Wethersfield's Mega Prison Debate: Insights from a Passionate Advocate

What if building more prisons isn't the answer to overcrowding and rising prisoner numbers? In today’s episode of The Fields Association On Air, we sit down with Frank Easton, who once passively attended parish council meetings but now passionately campaigns against the proposed mega-prison in Wethersfield. Frank takes us through his transformative journey and shares his critical insights on the Ministry of Justice's plans, while reflecting on his diverse life experiences from wartime Chelmsford to a career in Management. His unique perspective and personal anecdotes make for a compelling argument against the prison project.

We then shift our focus to the broader crisis in the prison system. With stable crime rates but increasing prison sentences, can building more prisons really solve the overcrowding problem? Drawing from Richard Sidebottom's comprehensive study on mega prisons and our own involvement in the Fields Association’s direct engagement committee, we discuss the root causes and ineffective solutions currently being implemented. Learn about the financial and bureaucratic challenges of prison construction and explore sustainable alternatives that prioritise rehabilitation over incarceration.

Finally, we tackle the local implications of building a large prison in Wethersfield. From perilous road conditions and transportation woes to environmental and heritage concerns, the proposed site presents numerous issues. Frank and I analyse the logistical nightmares and economic inefficiencies that make Wethersfield an unsuitable location. Join us for an eye-opening conversation that blends rich personal stories, expert analysis, and passionate advocacy for a more thoughtful approach to prison reform and community well-being.

Chapters

• 0:06 The Fields Association Prison Resistance
• 8:52 Prison Crisis and Reform Solutions
• 22:01 Prison Reform Challenges and Concerns
• 29:50 Transportation and Infrastructure Concerns
• 42:03 Prison Site Criticisms and Concerns

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:06

Hello and welcome to the Fields Association On Air. We are a group of residents who are passionate about tackling all aspects of local and national government decisions that affect local communities. In each episode, various members of the Fields Association will be exploring a range of subject matters, discussing all the angles of each issue and interviewing those who can add an expert or helpful point of view. So grab yourself a tea or coffee and listen in as we look to navigate through these current challenges. Right well, welcome back to the Fields Association podcast, and Today I'm talking to Frank Easton, and it's quite interesting really.

Speaker 1: 0:48

It was carrying on from the conversation with Andrew a couple of weeks ago around the whole prison debate of Wethersfield and, of course, when we look at it, we've all got our opinions on it. But Frank's been spending quite a lot of time looking into the minutiae and the backstories and everything else. So I'm going to introduce Frank and he'll be able to build on that today. So hello, frank, nice to see you. Hello. So, frank, you're a member of the TFA, the Fields Association, and obviously active in the campaign to resist the proposal to build prisons. How did this come about?

Speaker 2: 1:27

Well, I went to Shelford Parish Council for a routine meeting and the acoustics there were very problematical. I couldn't hear what was going on. But what I did conclude was that somebody was talking about prisons and when I got out I found that they were talking about prisons on a grand scale. I'd rather assumed it would be something like Chelmsford Prison with 700 prisoners. That didn't really bother me. When I found it was 3,500, I thought this was a lunatic proposal, quite unsustainable and not something we could really accommodate. Certainly, looking at the MOJ's consultative document, which I thought was a shoddy piece of work, I felt that if that was the standard of their thinking, we really ought to be resisting what they were proposing.

Speaker 1: 2:23

So were you born in the area Frank.

Speaker 2: 2:25

More or less. I was born in Chelmsford before the war, I'm afraid, and that rather dates me. We had a terraced house without indoor sanitation and one tap. I survived a near miss with a doodlebug and endured the winter of 1947, which was the longest, I think, and one of the coldest of the century. We were heated by coal fires but there was a coal strike so we had no heat throughout the coldest January that I've ever come across or remember.

Speaker 1: 2:59

Goodness. And so, moving on from there, you're retired now, aren't you? What did you actually do to earn a living?

Speaker 2: 3:06

well, when I was ready to leave school. Well, I wasn't really ready to school, leave school but uh, the time had come when the family couldn't continue to support me and um, and I had to go out onto the labor market. The first job that came up was in libraries. So why not? And the first opportunity I came, an interview. I got the job and that was it really. It went from there. It worked out quite well.

