Lets look at the “aims” of this document

• “Increase the proportion of residents in year-round and well-paid employment”, and “Achieve sustainable growth and diversification
  of Whitby’s economy” : the only item mentioned even vaguely related to employment is the Maritime Hub from Town Deal. As we have seen from the business case and recent developments on that project (no wind power company will apparently be using this, correct? Dalby Offshore?), there is little additional training (and hence employment) coming from that (yes, the fishing school already exists). It talks of improving the fish quay area and provision of modern facilities, great, but the numbers employed in fishing is not high, and as for building on the “Whitby Seafood” brand, how much of that company’s produce is from this town? (was the presence of the chair of Whitby Seafoods on the Town Deal board relevant here?), and we have emphasis on the tourist angle. So where will this well-paid employment come from? Why isn’t the available space in Whitby’s secondary schools mentioned as something that could be utilised for skills training?
• “Reduce deprivation and increase prosperity among Whitby residents” : like the aim regarding employment, we cannot see any initiative in the document that will have the remotest impact on this. Increased prosperity means moving away from a minimum wage economy, yet businesses already struggle to find (minimum wage) staff due to the lack of affordable housing, and the lack of aspirations in the town. 
• “Increase and change in the profile of Whitby’s population and raising aspirations” has little to back it up. It proposes the 60 affordable homes from the Net Zero Village in Town Deal (very welcome, clearly), but the population of Whitby is not increasing even with the house building we’ve had in the last 10 years, so how do 60 affordable homes impact on that? Aspirations can only be raised by limiting the number of homes being sold as second homes / holiday lets, build significant numbers of social housing, increase the training opportunities for real trades by utilising the secondary schools, as well as a better provision of quality public transport to allow people to get about; people need to believe they can develop a life here. We can’t find those aspects in this document.
• “Improve health and well-being for Whitby residents” : the improvements to the Eastside Centre as part of Town Deal could help the community close to that centre, but there are no significant improvements to the towns depleted green space which has, by far and away, the biggest impact on well-being; it simply mentions improving Crescent Gardens (to improve the attractiveness of the West Cliff, for the tourists!), but nothing about green space close to residential areas (it is essential that green space is accessible for residents, within 100m, 200m etc, Natural England have measures for Green Infrastructure, which are not being met in this town), depleted by years of SBC concreting over amenities, and not maintaining the few that are left. Where are any improvements to the town’s health services, such as the hospital?
• “Grow our cultural offering and public and community events programme” : there is always a need in a tourist location to keep ideas fresh, so yes Whitby Spa (only SBC refer to it as Whitby Pavilion, so as not to detract from Scarborough Spa) is under utilised, but that is down to under investment by the organisation providing this document. Good that they finally recognise the need to better utilise it.
• “Improve access to and use of the Town Centre and surrounding natural assets” : this simply wants to provide access to the coastline (footpaths on Khyber Pass, Whalebone Arch etc, for the tourists!), and create a more walkable town (some pedestrianisation for the Swing Bridge, primarily for the tourist). Where is the aspiration to provide proper walking and cycle infrastructure along all green corridors in the Local Plan ? With that we would be seeing development of links up the Esk Valley, instead we get a single reference to linking the Cinder Track into Pannett Park. Improving access and encouraging active travel (walking, cycling, scooting) will only be encouraged by firstly providing a Local Cycling Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) which defines the travel corridors, something that we have been successful in campaigning for, and something that we would never have obtained from SBC. Sadly any sensible stab at providing active travel is not even featured in this photofest (contrast that to the “Scarborough Blueprint” where their LCWIP is a key component).

In fact, much of the content is aimed at the tourist, seemingly thinking that we can fit even more tourists in the town, but never mind the quality of life for the resident. Hint, life expectancy for residents of this town are some of the lowest in North Yorkshire, yet we have further council documents doing little about it.

Where are the ideas about generating energy using the piers? or kelp farming? These went through proof of concept a few years ago. These are harbour businesses that would assist in the sustainability of the town, and be valuable harbour resources (something that councils ought to be keen on, given SBC’s publicised issues with their accounts and the Whitby harbour), and given that they need to repair the pier extensions by 2030 – an opportunity to spend some of that car parking money! Regreening of various parts of town should be a high priority for climate mitigation, as well as for the mental health of residents. Reducing the traffic in the town will involve much more than just closing the swing bridge, so why is there not consideration for further park-and-ride facilities on both sides of town? We could go on.

If we were to sum it up in one phrase, try this one : lack of ambition and strategic thinking, with very little understanding of the problems experienced by residents of this town. Vision for Whitby has far more vision, and originates direct from the resident.