Building a prison on Anglesey would be stupid!!!!

Putting aside that super prisons don't work....talking to BBC News....Andrew Coyle, University of Essex emeritus professor of prison studies and a former governor of Brixton Prison, has "a real feeling of déjà vu" about the latest plan. [The former Labour Government in 2009 scrapped proposals for three 2,500-capacity "Titan" jails.]

He points out that while in opposition, Conservative minister Dominic Grieve criticised Labour's prison proposals as akin to building "giant warehouses".

"We have clear evidence from the chief inspector of prisons and others that the ideal size for a well operating prison is about 500 - to go beyond that and you do begin to warehouse," Prof Coyle warns.

He says the move to giant prisons could "make the situation much worse" for prisoners already spending "too much time in their cells".

The possible locations of a super prison and the relocation of prisoners away from their communities is also a concern.

Mr Coyle says: "There are not 2,000 people in prison in north Wales. And if it is to be built in London, then the cost of both providing the land and building on it is going to be astronomical.

If you asked the question where would you build a prison in North Wales, and a super prison at that, then logic says that the only place to build it would be in Wrecsam. After all North Wales depending on whom you believe has a need for a 500 to 800 capacity prison, which means 1,200 to 1,500  prisoners from England. And surely as the case for a prison in North Wales is the travelling distance for relatives as well as logistics, then it would be rather silly if we then build a prison that would increase the travelling distance for what would be the majority of relatives.

On Anglesey two sites have been suggested, one at Rhosgoch...the former Shell oil terminal.  Sorry, but whoever suggest that site as a suitable location for a prison of any size must be really, really, and I mean really thick...mad utter bonkers.

The other proposed site is Anglesey Aluminum at Holyhead.....well it does have a direct link into the national grid for the electric chair I suppose.

But seriously, I suspect even Holyhead with its rail link and A55 connection would a be logistical no go area for a super prison, not forgetting the cost of clearing the site in the first place.

Now don't get me wrong I don't have any problems with prisons per say, after all travel to Shrewsbury on  train and when you disembark you're within walking distance of the prison, and it doesn't seem to deter tourist....you know seeing how we should always think of the tourist, apparently....

So please can we stop this utter nonsense - whilst there is a case for a prison for North Wales prisoners in North Wales, in my opinion there is no logical argument that can be put forward that supports a case for a prison on Anglesey.

As for the former Rhosgoch Shell depot, I suggest we turn it into a solar park, akin to the one recently approved at Bodorgan Estate (see BBC News) to bring some income into the Council at least.

Holyhead Marine and Sydney Pilot Boats.

Sharp the second Sydney Pilot Boat - © Vessels at Holyhead. 

Here's a good quiz question - what is the connection between Holyhead and Sydney?

The answer, hat tip to the blog Vessels at Holyhead, is pilot boats as explained in the Sydney Ports Newsletter April 2012:

New Pilot Boat on Track for September
It has yet to be launched and is yet to be named but, if all goes to plan, Sydney Ports will have its first new pilot boat in 23 years in September this year.

The first of two new boats on order, construction of the 16 metre vessel is well underway and is expected to begin sea trials in late June. [2012]

It is being built by North Wales based Holyhead Marine which has more than 40 years experience designing and building work boats, tugs and pilot boats for clients around the world.

Our second boat is also being built there and will be ready for trials towards the end of the year.

Harbour Master Philip Holliday says our old boats have earned their pending retirement having served us well for up to 31 years.

“Our crews have developed strong bonds with our old boats and it won’t be easy for them to say goodbye but our new vessels have a proven track record in numerous ports around the world and I’m confident they’ll become respected work horses on the Sydney Ports fleet.

“They have double chine hulls that handle big seas very well and each will have two 600-horsepower Scania engines capable of driving these 24-tonne boats at better than 25 knots.

Philip said the first boat is expected to be shipped to Australia in September and ready for use later that month.

See also: Sydney Ports October 2012 Newsletter - The First of Three New Pilot Vessels Arrives.