Speaker 2: 3:44

My role became largely managerial and a special interest for me was a program of renewing the building stock which had been in a poor condition because there was considerable growth in the 50s and 60s and they took pretty well any building that was anywhere near suitable for what they wanted to do. So I was project leader for many library buildings, new buildings. They included the library at Whittam, jonesford, south Woodland Ferries and lastly Brantree, which was finished just in time for my retirement, although I didn't do it for that reason. It had been many years of inadequate provision in the old courthouse, so that was quite an achievement. It was a big struggle to get it built, but I won't go into that now as we don't want to be here all day.

Speaker 1: 4:36

That is a fantastic building. I think so, yes. So now you've hit retirement, how do you occupy yourself post-retirement, post-work?

Speaker 2: 4:47

Immediately on retirement, I hadn't really any ideas at all. You should go to pre-retirement courses and so on in local government, but I never had the time to do it. But when I did eventually pack up and had to think what to do, I bought a bike and started bicycling around the area. I'd always played tennis and I continued. But of course I needed something to take up my more creative time and I ran projects at Shelford Church, including the organ refurbishment, and at Saffron Walden where we refurbished Gibson Library and catalogued the books. Some of these date back to the 13th century. That's quite a remarkable collection. I then also became Secretary of the Museums in Essex Committee, which was a body I, with others, set up in 1988. So by and large I found I had plenty to do. I was also, and still am, an Arsenal supporter, having supported them since 1947. And I used to go out quite regularly to Highbury then, but of course with the passing years I've tended to have to watch it on TV rather than go.

Speaker 1: 6:07

Sometimes that's a lot easier these days, I must admit it certainly is.

Speaker 2: 6:10

yes, it was always a little bit of an ordeal flogging up there but always worth it.

Speaker 1: 6:15

So that sort of brings us on to the interesting subject which is around the experience. I mean I've seen some of the reports you've done around the whole prison scenario. I mean I've seen some of the reports you've done around the whole prison scenario. Do you have any experience in prisons or knowledge of or did you have any knowledge about them prior to sort of getting involved with the TFA or becoming an activist in a vertical?

Speaker 2: 6:36

Not really. I played football twice in Chelmsford Prison and it gives you a glimpse inside. I got hammered one day. I remember in particular, and I'd visited Bulwood Hall, which was a women's prison. All young girls Seemed not an appropriate way for dealing with women, but, of course, always difficult, isn't it? If people commit a major crime, then you're left with little option. But that was really about it, and I didn't know anything about categories of prisons, for example, when we started all this work. But it does come to you. There is a mass of work, of course. There's considerable change at present, so no day goes by without a piece of new information. Hopefully I'll include some of that into this.

Speaker 1: 7:30

Well, okay so so, talking about that, I mean, when you decided to look at the prison scenario and look at what was being proposed, um, locally, uh, what did you do to resist the prison proposal?

Speaker 2: 7:43

well, the at. At first the TFA hadn't been established, and I tend to be somebody who likes to work on his own. I'm not a great team player, although if there's a need I will join. But as nothing much was happening, I started writing to people pointing out that this was going to occur. So I wrote to people like the town council at Saffron Walden and Attersford District Council, pointing out the likely impact of the extra traffic on the town there, which already has a huge traffic problem, and all the parishes in between. I'm not sure it did any good, but at least it alerted people to the proposal so that they could think about it, see whether they were content with it and if not, they could be ready to resist. But of course, when the DFA was established, I threw my lot in with them and, well as you know, the rest is pretty well history.

Speaker 1: 8:52

Okay, so after the TFA, the Field Association, was sort of created, what contribution at that stage did you make to the team then?

Speaker 2: 9:01

Yeah, I was co-opted onto the direct engagement committee and now that's got a prison subcommittee and that's where I devote most of my time. But earlier I contributed to Richard Sidebottom's brilliant study People, place and Performance. That's about mega prisons. Mega prisons, of course, are a total disaster in every respect, and why we are continuing to build them is very difficult to understand. Well, it isn't it's the economy, isn't it the cost of them?

Speaker 2: 9:39

But I did find in that a piece of useful information about the capacity of prisons in the East and perhaps talk about that later. In addition to that, I've written quite a number of reports and lengthy letters to the Secretary of State and anybody else, and I've got one outstanding which I sent in August to Shabana Mahmood, and we simply haven't had any reply, although I've been prompting to do so again in a few days. So it's a paper battle really, but I think we tend to feel that if we keep making a nuisance of ourselves, we'll be heard in the end feel that we keep making a nuisance of ourselves will be heard in the end.

Speaker 1: 10:27

On a more general note, though, I mean why do you think we're in this crisis situation over particularly prison accommodation?

