Andy Jefferson – Whitby Community Network CIC

Whitby Parish : Second Homes Premium for 2025-2026

Andy Jefferson — Mon, 26 Jan 2026 10:59:26 +0000

For the financial year 2025-2026 North Yorkshire Council (NYC) introduced a second home premium to council tax, meaning that dwellings with no permanent resident subject to council tax will pay 200% of the normal rate. There are a list of exceptions to this categorisation, which you can read on the linked page (above) – one such exception is if the property is listed as for sale (for up to 12 months) then it would not be subject to this premium.

It is important to mention that this premium does not apply to a “holiday let”, which is subject to business rates (with relief if income below a certain amount) and not council tax.

An FOI has revealed the revenue obtained via this premium. Firstly, for the financial year 2024-2025 there were 1042 “second homes” in the Whitby parish. In 2025-2026 that dropped to 912. This is likely the result of the introduction of this premium, and some of those that are no longer may have been flipped to be a holiday let (nominally paying business rates instead of council tax).

The amount of revenue pulled in by the “premium” within the Whitby parish for 2025-2026 was …

£1.6 million

Given that NYC have seemingly agreed to spend the second homes premium on social housing, how much of that will now be spent on social housing in the Whitby parish? or will it be spent elsewhere?

Clearly this will be something that we will follow up on each financial year until the housing situation in the parish is improved.

Addendum : it has since been announced that Whitby & district provides 24% of all of the second homes in North Yorkshire. See this link.

The Cliff Lift and its importance to West Cliff Beach

Andy Jefferson — Wed, 21 Jan 2026 18:08:43 +0000

North Yorkshire Council (NYC) are proposing to infill the West Cliff Lift (closed to operation since 2021), as well as cancelling the “replacement minubus service” (never advertised by NYC, hence why they are surprised about the low utilisation nobody here knows). This will be discussed and decided in Northallerton on 17th March 2026.

Setting aside the fact that the Cliff Lift building is actually a non-designated heritage asset and so should be proportioned a level of protection, it has a critical importance. That is, providing access to Whitby sea wall to the many elderly and disabled people who either live in the town of visit. The town has double the national average of over 60s, and the visitor age profile is not seen as so disimilar. This was expressed by the current Whitby mayor at an NYC Scarborough and Whitby area committee meeting in September.

Should the Cliff Lift be closed and removed, and the bus service be terminated, that would be expected to result in a damning Equality Impact Assessment. The cliff paths to get to the sea wall have gradients of up to 30 degrees and would not be assessed as navegable by the elderly or disabled.

The impact of a negative Equality Impact Assessment would likely have one further impact. This impact however would likely have a much greater financial impact than just reduced business for the cafe on the sea wall.

Whitby West Cliff beach is the sole beach in North Yorkshire (and indeed for many miles) with a Blue Flag award. The nearest with this award being Hornsea and then Withernsea in East Yorkshire. See the map.

A Blue Flag award is very demanding in terms of the criteria to be met. If we look at Criterion 33 we find the following, marked as IMPERATIVE.

Criterion 33. At least one Blue Flag beach in each municipality must have access and facilities provided for the physically disabled.

It is strongly recommended that all Blue Flag beaches have facilities that allow access by the physically disabled, granting them access to the beach, surrounding buildings, and the restroom facilities. It is a Blue Flag requirement that at least one beach in every municipality must provide these facilities. It is a Blue Flag recommendation that at this beach, if possible, there is access to the water for the physically disabled.

Access to the beach must be facilitated by access ramps designed for users with various disabilities. It is recommended that the ramp design and material fit the natural environment and, wherever possible, environmentally friendly materials are used, i.e. recycled composite plastics.

Facilities must be designed for wheelchair and other disabled users and should comply with the ISO Standard Code for Access. The beach must comply with national regulations regarding access and facilities for people with disabilities. In addition, parking areas must have reserved spaces for disabled parking. If access ramps cannot be provided due to the topography, e.g. at steep cliffs, the local authority must apply for a dispensation for this criterion.

If none of the Blue Flag beaches in a local authority can provide access and facilities for the disabled, a request for a dispensation for this criterion must be documented in the application.

NYC has no other beach with a Blue Flag. It would have to request special dispensation to retain the Blue Flag, and given that access for the disabled would be seen as critical, had been provided in previous years, and had now been removed by the local authority (down to lack of maintenance of the Cliff Lift over many years), would it really have much hope of this?

The more pertinent question is, what would be the financial impact on tourism in the county of losing the sole Blue Flag beach award?

We invite NYC Tourism representatives to provide an assessment of this. We could wager that it would likely be in excess of the repair costs of the Cliff Lift.

WTC Budget 2026-2027

Andy Jefferson — Sun, 11 Jan 2026 07:56:42 +0000

December and January are always busy months for town and parish councils, to set their budget for the following year, and decide what tax (precept) they will charge the public for the services they offer. Whitby Town Council (WTC) has burned through 2 full time clerks, 1 locum clerk, and 1 deputy clerk in the last year and a half. They currently have a locum clerk and an assistant clerk to perform this budget setting process.

It is considered proper practice to publish all supporting documents to council meetings on the council website three full days before a meeting (as well as to circulate the same documents directly to councillors). This gives councillors and public the necessary time to digest and think of questions to understand it better. Needless to say this has not been happening. WTC has not published supporting documents for its meetings for the vast majority of the last 18 months. Whilst councillors may have been receiving the documents, often that is with maybe an hours notice – hardly conducive to making good decisions. The proposed budget for 2026-2027 has also never been published on the website.

