Transport – Whitby Community Network CIC

Tourism numbers for the Whitby area

Andy Jefferson — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 10:25:35 +0000

North Yorkshire Council (NYC) have been quoting estimated tourist visitor numbers in various reports, and utilising these numbers in the provision of some services (e.g Town Investment Plan, Harbour Strategy, Destination Management Strategic Plan). We have significant concerns over the numbers being quoted, and we have related our concerns to NYC, as well as to the North York Moors National Park (NYMNP) who provide their own estimated numbers.

Issue: NYC and YNYCA forward plans and strategies are being developed using figures for the visitor economy drawn from the North Yorkshire STEAM Surveys. The NY STEAM survey 2025 showed that some 2M visitors to Whitby spent 3.6M days in Whitby, with an economic impact of £353M.

Previous estimates and surveys of the number of visitors to Whitby, over the past 20 years, strongly suggest that the current STEAM figures for Whitby are significantly underestimated.
STEAM modelling is not designed to provide a precise and accurate measurement of tourism in a local area, but rather to provide an indicative base for monitoring trends.
The STEAM report for the North York Moors National Park and influence area includes the Whitby ‘enclave.’ But it is unclear which areas of the National Park and/or former Scarborough Borough Council have been included/omitted from the North Yorkshire STEAM model.

If the Natl. Park figures are included in full within the N. Yorks. figures, then the 2025 STEAM Reports would suggest that:

The NYM National Park’s visitor economy generated £1.13 billion, which would represent 26% of North Yorkshire’s total visitor economy of £4.3 billion.
There were 9.8 million tourism visits to the NYM National Park, which would represent 31% of the 31.2 million visitors to North Yorkshire.
There were 7.9 million tourism visits by day visitors to the NYM National Park, which would represent 32% of the 25M day visitors to North Yorkshire.

Some earlier reports estimating the number of visitors to Whitby:

2005 : Over 1.5 M visitor days (from Eng. Heritage and SBC report)
2006 : 1.7 to 2M visitors to Whitby (from Whitby Beacon Town Forum / EU CREST project) NB The CREST Traffic Survey analysed all NYC hourly traffic flow data for 2005 for the local road network, by type, direction, time-of-day, etc. Some 5M vehicles entered Whitby during the year. Amongst other findings it demonstrated that 45% of visitors entered the town using the A169 from Pickering and 45% using the A171 from Guisborough. Hence the Whitby Park & Ride was sited at the Western entry to the town.
2011 : DEFRA’s NE Coastal Strategy (2) report commented that the level of tourism in Whitby: “demonstrates a value to the UK economy, not only the regional or local economy.”
2011/12/13 : 3M+ visitors p.a. [from STEAM reports for Whitby commissioned by WBTF CIC]
2016/17 : 3.65M visitors (from the York Potash / Sirius Mine Planning Application to NYMNPA which found that 59% of visitors to the NYMNP included Whitby in their visit.)

Other factors to be considered:

If around half of all visitors to the NYMNP do include Whitby in their itinerary, then Whitby would represent a very significant proportion of the total North Yorkshire visitor economy – despite its population of c.13,000 residents, which represents only 2% of the population of NYC.
The earlier STEAM statistics, compiled before 2022, did not include visitors staying in AirBnBs, of which there are currently 1380 listed in Whitby. In addition, there are 1340 second homes paying the second homes premium, which represents 20% of the NYC total for all towns. The Whitby Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) by AECOM in 2024 noted that up to 44% of housing in the town comprises holiday or second homes.
From a different standpoint, the NYC Tourism Survey 2023 (by Emotional Logic) reported that, of the 12 most attractive specific towns named by survey participants: 23% said they wanted to visit Whitby for an overnight stay, while Harrogate and Scarborough came joint 2nd with 12% each. For day trips, Harrogate was the most popular destination mentioned by 17%, with Whitby coming 2nd at 15%, followed by Skipton at 7%.