Speaker 2: 10:34

Yes. Well, there's no doubt that we do face a prisoner numbers crisis. The government has been close, perhaps within 24 hours of having to introduce Operation Brinker they like these fanciful names, but if it had been introduced, the police would have been instructed to make no arrests. That's quite a chilling thought, isn't it? But this is a crisis which is not of recent making. Successive governments have wished to be seen to be tough on crime, and this has led to prison sentences becoming longer. In fact, in the last 50 years they've roughly doubled, and in the last 10 years they've increased by a third.

Speaker 2: 11:20

Now, this is very difficult in my mind to justify as an emergency measure. Now, 5,500 or so men are being released early. This is no doubt necessary, but it's a poor decision because a lot of people who really shouldn't yet be on the streets are and, without proper provision of probation services and so on, a lot of them back in in no time at all. All of this would have been reasonable, this expansion of the prisoner state, if crime had been rising, but it hasn't actually risen much, so it seems misconceived. Back in Michael Howard's time he said prisoners working and he'd got about 43,000 people in prison. We're double that now.

Speaker 1: 12:19

It's just an interesting thought. You sit there and actually process as an aside. How do you get some of this information? How do you find out about this?

Speaker 2: 12:30

well, um, it's published. Of course the ministry of justice is quite good at publishing prisoner numbers and things of this kind, but, um, prisons have become a hot topic in the press. So if you read a quality newspaper like the Times, which I do, you're finding all sorts of updating of pieces that they've submitted. And of course, people are constantly doing reports. There's a Times commission on prisons being run at the moment and a group of retired judges have produced a report for the Howard League, and on and on it goes. Really, I mean, the big problem is firstly processing it and secondly, organizing it in a way you can find it again. Yeah, I find quite problematical, but that is that's, that's how it's done. And of course, at the meetings prison subgroup we're sharing and exchanging information.

Speaker 1: 13:31

Sometimes it's difficult to know which ones to trust and which ones to believe. Figures seem occasionally to disagree. Do you find that at?

Speaker 2: 13:40

all? Yes, I do. I do find that I think I read somewhere that non-violent crime constituted 60% of all crime, or that is, of prisoners in prison for crime, but elsewhere I've read that it's only 40%.

Speaker 1: 13:59

However, 40% or 60% is quite a lot of people in prison for non-violence, yeah yeah, and those are the sort of things I suppose you take into account when deciding what information to look at and put forward and actually put out there as well. It is Okay. So now here's a question. It's slightly lowed in some ways because we've got politicians paid to look at this all the time.

Speaker 2: 14:20

I'm going to ask you nonetheless what might be done to solve the problem this all the time, but I'm going to ask you nonetheless what might be done to solve the problem. Well, a few things on this. Firstly, the last Secretary of State Chalk. He had a number of good ideas and he wanted to introduce an emergency release scheme, but unfortunately, the Prime Minister of the day wouldn't play ball though the crisis built to its present pitch. Wouldn't play ball though the crisis built to its present pitch. Now, to solve the problem in the short term, the early release scheme will have to continue and will have to be reintroduced as and when it's needed. It's really unavoidable.

Speaker 2: 14:59

Government over the years has believed that the solution to the prisons problem is to build more prisons, but that can go on forever and they're by no means cheap. They set up this new prisons program in 2016. The idea was that they would build six new prisons. For one reason and another, they've only managed two and they're in the middle of the third Now. One understands difficulty, but they put it all down to planning problems. In actual fact, it's financial problems, with an internecine war between the Treasury and the Ministry of Justice. That's my reading of it, or it may be both. So the new prisons program is intended to enlarge the estate by 20,000 places, so from 80,000 to 100,000. Because we're struggling along and the worst forecast I've seen of prisoner numbers is about 114,000. So we're aiming for needing another 14,000 places. We carry on as we are.

Speaker 2: 16:15

Of course we can't really do that. Something has to change. It's quite unsustainable and a review of sentencing and reduction in length is the only way to reduce numbers. To be fair, the Labour government has said it will do this and the review will start in October. We'll also produce a 10-year plan and again, I imagine that will include the three prisons that have not been started. But there are complications on that because one of the contractors involved, isg, has fallen into administration At the right term. Anyway, they failed let's put it that way rather than risk being sued but they are not trading. As I understand it, that means that Grendam Prison I think it is, which they're building, plus quite a lot of others, and modifications rather than build, will have to go out for tender again. That's a quarter of the program. So that's a real problem.