The Proposed WTC Budget Spreadsheet

We managed to get our hands on what purports to be the proposed 2026-2027 budget (still to be approved by WTC councillors). It took the form of a spreadsheet, though we have to question the level of spreadsheet skills of the author(s) of this document having looked at it.

You can find it HERE.

Comments

The standard spreadsheet concept of having all things in a row as relating to each other is lost here. We have the first 2 columns seemingly from the 2025-2026 budget, yet they do not align with all subsequent columns which are for different “cost centres” (Budget Heading is the term that WTC seem to use).
We have columns H-L as seeming alternatives to the 2026-2027 budget, yet the values are either not filled in, or are the same. Any document should be self explanatory, and these columns are not.
The reader cannot compare how well a Cost Centre has been managed during 2025-2026 when comparing against budget … because the budget is not provided.
We have columns “to date” and “revised projected” for 2025-2026, but the “revised projected” for many Cost Centres seems to just jump up to the budgeted number with no obvious reason why.
If a Cost Centre is significantly differing from budget there is no explanation column, so consequently no understanding of whether there was a problem in the previous budget, or in the management of that item.
There is no statement of what the WTC Reserves are. A council should hold a minimum of 25% of expenditure in reserves (so that should mean at least £140k). In 2024 the external auditor instructed WTC that they should consider the reserves explicitly when setting their budget. They did that to a degree for 2025-2026, but that is seemingly ignored for 2026-2027.

Reminder : this is what is being put in front of councillors when asking them to approve it, making a decision over the spend of going on for £600k!

We can only describe it as utterly inadequate. In its content, and in its lack of publication. Good decision making cannot be made like this. WTC councillors really ought to be demanding better information.

An Improved WTC Budget Spreadsheet

We took the encountered spreadsheet and updated primarily its format in the interests of councillors and the public having something more legible to base sound(er) financial decision making on.

You can find our version HERE.

Our changes are as follows

Removed the first 2 columns of whatever it was.
Split the columns into 3 groups – cost centre, 2025-2026, and 2026-2027. Note that we have not changed any numbers in these columns, simply adding a column for 2025/2026 budget.
Added clear distinction between INCOME and EXPENDITURE.
Moved the Precept calculation (EXPENDITURE – INCOME) to the end, since it is calculated and that is the only logical place to put it.
Changed the different variants of proposed budget in the WTC proposed spreadsheet to reflect different options of increasing the reserves, so it is clear what they are for.
We also included the resultant Band D precept (that residents would pay) for each of those options, and the % increase.

We hope that this is clearer, but without further info from the council it is hard to improve it beyond that.

Note that we do not know what reserves the council has, hence we cannot make recommendations. But then, from what we can gather councillors also do not know what reserves the council has! Frankly appalling really.

We would ask what does a resident actually get for their precept? – very little actually. Toilets for the visitor which are loss making (subsidised) currently?, access to a subsidised art gallery?, a Christmas market and some fairy lights?, one of the very few allotments they manage?, a website with next to no information?, paying for the East Pier footbridge that should have come out of harbour funds. Answers on a postcard what else there is …

The Future

A new town clerk takes up the role on 19th January. He will be presented with this proposed budget to present to councillors on his first or second day! Given that WTC legally do not need to send it to North Yorkshire Council until the start of March (even though NYC say they need it by late January), it would be best to give the new clerk the chance to digest what is being set so that he can add his own input and then get it approved. We wish him well.

One thing that he does need to do though is to ensure that the public have access to all council information via the website, unlike what has been happening for way to long (minutes that are impossible to find, no supporting documents or financial info, and so on). Contempt for the public has to end.

Questioning NYC Policy on Public Health relating to Green Space and Active Travel

Andy Jefferson — Thu, 18 Dec 2025 06:44:34 +0000

An NYC Executive meeting on 16/12/2025 presented a new report by the NYC Director of Public Health. We decided to take the opportunity to question the policies employed within NYC with respect to green space and active travel and how they benefit health.

Whitby has many areas with high indices of multiple deprivation, as highlighted in the 2025 data.

It also has some of the lowest levels of cycling infrastructure in the county along with the lowest uptake in cycling, as well as poor quality walking/wheeling infrastructure, with investment in active travel schemes non-existent.

Additionally it is well below minimum standard in terms of green space availability and accessibility, with much used areas being sold off (for housing), contrary to the wishes of local residents, on a regular basis. Many organisations (and indeed also the Director of Public Health) have highlighted the demonstrable positive link between health / well-being and active travel, as well as access to local green space.

The Director of Public Health’s 2025 report emphasises the statutory duty of the local authority to improve the health and well-being of its residents. It also highlights a few areas where Public Health may be influencing the decision making process in the council.

WHAT influence does Public Health data, such as indices of multiple deprivation, have on

decisions around Active Travel schemes selected for funding
decisions around selling off of green space?

and if there is no influence currently, WHEN is North Yorkshire Council going to utilise such data for such decisions (as part of its duty to improve public health)?

The NYC response was provided by the NYC Exec Cllr for Health and Adult Services, Michael Harrison, as follows

Whilst I agree with some of the points made in the question, I don’t accept everything that is stated in it. The question says Whitby has some of the lowest levels of cycling infrastructure in the county along with the lowest uptake in cycling, as well as poor quality walking/wheeling infrastructure, with investment in active travel schemes non-existent, and that it is well below minimum standard in terms of green space availability and accessibility. I don’t accept this.

