East Ridng rural village under threat

pwa
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Post by pwa »

Pete Owens wrote: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

Do you believe the staff, visitors and prisoners will be just from the local community? If so your point is valid. But usually prisons serve a wide region and draw staff from more than just the locality. I suggest that most arrivals each day will be from 10 or more miles away and will be by motor vehicle. Our local prison was put at a motorway junction for that reason.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Post by Steady rider »

Some prison staff travel about 30 to 40 miles each way, see the link for more details.
https://stamfordbridgebypass.wordpress. ... ll-sutton/

A revision of the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning law so that it gives equal rights of appeal for proposers and objectors in the planning process for major developments.

More than 3000 objections to the prison plans have no right of appeal. Boris wants to make planning easier for developers, understandable, but safeguards are also needed.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/loc ... ts-section

A compromise may be possible to use the site for an expansion of the existing prison to be more acceptable and have a better outcome and be cost effective. This would be a better plan rather than a mega Category C prison.
pwa
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Post by pwa »

Steady rider wrote:Some prison staff travel about 30 to 40 miles each way, see the link for more details.
https://stamfordbridgebypass.wordpress. ... ll-sutton/

A revision of the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning law so that it gives equal rights of appeal for proposers and objectors in the planning process for major developments.

More than 3000 objections to the prison plans have no right of appeal. Boris wants to make planning easier for developers, understandable, but safeguards are also needed.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/loc ... ts-section

A compromise may be possible to use the site for an expansion of the existing prison to be more acceptable and have a better outcome and be cost effective. This would be a better plan rather than a mega Category C prison.

I appreciate that the core of your objections is concern over transport issues in an area already suffering from an excess of traffic, but on one lesser point raised in your Stamford Bridge Bypass link, it would probably surprise many people just how visually unobtrusive a prison can be when masked by trees. Our local Parc Prison only goes up to three stories (as opposed to four in this case) but from three sides it is completely hidden behind a wall of trees, and when you are in the housing estate alongside you would not know it is there. If fast growing species are used and put in at an early point in the development, the visual impact could actually be small or even beneficial. Trees and other landscaping usually go in last, so it is worth pressing on this point if this development ever happens.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bridg ... 5?hl=en-GB
These houses are the closest to the prison and in spite of the fact that the prison is on higher ground, it is practically invisible to its neighbours.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Post by Steady rider »

One submissions mentions;
The proposed height of the accommodation block of the prison is on four levels. The PC view is that this structure will be out of keeping in a rural location and that this should be reduced to three floors and that adequate screening is provided to minimise the impact on the nearby countryside. Also to help in keeping in line with the Neighbourghood environment that the lighting be kept to a minimum.


An 8m wide gap is required to be left for the sewage pipeline, and the security fences will be right up against Moor Lane. The current prison is on two levels and well set back from Moor Lane, therefore not a major problem, except for light pollution.

The nearest motorway is the M62 about 20 miles. The A64 is about 7 miles away but traffic on the A166 can cause long delays. Moor road and Moor Lane are used daily by cyclists and people walking or jogging.

Both outline plans were approved without an environmental impact assessment. The scale of the prison covering 50 acres and with 1440 inmates and hundreds of staff will cause more than 1000 vehicle trips per day. It would have a negative impact on the NCN route 66 and for local cyclists and those out from York. It would be in view from the Registered Battlefield. It will need power, water and have to dispose of sewage. The East Riding Council concluded it did not need an environmental impact assessment. I would question this conclusion.
Cyril Haearn
Posts: 15215
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Post by Cyril Haearn »

Surely it could be built on grey land in Doncaster or Harrogate. A prison really should be near a train station so family can visit, many prisoners families are poor and can not afford a motor

Living near a prison might be plusminus, actually it could be an especially safe place. I do live near a prison actually (closed)
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
User avatar
RickH
Posts: 5834
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Post by RickH »

Cyril Haearn wrote:Surely it could be built on grey land in Doncaster or Harrogate. A prison really should be near a train station so family can visit, many prisoners families are poor and can not afford a motor

Living near a prison might be plusminus, actually it could be an especially safe place. I do live near a prison actually (closed)

There was an interesting piece on the BBC news during the week on the effect of the pandemic on prisons. Because visiting has been suspended entirely the prison in question (& possibly others) had instigated online visiting which had enabled some prisoners to have virtual visits where they never were able to have physical visits previously.

The governor commented that it was likely that the option of virtual visits would likely continue even when normal visiting was allowed again as it had been such a success.
Former member of the Cult of the Polystyrene Head Carbuncle.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Post by Steady rider »

A small prison seems to be the way forward, see
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk ... -progress/

In the Full Sutton proposal 1440 inmates and 720 staff, roughly they expect about 450+ staff on site, nearly all will use cars, some may share, and about 100 visitors per day, 1000+ trips per day. Therefore virtual visits will most likely become more frequent but staff trips per day will still be high. It is a proposal for a mage prison very likely to do more harm than good and damage the local cycling routes and national cycle route 66.