Speaker 2: 17:25

It's worth remembering that it costs 51,000 per prison place. That's for the standard prison place. Now you could get to Eton for that and the difference between the two is obvious. But if you're in prison, they at least pay for your uniform, as you have to find it. But if you're in prison, they at least pay for your uniform. You have to find it. But if you're a young offenders institution, the cost could be anything up to say four times the 50,000. And something needs to be done there. I think the worst I've seen is 250 000 per place. It's just not tolerable. Is it somehow rather allowed to go on? So that's the situation. I think we've got to get down numbers really when it comes to it, um, without, of course, prejudicing the safety of us so I mean that, um, there's such a lot in there, I mean that bit alone is mind-blowing, prejudicing the safety of us.

Speaker 1: 18:26

There's such a lot in there, that bit alone is mind-blowing. What do they do in the rest of Europe? It must be across Europe that this scenario is happening, is it?

Speaker 2: 18:38

I think crime is falling across Europe. You wouldn't believe it, would you, when you read the reports. Either way, they don't imprison in Western Europe anyway. They don't imprison anything like the numbers that we do, other than perhaps Russia. We're in the same league as Russia, which is not something we'd want to be. Germany, which is a single comparator, but others are much the same. Norway the same. They have 67 prisoners per 100,000 population. We have 147. Now, that's more than twice. Now how can you justify that? I don't think you can.

Speaker 1: 19:22

Wow, that is amazing. It's a remarkable figure. So, OK, what about your overall stance when it comes to crime? I mean, you talked about early release and stuff, and anyone listening to this might think you're soft on crime, but how would you react to that? What is your sort of stance on it?

Speaker 2: 19:41

Well, I think it's a reasonable view to suggest that I'm soft on crime. Certainly I'd like to reduce sentences, but for what it's worth. I feel that there is a case for this, but I would confine it to people who have not committed violent offences. I mean, if you fail to buy a television licence, they can take you to court for debt and you can find yourself in prison. That's a nonsense, absolute nonsense. But as to violent crime, I'm afraid I tend to feel that we could in some cases do more. I've written to government on at least three occasions pointing out that the sentences for individuals are too low and asking them to be reviewed upwards. So that might seem contradictory, but to me some people will never be coming out of prison. It's just inevitable for people who've committed terrorist acts and so on. But certainly I think there is scope to look much harder at community punishments for nonviolent crime.

Speaker 1: 20:48

Just as a matter of interest, a bit of a curveball question for you, Frank, the government of the time. Do you think they make good long-term decisions Labour are talking about a 10-year plan around prisons and that sort of thing or do you think they shoot from the hip and make decisions that are popular or they think like votes?

Speaker 2: 21:14

Thoughts on that. Yes, sadly, I think that's a problem that besets us right across the board. No doubt that public opinion weighs very heavily, but if you relied solely on public opinion for policy, you'd have been diastrates, wouldn't you? And when it suits the government, they do what they think. I mean, if you remember the debate on hanging, the population generally was in favour of hanging. They probably still are, but the government has no intention of reintroducing hanging. So sometimes it's brave, but not often enough. It should take much more in the way of a long-term view. Had it done that, it would have anticipated the prison's problem. It's quite clear that if you keep shoving people into prison, in the end there's no way to put them.

Speaker 1: 22:07

That's true. There's a lot of talk about rehabilitation people. Do you think that enough is done to?

Speaker 2: 22:21

turn around. Certainly prisoners' lives when they're in with their current model I don't think there is. Some prisoners do well, but overall we seem to fail to change the lives of offenders. But overall we seem to fail to change the lives of offenders. Again, we do badly compared with other European countries. I think Norway has half the numbers that we do pro rata, that is, of people re-offending after being released. If one country can do it, why can't we? Do we look at their experience. I'm not sure that we do.

Speaker 2: 22:56

Certainly the new prisons minister and secretary of state are obviously aware of this and they seem keen on reform. Lord Timpson is the prisons minister, as you perhaps know. He runs Timpson's shoe repairs and what have you, and he thinks about one third of people currently in prison should be there. The rest shouldn't. Some of them should be in mental health facilities and so on and so forth. Of course, if we could get down to half the number of people we've got in prison, savings even allowing for extra on spending on rehab would be enormous. And of course it is not just current spending that benefits from that, because if you were to close Johnson Prison, for example it's a prime housing site make a fortune. So government could afford to do something about this if it really wanted to, and it applied itself. But the problems come, don't they, from? This is a problem that turns up. What are we going to do about it? Or we'll kick it into the long grass.