For instance, the council has developed a total of ten Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs) for the main towns across North Yorkshire over the last few years. There is a ‘long list’ of potential active travel schemes based on the corridors from all these ten LCWIPs across the county, including the Whitby LCWIP, as well as other schemes in other areas.

When a funding opportunity arrives, we assess all schemes against the funding criteria. For example, the Department for Transport’s Active Travel Fund Tranche 4 (ATF4) criteria included ‘targeting areas with poor health outcomes and with high levels of deprivation’, so public health data, the index of multiple deprivation, is an integral part of the decision making process to prioritise schemes.

In summary, public health does play a part in scheme sifting for bids, but to what degree is dependent on the funding criteria and the type of schemes the fund is available for.

Specifically relating to green space, the council considers a wide range of factors when deciding whether to dispose of its landholdings, including current use, potential future opportunities and the outcomes that could be achieved from each site.

Whilst it is recognised that green space can contribute significantly to improved health and wellbeing, the level of impact depends on various factors, so sites are assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Where land is classified as public open space or amenity land, the council has a statutory obligation to advertise the proposed disposal and consider any objections before proceeding. These requirements allow community users or beneficiaries to have a voice in decisions that might affect future access to green space.

We have replied to the councillor as follows

Dear Cllr Harrison,

many thanks for your reply to my question to the NYC Executive meeting on 16/12/2025.

You don’t define exactly what you don’t accept, nor the reasons why.

We, Whitby Community Network CIC and the registered charity Whitby & Esk Valley Active Travel, strongly believe in evidence-led decisions and basing all statements on data as much as is possible. Additionally all of the data that we rely on to make claims are presented openly and transparently. Anyone can view them, and anyone can challenge them. We will now go through the points raised.

“Whitby has some of the lowest levels of cycling infrastructure in the county along with the lowest uptake in cycling”

The most reliable / recent stats on cycling uptake would be from the Active Lives Survey carried out by Sport England. To be able to split cycling uptake by borough we have to go back to just before NYC was established (since from that point onwards all survey results are solely quoted by local authority). See

https://www.whitbyactivetravel.org.uk/demographics/#activity_level

As shown, the Scarborough borough is relatively (compared to the rest of North Yorkshire) low on cycling uptake, yet average on walking uptake. The analysis also shows that when looking at levels of infrastructure between the 2 main towns in that borough, Whitby is significantly behind in terms of actual infrastructure. As a consequence it is a reasonable judgment call that Whitby uptake is behind Scarboroughs (even when this survey was taken). So the claim is actually a very rational conclusion.

Note : the Active Lives Survey considers residents of a location (and not including visitors) so is actually the most appropriate measure to use when we consider Public Health for a location. The statutory duty of the local authority is to the resident first and foremost.

Yes, Whitby urban area has precisely 2.5km of the “Cinder Track” with solely 1 safe cycling access point in the urban area for people on bikes – the access point being a very steep ramp that is a barrier for disabled people. Various components of the SBC restoration plan were never implemented when the surface was provided. So we also have confidence in the statement about “amongst the lowest levels of cycle infra in the county”.

Clearly the study was the order of 3 yrs ago, but in that time Scarborough (district) has received the order of £4m in funding for cycling infrastructure upgrades, whilst Whitby has received nothing. That will only lead to exacerbate the difference.

We would, however, like to see mapping data (from NYC) on levels of infrastructure against locality so that we can have further confidence in that claim. Similarly, we would like to see uptake stats against locality. These would all give a much better basis for comparison. And indeed at a meeting with Rhiannon Letman-Wade, the new Active Travel Commissioner for Y&NY, we did request exactly that.

If NYC disagree with this analysis, if they could kindly present their evidence, so that we all have a better understanding.

“as well as poor quality walking/wheeling infrastructure”

Whilst Whitby district has some of the most scenic walking countryside, the infrastructure in many places does not match. Also we have a town that is overrun by cars, with little evidence of any implementation of the Local Plan “promote sustainable modes of transport”, with a general lack of crossings, which becomes barriers to people who would otherwise walk.

We have green space with crumbling or muddy paths, and that have had no maintenance (other than grass cutting) since the 1970s – that would also fail an Equality Act 2010 assessment. That acts as a deterrent to using the paths, and hence walking.

We have Whitby business park which, once you go beyond the few retail outlets on the main road, is a virtual no go zone for pedestrians and disabled.

https://www.whitbyactivetravel.org.uk/2024/12/06/whitby-business-park-active-travel-provision/

We have many other examples.

Does the above claim that the walking / wheeling infra is worse than in other parts of the county? No, it may well be poor in other areas. It simply states that it is poor quality (and hence a deterrent to utilisation), and needs to be improved for people to use it as much as is possible. That should be of interest to public health.

“with investment in active travel schemes non-existent”

The investment in active travel schemes in Whitby district has been exactly that of late. The last investment of any significance was the only cycle infra scheme here ever, £315k from DfT/Sustrans in 2021 for 3.5km of “Cinder Track” surface.

There is a “Town Deal” scheme for town centre still awaited, but that will only give minimal benefit for the pedestrian (wider pavements, improved crossing) only in the very centre of town, and nothing at all for the person on a bike in its most recent proposal.

It has also to be said that NYC funding from Active Travel England is limited by its low capability rating, and so there is not much “to go round”.

