:
Comment:The Howard League for Penal Reform is the oldest penal reform organisation in the
world. We work for less crime, safer communities and fewer people in prison. We object to the
proposal to expand the prison estate at at time when it is the stated position of ministers to reduce
the prison population and to curtail the use of short prison sentences. It is not necessary to
squander public money on building more prisons.
This prison is not needed. There are already 4,000 category C prison places in the area (Holme
House, Wealston, Lindholme and Humber prisons).
Building more prisons at a time when hospitals and local services are being cut is diverting scare
resources away from where they are most needed. Investment in community sentences and
community services would obviate the need for a prison.
Category C prisons are dangerous places. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons has found prisons to be
awash with drugs and violence.
The government recently built a huge Cat C prison in Wrexham which is causing problems for the
local area with an average of 13 ambulance call outs a month.
This prison would be a huge waste of public money, would fail victims of crime as the majority of
prisoners commit more crimes on release and would have a deleterious impact on the local
community.

landsurfer
Posts: 4945
Joined: 27 Oct 2012, 9:13pm
Location: Rotherham

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Postby landsurfer » 8 Feb 2019, 7:14pm

We could just lock the prisoners up in your spare rooms .... :)
The Road Goes On Forever ...

thirdcrank
Posts: 28648
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Postby thirdcrank » 2 Mar 2019, 6:25pm

Protests over plans for new prison in East Yorkshire
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-47427283

Steady rider
Posts: 2169
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Postby Steady rider » 2 Mar 2019, 8:41pm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m ... s-02032019

New Full Sutton prison planning application – are the MoJ deliberately trying to mislead?


Application Number: 18/04105/STOUT
Address: Land To The West Of HM Prison Full Sutton Moor Lane Full Sutton East Riding Of Yorkshire YO41 1PS
Proposal: Outline - Erection of prison complex with associated perimeter fencing, access, parking, landscaping and infrastructure (access and scale to be considered).
Current 2018 application is for a prison with the capacity to hold 1440 inmates. In 2017 outline planning permission was granted for a prison with the capacity to hold 1017 inmates.

Several issues arise from the current application and the previous one. It appears efforts were made to try and mislead the planning committee by minimising transport related problems in order to try and secure planning permission.

A submission from Stephen Chittock, available on the ERYC planning portal, explains some of the reasons why it is flawed. He says:
‘The Outline Travel Plan and the Transport Assessment are classified as supporting documents, which is a precise and accurate description. They are both, in their entirety, drafted to carefully support the proposal, leaving out any inconvenient information which does not promote a favourable view of this planning application.’

Areas in which the Transport assessment are misleading or incorrect are detailed below

1. One key transport issue relates to the traffic at Stamford Bridge on the A166 and the single lane bridge, which it was predicted would be used by an estimated 35% to 42% of prison traffic. Underestimating traffic levels clearly assisted in the initial (2017) planning application gaining approval. Previous housing plans had been rejected based in part on the traffic situation. Details are available in for more details regarding Stamford Bridge:
https://stamfordbridgebypass.wordpress. ... cial-case/
3.4
The ERYC LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN – STRATEGY (2015 – 2029) page 44 refers to traffic flow for Stamford Bridge and states;
7.2.26. The A166 between York and Driffield is constructed to single carriageway standard and is around 7.3 metres wide on average. However, the grade II* listed bridge in the centre of Stamford Bridge only allows for single file traffic in each direction, managed by traffic signal control. This forms a sub-standard section of the route which leads to delays and localised congestion at peak times.
The Transport Assessments in both 2017 and 2018/19 failed to mention the ‘sub-standard’ reference in the Local Plan.

2. The TA failed to consider the seasonal variation of traffic flow along the A166. Government guidance for best practice for traffic surveys state: ‘It should also take account of holiday periods in tourist areas’ (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transport-e ... ion-taking)
Traffic levels were measured on a single day in October, completely disregarding the congestion caused by coastal traffic from spring to autumn.
Even so, the TA concludes that the bottleneck in Stamford Bridge will be operating beyond capacity. For Stamford Bridge the AM peak period, the DoS (degree of saturation) was forecast to be 106.3% in 2017 and 100.3% in 2018. The Bridge, signal controlled junction, was modelled using LinSig v3. For LinSig, a Degree of Saturation (DoS) below 90% indicates that a junction operates within capacity for the assessed flows. The TA states:
Junction capacity assessment indicates that all the junctions in the study area currently operate within acceptable capacity threshold limits, with the exception the Stamford Bridge sign.