It's good to see that not only do we import ships from down under, we also export some there too, and is further confirmation of the growing success story that is Holyhead Marine

For more pictures of  'Sharp' the second pilot boat see the blog Vessels at Holyhead.

The Great Breakwater of Holyhead.

Quite soon now we'll find out whether the Welsh Government has called in the outline planning application for the waterfront development at Newry Beach, due to the proposed scheme being a departure from the local plan.

There has been much opposition to the proposed development, with a petition of over 4000 signatures being handed to the Welsh Government. One issue much talked about is the upkeep of breakwater, and that is something I shall consider in this post.

First some interesting history about the port and breakwater..

From around 1840 as the Port of Holyhead became more busy, it was considered that a larger harbour was needed. A view had been reached at the Admiralty, whom were in charge of ports at the time, that Holyhead would be ideal as a 'package port' for communication with Ireland.

Sir Robert Peel, Prime Minister said at the House of Commons on May 1843 "The evidence was conclusive in favour of the line from Chester by Bangor to some port. Then the question arose which should be the port, and the commissioners decided in favour of Holyhead; and he thought they decided judiciously. The details of the arrangement were still under consideration.

Around the same time consideration was being given for the need of a harbour of refuge on the West Coast.

Sir Robert Peel, at a sitting of the House of Commons on 29 February 1844 said "But take the west coast, and the evidence was most conclusive as to the necessity of having a harbour of refuge, and for facilitating the communication between this country and Ireland, and if he were asked to say what point should be selected for such a harbour, he should certainly select Holyhead."

This proposal gave rise to considerable objections form both Liverpool Port and Dublin Port whom where concerned that a improved and safer Holyhead harbour could take trade away from them. These argument continued for some time.

Sir Robert Peel observed; when asked at the House of Commons on 7 June 1847, whether Holyhead was the best location for a harbour of refuge: that there never was a question more fully considered than this, whether or not Holyhead was entitled to a preference over any neighbouring port in facilitating the intercourse between this country and Ireland. The late Administration had sent two very eminent men, one connected with civil engineering, the other with the Admiralty, for the purpose of making a report on that question. They inquired into the subject most minutely, and made a report decidedly in favour of Holyhead. There was some little imputation, resting upon the slightest grounds, as to their partiality. Two others wore therefore appointed, who made a report to the same effect, decidedly in favour of Holyhead; and he was not sure whether there was not a third inquiry. Here then were three inquiries within the last few years; at least he was quite certain that there were two, which both resulted in favour of that site. He was bound to say that he thought the reasons for selecting Holyhead were quite decisive.

At a House in Committee of Supply 12 June 1857 Mr Wilson said...."When the first Vote for Holyhead Harbour was taken, a very large scheme was proposed to Parliament, founded on the recommendation of the Admiralty; but owing to the jealousy of Liverpool and the neighbouring ports, together with a scepticism on the part of that House as to the utility of the project, the undertaking was reduced from a plan that would cost £1,200,000—the original 1694 sum suggested—to one that would cost only £808,000. The smaller project was the one actually adopted; but to such a remarkable degree had the expectations of those who advocated the more extensive scheme been realized, that even during the progress of the works the Harbour was so much resorted to in its incomplete state, and so inadequate to receive the vessels having recourse to it, that the Government had been compelled to come down to the House and propose increase after increase in the Vote until they had reached the highest amount contemplated in the original plan, and the present estimate was £l,198,000. The following table, taken from the report of Captain Skinner, the Superintendent of Holyhead Harbour, showed the number of vessels which had entered it from 1852:—
Year          No.              Tonnage.
1852 … … 514 … …      34,650
1853 … … 1,293 … … 106,392
1854 … … 1,788 … … 137,058
1855 … … 1,607 … … 119,413
1856 … … 2,394 … … 198,666
The importance of this harbour was very great, because not only did the Irish postal packets go to and from it, but it was for the convenience of the metropolis that the American steamers should land their letters, &c., when they arrived off Holyhead. One cause of the large increase upon this and similar works was, that it was found advisable to complete them as expeditiously as possible. It was due therefore to the exertions of the late Mr. Rendell, who had had the supervision of this harbour, and whose great professional abilities everybody would admit, that they had been able to expend a large sum in the execution of this undertaking in a single year. If important public works of this kind were to be carried out at all, the quicker they were advanced the better for the interests of the community. [An ironical cry of "Hear, hear!"]

