Local Governance – Whitby Community Network CIC https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org Campaigning on the problems facing Whitby and District Sat, 07 Feb 2026 06:29:59 +0000 en-GB hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.2 https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/wcn_favicon.ico Local Governance – Whitby Community Network CIC https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org 32 32 Whitby Parish : Second Homes Premium for 2025-2026 https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/2026/01/26/whitby-parish-second-homes-premium-for-2025-2026/ Mon, 26 Jan 2026 10:59:26 +0000 https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/?p=18560

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.

]]> WTC Budget 2026-2027 https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/2026/01/11/wtc-budget-2026-2027/ Sun, 11 Jan 2026 07:56:42 +0000 https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/?p=18464

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.

]]> North Yorks Fire and Rescue : Community Risk Management Strategy Survey https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/2025/09/16/north-yorks-fire-and-rescue-community-risk-management-strategy-survey/ Tue, 16 Sep 2025 05:26:12 +0000 https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/?p=17949

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 https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/2025/09/12/english-devolution-community-empowerment-bill-2024-2025-letter-to-alison-hume/ Fri, 12 Sep 2025 16:54:11 +0000 https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/?p=17932

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.

  1. 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)
  2. 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 https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/2025/09/11/nyc-area-committee-venue/ Thu, 11 Sep 2025 17:44:26 +0000 https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/?p=17909

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
  1. what efforts have been made thus far and what further efforts will be made, to provide a suitable venue in the town of Whitby?
  2. 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?
  3. 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 …

]]> NYC Local Plan “Issues and Options” Response https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/2025/07/13/nyc-local-plan-issues-and-options-response/ Sun, 13 Jul 2025 12:43:31 +0000 https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/?p=17759

Recently we provided an overview of the current NYC Local Plan consultation entitled “Issues and Options”. This is for a Local Plan expected to come into force around 2029.

We have tried to embody as much feedback from the community as possible into our response to NYC.

This is to be found HERE.

It has to be noted that this is just the first consultation on this document that will have a long reaching impact on how the county develops. If anyone has further points to add, please do comment here, but also please submit a comment or two on the Local Plan consultation itself.

]]> NYC Local Plan “Issues and Options” Consultation https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/2025/06/24/nyc-local-plan-issues-and-options-consultation/ Tue, 24 Jun 2025 05:05:39 +0000 https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/?p=17674

The North Yorkshire Local Plan is intended to replace Local Plans for the 7 former boroughs, and is expected to be in place by 2029. Once adopted it will guide development through to 2040. The first stage of the consultations for this are entitled “Issues and Options” and are at a very high level.

We (WCN) would like to get input from local people on what they think of some of these high level questions so that we can submit a community response. We presented this at the WCN Public Meeting on 23rd June 2025, but due to time limitations and the sheer amount of material it was impossible to cover all questions. The presentation is to be found HERE.

The consultation material can be found HERE, with the consultants assessment document HERE (warning : 560+ pages).

There are 11 “objectives” each with their own slides and questions, together with a general prioritisation question at the end. We would very much appreciate people’s input, before 8th July so that we can send in our response before the consultation end date of 15th July. If you only have comments on one or two parts, that is perfectly fine. Please either send it to our email (whitbycommunitynetwork@gmail.com), or use the Contact Form.

One other item of interest to the Local Plan is the “Call For Sites” which is open, and will be open for the foreseeable future. This is to be found HERE. The sites shown are not “accepted” on to the Local Plan, and they will be open to public comments later in the process.

]]> NYC Continual Desire to Build on Green Space – Lovell Homes venture https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/2025/06/18/nyc-continual-desire-to-build-on-green-space-lovell-homes-venture/ https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/2025/06/18/nyc-continual-desire-to-build-on-green-space-lovell-homes-venture/#comments Wed, 18 Jun 2025 07:38:34 +0000 https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/?p=17607

In 2021, Scarborough Borough Council (SBC) put in motion a plan to sell off an amount of green space for the purposes of “provision of affordable homes”. They entitled this project “Better Homes” (nobody with any imagination working in local government? why not consider the detrimental impact of removing green space and call it “Concrete Jungle”). In addition to land in Scarborough and Filey, it originally encompassed 4 tracts of land in the Whitby area – namely the former Golf Course land behind Love Lane, 2 tracts of land alongside Rievaulx Road, and a space near California Road (behind Abbot’s Walk). This proceeded through to an outline agreement (unsigned) with Lovell Homes before SBC was abolished. At the time, Whitby Area Development Trust sent a letter to SBC objecting to the disposal of 3 of the 4 tracts of land.