Speaker 1: 24:05

Well, I think sometimes, as well as you say about public opinion, it would need a brave decision, wouldn't it? So everything you've said there makes complete sense Half the prison population, free up some of the real estate, all those things. But look at some of the comments and feedback when they released thousands, my goodness. It's about them being brave. It's about them being sensible and maybe even educating us all about why and how they benefit us or society going forward.

Speaker 2: 24:36

Yes it is a difficult one, but I think research suggests that longer sentences make no impact on criminals. If they're going to lead a life of crime, they do, and so I understand the problem. I think sometimes you just have to take a bold decision and get on with it.

Speaker 1: 24:57

OK, that's really interesting. So I mean, you've talked about the national scenario very eloquently and talked about the European side of things, but let's turn our attention to Wethersfield. Now, of course, a term that's run around all the time and you live locally is NIMBYism. So are you just a NIMBY when it comes to projections of something in Wethersfield?

Speaker 2: 25:21

I'm not sure that I am. I understand why people might think that, but where I live in Shelford, my next-door neighbour has asked to build, I think, nine houses on land to the side of her property, which naturally impacts a little bit on me. Now, have I opposed that? No, I haven't, and the reason is that it's a brownfield site. She's perfectly entitled to do it. So I have to just grin and bear that I have no hostility. I think that's an entirely sensible thing to do to reuse an old builder's yard. So I'm not being a NIMBY in that respect.

Speaker 2: 26:00

But this concerns a major change which will affect all of our lives, of people living in the area, and I think there is a consensus view around here and beyond that it will damage the area and will not produce successful prisons. Successful prisons, of course, need to turn around prisoners, and there is little evidence to suggest that a prison of 1,750 people has the means to do this rehab, which is so important. It's been identified in major courts, like the farmer report. Everybody seems to believe it, but very little is done to achieve it.

Speaker 1: 26:48

Okay, so why specifically would Wethersfield be an unsuitable? So why?

Speaker 2: 26:52

specifically, would Wethersfield be an unsuitable location? Well, this is going to be a bit lengthy, a lengthy reply. But the single reason that Wethersfield has been chosen by the government is to be that it owns the site and with a project of this size, likely to cost a billion or more, the cost of a piece of land is negligible. So there are lots of problems associated with the site which they obviously hadn't thought about, or perhaps they'd never even visited the site. You get the opinion they didn't. But to rectify some of the costs, some of the problems of the site you get the opinion they didn't but to rectify some of the costs, some of the problems of the site, will take time and will cost a great deal, one of the things I mentioned earlier. I'm just, if you don't mind.

Speaker 2: 27:52

I'll just go through my thinking on this. But one of the things I mentioned earlier was the number of prison places in the East. Now we managed to get hold of some information which suggested that we were probably provided with 50% more places than we need in the East, and that's before extension work at High Point and also, of course, before two prisons at Wethersfield. And we guess that London, where there are insufficiencies, will be the starting point for most of the people who come here. That to me seems a total nonsense. They should build prisons nearer London. Obviously, the cost is high, so perhaps you can only do it on the margins. But more prison places in the East doesn't make any sense. Of course, as we all know, it's a remote site. It's a long way from the nearest railway station and similarly the strategic road network. There aren't any buses anymore and if the nearest and dearest of prisoners wanted to visit from London, it would cost them at least £70 for a day return. No doubt most of them will come by car, of course, but that's yet another problem, isn't it? More cars on the road.

Speaker 2: 29:15

The County Council has expressed its reservations about all this the remoteness and connectivity and lack of sustainable transport measures. At the beginning it was talked about bicycle routes and so on and so forth. That's just disappeared. I think that's already dropped. So all this remoteness hampers family visits or would do, and we keep talking about rehabilitation. But this is a bad start if we hope for rehab in Wethersfield.

Speaker 2: 29:50

I think we all know about the local roads and know that they're quite inadequate for the additional traffic expected. We have forecasts that that traffic might double or perhaps treble, and at peak times I'm sure it will, and maybe there'll be 3,000 more daily movements near the site Construction traffic very difficult to accommodate and that is without substantial costs for mitigation. Footway provision is very scarce. If you're walking in the villages you might find a bit of footway, but often it's quite narrow and it's an alarming prospect when an HGV looms up and you're pressing against the nearest wall to get as far away from it as possible. To be fair, the drivers are expert, they do very well, but of course they can only use what road there is.

Speaker 1: 30:52

Frank, can I just ask just for this moment, one of the things that I know people listen to this again, when you talk about difficulty for friends and family to come and sit, why? Is that even a concern. A lot of people listening say a holiday camp that they shouldn't these prisons that they're there to be punished. What would you say to that?

