Whitby Community Network CIC

Tourism numbers for the Whitby area

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some earlier reports estimating the number of visitors to Whitby:

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

Other factors to be considered:

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

Local Concerns:

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

Summary of Concerns

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

Whitby West Cliff Beach Access Audit : NYC Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you,

Tony Watson, Head of Economy & Tourism

Whitby West Cliff : Beach Access Audit

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

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

We have notifed NYC of this, as follows

Whitby West Cliff : Beach Access Audit

20/07/2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

Whitby Community Network CIC

Y&NY Rural Bus Pilot Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local Plan HA22 : Housing Development on former Golf Course

Andy Jefferson — Tue, 07 Jul 2026 09:49:48 +0000

The SBC Local Plan of 2017 listed area HA22, formerly part of Whitby Golf Course, to be developed for housing. This represents 2.8ha of green belt.

A meeting of the NYC Executive on 14/07/2026 will aim to approve a joint venture with Lovell Homes (item 8 on the agenda). This meeting will additionally agree to the disposal of two areas of NYC owned land, the land off Sandsend Road (known as HA22 in the Local Plan), and an area in Eastfield. The report for this item is HERE.

NYC Support for the Housing

The (SBC) Local Plan says that this development would only be supported if

The site will be accessed off Sandsend Road with an option for a secondary access from Highfield Road;
The development of this site will only be supported where it is demonstrated that it will contribute to the longer term future of the Golf Course whilst also allowing the retention of its 18 hole status through a suitable re configuration of the course;
Development should be outwardly facing with appropriate open space provided between the residential development and the golf course in order to provide an attractive residential environment and entrance to Whitby.

One part of the remains of Whitby Golf Course is currently feeling the effects of coastal erosion, with zero protection provided by NYC and the Environment Agency. Additionally NYC would not provide any support for replacement of the ravine bridge, further affecting the viability of Whitby Golf Course. It can be argued that condition 2 is not met.

Housing Suitability

As part of the Whitby Neighbourhood Plan, we had a “Housing Needs Assessment” performed. This identified affordable housing as being the critical provision needed, with a smaller amount of housing suitable for elderly. The statement in this “joint venture” does not define what housing will be provided, other than it will be the standard Local Plan 30% of dwellings as “affordable”. Given that this is a joint venture, it would be reasonable to have expected significantly more affordable.

The other aspect of the announcement states that it is for an indicative 60 dwellings. The indicative number could change by the time of submitting plans (as happened on Broomfield developments), but we have to use the 60 number for now. Given that the site is of some 2.8ha, that would represent a low density of dwellings. If we compare with other recent developments

Barratts “Prospect Rise” : 72 dwellings in 2.3ha – 0.032 ha/dwelling.
David Wilson “Eskdale Park” : 194 dwellings in 6.3ha – 0.032 ha/dwelling.
Sneaton Castle estate : 236 dwellings (+ 1 care home) in 6.8ha – 0.029 ha/dwelling.
Barratts “Abbey View” : 233 dwellings in 7.7ha – 0.033 ha/dwelling.
HA22 : 60 dwellings in 2.8ha – 0.046 ha/dwelling.

If only realising 60 dwellings on scarce land in the Whitby parish that signifies poor utilisation of land. Or maybe this location and the low density is purely indicative of being a money spinner for NYC, to pull money in from their share of the profits and do little to address the town’s problems? After all, they pull in a large share of their second homes money from Whitby and, thus far, none of that money has been invested in fixing the housing issues here.

Other factors

The Whitby Neighbourhood Plan was submitted to NYC (REG16) at the start of July 2026. It would be expected that this plan is adopted (“made”) by Spring 2027. That would imply that components of the Neighbourhood Plan would be in force, such as primary residence in perpetuity for all new builds, 50% discount on “First Homes” scheme, etc.

It reemains to be seen if/when NYC approve this joint venture, and what plans they actually come up with for this development.

Will it do anything to meet the recent Housing Needs Assessment?

