Green Space – Whitby Community Network CIC

Whitby S106 “Parks / Open Space” Fund Utilisation

Andy Jefferson — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 05:33:39 +0000

All significant housing developments come with an S106 agreement (part of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1990) – a legal agreement between local authority and developers to compensate the community for the impact of the housing. One component of this is typically towards Parks and Open Space. In Whitby there is below minimum standard of green space in terms of quantity as well as quality.

Funding Receipt and Spend

We have looked at the S106 contributions pulled in from developers over the last few years, and how the money is being spent. The following table shows all Parks / Open Space payments received, as well as what has actually been spent.

[This data was obtained via FOI in April 2026, and the results of which are embodied in this spreadsheet].

Development	Spend Type	Amount Received (£)	Amount Spent (£)	Spend Location	Amount Available (£)
Eskdale Park	Sports	50,000	50,000	Boxing Club Refurb (2023)	0
Broomfield Phase 1 (Barratts/DavidWilson)	Sports	147,891	0		147,891
Green Lane (Wharfedale)	Urban Parks	29,927	0		29,927
Green Lane (Wharfedale)	Play Areas	60,447	0		60,447
The Garth	Amenity	9,872	0		9,872
The Garth	Play Areas	11,633	0		11,633
Highfield Road	Sports	2,380	0		2,380
Highfield Road	Urban Parks	8,331	7,441	White Leys Play Area (2020)	890
Shackleton Close	Sports	37,384	11,446	?	25,938
13-14 Royal Crescent	Sports	4,198	0		4,198
13-14 Royal Crescent	Urban Parks	4,946	0		4,946
Scoresby View (McCarthy Stone)	Urban Parks	15,023	0		15,023
Scoresby View (McCarthy Stone)	Sports	17,702	0		17,702
Total		399,733	68,887		330,846

Note that the development of Broomfield Phase 2 (Stonebridge Homes) will also add £141,430 (index linked) by the time 125 homes are occupied, to be spent on any type of open space / sports – not included in the table.

As a summary, of around £400k brought in via the S106 route for Parks / Open Space in the last 9 years, just £69k has been spent. With another £141k due before long, that represents a substantial amount available.

Addressing the Issues?

If we go back to the SBC Green Space Audit of 2014, we find the following recommendations

There needs to be an emphasis on protection and enhancement of existing open spaces with new provision provided through development where possible.
Seek to enhance the quality of Stakesby Vale, which failed to meet the relevant quality standard when assessed through the audit.
Seek to enhance the quality of West Cliff, which failed to meet the relevant quality standard when assessed through the audit.
Seek to enhance the quality of those play areas which failed to meet the relevant quality standards when assessed through the audit. These are as follows: Byland Road; and St. Peters.

It has to be noted that not one of these recommendations has been addressed.

We have had just 3 spends

The refurbishment of the Boxing Club at Eastside.
The White Leys Play Area.
and an unknown spend of £11,446 on sports related work (tennis courts?).

The supposed provision of £6,000 for the replacement Dundas Gardens play area is not listed – we question whether this is going ahead as a result.

The recommendation to enhance the quality of Stakesby Vale green corridor would be largely achieved with a replacement of the appalling path through that area. This is something that the Whitby Local Cycle Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) requires – surely some of these funds could go a significant way towards delivering that?

The Calla Beck natural green area has had no investment over the last few years with the result that the art trail from the early 2000’s is unrecognisable, and the “path” is impassable by the less able-bodied.

When green space is poor quality it is under utilised (and leads to lack of pride in place). That leads to poorer health and well-being. The only way to address this is to make use of the available funds – they were not brought in for NYC to sit on.

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.

Planning for 86 Stakesby Road : Our Comments

Andy Jefferson — Sun, 13 Jul 2025 12:53:11 +0000

Over the last several years there has been a continual decay in the amount of green space in the Whitby area. We have documented this extensively. The latest attempt is on the green space corridor between Stakesby Road and Byland Road, the former Harrowing Drive. The owner of one of the gatehouses (holiday let) wishes to purchase and utilise an amount of this land for parking as well as a private garden [link to planning].

Our response is below.

GREEN SPACE

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.

