Walking – Whitby Community Network CIC

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

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.

NYC Spend on Active Travel

Andy Jefferson — Fri, 16 Feb 2024 18:36:41 +0000

A recent report by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) highlighted the poor funding for active travel across England. Spend per head of population in London was around £24/head/yr, whereas was £10/head/yr in the rest of England. It also revealed that “for every £1 spent on active travel infrastructure, there is an average return on investment of £5.62, compared to just £2.50 for roads”. A compelling case for investing in providing facilities for walkers and cyclists.

An FOI on North Yorkshire Council reveals that the situation in our county is far worse than the England average.

	Roads				Active Travel
Year	Revenue (£)	Capital (£)	Total (£)	Total / head (£)	Revenue (£)	Capital (£)	Total (£)	Total / head (£)
2021-2022	10,791,804	38,680,000	49,471,804	78.53	35,811	1,402,000	1,437,811	2.28
2022-2023	10,982,592	30,134,000	41,116,592	65.26	45,764	3,052,000	3,097,764	4.91
2023-2024*	8,937,977	22,833,000	31,770,977	50.43	10,670	1,689,000	1,699,670	2.69

* = estimated total for 2023-2024

We will ignore the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 years for now, since there would have been an amount of spend by borough councils during those years (e.g Scarborough borough would have spent around £0.3m capital near Whitby 2020-2021, £0.49m capital near Scarborough 2022-2023). Focussing on the sole year of the NYC unitary (2023-2024), we have a total spend on Active Travel of £1.7m for 630000 residents. That is an investment per head of just £2.69/head/yr. In 2022-2023 this was £4.91/head/yr (plus anything from borough councils), and in 2021-2022 it was £2.28/head/yr (plus anything from borough councils). For all three of the requested financial years, NYC is significantly below the average for England (and that is after removing London from that average).

It should also be noted that the majority of this is listed as “footway maintenance”. That is, the majority of work being undertaken is typically just maintaining existing paths rather than developing new paths. We do not have a “network” of paths, and so the development of new paths is essential to be able to overcome the significant barriers to achieving any form of “modal shift”.

Focussing on the Whitby district, the only significant spend over the last 10 years has been the £0.3M for the Cinder Track upgrades in 2021, which had little impact on levels of active travel uptake. If we average that spend over the last 10 years that works out at just £1.20/head/yr.

Bear in mind that, of the funds that have been received by NYC in recent years for developing new infrastructure, these have typically been for projects in the Harrogate area and have delivered very little. We have to question the basic commitment of NYC to active travel. Only time will tell if a new mayor will make any difference to these appalling numbers. Seems like if there is a “war”, it is on the pedestrian and cyclist.

We call on North Yorkshire Council to

Publish on its website clear numbers of spend on each mode of transport for each financial year, so that its relative commitment to different modes of transport can be seen transparently.
Give the NYC Public Health department a far greater say in direction of spending on transport schemes, given that that there is a significant health and well-being issue in this county (particularly in coastal communities), and NYC Public Health are very aware of the health benefits of active travel.
Whilst this will be dependent on national government policy and the direction of the mayor, aim to increase its investment into active travel capital schemes substantially across the whole of the county, aiming for the IPPR recommendation of £35/head year on year. Only with a commitment of this type will any noticeable impact be made on the underlying health problems in the population, as well as achieving its own climate commitments.

Joint statement for a safer Whitby, and North Yorkshire

Andy Jefferson — Fri, 01 Dec 2023 07:54:32 +0000

20s Plenty for North Yorkshire and Whitby Community Network have jointly made an activism video on Whitby’s urgent and growing elderly and child road safety crisis. It’s critical as North Yorkshire council decided on a school merger despite no child friendly way to access the amalgamated Secondary site. Concerned residents aim to protect public health by normalising lower speed limits for most roads. Default 20mph “where people are” is UN best practice for duty of care, to raise public health and for cycling and walking to be boosted for all ages or anyone with an invisible disability like impaired mental health.

Andy Jefferson, local resident who has elicited the support of all GP surgeries in Whitby and the Esk Valley for a North Yorkshire wide default 20mph policy, has made this video.

For many years Whitby has requested funds to become more pedestrian and bike friendly. A year ago, the town council voted for default 20mph and asked North Yorkshire Council (NYC), the Highways Authority for their support, to no avail. The Vision for Whitby public consultation in May highlighted a significant perception of road danger at many junctions for pedestrians. So far, we have not had a positive response. Our video highlights our road safety fears and preferred solution.