3. The 2017 (TA) report for the 1017 inmate prison was deeply flawed with errors on the number of prison visits allowed, The TA, ‘Land at Moor Lane, Full Sutton Transport Assessment’ page 29, stated;
The proposed facility would operate as a Category C prison. Prisoners in such facilities are allowed one visit per month.
Whereas the legal entitlement is for 2 visits per 4-week period. It was then assumed 1.2 visits per month would occur, including legal visits. In the 2018 calculations were again made using the faulty 1.2 visits per month assumption and there was no reference to additional legal visits.

An MoJ-commissioned report shows that visitation rates at similar existing prisons actually average over 3 per prisoner each month https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/site ... Prison.pdf.
Should the lower estimate be enforced it would deny prisoners their legally entitled visits.

In a written reply to Sir Greg Knight in 2018, a letter from Rt Hon David Gauke MP, Lord Chancellor & Secretary of Justice, also claimed prisoners were generally allowed one visit per mouth.

4. The TA assumed 40% of visitors would use public transport.
The local bus service is infrequent and does not run on Sundays and the last bus to York is at 2.28pm. Data on travel to work shows only 2.8% of prison workers use buses and it is misleading to grossly overestimate and assume 40% of visitors will use public transport in the Full Sutton rural location.

5. It assumes that visitors may come three-to-a-car, but doesn't consider the effect if they come with two or one in each car

6. The TA fails to provide estimates of journeys resulting from prisoner transfers, court appearances, service vehicles and medical ambulance journeys.

7. The local roads, Moor Road and Moor Lane, neither of which have pavements, will see thousands of journeys to and from the prison each month (even using the TA's optimistically low figures). These roads are part of the National Cycle Network route 66 and the Minster Way walking route. Conditions for people walking, jogging and cycling will become even more precarious than they are at present.

A submission from Mr John Scullion, on behalf of Sustrans states;
From a Sustrans perspective, this proposed development is unacceptable because:
(a) there are no proposals for creating new cycle/pedestrian routes between the site and Stamford Bridge, and other nearby villages; (b) no thought has been given to the impact of all the extra traffic on the safety of existing cyclists using National Route 66 | Way of the Roses and other rural roads in the area;
(c) none of the roads giving access to the site, from whatever direction, have any existing safety provision for pedestrians or cyclists, and there is no proposal to provide any.
The TA fails to fully consider the negative consequences.

8. The TA 2018 makes unreliable claims; It says, ‘The local highway authority has confirmed that the two committed developments outlined above are almost complete.’. Only 1/3 of the new houses had been occupied.

The previous Outline Planning application was recommended by ERYC for approval and granted, but much of the transport information provided was tailored to support it being approved and was grossly misleading at best and at worst completely inaccurate. The ERYC appears to have glossed over details and allowed the process to become bias in favour of approval.

The Minister for Justice, Rory Stewart MP should discuss these issues and others with protesters to resolve the situation.

Steady rider
Posts: 2169
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Postby Steady rider » 24 Mar 2019, 4:48pm

A planning submission made the following comments;

Following the recent release of a relevant document (attached) by the MoJ in response to a request under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, I wish to add the following to my objection of 27.01.19 regarding the 2018 planning application made by the MoJ for a new prison at Full Sutton.

1. I, and others who have commented on the application, have suggested that the Transport Assessment (TA) submitted by the applicant is both inaccurate and anything but an impartial, scientific analysis of the transport-related issues connected with the proposed development. The following extract from the Executive Summary of the Tuner & Townsend Report of 2016, prepared for the MoJ in consideration of the Full Sutton prison development and released (in redacted form) under the FOI Act, strongly support this view:

“In developing the site, there are a number of constraints to be overcome, namely:

• Ditch crossing the site containing species of ecological value
• Third party right of way in the Southern End of the site that may need to be moved by negotiation
• Impacts on local highway network, in particular the bridge at Stamford Bridge which further work is required to demonstrate will have little impact.”