Speaker 2: 31:14

Well, I think that's exactly right, and punishment is a part of the process, isn't it? You're denied your freedom for a number of years, or whatever the sentence is. But if we just take that view, these people will be brutalized in our prison accommodation, which is pretty appalling. You wouldn't sentence people to it if you knew how bad it was, and giving them some sort of link with the outside helps. We just can't afford to keep on the way we are. We really do need to do something about reducing the numbers. Now, of course, abroad little Scandinavia, in Pennsylvania they provided very generously appointed accommodation. But the people who used to get into fights and assault one another are now managing little garden plots and the behaviour is much improved. The staff now, instead of intervening in fights, they pull with them, and so on. Now, of course, that sounds ridiculous, but of course, if it stops somebody going out and murdering somebody else, that to me is a good way of going on.

Speaker 1: 32:35

That's interesting and also the point you made as well about the traffic, the increase in traffic, and of course we know roads and we see a choice of people who literally run off the road with HVs. But would government take a view? Think where it's well, that's all very well, but you've got a road and we're going to use it. It doesn't matter if we double, treble, triple the amount of traffic.

Speaker 2: 33:01

That's exactly what they'll do. They don't really care that instead of taking, say, 20 minutes from Braintree to Wethersfield, it takes 30. That's a matter that doesn't interest them. I think what should interest them is the pinch points along the road and difficulties that we currently experience. We've all seen pictures of two HGVs locked together blocking the Wethersfield Road. I think it was Now. Unless something is done about those, it will increase the risk of accident by locally. So I think those problems would suggest that some money needs to be spent on mitigation, if government does wish to lead with the proposal.

Speaker 2: 33:57

But of course, all the way along from deanery hill right through to prison are stretches of road which don't reach the dimension that is necessary for two HGVs to pass, which is 6.8 metres. Interestingly, I think Finchingfield Bridge is 3.4 or something like that. But I've been out early on Sunday mornings measuring the road to avoid getting run over, and others have used more sophisticated measures and we've got a dozen or more places where this is a problem. Now, of course, as I say, hgv drivers by and large are good, but it doesn't help that the rest of us aren't. So if we meet an HGV on some places like Cottage and so on along the B1053, and so on along the B1053, there's a potential for accident and the HEVs for construction. They'll continue, of course, afterwards, but for construction it will be at its most intense. They'll be loaded with great slabs of concrete, concrete panels A very disturbing proposal in that respect.

Speaker 1: 35:16

If they'd been building it on site it would have been better, but that's not going to it's a concerning thought and especially when you add to that, I think I'm surprised there aren't more accidents here. But a lot of us know the roads and changeways and where it narrows and where to slow down, but if you have got people to visit friends, relatives, whatever it might, they won't know.

Speaker 2: 35:43

Indeed, indeed it will and of course there will be a concentration during visiting hours.

Speaker 1: 35:50

Yeah, and also we know, and it's been discussed at length, about road closures. Yes, but if some of the B roads are our larger roads and they're small, this was made.

Speaker 2: 36:06

It does. It's a single track it does. And I recall I can't remember quite when this was, but the road between Buttersfield and Finchingfield was closed so even the doctors couldn't get up and down, and that caused people to take roads like Hull's Lane. Can you just imagine Travel, the traffic or trying to get between these sites. What would happen then? I suppose the MOJ might open up another gate, but generally speaking this is not a good area for traffic, no, and the sort of roads you're talking about.

Speaker 1: 36:44

We're talking high banks. You know, trees embedded. It's not where you area for traffic, no, and the sort of roads you're talking about. We're talking high banks. You know, trees embedded. It's not where you can pull over. They're looking at each other for a while.

Speaker 2: 36:51

One of you has to reverse, that's right. And if two HGVs meet, one of them's got to reverse. Now, that's not an interesting prospect, is it? I mean, you think what on earth would happen then? Yeah, and you think what on earth? Would happen then, and certainly on bends where they can't even see around the corner, one's going to have to get out.

Speaker 1: 37:09

I mean it's an a-hem, yeah, interesting. Okay, any other reasons about why this was unsuitable? Sort of stopped you in a flow there.