Whitby has an old and aging population – double the national average of over 60s. Over 70s are five times more likely to be killed on a road than other ages. Note that any serious collision incurs a massive financial impact on the state. Life expectancies in the Whitby area are amongst the lowest countywide, with a declared NYC public health strategy to address health inequalities, yet action is not yet promised to effectively mitigate road danger.

A secondary school merger, in Sept 2024, means that 400 children will walk alongside dangerous roads, some set at 40mph – facing just 10% survival levels if hit. Vision scientists have proven that children under 14 cannot cope with crossing traffic over 20mph. Their eyesight and visual processing can’t cope with looming – understanding the sizes of traffic travelling fast – no amount of road training can change that. Effective road danger reduction solutions include lowering speed limits, education for voluntary driver compliance and enforcement.

Whitby has very poor road crossings. North Yorkshire Councillors have yet to fund the amalgamated school’s safer routes. Whitby people are justified in their great and growing fears and concern for child duty of care and for the safety of their elderly, disabled and visitor populations. Whitby must become a safer place to be to thrive for its health and economic future.

Cycling to school is omitted from all Whitby school travel plans due to a high risk assessment. Childhood obesity is a significant related problem. Few people currently cycle in Whitby. In the Active Lives survey Scarborough borough has about 9% of people cycling once per week. As Whitby has far less infrastructure its levels are significantly lower. Whilst Scarborough has a plan to significantly expand its cycle infrastructure further, Whitby does not. When you have all GP surgeries, who have to cope with related health issues on a daily basis, as well as the majority of schools backing the move for increased active travel as well as default 20mph, Councillors really do need to listen.

The people of Whitby, and indeed the majority of North Yorkshire residents, want confidence that they have elected County Councillors who tackle road safety issues that blight lives. Councillors have powers to set local speed limits and must urgently use those powers. Road violence kills ten times more people than murder and prevents vulnerable people from getting about.

20’s Plenty for North Yorkshire is calling on all combined authority Mayoral candidates to commit to road danger reduction, and pledge to support a 20mph default speed limit where vulnerable road users mix with motor traffic unless protected by separated infrastructure.

Concerned residents have launched a petition for the target of 0 killed or seriously injured by 2030, with an intermediate target of a 50% reduction by 2027. Normalising 20mph is key to its achievement. The wording is:

“We petition City of York Council & N Yorks Combined Authority to reduce traffic harm by adopting the Vision Zero target of zero killed or serious road injuries by 2030 with an intermediate target of 50% fewer vulnerable road user KSI’s by 2027. We call for Safe Systems and traffic reduction; key is a 20mph default limit in built-up areas across the region and speed reduction on all road classes, including arterials where people are.”

Links to the online and paper versions of the petition are at Action Vision Zero in York & North Yorkshire. Over 200 signatures have already been gathered in person and online. 1000 triggers a council debate.

The City of York Council Road Safety consultation is open till Sunday 4^th February 2024 at https://www.york.gov.uk/BigTransportConversation. Any York or North Yorkshire resident can reply. The Town and Parish Councils of 153 North Yorkshire Parish areas support wide area signed 20mph limits (signage not humps, default 20mph not blanket, with exceptions where justified).

Cinder Track : Email to NYC / Sustrans

Andy Jefferson — Tue, 08 Aug 2023 16:50:38 +0000

The recent heavy rain, followed by a trip along the Cinder Track by bike, resulted in us sending the following email on 8th Aug 2023 asking NYC to divulge their maintenance plan for this track.

To: Cllr Keane Duncan (NYC Exec Cllr for Transportation and Highways),

Cinder Track Officer (NYC),

Sustrans Network Development Manager (Yorkshire)

As you all are aware, the Cinder Track is the only cycle infrastructure in the Whitby area, with the order of £300k spent on the surface in 2020 for the Whitby to Hawsker section, though it remains solely a leisure route due to lack of access points. The surface onwards from Hawsker to Robin Hoods Bay had some pot holes, but was easily navigable, but then from Robin Hoods Bay to Ravenscar the surface deteriorated significantly, with huge potholes, and significant areas effectively no better than a quarry. Reminder, that this is designated NCN1, a national route!

The recent heavy rainfall has highlighted how poorly prepared the existing surface is for any inclement weather. Summary of findings from a ride Whitby – Ravenscar on 8th Aug 2023.

