Petition
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/564623Review 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-1755747Please 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.