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 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 bits 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 of green space (as mentioned above) this clearly shows a net DEFICIT of 9.9ha of green space (deficit of 5.4ha of Natural, 6.2ha of Urban Parks, and 1.0ha of Sports with surplus of 2.7ha of Amenity), relative to the minimum standard. Once we take in to account accessibility for the resident and visitor, this shows a net DEFICIT of 21.9ha of green space (deficit of 10.9ha of Natural, 6.2ha of Urban Parks, and 7.5ha of Sports, with surplus of 2.7ha of Amenity).

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.

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. It is essential that green space in such areas be both protected and enhanced to benefit the health and well-being of the community.

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 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.

Policy ENV 8 states “The value and strategic role of the Green Infrastructure corridors within the Local Plan area will be protected and enhanced …”. The green corridor where this proposed disposal is located consists of one of the very few collections of mature trees in the parish. It provides a habitat for significant amount of species. It is also a critical access route from the Stakesby residential area, through to West Cliff, leisure centre, as well as a connection to the town centre. As such it is of significant value locally, and to dispose of a significant part of it would devalue it. It provides areas for local children to play, as well as providing a tranquil environment to walk away from cars. Such areas should be enhanced, not diminished, and removal of an area for private use only as well as providing vehicular ingress further into this area would significantly diminish it for the local community.

ACTIVE TRAVEL

Local Plan Policy INF1 (e) states “promoting sustainable modes of transport other than the private car”. This proposal fails to respect this requirement., and indeeds promotes the use of the car by provisioning the ingress of motor vehicles into a tranquil green corridor which is heavily used by local people as well as children from the local primary school. It has a children’s play area at one end and so is a focal point and safe space for children.

NYC have a declared climate target of modest increase in levels of walking, along with a 900% increase in levels of cycling by 2030. Whitby & district currently has very low levels of cycling due to the lack of infrastructure (cf UK Active Lives Survey). As a result it is essential that all existing active travel infrastructure is both protected and enhanced so as to actively encourage uptake of such modes of transport.

The Whitby LCWIP document, adopted by NYC in May 2025, has an active travel corridor along Stakesby Road and, as a result, this green corridor is critical in providing safe access to that corridor from the substantial Stakesby residential area. The Department for Transport have established that around 70% of the public would not contemplate cycling around vehicles. Policy INF 1 (g) states that any development should be “protecting, managing and enhancing an integrated network of routes for those without access to a car”. Increasing vehicle access would increase danger to all users of this area, and inhibit active travel not promote it.

The NPPF states

117. Within this context, applications for development should:

(c) create places that are safe, secure and attractive – which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, avoid unnecessary street clutter, and respond to local character and design standards;

This proposal would result in the ingress of vehicles in the centre of the active travel path and, as such fails to respect NPPF 117(c), making the green corridor less attractive, less safe for use with active travel, and increasing the conflict between vehicles and pedestrians / cyclists.

ADDITIONAL

The property proposing this change-of-use already has parking facilities, with 1 garage, and 1-2 car parking space(s) on the pavement outside the gates; this should be adequate for a house of the size in question and, additionally, Stakesby Road has on-street car parking available. Should the garage not be considered suitable for parking the owner should firstly re-purpose that space for suitable car parking before promoting further ingress of vehicles into a designated green space area.

This green space is additionally an historic thoroughfare, being the drive for the former Harrowing Hall. It should be preserved for the heritage.

SUMMARY

We hereby request that the change of use of this land is refused. Moreover, we also request that NYC arrange for bollards to be installed at the Stakesby Road end of the green corridor (like there are at the Byland Road end), so that no vehicles can spoil this tranquil area, and so that it can be a safe space for active travel.

On 28/08/2025, the date that the planning verdict should have been posted, the application was withdrawn, with a decision notice stating “I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence and confirm that the above application is now treated as withdrawn and no further action will be taken upon it.”. We consider this a victory for Whitby’s community, and will now press, with other groups, for improvements to that green corridor.

