Transport – Whitby Community Network CIC

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

Campervan / Motorhome Parking Consultation

Andy Jefferson — Tue, 21 Jan 2025 07:13:39 +0000

In November, North Yorkshire Council (NYC) brought in an experimental Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for 3 areas of the Yorkshire coast. One of these areas is Sandsend Road. During the first 6 months of this order they are running a consultation on what people think of it.

You can find the consultation HERE.

Whilst it is all well and good commenting on this very specific measure and area, it would be wise to look at the bigger picture. If campervans are prohibited in other areas, they will likely only go to the areas with no such restriction. How are campervans / motorhomes handled in other parts of the country, so we can see what other types of measures are being used? Here we present three such measures.

York Council (City of York)

The scheme set up in York is as follows

Car/Coach parks: cannot park motorhomes, most car parks have height barriers preventing access for larger vehicles.
Park & Ride sites: have designated areas for motorhomes/larger vehicles (check the opening times), overnight parking is not permitted.
On-street parking: Limited number of large on-street parking bays at specified site(s), payment by Pay-By-Phone service.
Overnight parking: Overnight motorhome parking can be booked via The Caravan Club.

Fylde Council (Lytham St Annes)

The scheme run by Fylde Council is as follows

Daytime: Motorhomes can park on any long stay or designated short-stay car parks, paying for number of bays occupied.
Overnight (7pm and 9am): Overnight parking at designated car parks, dependant on vehicle’s maximum length, for 48hrs maximum, parked in a designated motorhome bay only.
Car Park Facilities: do not offer any additional facilities. Designated sluice unit (no water supply) for use by motorhomers (cost £1.00), with one 20 minutes free designated parking bay.
Horse Boxes: allowed on designated beach/car park, must display valid permit (£20/annum) & pay and display car park ticket for each bay used. Permit enables Council to check appropriate third party liability insurance available. Whitby – for fishermen/jet skies/beach huts etc for access to lower prom?

Torbay (Torrington, Bideford, etc)

The scheme run in Torbay area is as follows

On-street Parking:

Vehicle must fit entirely within the bay markings, must not overhang any part of the bay or walls, promenades & other land.
Vehicles are not permitted to use multiple parking spaces even if more than one pay and display ticket or parking session is paid for.

Pay and Display Tickets in Car Parks:

Must purchase a pay and display ticket for each of the bays occupied & must not overhang the bay markings.
Vehicles overhanging any part of the bay markings, or failure to display the correct number of tickets will result in the issue of a Penalty Charge Notice.

Overnight Use

Overnight sleeping in vehicles or camping is not permitted, nor is the heating, cooking or preparing of food.
Suitable camping and caravanning sites across the bay with full amenities are available – see website.
Designated car parks available for campervans to park between 6pm to 10am, cost £11-£15 per night/per bay, maximum stay 2 nights in any location.

All users of campervans are not the minority that deposit human waste down drains, just like all dog owners aren’t the ones that don’t pick up. Wouldn’t providing a system that facilitates the responsible owners without inconveniencing people who live here (together with suitable enforcement on the ones that aren’t responsible) go a long way towards overcoming the problem? This would also bring in money that could be used to improve the area.

The issue of campervan / motorhome parking is much bigger than Sandsend Road. There are major problems on Upgang Ravine. There are major problems in residential areas of Whitby. There are also problems on parts of West Cliff, and in other car parks such as Abbey. A complete system is required not just a sticking plaster that makes it go elsewhere.

Why not provide designated places for overnight parking?

Why not provide marked bays for parking so then a fair system is in place for charging for parking where a motorhome is taking up the same space as 2 normal sized cars?

Why not provide designated sluice tank locations (to use for a fee)?

What do you think?

Please do fill in the NYC consultation, and have your say on what the system for the whole of this area be, not just Sandsend Road.

The future of Whitby’s Cliff Lift

Andy Jefferson — Tue, 23 Jul 2024 08:13:17 +0000

Whitby’s historic Cliff Lift has been out of action for maybe 3 years now. Communication from NYC has been non-existent regarding this vital part of the town’s infrastructure.

A Freedom of Information was recently submitted.

Please can you define

the cost estimate for repair of Whitby Cliff Lift?
the alternative mechanisms considered to a straight replacement lift to permit disabled public access to Whitby sea wall and beach?
the annual cost of the replacement bus service?
whether the free minibus service will run for 2025-2026 and onwards?
if the cliff lift will not be replaced and there will not be a free minibus service whether NYC considers that it meets the terms of the Equality Act 2010 in providing suitable access to the sea wall and beach area?

and the reply from NYC

In 2022 the estimate of cost to restore the lift to working order was £400k including replacement lift car and mechanisms, remediate internal staircase, electrical rewire etc. However, please note restoring the lift to working order does not address the issue causing the problems which is water ingress and ventilation. The cost now including solving these issues is estimated at over £1m.
The only alternative mechanism considered is a replacement bus service.
The cost of the cliff lift replacement is £345 per day. For the 2024 season running from 01 May until 29 September, this is a total of £52,440.
At this time, we are unable to confirm future plans for the replacement minibus.
A full Equality Impact Assessment will be included as part of any future decisions on the cliff lift and other options. This will assess the impacts upon different communities to ensure these are fully considered as part of the process, and that our duties under the Equality Act and Public Sector Equality Duty are being met.