Will it increase the amount of “affordable” to address one of the critical problems present in the town?

Maritim£ Mon$tro$ity

Andy Jefferson — Mon, 18 May 2026 14:06:28 +0000

As we saw with our post back in September, monitoring the Town Deal “Maritime Hub”, it’s available space wasn’t being snapped up back then.

A meeting in North Yorkshire Council on 26th May 2026 wants to approve the spending of £823k of Whitby Harbour funds “the fitting out of floors one and two of the Whitby Maritime Hub” and a further £126k “to meet additional construction costs“. So nearly a £MILLION.

This is Harbour Funds that would not exist without the Fight4Whitby court case where NYC were adjudged to have wrongly accounted for harbour monies over many years, so that the pier extensions could be repaired. There is no sign of the pier extensions being repaired any time soon (the draft “Harbour Strategy” had it as not starting before 2032, despite reports by internationally respected engineering experts saying that it should be complete by then).

The item on the NYC agenda goes on to add “Whitby Maritime Hub: Largely complete with tenancies secured. The cost of now fitting out the first floor is £378k with an estimate of £445k for the second floor (subject to value for money assessment), having been omitted from the original approval. The additional costs of £823k are to be met from the Whitby Harbour Reserve with the expectation that revenues generated by the Hub will be credited to the reserve to pay back the investment. A further £126k (total £354k) is required from the Whitby Harbour Reserve to meet additional construction costs in relation to supervision/management and weather-related compensation events.“

Whether there will be any revenues generated by the Maritime Hub to “credit” is the first point coming from that. The second is that any revenue generated by the Maritime Hub, which is on harbour land, would have to go in to the Whitby Harbour Reserve anyway – given that there is seemingly no available lease of the Hub from the Whitby Harbour Authority.

Letter to NYC and Whitby School Governing Body

Andy Jefferson — Wed, 06 May 2026 18:05:36 +0000

Following on from the decision in April 2026 to not proceed with academisation of Whitby School under the Wonder Learning Partnership, a meeting was arranged for Tuesday 5th May 2026 to cover many matters of concern to parents, carers and the community. As a result of this meeting a letter was sent by David Bradley, chair of the WCN CIC subgroup for Education, to North Yorkshire Council and to the Whitby School Governing Body.

Councillor Annabel Wilkinson, NYC Executive Councillor for Education
Mr Richard Fluin, Chair of Whitby School Governing Body

RE: Public Meeting about Whitby School held on Tuesday 5^th May, 2026 at the Whitby Rifle Club.

I am writing to you on behalf of the parents, students and members of the local community who attended the above meeting last night. Their ongoing concerns about the school, particularly in the wake of the Department for Education’s (DfE) decision not to support Wonder Learning Partnership’s (WLP) attempt to join with the school and become an academy, have increased significantly. This decision has rocked the community not least because WLP was regarded by parents as a chance to develop stable, effective leadership, but also an opportunity to develop a strategic plan which would bring about improvements in academic standards, behaviour and attendance. The very issues which were highlighted by the Governing Body (GB) and the Local Authority (LA) at the time of the “Amalgamation of the Three Secondary Schools in Whitby and the Closure of Eskdale School” in 2023. Technically, this ‘amalgamation’ was a reorganisation of post eleven education in the town, and it was never given the status it deserved. The parents have now had enough of the responsibilities for the school being passed between the LA and the GB and feel like they have been on a “Merry-Go-Round” for at least three years, so they called a meeting through social media, and invited everyone.

The meeting attracted approximately sixty-five people and nearly fifty of them signed an attendance sheet and gave their email addresses. Students, parents and carers, attended the meeting and the parents were pleased to welcome councillors from the town council, one parent governor, one councillor from North Yorkshire Council (NYC) and our Member of Parliament, Alison Hume MP. I volunteered to chair the meeting and asked the meeting if anyone had any objections to me carrying out this role and none did. I emphasised the need for us to concentrate on issues rather than personalities and the need for us to anonymise young people and staff. Detailed notes of the meeting were taken by parents.