Nothing more was heard until Tuesday 17th June 2025 when it appeared on the agenda of an NYC Executive meeting. Item 6 presented a very similar arrangement, but this time with some different areas of land being proposed. The 2 tracts of land on Rievaulx Road are still listed, as is the former Golf Course land on Sandsend Road (labelled as “Sandsend Lane” in the NYC document, symptomatic of the level of local knowledge present in said organisation seemingly). The Whitby areas of land are shown on the map below.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states

103. Access to a network of high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity is important for the health and well-being of communities, and can deliver wider benefits for nature and support efforts to address climate change. Planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities (including quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses) and opportunities for new provision. Information gained from the assessments should be used to determine what open space, sport and recreational provision is needed, which plans should then seek to accommodate.

104. Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields and formal play spaces, should not be built on unless:

  • an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or
  • the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or
  • the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.

NYC do not possess an up-to-date assessment of the need for open space in this area. WCN do, and you can find it here. The most recent council assessment was in 2014, and not only did it contain errors, it is also now completely out of date. It concluded that Whitby does not have a surplus of open space. The situation is even worse now.

To summarise the current situation a deficit of 12.6ha of open space (5.4ha of Natural, 6.2ha of Urban Parks and 1.0ha of Sports), with a surplus of 2.7ha of Amenity open space (so an overall deficit of some 10ha). Note that this summary does not take account of accessibility of open space. The largest contributory open space in Whitby parish is West Cliff, and by this we mean the actual cliff (sloping at 30-40 degrees gradient). For an ageing population this is simply not accessible. Consequently the real measure of available, accessible open space is even worse.

The proposed use of former Golf Course is also of concern as the viability of the golf course is in significant doubt given that the part of coastline it borders is listed as not to be protected by the Environment Agency, and is apparently decaying at an alarming rate.

In the 2022 report by the Director of Public Health for NYCC which particularly looked at the effects of COVID and how it changed people’s habits, we see statements such as “There have been positive impacts from having accessible, local green spaces, which have supported both physical and mental health and wellbeing“, “Support equitable access to green space” and “However, access to gardens and good quality green spaces are not equitable across all parts of society“. Have other parts of NYC not got the memo? With a coastal health crisis and green space being acknowledged as very beneficial to people’s health and wellbeing why would anyone in their right mind think that building on green space was a good idea?

Any such proposed sell off will be resisted by Whitby Community Network.

We have written to the NYC Director of Public Health, Louise Wallace, who presented at one of our recent public meetings, for her thoughts on the continual depreciation of Whitby green space, as follows.

Dear Louise,
 
at the Whitby Community Network meeting on 28/04/2025 we highlighted the clear benefits of active travel and green space on the health and wellbeing of resident populations (as mentioned in your annual reports), and the fact that other parts of the organisation that you represent have seemingly not got the memo about these factors and the need to take positive action in the Whitby area. Green space has been continually appropriated over years despite being below minimum standard, and active travel investment is non-existent despite having some of the lowest uptake of active travel in the county. If we are to ever make a difference on people’s health this has to change, and preferably soon.
 
You promised to have one of your people follow up on this. We have not received any such communication on this matter.
 
We were particularly reminded of the green space situation since in an NYC Executive meeting on Tuesday 17th June (2025) an item on the agenda, subsequently approved, proposes to use (via land sell off) Whitby green space for the building of yet more houses. Let’s leave aside the fact that this would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (the need for a thorough up to date assessment of quality, quantity and accessibility of all green space prior to any disposal, together with a thorough assessment that this green space is indeed “surplus to requirement”). The fact that NYC are seemingly making no effort whatsoever to improve the dire public health / wellbeing issues here, by addressing 2 important contributary factors, should be of significant concern to anyone.
 
We await your thoughts.
 
