East Ridng rural village under threat

Posts: 9800
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

Steady rider
Posts: 2159
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

Posts: 4499
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 .... :)
Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.

The road goes on forever.

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

Steady rider
Posts: 2159
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/
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: 2159
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: 2159
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

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


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