Image Source: G4s/Galliford Try

This site is best viewed in landscape mode on smartphones.

Oggy Bloggy Ogwr doesn’t receive any subsidy and isn’t funded by the BBC. If you like what I’m doing here and think this work is important in keeping locals informed of what’s happening in Bridgend, consider a donation. One-off or monthly; as little or as much as you want. Click the links below, or full details are available here.

Bridgend Council’s Planning Committee has approved an application to expand the troubled Parc Prison (pdf).

The decision will mean that HMP Parc – run privately by G4S – will become one of the biggest prisons in the UK.

How will Parc Prison be expanded?

Capacity for an additional 345 prisoners in a K-shaped block to the south-west of the site. This would include a new gym.
The boundary wall would be partially demolished and repositioned.
A new staff building and facilities management building to the east.
A new 184-space staff car park to the east of the site. Staff and deliveries would now enter the prison from the east through a new gatehouse. The existing western car park would be for visitors only.
Total capacity at the prison would increase to 2,010, with an expected additional 160 prison staff jobs created.

Prison accepted as reality, but "has significant impact" on the local community

While there were no objections from the main statutory consultees (utilities, NRW, Welsh Water, etc.), there were objections from nearby residents, Coity Higher Community Council, St Bride’s Minor Community Council and local ward member, Cllr. Martin Williams (Ind, Coity Higher) – many of whom spoke at the meeting.

Cllr. Amanda Williams (Ind, Coity Higher) said the prison authorities hadn’t done enough to engage with the local community to come up with proposals to address issues already caused by the prison.

In summary, the objections included:

Road safety and traffic concerns. This includes the lack of public transport to/from the site (the nearest bus stops are at The Pines, meaning crossing a 50 mph dual carriageway) and the poor (or non-existent) quality of walking and cycling routes – particularly along the Heol Spencer/eastern side.
The pressure the prison already places on local services, particularly the Princess of Wales Hospital’s A&E department.
The ongoing issues around security, staffing and safety at the prison, including drug drops launched from outside the prison boundaries and people loitering in the area.
Noise from prisoners shouting (set to be addressed by new window designs to be rolled out across the prison).
Loss of privacy by expanding the prison’s boundaries.
Poor maintenance of the woodland areas around the prison.

During the meeting, planning officers raised a late point of concern (it wasn’t described as an objection) from BCBC’s Corporate Director for Social Services. They said the prison’s population is gradually ageing with increased need for social care, which would be paid for by BCBC, supplemented by additional funding from the UK Government (as criminal justice isn’t devolved to Wales).

Pedestrian access and road safety top concerns

The Committee were advised from the outset that many issues at the prison were pre-existing and, for planning purposes, they could only consider the impact the expansion would have.

Several councillors raised concerns around road safety and pedestrian access.

A highways officer said it would be difficult to provide a proper link to the Sainsbury’s/Pines bus stops from the prison, as it would cross private land.

A planning officer further added that if the prison were being built now, there would be an expectation of better public transport and walking/cycling links.

The planning conditions include further tree planting to better screen the prison from houses in Parc Derwen.

A Section 106 agreement would also be included to improve traffic management and traffic calming through Coity village, but BCBC are limited in what they can ask for as part of a Section 106 agreement, as, by law, S106 agreements need to be “reasonable requests”.

The decision went to a recorded vote: