Whitby Community Network CIC

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.

WTC Budget 2026-2027

Andy Jefferson — Sun, 11 Jan 2026 07:56:42 +0000

December and January are always busy months for town and parish councils, to set their budget for the following year, and decide what tax (precept) they will charge the public for the services they offer. Whitby Town Council (WTC) has burned through 2 full time clerks, 1 locum clerk, and 1 deputy clerk in the last year and a half. They currently have a locum clerk and an assistant clerk to perform this budget setting process.

It is considered proper practice to publish all supporting documents to council meetings on the council website three full days before a meeting (as well as to circulate the same documents directly to councillors). This gives councillors and public the necessary time to digest and think of questions to understand it better. Needless to say this has not been happening. WTC has not published supporting documents for its meetings for the vast majority of the last 18 months. Whilst councillors may have been receiving the documents, often that is with maybe an hours notice – hardly conducive to making good decisions. The proposed budget for 2026-2027 has also never been published on the website.

The Proposed WTC Budget Spreadsheet

We managed to get our hands on what purports to be the proposed 2026-2027 budget (still to be approved by WTC councillors). It took the form of a spreadsheet, though we have to question the level of spreadsheet skills of the author(s) of this document having looked at it.

You can find it HERE.

Comments

The standard spreadsheet concept of having all things in a row as relating to each other is lost here. We have the first 2 columns seemingly from the 2025-2026 budget, yet they do not align with all subsequent columns which are for different “cost centres” (Budget Heading is the term that WTC seem to use).
We have columns H-L as seeming alternatives to the 2026-2027 budget, yet the values are either not filled in, or are the same. Any document should be self explanatory, and these columns are not.
The reader cannot compare how well a Cost Centre has been managed during 2025-2026 when comparing against budget … because the budget is not provided.
We have columns “to date” and “revised projected” for 2025-2026, but the “revised projected” for many Cost Centres seems to just jump up to the budgeted number with no obvious reason why.
If a Cost Centre is significantly differing from budget there is no explanation column, so consequently no understanding of whether there was a problem in the previous budget, or in the management of that item.
There is no statement of what the WTC Reserves are. A council should hold a minimum of 25% of expenditure in reserves (so that should mean at least £140k). In 2024 the external auditor instructed WTC that they should consider the reserves explicitly when setting their budget. They did that to a degree for 2025-2026, but that is seemingly ignored for 2026-2027.

Reminder : this is what is being put in front of councillors when asking them to approve it, making a decision over the spend of going on for £600k!

We can only describe it as utterly inadequate. In its content, and in its lack of publication. Good decision making cannot be made like this. WTC councillors really ought to be demanding better information.

An Improved WTC Budget Spreadsheet

We took the encountered spreadsheet and updated primarily its format in the interests of councillors and the public having something more legible to base sound(er) financial decision making on.

You can find our version HERE.

Our changes are as follows

Removed the first 2 columns of whatever it was.
Split the columns into 3 groups – cost centre, 2025-2026, and 2026-2027. Note that we have not changed any numbers in these columns, simply adding a column for 2025/2026 budget.
Added clear distinction between INCOME and EXPENDITURE.
Moved the Precept calculation (EXPENDITURE – INCOME) to the end, since it is calculated and that is the only logical place to put it.
Changed the different variants of proposed budget in the WTC proposed spreadsheet to reflect different options of increasing the reserves, so it is clear what they are for.
We also included the resultant Band D precept (that residents would pay) for each of those options, and the % increase.

We hope that this is clearer, but without further info from the council it is hard to improve it beyond that.

Note that we do not know what reserves the council has, hence we cannot make recommendations. But then, from what we can gather councillors also do not know what reserves the council has! Frankly appalling really.

We would ask what does a resident actually get for their precept? – very little actually. Toilets for the visitor which are loss making (subsidised) currently?, access to a subsidised art gallery?, a Christmas market and some fairy lights?, one of the very few allotments they manage?, a website with next to no information?, paying for the East Pier footbridge that should have come out of harbour funds. Answers on a postcard what else there is …

The Future

A new town clerk takes up the role on 19th January. He will be presented with this proposed budget to present to councillors on his first or second day! Given that WTC legally do not need to send it to North Yorkshire Council until the start of March (even though NYC say they need it by late January), it would be best to give the new clerk the chance to digest what is being set so that he can add his own input and then get it approved. We wish him well.

One thing that he does need to do though is to ensure that the public have access to all council information via the website, unlike what has been happening for way to long (minutes that are impossible to find, no supporting documents or financial info, and so on). Contempt for the public has to end.

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