Speaker 2: 37:19

Well, probably a relief for people listening. But A&E facilities it's a long way to a and e and I'm afraid prisons as they now stand make pretty heavy use of a and e and the time, um, it doesn't matter where the prison is. The time of prison officers spent there, of course, is significant. I was there recently. I saw two officers looking after a prisoner who was there for at least five hours, but of course, the extra journey time Johnson Prison is within 15 minutes at the outside of A&E, but here and they use all main roads, so it's a long journey into tunnels and for acute emergency there's no alternative, rather than going to Addenbrookes, of course, which is not really any quicker. So it's going to be a big strain on staff and a big strain on A&E on staff and a big strain on A&E.

Speaker 2: 38:28

The other things we haven't talked about are pollution. Pollution arises from road traffic and we shouldn't persuade ourselves that electric vehicles don't pollute. They do. Bits of rubber I think they call them PM 2.5, items shred from wheels. They fall on the road surface and when another large vehicle comes along it floats up into the air and we all breathe it. Now that would be bad enough, but of course we've got two schools that are likely to be affected by this, so I think that's bad news. Pollution goes a bit further. We've got on the site. We know there are chemicals called PFAS. I won't attempt to pronounce the full name of these, but they're everlasting chemicals which we drink, probably, but they get into the water courses and it'd be worse or better in some places than others. Government knows about this. There's been a report recently identifying sites where it is a problem, but nobody else does, so we're not sure what's going to happen with all that. Of course, an air base brings its own problems. There are radioactive materials which are shed from the instruments of planes and there'll be bits and pieces of that. Of course there's rumor that nuclear weapons were stored at the base. So there'll be a lot of work to be done to examine what the position is and probably to devise a remediation strategy and cost it. When they find what it's going to cost, they might be afraid this isn't a good idea, right?

Speaker 2: 40:21

One further point Braintree has quite high employment levels. Recruiting staff for prisons is a difficult job and it's hard to think that there will be sufficient labour. As it is, people travel miles to be prison officers, maybe up to 50 miles away from their homes. So I think again, this is a bad idea. And of course, a new prison at Wethersfield will compete with Chelmsford and High Point for staff. All that will do is increase the problems that they're currently receiving. So again, it doesn't seem a great idea. It's true, too, that prisons bring extra burden on policing. I know Essex Police are not happy about the traffic levels and fears of organised crime. We'll hear more about all these things as time goes on. I don't know whether you can stand a few more of these.

Speaker 1: 41:38

Honestly, and again as a local person sitting here. It's interesting for me because some of this we just don't know about as locals. We don't know we might have an opinion on whether we like the idea of a prison or we don't like the idea of a prison. Or it's going to be okay or it's not, but no. So this is interesting. It allows all our listeners to kind of make informed decisions or look into things a bit further if they wish to. So, yeah, please keep going.

Speaker 2: 42:03

Frank, okay, really interesting quite an interesting point was raised with me recently by um, somebody at a meeting who had had a discussion with somebody from the moj about the buildings, and um, he asked how the prisons would be heated, and and the MOJ official said oh, by gas. Now I'm not sure where the nearest gas pipes are, but the likelihood of that is less likely than a moonshot from here, I think. So that's just an indication of the problems, because electricity, water, sewage treatment, manage of surface water, they're all problems which would be costly to address and I'm not sure that that's really being considered. As to the prisons themselves, if they actually ever get built quite brutalist, I think they have nothing really to recommend them and they're going to put them down in an area which is full of heritage assets. I think it's a great sadness. Of course, up at the base there are rare species and again we will see them disturbed and we'll see light pollution, great pylons which will probably be visible, for miles around.

Speaker 2: 43:36

So, all in all, the concentration of 3,500 men in a remote location seems a bad idea and, should there be disorder, not impossible. We've had prison riots in the past. I'm not sure how this would be controlled. The MOJ have a flying squad, but of course I'm not sure where they are, how long they take to get there and how much support Essex Police could give. If it happened on a Sunday, I think there wouldn't be too many people available. So that's a bit of a rush through in a way. But these are, I think, all valid criticisms. As I said, the only things that go for the site is that the government owns it and it's relatively flat where they want to put the buildings and otherwise everything's against it.

Speaker 1: 44:34

That's been so interesting. One of the observations or comments I'd make is that my understanding is the TFA. We would love as a local community to come together other things more about that in future podcasts that we do but as well, my understanding is that that's not an option to kill the government off of the site internally, and so I kind of get the feeling that we've got this bit of land before we even offer it back to the local community for someone to purchase. Let's see if we can do something. It seems from what you've said, they're trying to almost square peg it. Oh, it's like we've got this. Surely we should utilise it.