“it is well below minimum standard in terms of green space availability and accessibility”

The last audit of green space in this area was performed in 2014 by SBC. It concluded that Whitby was below their “local standard” (termed a minimum standard by other organisations) in terms of quantity, and several green spaces were of poor quality. We took this report and tried to reproduce it, using the same basic methodology, and this resulted in our analysis, which corrected errors in the SBC analysis, as well as bringing it up to date with the various losses of spaces. You can find it here

https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/green-space/

The deficit to the minimum standard is significant … about the equivalent of 3 Pannett Park’s. But that is not where it ends, because we considered accessibility / inclusivity of green spaces also, and the deficit becomes far worse. You will be fully aware of the ageing population and the need to make areas more inclusive, and this challenge is significant. This is backed up by measures from Natural England, and Fields In Trust saying the same thing – all on the above link.

At a meeting with the NYC Head of Parks, we asked “does NYC have a mapping of all green spaces in the county … “, and the answer was that they were not yet at that point and wouldn’t be for some time. We subsequently provided them with our mappings of all Whitby green spaces – equally available from our website – in the interest of trying to “work with” NYC.

If NYC disagree with this analysis, if they could kindly present their evidence, so that we all have a better understanding. This was provided to SBC in its final year of operation, but no response was forthcoming.

Public health data is regularly used, in combination with other sources of information, to support decision-making in a variety of areas across the council. This includes decisions relating to active travel and green space. For instance, the council has developed a total of ten Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs) for the main towns across North Yorkshire over the last few years. There is a ‘long list’ of potential active travel schemes based on the corridors from all these ten LCWIPs across the county, including the Whitby LCWIP, as well as other schemes in other areas.

We are well aware of the LCWIPs. We had to campaign for the Whitby LCWIP in the first place, because all evidence was that the town would not be getting such a document (nor Thirsk either). And in fact, we suggested the idea that if NYC provided one for Whitby and then Thirsk, then NYC could claim to have an LCWIP for all towns of population 10000 or above – something they now do claim to Active Travel England. Whitby’s LCWIP only arrived in May this year – likely a significant reason why the investment here has been “non-existent”.

Obviously an LCWIP is not infrastructure spend. It is generation of a plan with no timescales / funding, but still a necessary step before you can get infrastructure spend – a point made to Cllr Duncan while in the Transport post.

Sadly the Whitby LCWIP did not exist in that timeframe, as a result the available schemes would presumably not have targeted anything in this district.

It has to be said though, if a scheme does not explicitly mention public health, that does not mean that public health cannot also be used as a factor in scheme selection, as long as it fulfils the basic outline of the funding.

In summary, public health does play a part in scheme sifting for bids, but to what degree is dependent on the funding criteria and the type of schemes the fund is available for.

Whilst it is recognised that green space can contribute significantly to improved health and wellbeing, the level of impact depends on various factors, so sites are assessed on a case-by-case basis.

We are fully aware of the process, having been through it on multiple occasions, and in no case has a “proposal” changed due to residents input. There are at least 2 further proposals to remove yet more Whitby green space being touted. Interestingly there has been no quality green space added in the same period – the Broomfield Farm estate has around 2.3ha as an “odour exclusion zone” park, around a sewerage works, with the smell of human excrement wafting across the park area – is that really of benefit to public health?

The simple fact is that any Public Health weighting in this “process” is clearly currently inadequate.

The end result, when residents have basically given up on “the council” catering for their needs, is that residents get together and develop a Neighbourhood Plan, to attempt to protect their green spaces. This is currently out for Draft Consultation, if you weren’t already aware.

https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/whitby-neighbourhood-plan-draft-consultation/

Regards

Whitby Community Network

Objection to Rievaulx Road greenspace sell off

Andy Jefferson — Sat, 29 Nov 2025 13:44:05 +0000

On 27/11/2025 North Yorkshire Council posted a Public Notice, as follows [link]

Local Government Act 1972 – Section 123(2A)

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to Section 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972 that The North Yorkshire Council intends to dispose of (by way of freehold sale) an area of public open space at Byland Road / Rievaulx Road, Whitby (“the Land”) shown edged red on the plan below. In accordance with the provisions of Section 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Council will consider any objections to the proposed disposal of the Land which are received within 14 days of the date of the first publication of this notice and which are addressed to: Bryan Walker, Principal Estates Manager, North Yorkshire Council, County Hall, Northallerton, North Yorkshire, DL7 8AD, or by email to estatesteam@northyorks.gov.uk Any objections or representations made within the time set out in this notice will be considered by the Council before a decision is made. Copies of the plan of the proposed Land to be disposed of can be made available upon request by emailing the address above or by telephoning 01609 535714.

Open to feedback from 27/11/2025 until 11/12/2025.

The situation with Whitby greenspace has been well publicised. We have also spent the last 22 months developing a Neighbourhood Plan for the parish that explicitly protects all areas of greenspace, including this one. Our response to this proposed sell off was as follows (submitted on 29/11/2025), sent to NYC Estates, NYC CEO, Cllr Les, Cllr Swannick, Cllr Trumper, and NYC Director of Public Health.

Proposed disposal of an area of public open space, Whitby: Byland Road / Rievaulx Road

Whitby Community Network CIC objects in the strongest terms to this proposed disposal.

NPPF 103 states “… Planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments (qualitative and quantitative) of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities. …”).