The Governing Body had sent a letter to explain their non-attendance, and this was read out by one of the parents. One parent governor disagreed with his colleagues, attended and spoke at some length about his involvement with the school. Another carer (a retired Special Needs teacher) spoke in detail about her voluntary involvement with the school. Finally, everyone was invited to speak about any issues which they had with the school. For the sake of clarity, I have listed the main issues raised by all of the speakers below: –

Several parents were concerned that the school did not always know whether their child was in school. Some reported that the school had contacted them about an absence when the child was in attendance. This is a serious safeguarding issue.
Considerable concern was expressed about students who needed educational statements and had not been processed early enough. Others expressed concern when teachers did not take the statements seriously and there were incidents where specific needs were not being met e.g. the need to take medication, the need to visit the toilet (one child had wet themself), the need to use colour filters for reading or the need to have work presented on coloured paper for autistically challenged students. Parents and Carers of young people with specials needs were aware that their children could be disruptive, but sometimes staff did not understand the child’s condition and how to deal with it.
Several parents were concerned that students often had three or four Form Tutors. Sometimes communication between the student and the Form Tutors was confused or did not happen.
A lot of concern was expressed about the number of supply teachers being used by the school because of absent staff. It was very clear that some of the supply staff were not familiar with the school rules and procedures. Some were also not familiar with the referral systems for poor behaviour.
Several parents and carers raised issues concerned with consistent practice by the teaching staff. It seems that some minor issues with uniform are given greater status than they should be and learning time is compromised.
Some established teachers on the staff are clearly working very hard, but their efforts are being thwarted by poor communication between senior leaders and other staff. The huge turnover of senior staff, particularly headteachers, over the last decade has not helped teaching staff because they are not certain what is expected of them. One parent and a member of the community separately commented that, ‘the staff do not really know who is in charge’.
Several parents had contacted the school multiple times about behaviour issues, but often these issues were not followed up. One parent had been discouraged from using the complaints procedure.

I have to say that the shock and the immense feeling of disappointment in the room was palpable. How on earth have we managed to let this happen in our community? I then encouraged parents to visit the “Parentview” Ofsted site to record their concerns. Ofsted are expected at the school in the next two terms and inspectors are required to follow up any issues on this site at the time of inspection. I also emphasised the need for parents to voice any concerns directly to the school.

The meeting considered five questions which had been formulated by the Education Sub Committee of the Whitby Community Network CIC. All five were addressed to the GB and the LA and they were all approved unanimously by the meeting. The questions are: –

In May 2025, governors, backed by the community representatives, endorsed Wonder Learning Partnership as the preferred academy trust. We are now told (a year later) that the DfE will not agree. Why not? Why was the DfE’s decision not appealed by the GB or LA? Why did the GB and LA end the partnership so abruptly?
The school remains fragile on standards, attendance, and community confidence. Much of the WLP’s work has not had time to show impact. What is going to happen to this work? Why hasn’t the offer from WLP to help the school and the new leadership team been followed up by the LA and GB?
We were promised stable, effective leadership. The LA and GB are now proposing to appoint a headteacher and two deputies. We are told that the headteacher and one deputy will be internal appointments – they may already be appointed. Normally, headteacher posts are advertised nationally. What objective criteria, evidence and decision process are being used to select for these posts? We know that one temporary, senior postholder has an unsatisfactory track record. How is the community to have confidence in these appointments?
What is the LA’s strategic plan for the school – over the next 6-12 months and beyond? When will it be shared with the community?
When will the GB abide by statutory rules and publish their minutes in a timely manner on the school website.

The meeting concluded with Alison Hume being invited to comment. She said, “The coast has been forgotten by the council for many years.” She went on to say that she would hold NYC to account, have meetings with the DfE, talk to the schools’ minister and concluded by saying, “The government will be taking a much more forensic interest in North Yorkshire Council.”