Local Concerns:

Whitby has a failing infrastructure that is unable to cope with the existing volumes of traffic, despite NYC providing well over 2,000 off-street parking places plus on-street parking. The current economic climate has increased the volume of day visitors, placing yet further demand on car and coach parking facilities. Both the town centre and approach roads are subject to significant daily traffic congestion. Motorists, both visitors and residents, circle the densely-built steep and narrow streets, searching for a parking space.
Whitby is the only town in England which is wholly enclosed, on land, by a National Park. Thus, all visitors to Whitby must cross the Natl. Park using single-carriageway moorland roads (or, to a minor extent, by train from Middlesbrough or via the North York Moors Railway from Pickering).
The NYM National Park has commenced its review of the Local Plan 2026-2041. A key objective is to “Address priorities for 2025–2040 including landscape, climate change, nature recovery, housing, and tourism” – but only within the Natl. Park boundary, so excluding consideration of the needs of the Whitby enclave.
2028 is the 300th Anniversary of the birth of Captain James Cook, which is likely to attract a further substantial increase in visitor numbers to Whitby. The tricentennial celebrations include the planned return visit to Whitby of the authentic replica HMS Bark Endeavour from Sydney, Australia. The marked national and international response following her first visit in 1997 kick-started the growth of Whitby’s visitor economy. Whitby was awarded “Best Seaside Resort 2006“, by Which? Holiday magazine and still appears almost every year in the various Top 10 listings of seaside resorts.

Summary of Concerns

Urgent action is needed, to safeguard Whitby’s current and future contribution to the NYC and YNYCA visitor economy. Effective transport, traffic and parking plans need to be in operation by 2028. Detailed traffic flow studies and realistic estimates of current visitor numbers are required urgently, in order to develop and implement such plans. The NYM National Park should be invited to participate in all such planning.

Whitby West Cliff Beach Access Audit : NYC Reply

Andy Jefferson — Thu, 17 Sep 2026 16:37:58 +0000

On 20th July we sent a letter to North Yorkshire Council (NYC) regarding a Beach Access Audit that we had carried out. NYC’s Head of Economy and Tourism has now replied, as follows

Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding. A number of Council services are involved in the matters you have raised. While the Tourism team does not control or manage these assets directly, we are sending this response on behalf of the services that do.

Thank you for your letter of 20 July 2026 and for sharing the findings of the accessibility audit undertaken by Whitby Community Network CIC at West Cliff Beach. We welcome the considerable work that has gone into assessing current accessibility and identifying opportunities for improvement.

The Council recognises the unique importance of Whitby West Cliff Beach as North Yorkshire’s only Blue Flag beach and acknowledges the concerns you have raised about the impact that the loss of the Cliff Lift and the withdrawal of the temporary promenade transport service have had on accessibility for many residents and visitors.

Your audit clearly demonstrates that, whilst physical access from the lower promenade to the beach remains available, access to the lower promenade itself has become significantly more challenging for many people with mobility impairments, older residents, families with young children and others who may be unable to negotiate the steep gradients and steps that characterise this part of Whitby. The Council accepts that accessibility must be considered as a complete visitor journey rather than a single access point.

The Cliff Lift has historically provided a vital link between West Cliff and the promenade and has enabled many people to enjoy one of Whitby’s most important natural assets.

Its continued closure is therefore much more than the temporary loss of a heritage attraction. It represents the loss of a key accessibility asset that supports inclusive access to the beach and wider seafront. The Council is committed to securing a long-term solution for the future of the Cliff Lift and recognises the urgency of restoring this connection wherever practicable. Any solution must be technically, financially and operationally viable, and we await the findings of the recent updated surveys and estimates that Executive have instructed.

We also recognise the strategic importance of maintaining Blue Flag status. The Blue Flag award is not only a mark of environmental quality but also reflects the overall visitor experience, including information provision, management standards and accessibility considerations. Your observations regarding accessible transport, beach facilities, signage, information and support services therefore raise important points that merit careful consideration alongside future investment decisions for the wider West Cliff area.

In particular, we note your concerns regarding the absence of alternative transport provision during the Cliff Lift closure, the limitations of current accessible parking arrangements, the condition of supporting infrastructure, and the quality and consistency of accessibility information available to visitors. These are issues that have implications both for residents and for the thousands of visitors who choose Whitby each year.