We firstly state that North Yorkshire Council (NYC) do not possess a robust and up-to-date assessment of the green space of Whitby parish. The most recent green space audit was performed in 2014 by the now defunct Scarborough Borough Council (SBC). The SBC (2014) assessment report was not robust, in that it contained various errors – incorrect per person scaling of secondary school sports space, double accounting for Helredale Playing field, inadequate allowance for the “accessibility” of a green space, and so on. The report simply treated “accessibility” as the distance to get to it, and not how accessible and inclusive it was, for example to elderly / disabled people. With respect to accessibility, the Whitby parish has double the national average of over 65 residents, so ask yourself the question – would a 10ha portion of green space on a cliff at an incline of 40 degrees be of the same value as a 10ha gently rolling country park?

The SBC (2014) assessment is not up-to-date in that several tracts of green space have been built on by NYC in the intervening years, yet the report has never been updated to take account of this.

NPPF 104 requires that any designated green space not have its use changed or built on, unless the robust, up-to-date assessment mentioned above shows that it is surplus to requirements.

The only robust, up-to-date assessment of Whitby green space is provided by Whitby Community Network CIC and not NYC. Even ignoring accessibility and inclusivity of green space (as mentioned above) this clearly shows a net DEFICIT of 10.9ha of green space (deficit of 5.4ha of Natural, 6.2ha of Urban Parks, and 1.0ha of Sports with surplus of 1.7ha of Amenity), relative to the minimum standard. Once we take in to account accessibility and inclusivity for the resident and visitor, this shows a net DEFICIT of 22.9ha of green space (deficit of 10.9ha of Natural, 6.2ha of Urban Parks, and 7.5ha of Sports, with surplus of 1.7ha of Amenity).

The forthcoming Whitby Neighbourhood Plan will be requiring protection of all Whitby green space, given the extremely poor provision in this area, and this is one such green space included in that required protection. Going against that would represent overriding the requirements of the parish, and question the position of North Yorkshire Council in representing the best interests of the residents.

If we look at other recognised assessment mechanisms for green space, on the Natural England “Green Infrastructure”

There are several areas in Whitby that fail the AGst Doorstep standard (0.5ha within 200m) – notably large parts of Stakesby, Castle Park, Mayfield, Railway, Eskdale.
The majority of the residential areas in Whitby fail the AGst Local standard (2.0ha within 300m).
All of the Whitby urban area fails the AGst Neighbourhood standard (10.0ha within 1km).

Similarly for the Fields In Trust “Green Space Index” (broadly similar to the AGst Doorstep standard) the majority of Whitby urban area is below the minimum standard.

Removal of this area at Rievaulx Road would only cause further areas of the town to fail these standards.

We have thus demonstrated that this green space is NOT SURPLUS TO REQUIREMENTS.

NYC has recognised in many reports the benefit that can be obtained from access to green space, and the NYC Director of Public Health has stated “There have been positive impacts from having accessible, local green spaces, which have supported both physical and mental health and wellbeing”. Whitby has some of the lowest health outcomes in the whole of the county, with a widely publicised “coastal health crisis”. Life expectancies of both Whitby NYC divisions are in the lower reaches for the whole county, with significant areas with multiple indices of deprivation. It is essential that green space in such areas be both protected and enhanced to benefit the health and well-being of the community.

Local Plan Rule HC 14 b iii) requires “a replacement open space of an equal or higher quantity and quality can be provided in a nearby accessible location”. There are deficits in all categories of green space, and NYC have no published plan for how they aim to get Whitby parish up to the minimum standard (quantity as well as quality) of green space, as a result they cannot offer a viable alternate site in a nearby accessible location that would replace the green space being proposed to be disposed of.

As a consequence the equivalent Local Plan Rule HC 14 prevents any such change of use of this green space, and any ignoring of such would be the subject to legal challenge.

Going further, Local Plan Policy ENV 8 states “The value and strategic role of the Green Infrastructure corridors within the Local Plan area will be protected and enhanced …”. This greenspace provides a green corridor between Pannett Park and the Stakesby residential area. It has been used for decades by local people for recreation (evidence is available for this assertion). As such it is of significant value locally, and to dispose of it would devalue the area of the town. It provides areas for local children to play, as well as for dog walking (remember, dog walking is prohibited in the nearby Pannett Park). Such areas should be enhanced, not diminished.

Local Plan Policy ENV8 continues “Developments that will have an unacceptable impact on Green Infrastructure will be resisted unless other policy considerations within this Local Plan indicate otherwise”. By disposing of this green space, any proposed development will clearly have an unacceptable impact on Green infrastructure, and there are no other considerations to indicate otherwise.

Regarding the intended use of this open space (a joint venture with Lovell Homes), Whitby has no need of more housing at the expense of green space. It simply needs better use of the existing housing. Since 2011 there have been the order of 1300 dwellings given planning approval in the Whitby area (either completed, or awaiting construction), and between 2011 and 2021 the population of the town reduced, with up to 44.5% of dwellings with no permanent resident (cf Housing Needs Assessment for the Whitby Neighbourhood Plan)! There are the order of 700 dwellings currently for sale in Whitby and within 5 miles of the town centre. Newly built dwellings are not selling; there is little demand. To destroy yet another green space in an area with significant deprivation is frankly deplorable.

Yours faithfully,

Whitby Community Network CIC

This received a reply from NYC (Skipton) on 02/12/2025 stating “I am emailing to confirm receipt of your below email. This has been forwarded onto the surveyor dealing with this case to look at“.

Note that we separately raised the matter that there were no notices tied to lamp posts in the area surrounding this greenspace, as would have been expected.

North Yorks Fire and Rescue : Community Risk Management Strategy Survey

Andy Jefferson — Tue, 16 Sep 2025 05:26:12 +0000

North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue have been consulting on a proposed Community Risk Management Strategy for 2025-2029.