NYC Continual Desire to Build on Green Space – Lovell Homes venture

Andy Jefferson — Wed, 18 Jun 2025 07:38:34 +0000

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

Whitby Parish Neighbourhood Plan is needed

Andy Jefferson — Thu, 09 Nov 2023 18:52:52 +0000

On Tuesday 7th November 2023 there was a Whitby Town Council (WTC) meeting. We decided to attend, since the fact that they were going to discuss the recent Town Poll reminded us that we had a Town Poll on June 13th 2022 where 93% of (2288) residents who turned out to vote requested that all new build homes were made “primary residence only, in perpetuity”. Not one council has respected this vote since that date, with SBC/NYC taking no action, and WTC stating that they would be initiating a Neighbourhood Plan back in July 2022, yet have never publicised anything about it since then. For the record, a Neighbourhood Plan gives localities the opportunity to place preferred restrictions on housing, as well as green spaces, to name but two things.

Our question at their meeting was as follows

This meeting will be discussing what to do about a Town Poll.

The town had such a Poll in June last year where residents turned out in large numbers and requested a primary residence clause on new build housing. The simplest way of achieving this, in this councils remit, would be to create a Neighbourhood Plan.

In July 2022, the Planning Committee recommended to undertake a Neighbourhood Plan.

In Sept 2022, Full Council finally passed a motion to undertake a Neighbourhood Plan and people were informed that the Neighbourhood Plan “will probably take 12-18 months”

Here we are 15 months from deciding to undertake this, no discernible progress has been made – such inaction only serves to disrespect the people who took the time to vote, and impact on their faith in voting for anything in this parish if the council doesn’t follow through.

Instead we have meaningless housing motions calling on North Yorkshire Council to do things beyond their remit, and consequently achieve nothing, for media attention and not much more.

Can this council please CEASE and DESIST from activities that achieve little and instead focus efforts on delivering the Neighbourhood Plan, something that could make a meaningful difference to life in this parish, and by doing so respecting the votes of everyone who turned out for that Town Poll?

2 basic questions that require answers:

What are the current timescales for this council delivering the Neighbourhood Plan?
Which groups other than Whitby Community Network will be involved?

Thank you

The answers we got from WTC were that it would take 18-24 months from initiation (so confirming that nothing has been done) to complete the Neighbourhood Plan, and that no other groups had agreed to take part (other than ourselves). WTC also finally assigned 5 councillors to be part of a Steering Group, with one member of our group.

Doing nothing for 15 months is inexcusable. Having a town council that focusses on the critical issues important to residents has seemingly been a problem for the last year or so. We have to hope that this intervention will be the start of something better …

Parking : Letter to NYC

Andy Jefferson — Mon, 30 Oct 2023 08:39:24 +0000

Parking issues have not been tackled in Whitby for many years, with the promise of a parking strategy review being made every year since 2018, but no action resulting. With this in mind, as well as recent events, we have written to NYC regarding the problems, and the need to address them with some urgency.

To: Barrie Mason (NYC, Highways and Transportation, Parking Services, Street Scene, Parks and Grounds)

Cc: Richard Flinton (NYC, Chief Exec), Karl Battersby (NYC, Director of Environment), Cllr Keane Duncan (NYC, Exec Cllr, Highways and Transportation)

Dear Barrie,

I write on behalf of Whitby Community Network, an issues-based open group, that seeks improvements for those who live and work in Whitby and the surrounding district. As such, we work towards providing residents with what is needed for this community to be sustainable and a place where people want to live, work and bring up families, not solely a retirement and tourist destination.

We wish to bring some matters to your attention regarding parking within the Whitby parish. We understand that these fall into your remit; should there be a more appropriate colleague who is handling the specifics, please do forward this.

Tuckers Field (West Cliff Car Park)

Scarborough Borough Council (SBC), for many years, utilised land on West Cliff known locally as “Tuckers Field” for overflow car parking (200 spaces). North Yorkshire Council are continuing this trend (and indeed your website does not even mark the use of this green space as overflow any longer, as if it is for everyday use).

We wish to inform you that your use of this land is actually contrary to the purchase of the land by the tax payers of the Whitby parish, under the Public Health Acts 1875-1925. The land is solely held in trust on behalf of the rate payers of this parish, and the land was purchased for recreational open space for the public. Parking of vehicles is not recreation. To see the physical impact that this is having on the land here is a recent photo of the consequences of such a policy.

The other impact is that residents of this parish already have below the minimum requirement of green space for their recreation before we take into account misuse of this land, with the consequential impact on public health. Coastal communities like this already have lower life expectancies than the rest of the county, and this will only be exacerbated by the current practice. We were led to believe that correcting such aspects of deprivation was going to be a priority for NYC, see a report by your own Director of Public Health.

With that in mind, we request that you make steps to end the practice of utilising Tuckers Field for car parking. Indeed, continued use of this green space for parking will be viewed as an abuse of the trust in which the land is held.

Parking Strategy

The last week has seen the usual swamping of the town with tourists, serving, once more, to highlight the complete lack of a viable parking strategy for the town. Mass tourism has rendered whatever purports to be a “strategy” to be not fit for purpose.

Car parks were overflowing, resulting in parking throughout many residential areas in the whole town to the detriment of the quality of life for residents. The above photo shows parking along a significant length of Hawsker Lane, with such a quantity of vehicles that if an emergency had been declared in the vicinity of Whitby Abbey, there would have been massive delays in attending, with potential impact on life. Parking enforcement was absent. There appears to be little contingency planning taking place for major events like Goth Week, and it is the resident who has to face the consequences of this dereliction of responsibility.

A new Parking Strategy for Whitby was promised by SBC / NYC back in 2018, 2019, 2020 and every year since. It never happened, with broken promise after broken promise. Yes, we know that there is work towards a new Local Transport Plan, into which we have fed a significant amount of information. However, judging by the scope of the 2016-2045 Local Transport Plan, this will only provide macro level direction, and the related countywide parking policy will apparently take 12-18 months. We have been informed that alongside the parking policy NYC will be commencing development of parking strategies for larger towns like Whitby (answer to a question at NYC Scarborough and Whitby Area Committee, Sept 2023). We respectfully suggest that a parking strategy for Whitby is of the highest priority, and is seriously impacting on the quality of life of residents of the town. Please advise what are the timescales for resolving the problems with the currently deficient strategy.

The final point to make is that the situation with vehicle parking in this town is due, in a large part, to the failed public transport strategy for this part of the county, with utterly inadequate train services, appalling bus services, and a complete lack of investment in active travel. Lack of activity in resolving that area will also, in time, lead to the consequential failure in any climate strategy.

On behalf of Whitby Community Network, I request that you review the parking strategy for Whitby with some urgency to ensure that local interests are front and centre of the strategy being utilised. Thank you for your assistance in this important matter.

Yours faithfully,

Whitby Community Network

We have since had a very prompt response from Karl Battersby, NYC Corp Director of Environment, as follows.

Good morning and thanks for the letter.

We do recognise the issues which you highlight, and now we have a head of service for parking in post (Steve Brown) we are moving forward on a County wide parking strategy. This will not be a one size fits all approach, but will recognise that each area has its own issues and challenges which need to be addressed. The aim is to have the strategy agreed within the next 9-12 months. We would very much value your views on how the local strategy, and I will ask the team to make sure you are involved at an early stage.

In terms of Tuckers Field, we will look into the legal issues which you have highlighted and come back to you.

Regards.

Karl Battersby

We have now replied to NYC, requesting that an urgent assessment of the problems from the last weekend takes place to ensure that it does not happen again.

Thank you Karl for your prompt reply, much appreciated.

We certainly welcome the news that there is now a head of service for parking in post, and that the work on the parking strategy will be tailored to localities.

That said though, you are talking about the longer term strategy, and in the meantime we have to manage the reality of the situation “on the ground” as it were. Over the weekend, and particularly since sending our email, we have been approached by many people with different perspectives but all with a common message – what happened with parking over the weekend cannot be permitted to happen again (social media has ample examples). People who drive emergency vehicles noting that if they had had to drive such a vehicle along Stakesby Road, Green Lane, Larpool Lane, or many other roads at the weekend extremely serious consequences could have arisen very easily. People remarking on the utter absence of coning of areas to attempt to protect the safety and integrity of the town. It was almost like there had been zero planning of such an event like Whitby Goth week coinciding with school half term. We strongly believe that lessons should be learnt from such incidences, and while they can ultimately feed in to the longer term parking strategy for the locality, they should also impact on other significant tourism events in this area. Will such discussion and analysis take place?