Complete lack of vegetation management between Larpool and Hawsker, resulting in the usable track being just a bike width, which negates the £300k spent on the surface. This happens every year.
South side of A171 at Hawsker going up the hill towards Bottoms Lane the surface has been completely washed out, now with gouges, exposed rocks and ruts to a depth of a foot in places. The section is narrow as it is but when there is little usable surface it is simply dangerous.
Where the track starts to descend in to Robin Hoods Bay, the surface has also been badly washed out in many places, very hard to navigate the track now, badly rutted over a long distance.
The section at Brow Side (RHBay to Ravenscar) is an utter quarry, with significant amounts of gravel having been washed out of the surface.
On the final ascent to Ravenscar, there is tape across the track where the steep bank kicks up and a large area of track has collapsed with electrical cabling revealed. No signage has been provided on the track before / after this, so what people are expected to do here is unknown.

Apologies, no photos, too busy trying to stay upright on the track!

Can North Yorkshire Council please define what is their maintenance plan for the track between Hawsker and Ravenscar, in terms of short term (to address these recent wash outs) and longer term (to address the inherent failings of the lack of an adequate surface)? The current areas that are unsafe need signage informing the public of this; it is utterly unacceptable to just leave it as is.

Should there be no remedy to the short term problems then Sustrans really should seriously consider declassifying significant sections of this track, both for public safety, but also because it simply does not meet any standard that we should aspire to.

As the area partner for Cycling UK in the Cycling Advocacy Network, we can only say that this track is doing very little to encourage cycling in this area, and no matter how much we would like to recommend it, both to locals and visitors, there are significant failings holding it back.

Regards

Whitby Community Network

We have had a reply from NYC stating “the Countryside Access Service department looks after public rights of way, yet the CinderTrack is not a public right of way […] and transitional arrangements resulting from the Local Government reorganisation have yet to determine which team will look after the route in the long term“.

So we await the return from holiday of the Assistant Director of “Integrated Passenger Transport, Fleet, Licensing, Harbours and Countryside Access” to hopefully shed some light on the situation.

We followed up our original email, with this email on 29th Aug 2023

Good morning,

we are now 3 weeks on from the report of serious problems on the Cinder Track between Hawsker and Ravenscar.

Some points that need making

Thanks to NYC Parks department for finally cutting vegetation between Larpool and Hawsker; track width is better now, not that some of the “new” surface doesn’t have vegetation growing through it after just 2 yrs from laying. We do hope that this will be part of regular maintenance because it had been overgrown since June, and to achieve NYC stated carbon targets with modal shift and 900% increase in cycling such encroachment into the path will only deter cycling uptake not increase it.
We have had multiple reports of people falling off their bikes on the sections reported, as well as reports of people turning back due to the standard of the surface in places, particularly around Hawsker (a photo is attached of one part of washed out surface). There is one sign at the main road at Hawsker (attached photo), but it had fallen off and also simply says go slow, when in reality going slow on a bike through deep gravel will not alleviate the danger (going slow over the subsequent ruts would make sense). No idea if there are equivalent signs at the other areas with washed out surface, since we don’t consider it rideable to go and check.
Regarding the problem at Stoupe Brow, it was barriered off with online diversion info provided within a couple of hours of my original email. Since then we understand that Northern Powergrid have given a safety go-ahead for works to be performed, but that nothing has actually happened to fix the collapse, and there are worrying reports of some people ignoring the barriers.
We find it concerning that 5 months on from becoming a unitary authority, NYC still have not decided which department will preside over this facility long term.

We look forward to the maintenance/development plan (short term, and long term) for the Whitby-Ravenscar section of this path to see whether NYC will be intent on providing something that truly benefits the public and is indeed worthy of promoting cycling. We just hope it doesn’t follow the pattern for much infrastructure in the Whitby area during the last several decades, left to decay, whilst continuing to blindly promote the area to tourists.

Regards

Whitby Community Network

On 1st September 2023 we had a reply from NYC Assistant Director for Countryside Access, as follows

Thank you for your email regarding the Cinder Track and the specific issues you raise with regards to the track surface between Hawsker and Ravenscar.