Given that we have just had the worst fire on the North Yorkshire moors in living memory, we felt it necessary to put in a response.

You can find it HERE.

English Devolution/Community Empowerment Bill 2024-2025 – letter(s) to Alison Hume

Andy Jefferson — Fri, 12 Sep 2025 16:54:11 +0000

A bill is currently passing through the UK Parliament entitled the “Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-2025” [link]. We wrote to Alison Hume MP, as follows

We note that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-25 is scheduled for its second hearing in the House of Commons on 2nd September 2025.

The Act should benefit local communities and groups such as ours. We particularly welcome the objective to empower communities to have a voice in local decisions by introducing a requirement on all local authorities in England to establish effective neighbourhood governance.

However, we wish to draw several issues to your attention that, in our opinion, the proposed Bill does not address adequately. Our website details our concerns about the effect of delays in the audit of the Scarborough Borough Council accounts since 2015/16. There are on-going objections to the accounting treatment by North Yorkshire Council of the municipal Statutory Harbour Authorities for Whitby and Scarborough. In the light of these local issues, we consider that the proposed Act should include specific provisions which would better safeguard individual local electors and improve audit oversight and transparency.

We also suggest that the transport planning functions of Strategic Authorities should include municipal Harbour Authorities, as well as land-based Local Transport Authorities. This would improve co-ordinated transport and infrastructure planning for some 40 coastal communities in England. These are almost all smaller, isolated towns with a heavy economic dependence on tourism. Their accessibility to visitors depends on land-based transport options.

Local Audit Reform
- We welcome the establishment of the Local Audit Office (LAO) as the body responsible for overseeing local audit, but consider that the wording of the Bill should specifically include granting the LAO the power to require local bodies to make changes to their accounts.
- We suggest that the LAO should also be granted the power to establish an “Ombudsman” service. This should be authorised to investigate and determine, on behalf of individual local electors, formal objections raised to Local Authority draft accounts.(c.f. the Local Govt. and Social Care Ombudsman Service)
Strategic Authorities: Transport Planning Responsibilities. The Bill defines “transport and local infrastructure” as one of the seven areas of competence required of Strategic and Mayoral Authorities. Schedule 9 confers them the functions of Local Transport Authorities and makes provision about other functions relating to land-based transport. But the Department for Transport is also responsible for harbours and coastal transport. The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 has a strong focus on the sustainable use, protection, and access to marine and coastal activities.
- We suggest that Municipal Harbour Authorities should be specifically included as an integral part of the Transport Planning functions of Strategic and Mayoral Authorities.

We would be happy to provide further information, if required, and would welcome the opportunity to discuss any of these issues with you, in person, as the Bill progresses through Parliament.

Whitby Community Network

We sent a further letter on 10/10/2025, as follows

Re: English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Dear Alison,

We received a presentation on this Bill at our recent Whitby Community Network (WCN) meeting and it generated much interest and discussion along with many questions. The group were particularly keen to explore opportunities to strengthen communities’ influence and control.

The collective experience of many of us who live in this lovely town is that Local Government and governance is remote, characterised by no or inadequate consultation, decisions that adversely affect residents and undermine our important tourism industry, along with little or no investment in our public assets; recent examples being secondary education and the West Cliff lift.

We appreciate that you are already aware of many of our concerns and we do not intent to repeat them again in this letter. Instead, we would rather seek your support in relation to the opportunities enabled through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, currently before Parliament.

At present, grants are being obtained as and where opportunities arise, without a clear, congruent and comprehensive plan for the future. Whitby has an ageing population with a majority of residents being over 55, the resident population is declining and there are areas of significant deprivation. Limited investment in necessary maintenance over several
years has resulted in a massive decline in our infrastructure, some examples being the broken cliff lift, the leaking Pavillion and wholly inadequate parking arrangements. This ongoing lack of maintenance and investment is adversely affecting our major industry – tourism. Currently, Whitby continues to attract a high volume of tourists who love its heritage and natural beauty, but this will not continue without cohesive community engagement and targeted investment.

While the draft English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill intends to provide a basis for strengthening community engagement, we feel it needs to go further. We agree with the objectives of the “We’re Right Here” campaign which seeks to strengthen
community rights as follows:

A Community Right to Shape Public Services
A Community Right to Control Investment and
Community Covenants

In addition, we were very concerned by a matter raised during the first stage of the Committee hearing of the Bill, held on 16 September. One witness pointed out that National Parks will be the only planning authorities that are not covered by the provisions in the draft Bill. The North York Moors National Park Authority is a separate planning authority that operates independently of the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority and has different statutory purposes. Whitby is the only town in England to be wholly enclosed within a National Park, but not part of it, and this creates a risk for Whitby.

Recreation and tourism are now the economic base of both the NYMPA and Whitby, but the strong controls on housing development within the National Park have contributed to the exceptionally high levels of second and holiday homes in the town.

Whitby and the Esk Valley has long been recognised as a distinct, geographically isolated area. Given the risks for this community, we consider that the Bill should include some safeguards that would require the NYMNPA and the YNYCA to develop joint plans for this unique area, in full conjunction with the local community.

To ensure the democratic aims can be met the Bill needs to protect the rights of local people to be involved in a meaningful way, and this needs to be more than tokenistic inclusion while existing structures and processes continue unchanged and unresponsive to community voices. “We’re Right Here” comments that Communities must have a significant means of recourse where neighbourhood governance institutions are not meeting the principles of the Bill.