Whitby Community Network
]]> https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/2025/06/18/nyc-continual-desire-to-build-on-green-space-lovell-homes-venture/feed/ 2 Fight4Whitby questions Maritime Hub tenancies https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/2025/06/05/fight4whitby-questions-maritime-hub-tenancies/ Thu, 05 Jun 2025 07:08:39 +0000 https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/?p=17532

The Fight4Whitby campaign has apparently sent a further letter to North Yorkshire Council (NYC), this time regarding the proposed tenancies of the Maritime Training Hub. As follows

Dear Mr Flinton

Re: Maximum 3-year lease for tenancies of the Maritime Hub on Endeavour Wharf, Whitby

North Yorkshire Council is actively marketing commercial properties to let “on long leases” in the Maritime Hub, which is under construction on Endeavour Wharf in Whitby.

The Officer reports about the Maritime Hub, submitted to the NY Executive on 21st January 2025, included under legal considerations:

12.2 The Council owns the freehold of the site on which the Maritime Hub at Endeavour Wharf is to be located and Endeavour Wharf is also a registered cargo wharf. The proposed works to construct the Maritime Hub are consistent with the Council’s powers as a Harbour Authority and do not materially alter the wharf’s registration status. Local legislation relating to Whitby Harbour also gives the council the power to enter into lease arrangements of the units forming part of the completed development.

The High Court judgement issued on 14th March 2025 (Case No: QB-2021-004706) ruled that the whole of Endeavour Wharf is harbour land, including the site of the proposed Maritime Hub. Therefore, the building under construction is owned by NYC in its capacity as the Statutory Harbour Authority (SHA) for the Port of Whitby.

The local legislation relating to Whitby Harbour is the Whitby Urban District Council Act 1905, which incorporated the Harbours, Docks & Piers Clauses Act 1847, including:

XXIII. The Undertakers may lease or grant the Use or Occupation of any Warehouses, Buildings, Wharfs, Yards, Cranes, Machines, or other Conveniences provided by them for the Purposes of this or the Special Act, at such Rents and upon such Terms and Conditions as shall be agreed upon between the Undertakers and the Persons taking the same, provided that no such Lease be granted for a longer Term than Three Years. [WCN : emphasis added]

Since any commercial lease offered on the units in the Maritime Hub must be for no more than three years, both parties will need to agree to exclude from the lease the security of tenure provisions as set out in sections 24-28 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

We also draw to your attention that, since the site is a Zone 3b Flood Risk area, the Planning Permission for the Maritime Hub granted on 15 August 2024 (Decision No ZF24/00491/RG3) was subject to the following condition:

2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (ref: D/I/D/152982/04 Rev 6 dated 19/03/2024), including the specified flood resilience measures, and the building shall only be used for the following:
– Those uses set out in table 3.4.2 of the referenced Flood Risk Assessment; and,

– Other uses which are defined as ‘water compatible’ by the National Planning Policy Framework December 2023 (or any future revision) and which shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority at least 90 days prior to that use commencing.

Fight4Whitby requests your confirmation that NYC’s marketing material will be promptly amended, in order to clearly identify these legal requirements to prospective tenants. Similarly, we request your assurance that these issues will be identified in NYC’s response to any Commercial Property Standard Enquiry form that NYC may receive and that Align Property Partners will be instructed to meet these requirements when acting on NYC’s behalf.

Fight4Whitby

The reference quoted to the Harbour, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 is here (link).

We would go back to that question that has been asked of NYC several times, how many signed up tenants have you got? Subsequent to this letter, how many of those tenants (if indeed there are any) are aware of the 3 year tenancy agreement limit?

NYC replied on 16th June as follows

We refer to your letter dated 4 June 2025 raising concerns in respect of the Whitby Maritime Hub.

The Council is aware of the provisions of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 relating to the term of leases. The Whitby Urban District Council Act 1905 incorporates the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, however, section 1 of the 1847 Act states:

‘This Act shall extend only to such harbours, docks, or piers as shall be authorized by any Act of Parliament hereafter to be passed which shall declare that this Act shall be incorporated therewith; and all the clauses of this Act, save so far as they shall be expressly varied or excepted by any such Act shall apply to the undertaking authorized thereby, so far as they are applicable to such undertaking, and shall, with the clauses of every other Act incorporated therewith, form part of such Act, and be construed therewith as forming one Act.’