Firstly, with regards to the poor surface, this is an issue on a number of rural sections of the track. As you’ll be aware, we have been very successful in securing external funding for track improvements over recent years, including improvements to the Whitby – Hawsker and Scarborough – Scalby sections, and we will continue to seek additional funds wherever possible to deliver improvements. Along these lines, you may also be aware that we are currently developing plans for the next phase of track restoration between Burniston and Cloughton which will see a new track surface and increased track width together with improved access points.

With specific reference to the sections of the track mentioned in your email I am pleased to report that our contractors have just completed the emergency repair works to the Stoupe Brow section of track and this will be re-opened in the next few days. In addition, we will be undertaking further improvement works to the track surface between Ravenscar and Robin Hoods Bay over the coming weeks.

Finally, in response to your concern regarding the future responsibility for the track, I am sure that you will appreciate that the work associated with developing new service structures for the Council will take some time and is a complex process. That said, I can assure you that North Yorkshire Council recognises the importance of the Cinder Track and will continue to seek opportunities to deliver improvements wherever possible.

Kind regards

NYC Assistant Director for Integrated Passenger Transport, Licensing, Fleet, Harbours and Countryside Access

This reply seemingly omitted to mention any work to fix the problems between Hawsker and Robin Hoods Bay. So we pursued it with the following email

Thanks for your time and your reply, much appreciated.

We welcome the works at Stoupe Brow (and from the photo of that section it looks much better), and similarly the planned work between Robin Hoods Bay and Ravenscar.

Unfortunately you have omitted to mention the problems most local to us, between Hawsker and Robin Hoods Bay, where the surface is completely washed out and frankly dangerous. As said, we have several reports of people, particularly children, falling off bikes on these sections. Further to that we have reports from a holiday business that specifically caters for less able-bodied people near Hawsker, and their clients have not been able to use the track heading south (in the direction of Robin Hoods Bay) since it is now totally unsuitable for wheelchairs and other mobility devices; we will be visiting this business during the coming week, to see first hand how it affects them (since we are motivated to promote cycling here, and currently don’t have the infrastructure to perform that task). We are now four weeks on from the deterioration of the surface, can you please tell us when the Hawsker to Robin Hoods Bay section will be made safe to ride for everybody, including children and less able-bodied people?

Side note : Whilst I’m sure residents around the Scarborough area are delighted with the £700k that Sustrans are putting in for the much needed improvements Cloughton to Burniston, and we really do welcome any investment, that section has no bearing whatsoever on being able to promote cycling in the Whitby area which was the focus of our email. Given that cycle investment in North Yorks (and Whitby in particular) is very low, I can understand your desire to “enhance the positive” but remaining on the issue at hand would be more appreciated in our area; I had to make a similar point to Sustrans a couple of years ago when I was volunteering for them and asked about their plans for providing anything local to Whitby to help promote cycling here, and they replied that they were working on the Scarborough LCWIP!!!

Regards

Whitby Community Network

Active Travel and Road Safety in the Esk Valley

Andy Jefferson — Tue, 16 May 2023 13:48:05 +0000

To date Whitby Town Council, Lythe Parish Council, and Mickleby Group Parish Council have voted in favour of “default 20mph” speed limits in urban areas (“where people are”) backing the 20s Plenty campaign. However those councils are still waiting on North Yorkshire Council (NYC) to implement this in their areas, with no current prospect of any change.

Whitby Community Network (WCN) wants to provide the opportunity for residents to voice support for active travel and 20mph speed limits in all areas of Whitby and District. With this in mind we have contacted all primary schools, secondary schools and all GP surgeries in the Esk Valley from Castleton through to Whitby, asking them whether they would like to back this basic message :-

“Vehicle speed is a disincentive to active travel. In areas where 20mph has been implemented walking and cycling rates have increased. We are hoping to see a reduction in road speeds around schools, and all of the evidence supports a change from 30mph to 20mph ‘where ever people are’ (‘20splenty for us’). In all road collisions 2/3 happen in 30mph zones, and the mortality rate for a pedestrian from a collision at 20mph is 2.5% whereas at 30mph it is 20%!

Walking or cycling to school has been shown to increase mood, energy levels, alertness and self esteem. Children have been found to be more relaxed and ready to start the day than those taken by car (Mental Health Foundation). Active Travel (walking, cycling, scooting) has been shown to reduce the rising obesity problem in children 10.1% of reception age children (age 4-5) are obese in 2021/22, with a further 12.1% overweight. At age 10-11 (year 6), 23.4% were obese and 14.3% overweight. Four out of every five obese children will become obese adults and consequently at increased risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancers and of losing 10-20 years of good quality life.