These day the main concern is maintenance of the breakwater, as reported by Holyhead and Anglesey Mail back in 2009. In 2006 the Daily Post reported that £10 million pounds was needed to repair the breakwater. At the time Capt Parry said the company's bill for simply maintaining the breakwater was running at £150,000 a year and "significant" repairs were needed.

Although the need for continuous repairs and the high costs associated with the harbour have been known for some time, this from Hansard: Mr Michael Hicks-Beach Commons — April 9, 1889 Holyhead is a very expensive harbour to keep up. The breakwater requires continual watching, and I am sure the salary of this gentleman is well earned.

HOLYHEAD BREAKWATER. Mr Michael Hicks-Beach Commons — March 20, 1890 that there was some neglect with regard to the repair of the breakwater at Holyhead for some years, and that owing to that neglect the storm had had serious effect upon the break-water. I cannot express an opinion.

The Great Breakwater was commenced by the Admiralty in 1847 ( Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847) until Harbours Transfer Act 1862 transferred the responsibility to the Board of Trade, until Ministry of Transport Act 1919 transferred the responsibility to the Ministry of Transport.

I think that's enough history for now, but what we can gather from the past is how important the Great Breakwater is not only to Holyhead but the rest of the UK.

We need to ask whether the burden of the upkeep of such an important breakwater; and a grade II listed structure, should alone be placed onto one private company, whilst many others also gain benefit. We know that because it's in private ownership (with thanks to Margaret Thatcher) certain grants may not be available to them, and we know that others have ideas on how to develop the breakwater. Getting Conygar/Stena Line to pay a commuted sum (presumably to Stena Line Ports) for the future upkeep of the breakwater may provide a short term answer. But what of the long term, what would happen if it really does fall down?

Can I suggest something along these lines - that a charity be set up for the future maintenance and repair of the breakwater, to whom Stena Line Ports could transfer ownership and a sizable contribution towards future maintenance etc, there could be Board of Commissioners with representatives from interested parties. In other words it's a structure of national importance, lets make it a national asset once again, you know like buildings the National Trust looks after... Just a thought...

Note: Many of the above quotes are from Hansard i.e Hansard Search - holyhead harbour of refuge

Development by Conygar on Newry Waterfront, Holyhead.

UPDATE 14 July 2012 - It seems outline planning permission has not been granted by the Council, which does allow for the Welsh Government to call in the application, as reported in the Daily Post. Seeing how strong the opposition is to the proposed development, it may be a wise move by  the Labour Welsh Government to call in the application and hold a public inquiry, or otherwise and as reported by North Wales Chronicle - Campaigners form anti-Holyhead marina party many Labour Councillors may be thrown out at the next local elections. The below does set out correctly what happens after planning permission has been granted, but seeing that planning permission has not been granted then there is something the Minister can do.   

A report in todays Holyhead and Anglesey Mail - "Residents fight to save the beach" by Ffion Williams, quotes Mr Lloyd Williams; chairman of the Newry Residents Association; whom are opposed to the proposed Conygar development on Newry Waterfront, as saying those against the plans are confident they will win their fight in Cardiff.

But what has Cardiff to do with this? - Apparently it is expected that Ieuan Wyn Jones AM will now write to the Welsh Government Planning Inspectorate to discuss the concerns of the objectors with him.

I'm not sure why, in the first place a third party cannot appeal against the decision, as explained in the Planning Portal:

After the decision

In England and Wales it is not possible for a third party to appeal against a local planning authority's decision.

For example, if your neighbour was granted permission to build an extension you could not appeal against it - even if you objected to the application at an earlier stage of the process.

Complaining about applications

In some cases, you can complain to the Local Government Ombudsman about how a local planning authority handled a planning application.

If you are the planning applicant, the Ombudsman will not usually look at your complaint because you have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, through the Planning Inspectorate.

If you are a neighbour affected by a local authority's planning decision, the Ombudsman may consider your complaint, but only if there was administrative fault in the way the authority handled the matter.

The Ombudsman cannot investigate a complaint just because you do not agree with the decision.

The Ombudsman has no power to alter the decision, even if the local authority administration has not been entirely correct.

However, in cases where the Ombudsman decides that the local authority has acted incorrectly in handling a planning matter, the Ombudsman can recommend that the authority take action to mitigate the effect on you, and pay you compensation, if appropriate.

The only other route against granting of a planning permission is to apply to the High Court for a judicial review, which must be done promptly and within three months.

The Friend of Earth website explains what a judicial review is:

Judicial Review is a form of Court proceeding that allows you to ask a judge to review the legality of a public body‟s actions. It can only be used in situations where there is no other right of appeal and where you believe that the authority has acted unlawfully.

Judicial review is only concerned with whether the decision has been made in accordance with the law and whether the decision made is itself lawful. Importantly, judicial review is not concerned with the merits of a decision i.e. with whether or not it is a good or bad environmental decision. The court will not substitute its own decision for the decision of the authority.

In other words it is not about whether their decision was right or wrong. Decision makers are allowed to get things „wrong‟ i.e. to decide differently to the way that you, the Court or another decision maker would have decided. The question is whether they acted lawfully in how they got there.

The courts are usually less concerned with the decision than the manner of reaching it i.e. about lawfulness of process.

Not that this should stop anyone whom objected to the development, forgetting those Councillors whom supported the development at next years County Councillor elections.

Land and Lakes publish revised plans for Penrhos development.

Land & Lakes; a tourism and leisure venture specialising in environmental awareness, whom have acquired the rights to develop land previously owned by Anglesey Aluminium have published revised plans for the development.

You can download the amended plans in pdf format from Land & Leisure website. You will need to allow a 'pop up' from their site to allow the file to be downloaded.

On their website Land & Lakes explain their vision:

The project vision is to create a world class tourism destination that utilises and protects the unique, natural beauty of the area whilst providing an economic legacy for the future. The exact composition of the tourism offer will be developed through public consultation and stakeholder input.

Following the Public Exhibition on 21st-22nd October, the Masterplan and Vision have been revised to reflect feedback from local Community, stakeholders and on-going site assessments.

I for one think the development well thought out,  will bring much needed jobs to one of the most deprived areas in Wales, and Land & Lakes have shown themselves quite willing to listen to local concerns and amended their plans accordingly.

Was 'The Lightning Car Company' the answer for Anglesey?

Much is being made; by the Anglesey Conservatives, of a meeting back in September 2009 where the possibility of a start-up car company moving to Anglesey was discussed. See today’s Holyhead and Anglesey Mail.

The company involved 'The Lightning Car Company' hope to manufacture their first production car in 2012, at a cost to you of £150,000.

It is a powerful electric car, based on their previous model of the Lightning "that was powered by a conventional Ford Mustang, which first appeared at the 1999 Earl's Court Motor Show, where it attracted 20 orders. The project was then put on hold, although seven pre-production cars were built, all of which still exist."

You can read more about the merits of the car in this Daily Telegraph report from September 2007.

It is interesting to note that the meeting on Anglesey took place well before the company attempted to attract major investment in the project, see press release from 24 October 2010.

The UK has a fine tradition of small niche car manufactures, and of developing new concepts, and whilst we should offer our full support, we need to be realistic.

At the bone, small independent car manufactures can never compete with the large multinationals. A number of whom are either producing or will produce in the near future sporty electric cars i.e Tesla Motors

The Lightning Car Company hopes to enter production in 2012, but seeing that even their website is still under development I sadly would not hold my breath.

It seems to me that the possibility of the company opening a factory on the island was far from a certainty that some people make it out to be.

See also:
Autoblog-green Lightning's electric GT entering late prototype phase; production set for 2012

* Updated to correct spelling mistakes with thanks to commentator twice struck