The third of these points proves that the TA was prepared with a specific target outcome – to demonstrate that the development will have “little impact”. It was not conducted in an open and objective manner in order to predict the actual impact on the local highway network.

Given this, I would ask that the Planning Committee disregard the “evidence” presented in the applicant’s TA when considering the application. It clearly has no credibility as a reliable source of information or analysis, and should not, in any way, be considered as an objective, scientific, consideration of the issues at hand.

2. The Turner and Townsend report also states:

“The local highways authority has indicated that an existing listed bridge crossing the river Derwent is over capacity and that future development at [redacted] will require a capital contribution to the construction of a new vehicle crossing”.

This statement indicates that both the local highways authority and the MoJ are aware of the fact that the bridge at Stamford Bridge is already over capacity. It indicates that the highways authority considers the existing bridge to be insufficient to support a new prison at Full Sutton.

(The “existing listed bridge” is identified elsewhere in the document as that at Stamford Bridge).

(It is unclear why the name of the site is redacted, as it is throughout the document provided, even though it is described as being “directly adjacent to HMP Full Sutton” and is thus, quite clearly, the site of the proposed development).

3. The “Summary of Challenges” section of the report includes the following statement:

“Capacity of existing site infrastructure: More detailed design is required to assess the load requirement of the new facility and therefore prove the capacity of the existing site infrastructure to support development without upgrade” (italics added for emphasis).

As with the TA, this suggests that the target (proving sufficient capacity without upgrade) of the infrastructural analyses was set in advance. There was no attempt to objectively determine whether the existing infrastructure could cope or not. As a result, the analyses submitted by the applicant in connection with infrastructural considerations should be rejected as unreliable.

4. The MoJ refused to release the whole of the Turner & Townsend report under the FOI Act, even in redacted form, instead providing just a redacted version of the Executive Summary. Furthermore, the MoJ has chosen to redact the “possible impact” (High, Medium or Low) of the six “key challenges” to the development that are identified in the Executive Summary, despite the potential value of such information to those considering the planning application. I would ask the Planning Committee to bear this lack of transparency in mind when evaluating the veracity of the MoJ’s case for building the proposed prison at Full Sutton.


From the above and the MoJ traffic assumptions, it suggest the MoJ deliberately intended to mislead with a bias traffic assessment.

Steady rider
Posts: 2169
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Postby Steady rider » 22 Apr 2019, 8:06pm

https://www.gofundme.com/no-mega-prison-at-full-sutton

Another protest against the prison plans is on Saturday 11th May in Stamford Bridge.

Steady rider
Posts: 2169
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Postby Steady rider » 23 Sep 2019, 3:08pm

Hoping a QC is reading this and can help out.
In the East Riding a mega prison planning application for Full Sutton with an additional prison for 1440 inmates has been approved, close to the NCN route 66. The area is used by cyclists frequently from across the area, especially from York. The prison will generate about 32000 trips (in and out, two trips) per month. All the local councils have objected, Sustrans, Ramblers, Police and 3300 objectors. Consideration is now being given to a judicial review and clearly funding is a major consideration.

The case for a judicial review may hinge on several factors. The traffic assessment used October to collect data, normally considered a neutral month. The A166 has higher traffic levels between April to September due to people visiting the coast and in October people often prefer to visit Blackpool for the illuminations. October for the A166 would not be typical for traffic conditions. There are safety issues with the bridge at Stamford Bridge delaying ambulances, about 20 per week visit the area. There is the Battlefield issue and the prison being about 1.4 km away and would detract from viewing of the battlefield field with 6 four storey house blocks in view. The prison would cover a 52 acre site. The procedures and details provided by the Case officers would be a main part of a judicial review. Previous professional advice for planning and transport have detailed reasons why the application should have been refused, these are part of the submissions by David Walton on behalf of the Halifax Estate.