Speaker 2: 45:23

Yes, Well, looked at objectively, without taking into local considerations, and seeing a map of the country and the land that the government owns, you can see why they thought this was a good idea. But they also thought that it would be easily accessed from several Hennigam. Now this just shows that they didn't do any real feasibility studies to see whether this would work. I agree that some better uses would be found, indeed people working I don't know if Richard Sybottom is involved in this and that could be a benefit to the local community rather than disbenefit. I haven't actually been involved with that because I put the blinkers on and said I'll only deal with the prison side of it because that was taking enough time and I think it's in safe hands. Other people are.

Speaker 1: 46:26

When we've spoken to government in the past, ministers have sort of come out and said, look, whilst we own something we're never going to say we won't do it, because once we've said we won't do it, we can't do it. So while it's there, even if we've got no intention of doing it, let's just keep our options open. Now, with Rachel Reeves coming in and sort of hopefully balancing the books and everything else, one of the things that strikes me about what you've said today is this really could be a blank checklist because of some of the challenges. It could be a very, very expensive option and potentially not even. But in the past we've had comments that, well, sometimes we do that as government. You know it will take the best of the worst. Yes, what would you say, government? Or what would you like to hear the government come out and say at this stage or this sort of scenario?

Speaker 2: 47:24

Well, it is a problem that they obviously face. I'm not sure that they've got a ready response. When one considers future, we don't know really whether there is going to be a genuine attempt to get numbers down. If there were, that could change thinking. What worries me most of all is that in the 10-year plan they will presumably include the three new large prisons. I think it's a shame because they're not working well, so why will three more improve the situation? But then what will they say about Wethersfield? Will they say we don't need it, or, in which case it won't be in the plan, or will they say we're going to build there? Or will they continue in the uncertainty? And to think that this might be hanging over the heads of people for another 10 years is rather daunting.

Speaker 2: 48:35

I have, in my last letter to Shabana Mahmood, suggested that this is having an impact. Uncertainty is having an impact on people's ability to sell their houses, and that really, after what? Is it now three years? It's time that they came off the fence and said what they were going to do. So people get on with their lives, and I think they do need to do that. But what they might plan, of course, might well not go forward simply because of the costs. Unless they do something dramatic to reduce costs, they're not going to be able to afford to build. They say they have money in the budgets. The last government said that but it doesn't come as easily as all that, and I think the Treasury will be clamping down on departmental budgets. So I think I will never see a prison at Wethersfield, even if they do decide to build it.

Speaker 1: 49:48

I'm sure that's not the case, frank. Okay, so I mean that's been fascinating. Honestly, I appreciate, I mean, the time, the effort, the research, everything else gone into. That is just mind blowing, sitting on this side of the microphone. So thank you for sharing that with us. Is there anything else you want to add around the whole scenario?

Speaker 2: 50:07

Well, I'd just say a couple of things. Really, I am a member of the Prisons Subcommittee, but there are lots of other very able people who contribute to that work. They're responsible for the information I've passed over, so I'd like to commend their efforts. But, of course, what I've said is simply what I think, not necessarily the view of.

Speaker 1: 50:35

TFA.

Speaker 2: 50:37

Much of it may be, but I'd like to think that I've led them down any paths they don't want to go to. I mentioned the problem of ISG and they are this big contractor. The way the government works is they've more or less negotiated with four large contractors to build all of the prisons. Now the contractors get a prison in turn. But I would be a lot more comfortable if this were a simple tender process. See, they say that building a 67,000 square metre prison beyond the ability of most contractors, but it isn't a single building. Prison beyond the ability of most contractors, but it isn't a single building, it's 14 or so smaller buildings. So I think they could widen the net, get more people in, because if one fails, as ISG has, it has dramatic implications as a quarter of the program can be affected. So I think this is something to watch. Anyway, I think I've droned on more than long enough.

Speaker 1: 51:50

Thank frank, thank you so much, honestly. It would be really fascinating to listen to them. Hopefully we'll get them thinking and hopefully as well, engaged as well. Uh, because there's so much that can be done, not just about in business. There's some real well thought out arguments there and some factual information about the process and how it works and back to. There's so many other elements to be used there that would bring real benefit and and the national picture as well. So it'd be nice to have that discussion it would well.

Speaker 2: 52:24

Thank you very much for inviting me to pass on my thoughts. I hope they will have been interesting.

Speaker 1: 52:30

They really have. Thank you very much, frank. Miss a single episode. If you have a question that you would like to raise, or if there is a subject that you think would make an interesting episode, please email us on the link below. If you would like to support the show further, you can do so by clicking on the link below as well. Until next time, goodbye.