I concluded the meeting by thanking everyone for their attendance, particularly the Parent Governor, Town Councillors, NYC Councillor and our MP, for having the courage to attend the meeting and possibly face criticism.

On behalf of the people who attended this meeting, I would be grateful for your responses to the five questions posed above as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

David Bradley B.Ed, FRSA

No reply was forthcoming from either the governing body, or from NYC Exec Councillor for Education Annabel Wilkinson. David Bradley replied to them on 20/05/2026

Dear Richard Fluin and Councillor Annabel Wilkinson,

I risk obloquy, but it is now two weeks since I wrote to you on behalf of the sixty-five attendees at the public meeting in the Whitby Rifle Club on the above date. Surely, they deserve a response from at least one of you?

The parents organised the meeting rather than petition you because they wanted to ask specific questions about the future of Whitby School and they wanted to begin a proper dialogue with you. They were also mindful of the fact that examination season had begun and they did not want to cause any distractions. Sadly, I have received nothing from you, even though I provided my e.mail address and postal address. You have not commented on the report which I drafted within twenty-four hours of the meeting, nor the questions which the parents agreed and posed to you. I have not even received an acknowledgement.

According to the school website the last Governing Body minutes to be published are for March, 2026. The full Governing Body must have met since this time to approve the appointment of an internal candidate for headship? An appointment which I heard about through social media, minutes after I had posted the letter to both of you. My Education Sub-Committee for Whitby Community Network (WCN) have been meeting the CEO for Wonder Learning Partnership (WLP) and the previous Chairman for two years and one of our ongoing concerns has been the lack of up-to-date Governing Body minutes on the website. We are shocked by the abruptness of the break with WLP. We are extremely concerned that their support will not be available in September and that their offer of support in the interim has been ignored. Why didn’t the Governing Body and the Local Authority appeal against the Department for Education’s decision? More puzzling still, is the fact that according to the school’s website David Perry remains as the Executive Headteacher until September when he is employed by WLP.

I have promised to report back to the public at the June meeting of WCN and I’m sure that the parents, students, elected members and parent governors who were courageous enough to attend the meeting at the Rifle Club will expect to hear your responses to the questions and your strategic plans for the school over the next twelve months. Perhaps you or your representative would like to attend this meeting? If you would, please call me and I will make arrangements with the secretary for WCN.

Yours sincerely,

David Bradley

Whitby S106 “Parks / Open Space” Fund Utilisation

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

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

Funding Receipt and Spend

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

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

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

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

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

Addressing the Issues?

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

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

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

We have had just 3 spends

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

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

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

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

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

Whitby Parish : Second Homes Premium for 2025-2026

Andy Jefferson — Mon, 26 Jan 2026 10:59:26 +0000

For the financial year 2025-2026 North Yorkshire Council (NYC) introduced a second home premium to council tax, meaning that dwellings with no permanent resident subject to council tax will pay 200% of the normal rate. There are a list of exceptions to this categorisation, which you can read on the linked page (above) – one such exception is if the property is listed as for sale (for up to 12 months) then it would not be subject to this premium.

It is important to mention that this premium does not apply to a “holiday let”, which is subject to business rates (with relief if income below a certain amount) and not council tax.

An FOI has revealed the revenue obtained via this premium. Firstly, for the financial year 2024-2025 there were 1042 “second homes” in the Whitby parish. In 2025-2026 that dropped to 912. This is likely the result of the introduction of this premium, and some of those that are no longer may have been flipped to be a holiday let (nominally paying business rates instead of council tax).

The amount of revenue pulled in by the “premium” within the Whitby parish for 2025-2026 was …

£1.6 million

Given that NYC have seemingly agreed to spend the second homes premium on social housing, how much of that will now be spent on social housing in the Whitby parish? or will it be spent elsewhere?

Clearly this will be something that we will follow up on each financial year until the housing situation in the parish is improved.

Addendum : it has since been announced that Whitby & district provides 24% of all of the second homes in North Yorkshire. See this link.

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.