WCN CIC has been working on the Neighbourhood Plan for Whitby with the support of Whitby Town Council and this is nearing completion. This comprehensive plan will provide an important planning framework for the town; we wonder therefore how the various processes will knit together in future given the streamlining of planning and the removal of funding for Neighbourhood Plans.

We would appreciate your support in shaping and strengthening community rights in this Bill so that our community can benefit.

Thank you for all your hard work on our behalf.

Whitby Community Network CIC

Alison Hume replied on 21/01/2026, as follows

Dear Whitby Community Network,

Thank you very much for writing to me, firstly, I apologise for the delay in responding, due to the amount of incoming work, I have had to prioritise constituents in need of urgent assistance. I appreciate you sharing the thoughtful reflections that emerged from your recent meeting. I respect the depth of work you continue to undertake on behalf of the town, and I am grateful for the clarity with which you have set out both the opportunities and the risks presented by the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill.

One of the strongest messages I always hear from residents across Whitby and the Esk Valley is the sense that decision‑making has become increasingly remote, with consultation often feeling inadequate or symbolic rather than meaningful. I have raised this broader concern in Parliament, emphasising the need for national policy to be grounded in the lived experience of local communities, and for local voices to be central to decisions that shape their future. That principle underpins my approach to this Bill.

You are absolutely right to highlight the challenges facing Whitby: an ageing population, declining resident numbers, pockets of deep deprivation, and years of under‑investment in essential public assets. I share your concern that without a realistic long‑term plan, shaped with the community we risk undermining the very foundations of our tourism economy and the wellbeing of residents. I have seen this first hand in different campaigns I have involved myself in and sought for action, such as the West Cliff lift, the Pavilion, and parking provision are not isolated problems; they are symptoms of a wider pattern of neglect that must be addressed strategically.

I agree that the Bill presents an opportunity to strengthen community influence, but I also recognise the limitations you have identified. The proposals championed by the “We’re Right Here” campaign, including a Community Right to Shape Public Services, a Community Right to Control Investment, and Community Covenants, align closely with the concerns residents have raised with me. These ideas deserve serious consideration, and I will continue to explore how they can be reflected more strongly as the Bill progresses.

In addition, the Government’s new Fairer Funding initiative is an important step toward ensuring coastal and rural communities like ours finally receive a more balanced share of national investment. For too long, funding formulas have overlooked the pressures on local services, ageing populations, and seasonal economies.

Your point about the North York Moors National Park Authority is particularly important. As you note, Whitby is uniquely positioned: entirely enclosed by the National Park boundary yet not part of it. The exclusion of National Parks from the Bill’s provisions raises legitimate concerns about accountability and coherence in planning. I understand why this creates anxiety, especially given the pressures caused by high levels of second and holiday homes.

The work you have undertaken on the Neighbourhood Plan is a significant achievement, and I appreciate the uncertainty created by changes to planning processes and the removal of funding for such plans. Ensuring that community‑led frameworks like yours retain real weight and are not sidelined by new structures will be an important part of the scrutiny process.

Please be assured that I will continue to engage closely with the Bill as it moves through Parliament. I will explore opportunities to raise the concerns you have outlined and to advocate for stronger, clearer rights for communities like ours. Whitby deserves a governance model that reflects its unique character, its challenges, and its aspirations and I am committed to ensuring your voices are heard at every stage.

Thank you again for your continued work and for taking the time to write to me.

Yours sincerely,

Alison Hume MP

NYC Area Committee venue

Andy Jefferson — Thu, 11 Sep 2025 17:44:26 +0000

North Yorkshire Council (NYC) divides the county up into “area commitees” for supposedly allowing local decisions to be made more local. As a consequence we have a “Scarborough and Whitby Area Committee”, every 3 months. It turns out this meeting is held in Scarborough almost always. As follows

2018 : 20 Jun (Scarborough), 26 Sep (Whitby), 12 Dec (Scarborough)
2019 : 20 Mar (Scarborough), 19 Jun (Scarborough), 25 Sep (Scarborough),
2020 : 15 Jan (Scarborough), 20 Mar (Scarborough), 16 Sep (Scarborough), 06 Nov (Scarborough),
2021 : 20 Jan (Scarborough), 26 Mar (Scarborough), 9 Jul (Scarborough), 17 Sep (Scarborough), 3 Dec (Scarborough),
2022 : 19 Jan (Scarborough), 16 Mar (Scarborough), 10 Jun (Scarborough), 23 Sep (Scarborough), 23 Nov (Scarborough),
2023 : 24 Mar (Scarborough), 9 Jun (Scarborough), 22 Sep (Whitby), 01 Dec (Scarborough),
2024 : 22 Mar (Whitby), 7 Jun (Scarborough), 20 Sep (Whitby), 29 Nov (Scarborough),
2025 : 21 Mar (Scarborough), 6 Jun (Scarborough)

In fact it was only held in Whitby 22 Sep 2023, 22 Mar 2024 and 20 Sep 2024 due to WCN taking the issue up with NYC. Sadly they subsequently decided it has to be in a venue with internet streaming, and “oh, we haven’t got one of those in Whitby, so we’ll have to hold it in Scarborough“.

We took the issue up with Cllr David Chance (vice chair of the committee) and Cllr Liz Colling (chair of the committee).

Please can you define

what efforts have been made thus far and what further efforts will be made, to provide a suitable venue in the town of Whitby?
at what point it is envisaged that there will ever be presence of this committee in one of the towns whose name is included in the title of the committee?
if the answer to question 2 is “never”, could you please explain to the people of this town why they will not have direct access to this committee, given that there are double the national average of over 65’s who are less able to travel, and where the public transport situation is widely recognised as being utterly dire?