Regards

Whitby Community Network

Green Space : Parking is NOT Recreation

Andy Jefferson — Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:05:07 +0000

North Yorkshire Council (NYC) is not in beneficial occupation of Tuckers Field on West Cliff. NYC solely holds the land in trust on behalf of the ratepayers of the Parish of Whitby, who paid for its purchase. Tucker’s Field area was purchased in 1927 by Whitby Urban District Council (WUDC), and it was done in two parts and under the Public Health Acts 1875-1925 to provide recreational open space for use by Whitby residents and visitors.

For many years Scarborough Borough Council abused this trust by permitting its use as “overflow” car parking, and this is being continued by NYC. The photo above shows the result of this abuse, with significant degradation of the surface, meaning that its use “for recreation” will not be possible for some time. This situation is the result of an unwillingness to provide adequate car parking in out-of-town Park-and-Ride facilities, and represents gross dereliction of its duties; NYC councillors should be utterly ashamed. This is just the tip of iceberg in parking, with major problems in various other parts of the town, exacerbated on busy weekends.

We call on NYC to respect the trust, and the original purpose that this land was purchased for, and prevent future car parking on it. This should be one key conclusion of the long awaited car parking review for Whitby, which has been promised by that council since at least 2018.

Dundas Gardens Play Park : Result of an FOI

Andy Jefferson — Fri, 04 Aug 2023 09:28:52 +0000

On July 18th 2023, NYC contractors bulldozed a play park at Dundas Gardens in Whitby. No notification was provided to residents or town council of this impending action. In the resultant furore we issued a FOI to get basic information out of North Yorkshire Council (NYC).

Please provide details of the decision process that led to appointment of contractors to demolish the childrens play area at the rear of Dundas Gardens, Whitby.

How was the decision instigated?
Who instigated this action?
Who signed off the action?
Where was the planning permission for this action?
Where is the plan for development of that land subsequent to this demolition?

On August 4th 2023 the FOI came back as follows

1. Reasons for the decision and the decision making process:

The site was inspected by several officers from the Parks and Countryside Department with responsibility for the maintenance of the play area and it was clear that significant capital investment would be required to restore the play area and the failing retaining structures.

In view of the Lease surrender and the lack of any available funding it was decided to recommend the removal of the play area for the reasons given above, especially due to the safety concerns.

The matter was discussed with the Environment, Enforcement and Contracts Manager who emailed the local ward members, Cllrs John Nock and Glenn Goodberry, on 2 February 2023 advising that we proposed to remove the play equipment and reinstate the site to grass and plant some trees.

The officer from Estates dealing with the Lease surrender and the Head of Assets and Risk of the former SBC also expressed the view that in the circumstances the play area could be removed. In terms of signing off the decision to remove the equipment, this was actioned by Harry Briggs, Environment, Enforcement and Contracts Manager

Several prices were obtained from local landscape contractors for the removal of the play area and retaining structures and reinstatement of the ground to grass and the required funds were obtained. In view of the safety concerns the decision was taken to proceed with the work.

2. Planning:

The removal of a play area would not normally require planning consent and this has been confirmed in this instance.

3. The Future of the Site:

The appointed contractors will be reinstating the site with topsoil and grass seed following the clearance of existing structures. We have suggested planting some trees on the grass bank but beyond that there are no plans.

The possibility is open for the development of a new play area on the site in future if a group of local residents come forward to explore this and if the required funding can be obtained. If residents have any other suggestions we will be happy to discuss these with them.

We have several questions out of that.

When was this “Lease Surrender” and who surrendered it? Knowledge of it was seemingly not passed on to the current residents on Dundas Gardens. See below for further details.
If the lease was indeed surrendered by the original residents group then why did the people taking that decision not inform the current residents, and take appropriate action over the funds remaining?
Why did Cllr John Nock and Cllr Glenn Goodberry of Scarborough Borough Council (but also on Whitby Town Council (WTC) still) apparently not do anything about this email that was sent to them in February? Did they not inform WTC? Did they not inform residents of the area, and take action to provide alternative play park facilities for those residents? What is the responsibility of a town councillor to its residents? See below for further details.
Where is the future plan for this space? NYC have admitted they have no plan for this particular area. Why is WTC seemingly devoid of any ideas here? Cllr Trumper has now arranged a meeting for Monday 21st August at 4pm in Pannett Art Gallery.

What do residents think of this process, and the fact that both their town council and their county level council were incapable of informing them of the removal of a Play Park? Are the councils not supposed to be working for the residents?

We have pursued these questions as follows :-

Surrender of Lease

NYC have mentioned lease surrender. The residents group had no knowledge of this, and have been asked whether a member of that group surrendered the lease explicitly. To this end we submitted a FOI to find the truth behind this statement.

Regarding the area previously occupied by a Play Park at the rear of Dundas Gardens, Whitby, this was previously subject to lease from 2005 until 2026 to 4 individuals from the local residents group. Can you please

1. Provide information regarding the “surrender of lease” mentioned in a previous FOI 202302007 [REF/Qd/8q/DK/b3/], stating who (names) surrendered the lease, on what date, and whether this was in writing, or verbally?

2. Can you please define at what point NYC update Land Registry details, since they still say there is an active lease on that land?

On August 15th 2023 the FOI came back as follows

Re: FOI – Play park behind Dundas Gardens – 202302293 [REF/Qz/AP/zD/B4/]

I can confirm that the council holds the names of third parties, however it is exempt from disclosure by virtue of Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (amended by Schedule 19(58) of the Data Protection Act 2018).

An email was received which confirmed the trustees intended to surrender their interest in the land.

Legal services confirmed that it is not necessary to enter into an express surrender i.e. a Deed to surrender the lease. The surrender can occur by the actions of the parties (the tenant asking to hand the property back and the landlord accepting).

We normally charge a fee of £525 for the surrender of a lease. As the trustees had no funds to pay the rent we deemed it acceptable to surrender the lease by agreement rather than a formal deed.

Either the landlord or the tenant is able to de-register a lease at the land registry. Normally this is done via the solicitor of the tenant where they are represented. If they are not represented then the landlord can do it on their behalf.

As no surrender has been signed, we are able to provide the land registry with a statement of truth setting out the circumstances of the surrender, so that the lease can be removed from the
Land Registry. Which we will arrange to do in due course.

So some person unnamed “sent an email to effect surrender of this lease”. Clearly no notification was provided to residents (or the other members of the residents group), but at least we have further facts about the supposed process followed.

After a resident of Dundas Gardens talking to the 4 lease holders from the residents group, the first 3 had zero contact about this issue. The fourth lady emailed the council and informed them of this and made some suggestions as to what they could do next and no one ever got back to her. One of the suggestions was to terminate the contract, another was try and raise more funds. The council (SBC at the time) clearly terminated like they said in the FOI and took the land back, without consulting the landlord or replying back to the first email.

All in all an exercise in how you should never treat residents.

Councillor Notification

Councillor Nock (now on WTC) contacted us and kindly provided further details about his interactions about the Dundas Gardens situation. So this now answers question 3 above.

It was suggested to me that I read an article on your website about Dundas Gardens.

Either you have insufficient facts or you have chosen to ignore those that you do have. Certainly, you should have contacted both Cllr Goodberry and me for comment before you spread allegations that you cannot support and falsely accusing us of taking no action.

As SBC councillors we were contacted in February 2023 by Harry Briggs outlining the proposal by SBC to remove the play area and re-landscape the site. A visit to the site By Cllr Goodberry and I ensued and we had to agree with Mr Briggs that the play area appeared to be unused, was run down, neglected and that some of the equipment may possibly have been unsafe to use. We asked him to reconsider his decision, as our preferred option was to repair or replace equipment as necessary and to clean up the area to make it attractive as a play area. He replied that SBC considered their option was the one to pursue and that our request was therefore denied.

A few days later I went back to Dundas Gardens to speak to residents whose properties surrounded the play park. One did not even know of its existence; several said that their children had grown up and no longer needed it; a significant number said they never saw anyone using it; a few said their children, although within the relevant age group, did not use it, and most said that were not bothered if it were to be removed. I left my SBC card with all of them, asking them to speak with other residents and to advise me if they wanted us take further protest with SBC. One family said they would monitor its use over a three week period and advise me accordingly. After three weeks or so I telephoned them and was told that that they would make contact when they returned from holiday.