The Council shares your view that Whitby’s coastline is one of the town’s greatest assets and that access to the beach should be available to as wide a range of people as possible. We are therefore keen to ensure that future discussions regarding the Cliff Lift, the Beach Management Centre, accessibility improvements and wider visitor infrastructure are informed by the experiences and evidence that organisations such as Whitby Community Network CIC can provide.

After speaking with colleagues across the various team that manage assets and provision of these for users of the beach, there are some acknowledgements that need to be made in relation to any such improvements highlighted in your letter. For example, unfortunately there are no real improvements we can carry out to the access ramp, railings on the ramp are not sustainable due to its location and aggressive nature of the sea, and we regularly have to replace section of railings on the promenade due to storm conditions, in addition sand level fluctuations are something we cannot control. We are however scoping out how we can introduce additional beach wheelchairs for hire locally.

Improving signage and visitor interpretation is an area that the Tourism team are working on across the county, in partnership with colleagues across the relevant service areas, and we will review how we can improve provision at this location, the audit provided is helpful in providing that user perspective.

We remain committed to working with key partners on how we can improve facilities and experiences for those affected by the nature of accessibility to the beach, including those who wish to support water activities at the location, and will look

Thank you again for bringing these matters to our attention and for the constructive tone of your report. We acknowledge the strength of feeling surrounding both the future of the Cliff Lift and the need to safeguard Whitby’s Blue Flag status.

The issues raised will be considered as part of ongoing discussions regarding the future management, accessibility and development of the West Cliff seafront area.

Thank you,

Tony Watson, Head of Economy & Tourism

Whitby West Cliff : Beach Access Audit

Andy Jefferson — Mon, 20 Jul 2026 17:25:13 +0000

We have completed a Beach Access Audit (see this website for details) for Whitby West Cliff Beach. This is particularly topical given the long running issues with the Cliff Lift.

We have notifed NYC of this, as follows

Whitby West Cliff : Beach Access Audit

20/07/2026

Whitby West Cliff Beach is the only beach awarded Blue Flag status along NYC’s 67 km of coastline.

We are very concerned that this internationally recognised accreditation is at risk following the closure of the Cliff Lift and the removal of the temporary bus service serving the Promenade
enabling ALL residents and visitors access to this beach. The only beach access highlighted by the council is the ramp from the lower Promenade to the beach, but not from West Cliff North Terrace etc to the lower Promenade.

Whitby Community Network CIC members have carried out a Whitby West Cliff beach audit to
assess how accessible the beach now is. We have used the audit form found on the “The Beach
Access Project” a UK-wide initiative to map, evaluate, and improve the accessibility of beaches and blue spaces and to propose solutions.

We appreciate there are no UK Beach/Blue Space access standards, however for a major tourist resort, “the jewel in North Yorkshire’s crown”, we would like to see a vision of “North Yorkshire leading national innovation in health and well-being as the home of the UK’s first Coastal Landscape led Natural Health Service delivery,” for both residents and tourists. We also see an opportunity here, to invest in the traditional seaside holiday providing more water-based activities for people of all abilities.

Whitby faces significant health and disability challenges, concentrated in the most deprived areas such as West Cliff and parts of the Esk Valley, with above national and county averages. (source: IMD ONS 2025). It has also one of the fastest ageing communities in North Yorkshire with around 50% of the population over 55. This together with the lack of green space in Whitby and our reliance on Tourism surely highlights the need to make the best use of our natural resources, including protecting, maintaining and enhancing our beach and sea access for both health and pleasure.

The audit has been returned to The Beach Access Project website:
https://beachaccessproject.co.uk/ with the following conclusions reached with regard to the key
components needed to enhance access for all:

Accessible parking and beach access: without the Cliff Lift or parking on the Promenade,
suitable accessible parking is not readily available. There are also no public bus services to the West Cliff, only the Tour or P&R buses which are basically for tourists. NOTE: no accessible parking is identified on the Promenade, however as there is no other means of access for disabled people, cars are now being used to access beach huts. To ensure public safety we recommend this major walking route along the Promenade, part of the Cleveland Way/King Charles III England Coast Path, is kept vehicle free, at least during given time periods. Until the Cliff Lift is repaired we would recommend a vehicle similar to the Wheelchair Access Vehicle Melex 3-series, Seating x 6 passengers, or 4 + wheelchair (used by National Trust and perhaps similarly hired from Enterprise), could be used, located and run from the Beach Management Centre to provide access for the less mobile.
Accessible toilets and changing facilities: a Changing Places Toilet is not available, and the Beach Management Centre is in need of total refurbishment or a rebuild to expand and upgrade facilities.
Appropriate access onto the beach and down to the water: only one ramp is accessible, but only as long as the base is covered by sand, the surface of the ramp is uneven, and the railings do not extend to the bottom of the ramp. There is no temporary beach matting and the surface of the sand to reach the sea can be wet, dry or mixed, depending on the tide, so difficult to access for some. Only one beach wheelchair is available (although not on site at present), based at and hired from the Whitby Surf School during the summer season.
An accessible area/space on the beach to relax: no accessible area/space on the beach, although due to tides this could be difficult to provide, but a covered space on the Promenade could be allocated, or a temporary canvas shelter-type covered platform.
High quality multi-formatted information: very limited information available at present and most is out of date, either on existing signage or on the various web sites. NYC website is out of date and lacking relevant accessibility information. In particular the increased dog signage highlighting “No dogs allowed” has led to verbal abuse for residents with sight issues taking their service dogs on the beach. The extended beach hut area, leading to a reduction in dog walking beach space has also increased the beach access issues with many stepped accesses in poor condition, unsuitable for the less mobile with dogs.
https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/leisure-tourism-and-culture/beaches/beach-locations/beach-locations/whitby-beach
Support to access the beach and the water: seasonal Lifeguards are available during given hours and are willing to help, but they have not received training for dealing with people with disabilities. It is uncertain what the Beach Manager’s duties are, however the centre was closed on two of our three visits to take photographs and opening times are not displayed.
Access to water activities e.g. swimming, paddleboarding, surfing: Whitby Surf School advised they could offer access to water activities for disabled people, but at present this is in conjunction with the Wave Project at Scarborough who can provide equipment, but suitable changing/shower facilities etc are not available.

We are interested in working with any authorities and businesses to make this beach fully accessible and to maintain its prestigious Blue Flag status. We are concerned this area (Cliff Lift & Beach Management Centre) has not been considered as part of the Town Investment Plan, as it can deliver both resident and visitor benefits. We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Whitby Community Network CIC

Y&NY Rural Bus Pilot Survey

Andy Jefferson — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:45:03 +0000

The York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority were awarded funding to carry out a Rural Bus Franchising Pilot. One of the areas under study is the North York Moors National Park, and this includes Whitby. They conducted a survey in June – July 2026, and we completed the survey as follows

2. What is the name of your organisation: Whitby Community Network CIC

3. Please provide brief details of who your organisation represents: Whitby Community Network CIC tries to cover the whole of the area typically referred to as Whitby and District, or the Whitby Travel-to-Work-Area (TTWA). This aligns very approximately with the following NYC Wards : Whitby Streonshalh, Whitby West, Esk Valley and Coast, and Danby and Mulgrave.

5. Can you provide a brief summary of your organisation’s purpose / role? (if appropriate, please provide weblink to your organisation): Whitby Community Network CIC began operating under this name in late 2024, with the effective merger of Whitby Community Network (an unincorporated association of residents of Whitby & District campaigning on matters that impact on the district), and Whitby Beacon Town Forum CIC (a CIC formed around 2007 primarily focused on sustainable tourism). It is registered as a Community Interest Company (CIC) number 06393992.

Website: https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/

Purpose: To develop a strong local community working with residents, local businesses and community groups, together with collaboration with local councils, based on transparency, democracy, localism, and community action in order to protect the historic nature of the town, to build a strong local economy and to provide a sustainable future for Whitby and District, and within that remit provide for sustainable tourism.

6. Which geographic area(s) are your responses primarily based on? Please tick all that apply:
3 – North York Moors

7. Are there any local areas in particular which your responses are focused on? Whitby & District,

8. How would you rate bus services in your area of interest against the following aspects, from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”;

Links – Buses provide adequate links to key destinations (key service centres, towns and transport hubs such as rail stations): 1
Frequency – Buses operate at a reasonable frequency: 1
Coverage – Buses provide good coverage by time of day (day time, evening, weekend): 1
Accurate information – available about bus services for example at bus stops, printed timetables, digital journey planning or real-time updates: 1
Reliable bus services: 2
Affordable – Bus travel is affordable and good value for money: 3
Quality – the bus service (bus stops, vehicle quality, driver friendliness) is good: 2

Other comments (please specify):
Key destinations such as hospitals & other health & welfare services have no direct links, including Whitby, Scarborough, James Cook hospitals & Scarborough Community Diagnostic Centre. Other hospital used by local residents including Bridlington, Hull, York and Northallerton are virtually impossible to access via public transport with many people having to pay for taxis.
Villages not on the major Middlesbrough-Scarborough route have either no or poor bus links.
Frequency – no Sunday/weekend services for Sleights one of the largest villages in England, no mid-
afternoon or late-night services through the week.
Communication generally very poor. Reliable bus services have not been available for many years due to many breakdowns, unsuitable buses for terrain/narrow roads etc, and lack of drivers likely to deteriorate further due to closure of the Redcar Depot.
Buses only affordable when fares retained at lower rates, however this is dependant on the number of buses needed to get to your destination.
Quality of bus service – lack of bus shelters in an area with unpredictable weather & a much higher ageing population than the rest of NY is totally unsatisfactory.

9. To what extent do bus and public transport services provide good access for different journey purposes and different groups of people in your area of interest? from 1 “don’t meet any needs” to 5 “meet all needs”?
Work – Links to major employee destinations: 2
Health – Links to hospitals and health care facilities: 1
Education – Links to secondary schools, sixth forms & colleges: 2
Key service centres – Links to access facilities such as shops, post offices, etc.: 2
Other transport services – Links to transport hubs / train stations, etc.: 2
Leisure destinations – Links to amenities such as leisure centres / evening entertainment: 2
Visitor destinations – Links to visitor attractions, popular countryside destinations: 2
Other (please specify):
Bus services inadequate and unreliable to cover all basic needs resulting in car ownership being a
necessity to access all key destinations. People are reluctant to use buses for any sort of timed
appointment because of unreliability, or they have to take an earlier service to ensure arriving on time. Many people have to pay for expensive taxis to be able to access hospital services.
Car ownership however is much lower, particularly in Whitby resulting in lack of opportunities for jobs, education and health service access.
Many of the villages, housing estates and key destinations in Whitby (a Principal Service Centre) eg West Cliff beach & the Abbey, are not covered by bus routes, and bus services have limited connection to key railway stations at coordinated times.
Whitby Park and Ride service: web site claims “The park and ride offer’s an affordable alternative to town centre parking and caters for a range of customers from commuters to day -trippers.” Again, this is mainly for tourists as seasonal opening times do not suit local workers/residents, with the bus running empty for most of the day.
Bus Services advertised on NYC website are in some cases mainly for visitors (tour buses/P&R/840), or a school bus service.
Bus-rail links where they exist don’t coordinate.
The lack of easily accessible information is extremely frustrating to all.

10. Are there particular groups of people or communities whose transport needs are currently not
well met? Please explain below:
· Disabled and elderly people are particiularly disadvantaged because of the lack of public transport.
· Car ownership is much lower, particularly in Whitby, resulting in lack of opportunities for jobs, education and heath service access, this particularly affects those on lower wages or unemployed.
· Villages not on the major Middlesbrough-Scarborough route have either no or poor bus links. Some villages in the Whitby & District Catchment Area have no bus services to the “Principal Service Centre” of Whitby including: Roxby, Borrowby, Newton Mulgrave, Kettleness, Goldsborough, Mickelby, Ugthorpe, Hutton Mulgrave, Dunsley, Newholm, Stainsacre, Low Hawsker, Sneatonthorpe, Raw, Littlebeck, Beckhole, Egton Bridge, Street, Fryup, Houlsyke, Danby Ainthorpe, Castleton.
· Public bus services have limited hours, therfore unsuitable for shift workers.
· Some services are directed at tourists, not residents due to operational times such as: Service number: 840 – Leeds – Malton – Whitby.
· People working in the “Key Service Centre” of Whitby are not catered for by public transport, with a lack of services for early/late shift workers, particularly for employees in the Hospitality sector.
· Bus services generally very limited or non-existent on Sundays/Bank Holidays, affecting residents, businesses and tourists.
· The P&R is advertised by NYC on their website as available for “commuters”, however due to
the limited opening hours and the lack of year-round opening this is not suitable.

11. If it were possible to make improvements to bus services, which of the following would have the greatest impact on enabling people to travel more by bus in the area you are commenting on?
Please identify and rank up to three items.
Please use the open text box to add any specific additional information

Links to key destinations: Priority 1
Frequency improvements: Priority 2
Better coverage by time of day (day time, evening, weekend): Priority 3

NYC Website highlights: Bus Services Serving Whitby: There are 7 bus services serving Whitby. https://northyorkstravel.info/place/?place=whitby&page=2
We would note the information is unclear and would highlight the following:

Only 95, 96, 840, X4/X4A, X93/X94 available to the general public, most with limited schedules and many villages and estates in Whitby not served.

Grey & Yellow Line classed as Tour buses and only seasonal. Residents can use, but charged per stop.

Service number: 384S – only serves Scarborough 6th Form College – why not the Univesity Technical College and Scarborough TEC ? Also not available to residents.

Coastline 840 is mainly a tourist bus operating from Leeds, the 843 service does not serve Whitby & District, so not sure why this is included.

Again we would point out much of the public bus information on most websites is inaccurate or unclear and would ask better up-to-date information is available both on websites and at bus stops suitable for our disabled and ageing population.

We are concerned that the present public bus service appear to address tourism needs before resident’s needs, such as getting children to school, people to work and residents to important appointments such as hospital and welfare/care facilities. Whitby has also been identified as a “Principal Service Centre” by North Yorkshire Council, so surely, we should be have a public transport hub connecting the Whitby & District community and the surrounding main towns. An example of this is highlighted by the following “My friend and I, both 80yrs olds live at Robin Hoods Bay with no car. We use the buses regularly and we have had lots of problems this year in particular as we have been cut off (the bus going straight to Scarborough rather than coming round R.H.Bay) with no warning and no alternative transport provided which is very annoying and awkward If you have an appointment or have to catch a train. Even normally you can’t rely on them as sometimes they don’t show up and you have to go before you really need to make sure you get there on time. There doesn’t seem to be any communication between the council and other services with Arriva and it’s just not on.”

Whitby and District is included in the “North York Moors” pilot of this consultation – again is this to improve tourism or for residents? We wish to query why Whitby is not included in the bus services from Tees Valley (where the Middlesbrough/Scarborough services originate
from), when this covers Richmond, Ripon and Northallerton?

We are also concerned by the lack of ambition shown by the draft Transport Plan & the Strategy for a Sustainable Future plan, particularly bearing in mind the excessive temperatures, flood, fire and storms now being experienced.

Following our MP’s criticism of Whitby’s rail links to Middlesbrough as “one of the worst in the country,” the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, DfT, Simon Lightwood MP, said “Connecting small towns is critical for the wider economy. Reliable commuter rail services can transform opportunities, making it easier for people to access jobs in nearby cities while continuing to live in the communities that they value.”
Surely this applies to public transport of any kind including buses!

The Cliff Lift and its importance to West Cliff Beach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whitby Swing Bridge works : status

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

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

1. Swing Bridge surface works timescales

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whitby Cliff Lift Inspection Reports 2016-2022

Andy Jefferson — Wed, 06 Aug 2025 13:15:11 +0000

A concerned resident has obtained maintenance reports for Whitby Cliff Lift. The lift has been closed since 2021, and is currently threatened with having the lift shaft “infilled for £600k”.

The reports are as follows

The reports highlight problems that have been ongoing for years, marking things needing fixing …. but did they get any maintenance subsequent to these reports stretching back years?

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 Parking Strategy Mitigation for Endeavour Wharf utilisation?

Andy Jefferson — Thu, 20 Mar 2025 11:28:08 +0000

North Yorkshire Council (NYC) recently announced that, to facilitate the construction of the Maritime Hub for Whitby Town Deal, “As a result the Endeavour Wharf car park will be closed from 31 March. Operational harbour access will be retained for permit holders. Alternative parking is available in Langborne Road“.

This prompts more questions than it answers. Endeavour Wharf car park has 250 spaces. This closure is for 13 months. The “alternative car parking” mentioned are simply the Marina Front/Back/Users Car Parks. These car parks are often full, so how the 250 spaces from Endeavour Wharf are being provided for with this “alternative” parking we are not sure.

In the NYC Executive meeting for this project it was claimed that the loss of parking spaces “would be alleviated through the increased use of park and ride“. Given that Park-and-Ride is pretty much at capacity, how there is “increased use” is not defined.

With this in mind we asked the NYC Head of Parking Services (Steve Brown), as follows

Good morning Steve,

back in September (2024) you came to one of our Whitby Community Network public meetings and mentioned that the coast (Whitby and Scarborough) would be a top priority for long awaited parking reviews. Your council is at the point of closing a 250 space off-street car park in Whitby (250 spaces out of the approximately 2000 spaces available) for more than a year and this is going to have a major impact on parking here. Residential areas are already besieged by tourists parking outside homes for many months of the year, and this is only going to go one way.

Do you have a mitigation plan for this closure, in terms of where people will be directed and where any extra space is located?
Do you have timescales when we get this (long awaited) review?

Regards

Whitby Community Network CIC

It has to be said that the impact here is not just the 250 spaces, but also the fact that the Harbourmaster “stores” as well as crab pots have been moved (from Endeavour Wharf) to the Harbour Back/Users car parks so there are also lost spaces on those car parks.

It has to be noted at this point that Whitby Town Council (WTC) voted to support the planning of the Maritime Hub on the condition that extra car parking was provided elsewhere to compensate. Has it been? Or has NYC simply ignored the condition?

With Endeavour Wharf closed from 31st March 2025, we sent a further email.

Steve,

Given that the closure of Endeavour Wharf parking is now coming in and we have not had a reply regarding what is the adopted strategy of North Yorkshire Council with regards to mitigation, we feel that some points need making.

Whitby Town Council gave their support to the construction of the Maritime Hub on Endeavour Wharf on the express condition that “due to the loss of car parking spaces, Park and Ride provision should be extended and/or alternative parking should be developed elsewhere within the town to mitigate the loss”.
The report for the planning approval for the Maritime Hub stated “10.3 the whole of Endeavour Wharf car park will be closed to the public for the duration of the construction. This will reduce the number of off-street car parking spaces in Whitby by 250 (from a total of approximately 850). This will result in an income loss at the site of approximately £650k over the course of construction. Not all of this income will be lost to the council – some will be displaced to other car parks within Whitby, subject to capacity. It may be possible to put on a shuttle bus from the Abbey Headland car park, for example – it is estimated that this could cost in the region of £150-175k for the duration of the construction.“
During the NYC Executive meeting for approval of this facility the exec member for Harbours said that NYC “intend to make good on the loss of parking by making greater use of the park and ride service“.

The following points need making

Without an additional amount of car parking, the concerns of Whitby Town Council will have been ignored.
Existing (off street) car parks in Whitby are (already) full for many months of the year.
Park-and-Ride is likewise fully utilised during many months of the year.
cars that cannot get in to off street car parks will end up parking on residential streets, causing further disruption to residents. We really do not want to go back to the photos reported to Karl Battersby et al some time back when emergency vehicles would have been unable to get to several parts of the town due to such on street parking (and that was with Endeavour Wharf car park offering nearly 250 spaces).

A viable parking strategy is urgently needed irrespective of this closure, and a mitigation plan is needed due to this closure.