In conclusion, in 3 years, seemingly nothing has been achieved regarding providing for the role of this infrastructure. No alternative solutions have been considered. One could be forgiven for thinking that this council simply couldn’t care.

Woodsmith Mine and S106 funds for improved rail services

Andy Jefferson — Mon, 15 Jul 2024 09:28:53 +0000

A recent FOI submitted to North Yorkshire Council (NYC) highlights the arrangement with the Woodsmith Mine to provide funds for the improvement of the rail services along the Esk Valley rail line. It was as follows.

In 2015 North Yorkshire County Council was party to an S106 agreement with York Potash Ltd (at the time, currently Anglo American) for provision of a Rail Infrastructure Contribution. This was for “provision of up to £4,550,000 (index linked) towards the cost of infrastructure upgrades required to facilitate the Rail Services on the Middlesbrough to Whitby rail line”. It additionally stated “In the event that the Rail Infrastructure Contribution provides insufficient funds to procure an additional four services between Middlesbrough and Whitby to use its reasonable endeavours to investigate and apply for all alternative sources of funding”.

Please define

Whether the payment of the agreed sum has been paid to North Yorkshire Council in line with these terms? If it has not been paid, please define when it will be paid by?
What infrastructure upgrades have been facilitated by these funds?
Whether the funding was indeed judged sufficient to to provide the desired 8 daily services between Whitby and Middlesbrough? If the answer is that it was not sufficient, whether NYC has applied for suitable additional funding to provide these 8 daily services?
By which date the Whitby to Middlesbrough line will provide the 8 daily services?

The reply from NYC was as follows

Partial payment of the S106 sums have already been drawn down by NYC and the current expectation is that the remaining funds will be drawdown this year.
The S106 funds have facilitated local line speed enhancements and it is currently expected that the remaining infrastructure upgrades will be delivered over the next two years.
Work on detailed design and costs on the planned infrastructure upgrades is being finalised this year, however the current expectation is that the S106 funds will be sufficient to facilitate the desired 8 daily services.
The current expectation for a start of service date for the 8 daily services is June 2027 however that date is indicative and subject to the detailed design and costs work being finalised, and an agreed programme of works with Network Rail to deliver the infrastructure upgrades.

On the positive side (if it materialises, of course) going to 8 trains per day, particularly if they are timed to cater for people working on Teesside, will be a step forward. Though there are 3 years to wait!

What the response doesn’t say, is what the journey time can be reduced to; the “local line speed enhancements” on a line that is often referred to as one of the worst in the UK doesn’t really say much. The current journey time Whitby to Middlesbrough is 1h 30 after the “local line speed enhancements”, which leaves a lot to be desired.

We can but hope that the comments made by Northern Rail at the September 2023 WCN meeting of journey times dropping to nearer 1 hour after Battersby Junction changes turns out to be true.

Active Travel Funding : Park-and-Ride scheme (2020) status finally revealed

Andy Jefferson — Wed, 29 May 2024 14:43:47 +0000

In 2020, North Yorkshire Council (NYC) bid for and received just over £1m for 4 active travel schemes. One of these was from Whitby Park-and-Ride down Guisborough Road towards 4-lane-ends. This scheme did not originate from residents, NYC simply came up with it. It would have provided very little benefit for residents, and in terms of relative priority would have been very low on any priority list of schemes to be developed in this district. After initial consultation about what they were proposing it all went silent. And stayed silent, about what was happening or what happened to the money.

Now we know. This is from an email from Carl Les to the Harrogate cycle campaign group.

With regard to Victoria Avenue, NYC was awarded £1,011,750 in 2020 towards 5 distinct active travel schemes including Victoria Avenue. Of the £1,011,750 above, Active Travel England (ATE) set out that this should be split in an 80/20 ratio between Capital (scheme delivery) and revenue (scheme development).

The scheme delivery was to be allocated as below:

A59 Maple Close Harrogate to Knaresborough (£250k)
Victoria Avenue, Harrogate (£250k)
Guisborough Road, Whitby (£250k)
Oatlands Drive, Harrogate (£261,750)

Approximately £200,000 was spent on development work against the above schemes in line with ATE’s requirements. Following dialogue with ATE, it was agreed that since the funding allocated was not enough to deliver any of the schemes on the ground, that NYC should submit a “change control” request and instead allocate all of the remaining funding to one scheme – Victoria Avenue.

So there we have it, £50k spent on design, and the rest of the funds sent to Harrogate. It has to be mentioned that NYC have still not delivered the one scheme they have diverted the funding to (£810k transferred but the scheme would apparently now cost £1.5m+).

One day Whitby may get some priority and investment. The hope is that within 6 months Whitby area will have a Local Cycling Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) document defining which schemes are provided … hence reducing the chance of NYC going off on one and picking some random scheme that is not needed. We have to hope that by that point NYC have gained the necessary skills (and set up an Active Travel department) to actually deliver schemes.