Whitby Community Network CIC

Cllr Chance replied (Aug 2025) as follows

The problem has constantly been the Council’s desire to publish meeting live on the internet.

An agreement has now been made that meeting are to be held in Whitby, where key Whitby matters are discussed without this facility, as residents have the right to attend and where appropriate, make representation.

The whole of the committee instructed officers to do this at the last meeting.

Your points are well made and the committee has also voiced them.

Cllr David Chance.

Roll forward to the next meeting, and we see on the agenda the Whitby Cliff Lift as the main item. One would expect that this is a “key Whitby matter”, but then we look at the venue … oh it’s Scarborough again.

Dear Cllr Chance,

We see that the next area committee has a significant Whitby item (items 8 and 9) on the agenda.

https://edemocracy.northyorks.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1229&MId=19397

Sadly it is being held in Scarborough, which goes somewhat against the contents of your reply.

If there was an item of pressing interest to Scarborough one could maybe understand a conflict, but for this meeting there is no Scarborough-specific item.

So we are again faced with a lack of opportunity for representation. The problem has not been addressed.

Whitby Community Network CIC

To be clear, the 2 items on the agenda at the next meeting (19/09/2025 10:00am, Scarborough Town Hall) are entitled “Whitby Cliff Lift and Access to West Cliff Beach”, and “Receipt of petition in support of the preservation of Whitby Cliff Lift”. You cannot get much more a “key issue” to the town, but NYC officers think the “and Whitby” in the committee name means nothing.

Perhaps the answer to the question of whether we will get an area committee meeting in Whitby should have been “not a Chance”?

If you do want to send a question to this Area Committee meeting about the Whitby Cliff Lift, the meeting is being held in Scarborough Town Hall on Friday 19th September at 10am. You need to submit questions by Tuesday 16th September at MIDDAY to St John Harris (stjohn.harris@northyorks.gov.uk), but typically will have to attend the meeting to ask your question.

Cllr Chance replied, as follows

Yes, it is being held in Scarborough, be cause it is felt that the meeting with the Mayor of York & North Yorkshire should be broadcast.

So residents are clearly of minor importance …

Whitby Maritime Facility – In demand?

Andy Jefferson — Thu, 04 Sep 2025 16:47:24 +0000

With North Yorkshire Council (NYC) keen to stress that building of the “Whitby Maritime Facility” on Endeavour Wharf is going full steam ahead, and photos of wannabe politicians with spades in their hands, we have to ask the question, how is it really going?

NYC have handed the task of finding tenants to its own agency Align Surveyors. Maybe this is due to their own internal attempts to find tenants not having much success. Align have got a dedicated page for this facility if you are interested – find it here.

If we inspect the current availability of units within the “Whitby Maritime Facility” from that page, we have

So just 2 units on the ground floor are “under offer”. Rumour has it this is Parkol. A separate rumour is that it is at a “subsidised cost”.

If we look at that same page, we have some apparent timings to railway stations. Ruswarp takes 23 mins, Sleights 50 mins, and Grosmont 108 mins. What we can’t quite work out is what are these timings based on? Walking speed? Cycling? Driving? By train? By boat? None of these seem to align with reality. Have the property surveyor consultants visited the location? Maybe Align Surveyors, or one of those local politicians pictured at the facility can clarify?

The “community” has allegedly been invited to view the facility under construction. We haven’t yet found anyone who has received this magical invite. Do you know anyone?

Who do you think will be occupying this facility in 2026 when complete?

A collection of hi tech maritime companies?
an enclosure for elephants of the white colouration?
or maybe a home for failed politicians?

or maybe you have a better suggestion.

Whitby Swing Bridge works : status

Andy Jefferson — Wed, 03 Sep 2025 13:42:27 +0000

One of the Town Deal projects is entitled “Harbourside Public Realm Improvements” and involves closure of the Swing Bridge to traffic during peak hours, and some amount of pedestrianisation improvements. As a prerequisite of this traffic lights need to be installed at the junction of Whitby New Bridge and Spital Bridge / Larpool Lane. The traffic light work was recently postponed due to the wild fire at Langdale Moor. We enquired of North Yorkshire Council (NYC) as to the status of these different projects, and the timescales expected, because this will likely have an impact on life in the town, for resident and visitor. The answers are below; thanks to Karl Battersby at NYC.

1. Swing Bridge surface works timescales

In November 2023 there was a plan for waterproofing and resurfacing work on the swing bridge. It was apparently put back “until 2024” due to not being able to source the material. This work included a lighter coloured surface and its benefits in terms of reducing heat absorption.

NYC : The works are currently on hold while we carry out further assessment following findings from the recent trial holes. At this stage, we do not have a confirmed programme date. However, we recognise the importance of progressing this work and will schedule it once the assessment is complete.

2. Do we have an approximate timescale for the Spital Bridge work completion?

NYC : The works are now scheduled to commence on 08 September 2025, following a delay from the original start date of 01 September due to the ongoing moorland fire incident.

3. Do we have a consequential timescale for the town centre pedestrianisation works?

NYC : The construction phase for the Town Centre project is currently expected to begin in September 2026, with an estimated duration of approximately 12 weeks.

4. Is there a date by which this project must be completed to comply with the terms of the Town Deal funding?

NYC : Yes, the current deadline for eligible expenditure under the Town Deal funding is 31 March 2027.