There is insufficient scrutiny about the planned large prisons and their location.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Post by Steady rider »

I’ve made a petition – will you sign it?

Click this link to sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petition ... TmYPzgYOfZ

My petition:

Revise planning laws for major planning developments.

For the Government to change the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning law so that in the case of major developments those objecting have a right of appeal.

If a planning proposal is refused, those submitting plans have three options of appeal, Written, Hearing or an Inquiry, whereas those opposing have no right of appeal. Major developments can affect thousands of people who may object for valid reasons but do not currently have a right of appeal. Providing a right of appeal would be fairer to the public and provide a safeguard where a major development should be reconsidered.

Click this link to sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petition ... TmYPzgYOfZ
Oldjohnw
Posts: 7764
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: South Warwickshire

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Post by Oldjohnw »

RickH wrote:
Cyril Haearn wrote:Surely it could be built on grey land in Doncaster or Harrogate. A prison really should be near a train station so family can visit, many prisoners families are poor and can not afford a motor

Living near a prison might be plusminus, actually it could be an especially safe place. I do live near a prison actually (closed)

There was an interesting piece on the BBC news during the week on the effect of the pandemic on prisons. Because visiting has been suspended entirely the prison in question (& possibly others) had instigated online visiting which had enabled some prisoners to have virtual visits where they never were able to have physical visits previously.

The governor commented that it was likely that the option of virtual visits would likely continue even when normal visiting was allowed again as it had been such a success.


The prisoners and their families especially their children generally don't consider virtual visiting a success. Easier for the staff perhaps.
John
User avatar
RickH
Posts: 5834
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: East Ridng rural village under threat

Post by RickH »

Oldjohnw wrote:The prisoners and their families especially their children generally don't consider virtual visiting a success. Easier for the staff perhaps.

The prisoners in the piece seemed to appreciate it.

Yes real, physical visiting is better. But, where the choice is virtual visits or no visits (whether due to lockdown, where there were no visits from anyone, or practicalities of the family situation outside), I think the virtual option is way better than nothing. And it may mean a prisoner has some interaction with their children whare they might only see their partner on a physical visit.

I think it could be a valuable thing if kept as an option, with the emphasis very much on it being an option.
Former member of the Cult of the Polystyrene Head Carbuncle.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Petition Review plans for a Category C prison at Full Sutton

Post by Steady rider »

Petition https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/564623
Review plans for a Category C prison at Full Sutton
A review is needed to consider issues including; site suitability for a large prison, transport issues, previous agreement concerning the site and environmental issues. We believe environmental and other impacts have not been adequately assessed, and plans have been defended using unreliable claims.

More details
The 1440 inmate prison could result in more than 1000 vehicle trips per day, adding to traffic delays for commuters and emergency vehicles in Stamford Bridge. It could detract from important cycling and walking routes. Public concerns exist with more than 2,800 objections, including from local councils. We believe E.Yorkshire has sufficient prisons with over 1,500 Cat C places but N.Yorkshire have none. For extra details see: https://stamfordbridgebypass.wordpress.com/blog/

The 1000 trips per day, from visitors and some staff travelling miles, could result in about 20,000+ miles of driving per day.

A planning submission on behalf of Sustrans stated;
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.


picture of campaigners
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/cr ... ry-1755747

Please sign.

Extra details
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) used underhanded methods to gain outline planning permission in 2017 and this supported their plans for a larger prison of 1440 inmates in 2019.
The key points being,
1)
Both of MoJs public consultations, 2017 and 2018, failed to provide sufficient time for adequate circulation of information to the public. As an example, Full Sutton and Skirpenbeck Parish Council in 2017 stated;
The MoJ’s public consultations did not allow sufficient time to properly distribute information to residents.
FULL_SUTTON_AND_SKIRPENBECK_PARISH_COUNCIL-2678456
submission 15 June 2017 state.
Public Consultation
We are very concerned about the community consultation undertaken. The efforts to engage and communicate with the community to gauge their views and opinions on the development have been inadequate. A good example, is the public engagement event. This was poorly advertised in the local and wider community, meaning that many residents were not aware that it was taking place. The inadequacy of the consultation process means that the views and opinions of the community are not being adequately considered and represented

2)
The MoJ did not disclose a previous agreement concerning the site. The agreement in May 1979, provided for a public inquiry if a Category C prison was to be proposed for the site. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 ended the Crown's immunity from the planning system, hence the more recent applications being considered in the same way as any other planning application. The standard planning process limits the number of individuals to a few who can speak, it does not provide time and allow for the same level of public involvement and detailed cross examination of evidence that may occur with a public inquiry, chaired by a highly qualified planning inspector. Having specifically agreed to a public inquiry they failed to meet their prior agreement. The previous agreement indicated a high level of concern if a second prison was proposed. The MoJ should have disclosed the previous agreement relating to the site and provided a public inquiry that would have provided a higher level of scrutiny and independence from a Planning Inspector. The Home Office stated in writing that
“any proposal to develop the remainder of the site as a Category C prison would have to be the subject of another public inquiry”
. This was a solemn undertaking from Government to residents. It should be honoured unless very exceptional circumstances prevailed.
3)
In Stamford Bridge traffic delays are frequent with having a single lane bridge controlled by traffic lights, considered to be sub standard for an A road. The ‘East Riding of Yorkshire Council, Local Transport Plan, Strategy 2015 – 2029’, page 43 states;
Stamford Bridge
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.

Providing reliable and typical traffic surveys were very important to evaluate the prison plans. The MoJ used traffic surveys from late October that were not typical for the A166. From April to September traffic to the coast is much higher and in October the Blackpool Illuminations are the main coastal attraction for the region. The MoJ did not disclose details that the bridge location is considered sub-standard and used traffic surveys giving a lower than average value for traffic counts. The letter from Sir Greg Knight MP refers to the issues of the public inquiry and traffic surveys, copied below.
The A166 is the shortest route from the Leeds area to the coast at Bridlington. October is normally considered a ‘neutral’ month for traffic assessments but for the A166 it would have lower traffic levels than normal and not be typical. The MoJ/ERYC allowed the October survey to be used knowing traffic levels would very likely be lower than normal/typical for the A166.
Ambulance can already be delayed due to queuing traffic, up to a mile is common during June to September and this increases emergency response times in the Stamford Bridge area and the extra traffic from an additional 32000 trips per month would likely lead to longer delays and put lives at risk.

4)
The MOJ used incorrect and misleading claims to gain planning approval. As examples, they stated prisoners were allowed one visit per month (2017 application), when legally they are allowed two visits per four week period. They claimed 40% of visitors would use public transport, that has now been acknowledged to be incorrect. The local bus service is infrequent and does not run on Sundays and the last bus to York is at 2.28pm. Perhaps 95% would come by car due to the very infrequent bus service. These claims helped the previous application, for a 1017 inmate prison to be approved at the outline planning stage. They assumed that visitors may come three-to-a-car, but do not consider the effect if they come with two or one in each car.
Referring to HM Inspectorate of Prisons reports :
Number of visits
1.27
Visit sessions vary in frequency between establishments; sentenced prisoners are entitled to a minimum of two one-hour visits in every four week period and unconvicted prisoners are entitled to a minimum of three one-hour visits per week.22 This is the basic legal requirement and any additional visits are dependent on the institution and on the prisoner’s incentives and earned privileges (IEP)23 level. Prisoners on the enhanced level would normally receive more visits than prisoners on standard and basic levels. Most prisons also allow further visits for specific purposes. For example, a prisoner could be given extra visits of a parenting or family relationship programme. HM Inspectorate of Prisons expects establishments to offer more visits than the statutory amount – at least one visit per week for a minimum of one hour regardless of the prisoner’s IEP status.24.
[/quote]
Highlighted in bold to show the entitlement is to a minimum of two visits per 4 week period, a rate of 2.166 visits per month.

The MoJ transport assessment provided by Atkins raises environmental concerns that most prison staff, visitors and supply vehicles will likely be travelling many miles, and this has not been properly evaluated. For example, staff may live in Hull, Scarborough, Leeds, Doncaster etc and people visiting may come from across the Yorkshire region and from outside of Yorkshire. It can be estimated in total about 32000 trips per month will occur and approximately 95%+ of trips could be by car or motorised taxi increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Assuming each trip averages 20 miles, in total about 1000 trips per day and approximately 20,000 miles per day of driving will occur. The MoJ and ERYC did not provide data on the average distance travelled from the existing High Security prison to provide a guide to total distance per day. The ERYC did not require an Environmental Impact Assessment knowing the site will be 52 acres in size, with 1440 inmates, 700+ staff, more than 1000 trips per day and have lighting, sewage and transport issue. The legal obligations in climate agreements to take full account of greenhouse gas emissions may not have been met.
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Petition Review plans for a Category C prison at Full Sutton

Post by Pete Owens »

If we want to encourage people to travel by bicycle then it seems entirely a good thing to locate a development in a place that is well served by a cycle route.
Oldjohnw
Posts: 7764
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: South Warwickshire

Re: Petition Review plans for a Category C prison at Full Sutton

Post by Oldjohnw »

John
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Petition Review plans for a Category C prison at Full Sutton

Post by Steady rider »

Pete Owens » 13 Mar 2021, 9:34pm wrote

If we want to encourage people to travel by bicycle then it seems entirely a good thing to locate a development in a place that is well served by a cycle route.


On the surface it may seem a good thing but considering perhaps 2-3% may commute by bicycle and perhaps 95% use a car in the particular situation, and nearly all visitors will also use cars. It would result in more traffic on country lanes used by local cyclists and on the national routes. It needed properly assessing, one reason to review the plans.

If the criteria for locating a large prison included providing an off road cycle route access to nearby urban area, such as within 4 - 8 miles from Leeds or another large urban area, then local people could use the route and staff cycle to work, minimising driving.

If again, a development was located near to an existing off road cycle route, this may be more suitable.
Post Reply