Please advise.

Whitby Community Network CIC

And shortly after we had a reply

Thank you for your email, I do recall my visit to your meeting on the 16th September last year along with Richard Marr. As I recall I told the meeting that a Parking Principles document was being written, this will form a framework from which new policies can be formed without the need to keep changing already established items etc. That document has been written, but I am sure that you can imagine the vast complexities that this great county presents when trying to establish something that works for everybody, it is nearly there, and I expect that it will get its final hearing soon. The promise that Whitby and Scarborough will be the first to be assessed has not changed and as soon as practical it will be but the main points that I have taken away or gathered are:

Parking Capacity – Whitby has 1936 parking spaces currently plus some greenfield ‘overspill’ sites that are weather dependant. It is accepted that 250 spaces at Endeavour wharf will be lost during the Maritime Hub phase and to mitigate this an additional Park and Ride site will be established at Abbey Headland from the Spring Bank Holiday until the end of summer. This bus service is provisionally set to run approximately every 30 minutes during the running periods. Customers will be expected to pay to park, and the bus will be free. This service will remain under constant review during the operating times and can potentially be adjusted to suit dependent upon demand. About 100 spaces at Endeavour Wharf will be lost to the Maritime Hub when handed back as a public car park thereby reducing overall parking capacity in Whitby to 1886 spaces. Part of the consultation that will be carried out with the stakeholders will be suggestions regarding additional capacity amongst a raft of other parking related items.
Residents Parking – At our meeting last September and subsequent correspondence from various sources a concern in the Whitby community is that residents are competing with Tourists for space. This is not uncommon in North Yorkshire, particularly in the coastal areas. As part of the parking review in Whitby, Residents only parking in some areas may be a possibility along with other residents parking schemes that are currently being considered and will be brought to the table for debate when the time comes. There are many components to the residents parking issue that include air B&B’s, guest houses, HMO’s all who are competing for kerb space and have to be considered as well.
Camper Van Parking – This thorny issue is of course well known and again there is a contrast of opinions as to what can or should be done about it. The council is currently running a trial with an emergency TRO (ETRO) which has been put in at specific sites and after a set period of time the Council will evaluate the effectiveness of the scheme and what comes next.

To summarise. The plans for the Park and Ride to supplement the loss of parking provision to the Maritime Hub build is at an advanced stage and will be in place to start at the Spring Bank holiday. The Parking Principles and subsequent local action planning will also start hopefully in the summer and be assured that it is progressing as fast as we can given its complexity. The ETRO for campervan parking is in full swing and we will see how that progresses as the coast starts to ramp up for summer. A short email for a big subject but the truth is that there is progress being made and I look forward to seeing you again soon.

Steve Brown

Head of Parking Services, NYC

We thanked Steve for his reply, and raised the question of viability of access to the Abbey plain area, with Green Lane already being at capacity, and the only other route in being via Hawsker Lane – this to be taken in the context of 80+% of the net influx in to Whitby being from the Teesside / Pickering side.

We also had a reply from the local NYC councillor, Neil Swannick after bringing it to his attention, as follows.

Thank you for bringing the plans for a temporary Park and Ride facility on the Abbey headland to my attention.

For me, like you, the proposal raised a number of questions and I requested a meeting with the Head of Parking.

The meeting with relevant officers and Cllr Trumper, finally took place last Thursday in Whitby.

Whilst broadly in support of the idea of a plan to deal with the impact of the temporary closure of Endeavour Wharf to parking during the Maritime Hub construction, Phil and I were able to raise and have answered a number of questions relating to the operation of such a scheme.

We discussed the question of available space at the Abbey Headland car park, the use of Green Lane for traffic and buses, the signage necessary for vehicles arriving via the Guisborough Road, and the improvements that need to be made to the walking route down the steps at Caedmon’s Trod. Officers agreed to take these issues away for further investigation.

I hope that the contribution of our collective local knowledge will improve the scheme and minimise disruption for residents. I am also hopeful that consideration will be given to my idea for a bus stop for residents on Green Lane which might provide evidence for a more permanent service.

Cllr Neil Swannick