If sufficient support is available and legal advice recommends a judicial review, then action could proceed.
https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/179016 ... -decision/

Campaigners may call for judicial review into Full Sutton mega jail decision | York Press
CAMPAIGNERS may call for a judicial review into a decision to approve planning permission for a huge jail at a village near York. Proposals for a 1,440-inmate prison at Full Sutton were given the ...
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-49681744

Pete Owens
Posts: 1518
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Postby Pete Owens » 23 Sep 2019, 5:49pm

What on earth has this got to do with cycling? ANY proposal to build a prison of ANY size ANY where will generate NIMBY opposition. The location seems entirely unremarkable and a similar list of objections would be generated for wherever else you think it should be sited.

If anything, if traffic is your concern then siting developments such that they are well served by cycle routes should be positively encouraged to promote modal shift.

Oldjohnw
Posts: 1793
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Postby Oldjohnw » 23 Sep 2019, 6:07pm

Is the problem because it's a prison or would a new factory provoke the same outcry?
John

Cycling and recycling

Steady rider
Posts: 2169
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Postby Steady rider » 23 Sep 2019, 6:28pm

The development would result in about 32000 trips per month and a proportion would use part of the NCN. Many cyclists from the York area use these roads on a regular basis in addition to locals and tourists. A very small proportion of staff may use a bicycle but 95% of journeys would be by car. About 3 buses a day go to the location and the last bus to York is at about 2.30 pm. most visitors will use cars. It is building a prison in the wrong location to minimise traffic. The Minster Way walking route also use the same road, no pavements. Both cyclists and walkers will be at risk from the extra traffic. The extra traffic will add to problems in Stamford Bridge were a single lane bridge on the A166 can lead to long queues. When ambulances are trying to respond to emergency situation they are sometimes delayed getting to the bridge and have to wait with a 2 mins timing setting. Cycling is part of the issue but a range of issues shows this is the wrong location. A prison location built near a main road or on an industrial estate that allows for good access with a frequent bus service would meet the needs without harming a national cycle route and a walking route.

Steady rider
Posts: 2169
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Postby Steady rider » 23 Sep 2019, 6:33pm

Is the problem because it's a prison or would a new factory provoke the same outcry?


A new factory with the same level of traffic would also be bad for the location. A prison is somewhat different, in that drug dealers may frequent the area and prisoner being released may have no home to go to. A city may have some accommodation for the homeless.

brynpoeth
Posts: 10980
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Postby brynpoeth » 23 Sep 2019, 7:41pm

There should be some abandoned car factory sites available soon, one earnestly hopes :D
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we love life

pwa
Posts: 10217
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Postby pwa » 24 Sep 2019, 8:43am

Pete Owens wrote:What on earth has this got to do with cycling? ANY proposal to build a prison of ANY size ANY where will generate NIMBY opposition. The location seems entirely unremarkable and a similar list of objections would be generated for wherever else you think it should be sited.

If anything, if traffic is your concern then siting developments such that they are well served by cycle routes should be positively encouraged to promote modal shift.

The NIMBY accusation is unfair. We all have a right to oppose developments local to us if they seem inappropriate to local conditions. There is a modern prison a few miles from where I live and it is no problem at all. There is a new housing estate beside it and people live there with the prison hidden behind a thick band of trees and there are no issues. BUT that prison is adjacent to an M4 junction and the only local road used by prison traffic has no homes on it and no traffic other than the prison traffic. It does seem to me that any development that puts a lot of new traffic on already problematic roads through a community should be questioned. It sounds like poor planning.


Parc Prison. Next to no effect on local roads.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bridg ... 5?hl=en-GB

Pete Owens
Posts: 1518
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Postby Pete Owens » 24 Sep 2019, 10:30am

Certainly if your aim is to positively discourage people travelling to work on foot or by cycle and encourage private car use - then using planning rules to ensure that any development is well served by motorways rather than cycle routes is the way to go. This is most certainly the way planners think - which is why NIMBY protesters latch on to such concerns.

Incidentally the very same point you made about the retail development last October:
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=125900&p=1286335&hilit=bridgend#p1286335