I was given to understand that when the estate was built, residents formed a group which would “look after” the play park but as their children grew up and some of the original residents moved away, their number dwindled and no one has taken care of it for several years. No one mentioned any funding availability or the granting of a lease.

I never heard from any of them again. Thus we concluded that the residents had no interest in the play park and did not contact SBC again. Throughout this process, I kept Cllr Goodberry informed and he agreed with me that the best course of action was that proposed by SBC, and that I would undertake any correspondence on the matter.

All the email correspondence was done on my SBC iPad. This was wiped clean on March 31^st and I can no longer access any email history. However, we shall be obliged if you would publish paragraphs 3,4,5 and 6 on your website. Cllr Goodberry and I will consider that as a retraction of the accusation that we did nothing.

Regards

John Nock

Stakesby Ward, Whitby Town Council

Well Cllr Nock, we did not accuse you (and Cllr Goodberry) of doing nothing. Please do read the question we posed. We asked whether you did nothing, and who did you contact. Important difference (the word “apparently“, from the verb “appear” aka “seems like“), because the information from residents that we have spoken to on that estate have never had notification from anybody (hence our question and the use of “apparently“). The answer is that we were not aware of events then, and neither were residents that we have spoken to (and were wanting to know who you actually contacted, so they will ask around to find out), but now we understand that passage of this process from your perspective, so thank you for your contact, and we published the whole of your email in the interest of openness, not just selected paragraphs. You didn’t mention if you raised this with WTC at all, and what their action was. The other obvious thing to say is, you visited in February, and in winter such facilities are used less due to … the weather, the same applies for all play parks around Whitby.

Meeting about a future Play Park

Cllr Trumper set up a meeting (not that he contacted WCN, despite requesting) to discuss the replacement play park, in Pannett Art Gallery on Monday Aug 21st. Representatives of NYC Parks department attended, along with 3 WTC councillors, Whitby Community Network, Cllr Trumper, and the order of 15-20 residents. Councillor Trumper stated that “we want to be clear, the communication throughout this process has been totally unsatisfactory, it is something that NYC need to learn from, and it is not the way to treat residents”. An admission which we can only concur with.

The meeting discussed whether a future play park would be managed by a residents CIC group, or WTC, or via NYC. It was felt that the residents likely would want to avoid full responsibility for it, due to the need for safety inspections etc. WTC were going to report back to one of their committees the following day to discuss. Funding was also mentioned, with NYC Parks having an amount of S106 funds for park improvements like this, and Cllr Trumper has money from his Localities budget to put in. In terms of timescales, the order of 3 months from ordering to install is typical.

A further meeting at the Play Park site is due on Wed 30th August at 1pm.

Bulldozergate : Dundas Gardens Play Park Massacre

Andy Jefferson — Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:12:38 +0000

While it has been known for some time that Whitby has a deficient quantity (and quality) of green space, the number of play parks for younger children has not been a massive concern. The area on Stakesby Vale behind Dundas Garden has had a childrens play area for some time. The land is owned by Scarborough Borough Council (which is now North Yorkshire Council), however it is currently leased on a 21 year lease (from 2005) to 4 residents (based on current Land Registry). The same residents group in that area has been known to have funded an amount of the play area, and apparently had some funds remaining to cater for limited maintenance; it is understood that an amount of this play park management was arranged through the housing association, Home Housing.

July 18th 2023 – this all changed. Bulldozers were seen next to the children’s play area behind Dundas Gardens! By the end of the day the play park was no more.

Who was consulted about this you may ask? No contact had been made with any community group, not even with the Dundas Gardens residents group, nor the housing association (Home Housing). Whitby Town Council had seemingly not been contacted about it either. Is this an example of the level of consultation on development matters that local communities will have under this unitary authority? More ride roughshod over residents concerns? The contractors, when questioned, said that North Yorkshire Council (NYC) Parks Department had authorised it. This came as some surprise since no planning application for demolition of the play area is available. How was the decision made? By whom? How can planning be ignored for such a decision?