The 1847 therefore applies, except in so far as it is varied or excepted. Accordingly, section 30 of the Whitby Urban District Council Act 1905 permits the Council to, inter alia, lease land on terms and conditions as they may think fit, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other Act. This provision permits the Council to grant leases in excess of three years.

We also note your reference to ‘water compatible’ uses as referred to in the planning permission for the Maritime Hub and can confirm we are also aware of this condition.

NYC relied on the same argument during the harbour court case, ie that section 30 of the 1905 Act gave NYC the power as the Local Authority to do as they wished with any land they owned – including harbour land – and the Judge clearly said no.

We’re sure there’ll be a reply from Fight4Whitby along forthwith.

]]> Letter to NYC Regarding School Catchment Free Transport https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/2025/04/23/letter-to-nyc-regarding-school-catchment-free-transport/ Wed, 23 Apr 2025 11:41:33 +0000 https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/?p=17332

North Yorkshire Council changed their Home to School Transport Policy last year. The change means that children will only get free transport to their nearest school regardless of which school is their traditional catchment school. In the Whitby district, the traditional catchment school is Whitby School, but this NYC policy means that pupils in Castleton, Danby, Commondale, Westerdale, Staithes, Hinderwell and other villages will no longer get free transport to Whitby School.

David Bradley, former head of Eskdale School, has sent the following letter to all North Yorkshire councillors for the Whitby district.

Dear Councillors of North Yorkshire and Parents,

RE: NYC Home to School Transport Policy – Catchment Area Not Nearest School

I am writing to you as a former secondary headteacher with twenty years of experience – eighteen of them in North Yorkshire, regarding the Home to School Transport Policy which was adopted by the North Yorkshire Council (NYC) with effect from September 1st, 2024. This policy was accepted by the council without any reference to the likely impact on families, schools and the local community in the interests of reducing the costs to NYC in the short term. The medium- and long-term impact on these same individuals and groups was not considered.

It is imperative that all councillors attend the extraordinary meeting arranged for 21st May, 2025 at County Hall to reconsider this issue because it will adversely affect schools in Tockwith, Kirk Hammerton, Boroughbridge, Settle, Swaledale, Hambleton, Richmondshire and Whitby. Currently, schools in these areas are considering offering financial support to families for transport but in the longer term this will not be possible. The decision by the NYC to save money on transport in the short term, means that maintained or improved student numbers will be sacrificed on the altar of balancing books for this year or next rather than securing sufficient students to grow a local economy.

Short-termism has become the hallmark of recent NYC policies, and it really is time for councillors to think about the future with imagination, ambition and hope. All the data reveals that market towns and coastal resorts are very successful at attracting older people to take up residence in our areas, but we also need younger families to provide energy, ideas and workers in the hospitality, caring, maritime, agricultural, building and healthcare industries.

The concept of catchment area must be central to the “Home to School Transport Policy” in North Yorkshire rather than ‘nearest school’ regardless of boundary, if we are to: –

  1. Ensure that children from one family follow their siblings to secondary school.

  2. Preserve the concept of family of schools moving to secondary partners.

  3. Develop a community identity where young people are proud of their area and school.

  4. Embrace the notion, espoused by recent governments, to develop and enhance community cohesion.

  5. Offer secondary education opportunities which attract a variety of learners.

Of course, all of those involved in this discussion are aware that local councils have been starved of cash by successive governments. However, to quote Einstein, we are not going to improve the outcome by constantly applying the same measures; we need to look at things differently. So, councillors please attend the meeting on May 21st and parents please campaign peacefully at County Hall before the meeting. We must insist on bringing “Catchment Area Back” into the Home to School Transport Policy. If you do not reverse your earlier decision, it will further erode the development of traditional towns and villages and enable them to morph into retirement centres even more quickly.

Yours sincerely,

D.W. Bradley, B.Ed., FRSA

We encourage all residents to send their own letters, asking whether their NYC councillor will attend this meeting, and encouraging them to vote to BRING CATCHMENT BACK.

NYC councillors details are

]]>