The target of the UK Government, and North Yorkshire Council, is to see a 48% reduction in car journeys by 2027 along with a 900% increase in cycle journeys. A significant shift in behaviours is clearly needed, and that will not happen while residential roads remain at 30mph. A majority of North Yorkshire local councils already support the 20s Plenty campaign. We hope that you will support it too. Please encourage your residents to sign the petition. More support from residents will help to persuade North Yorkshire Council to make changes necessary to
achieve these aims.”

We have started online petitions in the 6 villages along this route that do not have 20mph in residential areas currently, as follows : Sleights, Egton, Glaisdale, Lealholm, Danby, Castleton. These accompany paper-based petitions for the same thing, held by the schools in those villages. Please back these petitions and give children (and adults) the opportunity to walk and cycle safely in their villages.

To accompany these petitions, a few WCN members will be holding a bike ride campaign (provisionally on Monday 12th June), starting at Castleton, and heading back to Whitby, calling in at all primary schools and GP surgeries. We will be picking up the paper-based petitions, as well as, hopefully, getting a signature from each school / surgery backing the general campaign for 20mph speed limits in residential areas and for promoting more walking / cycling. The statement we are asking them to sign will be as follows :-

We, the undersigned, request that, with some urgency, North Yorkshire Council prioritises:

The roll out of default 20mph speed limit “where people are” in Whitby and District. Firstly to address the significant road safety concerns particularly for children, and secondly to encourage active travel (walking and cycling) in Whitby and the surrounding villages. The current focus on secondary schools in Whitby highlights the significant danger that children are exposed to, walking alongside the busiest roads in Whitby that still do not have 20mph speed limits despite NYC scrutiny committee voting to require it.
The development of the Local Cycling Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) for the Whitby area, so that the development of cycle infrastructure in Whitby and District can happen with greater urgency, so as to encourage more active travel and provide the significant benefits to the physical and mental health of the population.

There is abundant evidence that these measures are desirable for the community’s health and well-being and as part of our response to the climate and nature crises. Both are totally aligned with the North Yorkshire Council executive’s aspiration for carbon net zero by 2028.

Signed :

Organisation :

In related news Scarborough, Whitby and Ryedale MIND started a campaign for people to get active to benefit their mental health. To reinforce our campaign we have enquired as to whether they will be willing to back the above campaign message for 20mph speed limits in residential areas and for promoting more walking / cycling because, as we see it, these 2 targets would directly complement what they are hoping to achieve.

The results of this, and the online petitions above, will then be presented to NYC.

Local Cycling Walking Infra Plan for Whitby!

Andy Jefferson — Tue, 14 Feb 2023 08:06:50 +0000

Active Travel is a key component in the ambition of North Yorkshire Council to become carbon negative by 2034. It provides significant mental and physical health benefits to the population, as well as not being detrimental to the environment. The start point for active travel is to have a strategy document, called a Local Cycling Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP), generated defining the key corridors that will be most used for cycling and walking. This then forms the outline plan for provision of active travel infrastructure, be it walking, cycling or scooting. This plan is also of great benefit when new housing is being provided, so that developers can be required to provide connectivity to the active travel network (or where it will be when implemented). It also means that once there is a plan, other changes to the transport infrastructure can be coordinated with what the ultimate walking and cycling requirements are, so as to provide for more efficient usage of funds. It can also be used to influence the implementation of a Default 20mph scheme in Whitby (requested in Dec 2022), advising on specific corridors that will be more utilised by people and hence more in need of speed regulation.

At the start of January we posted news that funding had not been obtained from Active Travel England for providing the LCWIP for Whitby area which was clearly disappointing. We are now pleased to announce that we have been informed by Cllr Keane Duncan, Executive Member for Highways and Transportation at NYCC, that they will be funding the development of this using their own funds, in the financial year 2023-2024.

We look forward to the start of this, and working with the new North Yorkshire Council in maximising the benefits of active travel in this area, for all of our residents, as well as for visitors. There is much to do before 2030, and this is only the start, so we are under no illusion as to the amount of work required to realise the potential.