The local NYC Councillor (Cllr Trumper) initially stated that he understood the play park to have been “fenced off for some time” (this is demonstrably untrue and has never been fenced off to the understanding of anybody local), and that the park “has been attracting anti-social behaviour. I believe the decision was made some time ago to remove the play park and replace it with a new landscaping and seating scheme” (not one person is aware of any anti-social behaviour in the vicinity of the play park, never mind aware of “the decision” that has had zero consultation). Removing such a much used facility will only increase any potential “anti-social behaviour”, and besides a council should use a Public Space Protection Order in the case of anti-social behaviour, not a bulldozer!

July 20th 2023 – Cllr Trumper visited the site to meet with available residents, and said that he had been told “the residents group have given up the lease” (again, untrue as confirmed by a local Dundas Gardens resident). Seemingly NYC hadn’t bothered informing the councillor for the ward where the work was happening. All in all, it was a catalogue of excuses from NYC, if one doesn’t stick then use another, to attempt to justify their lack of communication and criminal damage. We, nevertheless, thank Cllr Trumper for talking to residents and taking on the problem that is effectively of his employers making and that he is tasked with sorting out.Cllr Trumper took details to arrange a meeting with all interested parties from the vicinity to provide a replacement play park “that will be better than before“. The meeting is awaited. This should be a lesson to NYC about how never to behave to its residents. Whitby Town Council really ought to be heavily involved in driving this forward from this point, and with some urgency. Cllr Trumper has now arranged a meeting for Monday 21st August at 4pm in Pannett Art Gallery.

From an article Piloting North Yorkshire’s community partnerships we have the quote “While North Yorkshire Council is England’s largest authority geographically, one of the foundations on which we have built its creation from the very beginning was that it would also be the most local. We have always said that the council will be centred on ensuring local communities are at the forefront of all that we do” (seemingly from Cllr Carl Les). It doesn’t seem so in this case.

We are told that councils want people to be more active. Is this really the way to go about it?

The immediate list of questions for NYC out of this episode are

How can such a demolition happen without planning consent?
Whilst the land where this play park was located is NYC-owned, is it not still under lease to the residents group?
Who in NYC Parks approved this? and were they acting beyond their remit, i.e illegally?
Will NYC be changing their processes to prevent it ever happening again?
Will NYC be reinstating this playground asap?
How can children get active when they bulldoze facilities without consent?
How can people get more active when the amount of green space in the Whitby parish is below the minimum level?
How can people get active when playing fields are either built on by council-led house building schemes, or schools place prison fencing around playing fields?
What is the NYC plan for improving the Whitby green space?

Until we have answers to all of these questions, this story will not be closed.

Not having confidence in councillors providing straight answers to straight questions (we’ve already been given 3 answers to the question of why it happened and all turned out to be false), the following FOI has been submitted.

Please provide details of the decision process that led to appointment of contractors to demolish the childrens play area at the rear of Dundas Gardens, Whitby. How was the decision instigated? Who instigated this action? Who signed off the action? Where was the planning permission for this action? Where is the plan for development of that land subsequent to this demolition?

Will we get a response to this from NYC before Cllr Trumper provides answers and some sort of satisfactory resolution (i.e reinstatement of the play park)?

Update : this story continues on this news post with details of the FOI response.

Play Park Assessment - Post Destruction

The current (live) play park assessment for the Whitby parish is shown on the below diagram, with the Dundas Gardens play park marked but inactive. Each play area has a surrounding area appropriate to the type of play area (Local Equipped = 350m reach, Neighbourhood Equipped = 700m reach, Settlement Equipped = 1000m reach).

As we can see, the removal of the Dundas Gardens Play Area has left a significant hole in the coverage. Children in that area likely will not be able to walk unsupervised to the next nearest play area, and so will be left without anything to do. Whilst the Pannett Park Play Area is Settlement Equipped, there remains the problem of young children getting to this facility, and hence the imposition on parents – the whole point of Local Equipped facilities is to provide something close enough that children can be trusted to get there with little supervision. This absence around the Stakesby Vale area has to be remedied with some urgency by NYC. Such an utter lack of communication is frankly shocking, and undermines any amount of verbage coming out of the council about how they want to operate.

It has to be said that access to free-to-access playing fields is also a significant problem around the Mayfield Road area.