NYCC’s continual failure to provide for cycling in Whitby

Andy Jefferson — Sun, 08 Jan 2023 17:34:52 +0000

Whitby and District has

some of the lowest uptake in cycling in the whole of North Yorkshire.
some of the lowest life expectancy in the whole of North Yorkshire. Active Travel is proven to provide for better health outcomes. Additional to this, 80% of the poverty in the North Yorkshire area is in this borough.
virtually non-existent cycle infrastructure. Cycling uptake will not increase until it is made safe, and with just a single leisure route with appalling access that won’t make a blind bit of difference there.
no Local Cycling Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) and consequently will not receive funding for any actual infrastructure until it has one. In 2019 NYCC provided funding to each borough for development of LCWIP’s, and in this borough all of that money went to Scarborough (yes, you’re not surprised about that one, are you?). In the meantime several smaller towns have an LCWIP.
an amount of Dept for Transport money (c £300k) for a crackpot cycle scheme from Whitby Park-and-Ride to 4-lane-ends roundabout that would benefit no resident (councils do things for tourists around here, but the residents pay the council tax and get nothing); this money has been sat with NYCC for 2 years and nothing delivered.
proposed deployment of e-bikes in one part of town by SBC/YNYLEP, even though there is no infrastructure, yet they still want to claim potential benefits (benefits that won’t be realised without infrastructure – what happened to being honest?).

One would have thought that NYCC would see an urgent case for changing the situation, given that they will have a mayor in place in 2024 who may actually hold them to account (especially with respect to deprived communities … and this area is a prime example), and especially given that they have a virtue signalling mission statement of being “the first carbon negative region” by 2040. The routemap for this aim (from YNY LEP) implies a 900% increase in cycling by 2030. NYCC informed us that they had finally bid for funding to provide an LCWIP for Whitby area in their October 2022 submission to the Active Travel England “Capability and Ambition Fund”. The reply from Cllr Keane Duncan in January 2023 is as follows

“As you may have seen in the report to the executive member meeting, we submitted a bid to the Capability and Ambition fund in September and had been given an indicative allocation of £220,780 which we have been successful in securing.

There are three main elements that the NYCC Capability and Ambition Fund will aim to deliver. They are:

Progress Selby LCWIP Corridor 1, (Brayton to Selby) to detailed design stage;
Data and evidence collection of walking, wheeling and cycling via three intelligent traffic sensors;
Behaviour change initiatives consisting of organisational travel planning and engagement, cycle training and active travel marketing and communications.

Unfortunately, our request for an additional 25% (£55,195) to fund LCWIP development in Whitby was not successful within our submission. Therefore, we are now looking at alternative sources of funding for this. I will let you know our plan of action for securing this.”

Cllr Keane Duncan, January 2023

So no further forward … for Whitby and District … we were not core to the submission. To give some context here, NYCC recently put £13m into a road scheme near Harrogate (when road traffic will allegedly be reducing by 48% by 2030) yet we now have to hope they can afford £55k to develop a cycle infrastructure strategy for Whitby (to give us some hope of cycling an amount more before 2030). Just can’t make this up!

As all residents in this town know, being stuck on the edge of the county, the town is continually left behind (as evidenced in many other areas of life here – don’t get us started on shoddy public transport, NYCC, which will allegedly need to pick up the slack by 2028 when we’re driving 48% less!). Councils are keen to use images of this town in publicity material to attract yet more tourists (hint : the town is “rammed” for many months of the year, at its capacity, stuffed, so no NYCC you can’t get more in). Any excuse for showing off this town as being part of North Yorkshire, such as paying for virtue signalling cycle races to come through the town (as if that will encourage people to use a bike on the dangerous roads that we have!). As said, any money that does come here is typically aimed at the tourist or on council vanity projects (case in point being £17m SBC “Town Deal”, with exceedingly limited consultation with residents, and only 1 project that will benefit residents). The health of the resident population is not an urgent priority, seemingly.

We now find ourselves in a situation where we have a clear reasoned argument for an improvement in cycling infrastructure, fully evidence-based, using all facts that we could prise out of councils, something that would have set us out in a positive direction, yet has still to get us moving forward. We all pay the same council tax in this (soon to be) unitary county, yet some parts seemingly get a crap deal. Will a future North Yorkshire mayor make the blind bit of difference? Can it be any worse?

If NYCC want to have a hope in hell of achieving the “YNY LEP Routemap to carbon negative” targets then things have to change rapidly. We still fail to see any way that this is going to be achieved. We can only hope that action happens in the next 6 months or you can kiss goodbye to that target … at least for this part of North Yorkshire.