Cycling – Whitby and Esk Valley Active Travel

Open Letter to Y&NY Active Travel Commissioner and NYC

Andy Jefferson — Sun, 12 Apr 2026 09:34:44 +0000

We have sent a letter to the Y&NY Combined Authority, Active Travel Commissioner, and North Yorkshire Council regarding the poor provision of active travel infrastructure in Whitby and district. As follows

Roadmap for Active Travel Infrastructure in Whitby district

Background

Whitby district has average levels of uptake of walking, though some of the lowest levels of cycling in the county. Walking infrastructure lacks safe crossings in many places, as well as basic footpaths in other areas. Cycle infrastructure is virtually non-existent, with just the Cinder Track, a leisure route, being available for anything approaching safe cycling – the core reason why uptake is so low.

The YNYLEP’s Routemap to Carbon Negative (2022) defined a need to rebalance the transport systems of the county to reduce car usage by 48% whilst increasing walking by 40% and cycling by 900%, and all to be achieved by 2030 in order to have a chance of the overall longer term goal of net zero, with increased active travel being a strategic priority for 2022-2027. In the period 2022-2026 Whitby district received precisely £0 investment in active travel infrastructure.

Plan for the future?

The prerequisite for any upgrade to active travel infrastructure is a Local Cycling Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP). When NYCC handed out the funding for these documents in 2019 Whitby was provided with nothing, and indeed NYCC / NYC showed no suggestion that they would ever provide one. Our campaigning finally resulted in NYC agreeing to fund this document in 2023 (and Thirsk on the back of what we suggested their strategy should be).

The Whitby LCWIP was finally adopted in May 2025 – 5 years after the majority of other larger towns in the county.

Current status

NYC have not bid for funding for any Whitby district active travel scheme. Whilst NYCC did bid for an ATF2 scheme from Whitby Park-and-Ride (something that would be of no value to any Whitby resident, and consequently very low priority) in 2021 this was subsequently ditched and Harrogate was given the funding instead.

All schemes in the Whitby LCWIP are still at the start point, with none having entered any form of design stage.

The end result of this is that schemes for the town are effectively at the “back of the queue”, and indeed not available for funding from many funding sources (which will only fund the delivery of schemes), so realistically nothing will be delivered for years – we seriously doubt there will be any change by the supposed achievement date of 2030, let alone 900% increase in cycling and 40% in walking. Pathetic really.

Alternatives to Infrastructure

The only other way to provide any form of safety for people wishing to walk and cycle in Whitby would be to provide zones that are 20mph. We developed a proposal for this for all residential areas in the town [link], obtained unanimous support from the town council, but whilst one NYC councillor (Cllr Swannick, Whitby Streonshalh) did support it, the other NYC councillor (Cllr Trumper, Whitby West) would not, seemingly down to ideological reasons about 20mph. This prevented us applying it to some of the primary walk and cycle to school residential estates in the town all situated in “Whitby West”. Pursuing it for “Whitby Streonshalh” exposed the NYC policy of not being willing to apply it to estates where they considered that traffic calming would be needed (without significant cost – up to £100k for the Eskdale/Larpool estate alone).

The barriers to this alternative are

NYC’s unwillingness to contemplate signage-only 20mph schemes, with a desire to have vertical infrastructure – despite the evidence that even with a signage-only scheme there is an initial drop in average speeds of around 2mph, enough to reduce road collisions by around 20%.
Unwillingness of an NYC councillor to “support” such a scheme that would directly benefit walk and cycle to school, despite also being a governor of the secondary school.

Funding

Whilst the Y&NY Mayoral Active Travel Fund (MATF) does not exclude funding the design phase of schemes, it would also require provision of a roadmap for delivery of the full scheme. We would, understandably, not be able to provide that, and NYC were seemingly unable when we posed the question to them regarding one potential LCWIP scheme [link].

The MATF is, as a consequence, effectively of no value to us, since infrastructure is our primary barrier. Unless the MATF is restructured in future rounds to permit some form of support for design phases, we will not be applying for anything from it due to this reason.

Whilst we, as a charity, will continue to pursue funding to be able to push forward the LCWIP schemes into design, so that one day we can envisage having a “pipeline of schemes”, this is unlikely to be realised any time soon. We would like to believe that NYC will provide a scheme one day.

Our question is, given all of the above and given NYC knowing its DfT funding for the next 3 years, what is the roadmap (or even the start of a roadmap) for Whitby district ever having active travel INFRASTRUCTURE, so that the supposed target for the “Routemap to Carbon Negative” is anything more than just another vacuous political promise / mistruth?

Whitby & Esk Valley Active Travel

Broomfield – CinderTrack Connection : Planning Fail

Andy Jefferson — Thu, 05 Mar 2026 17:19:21 +0000

The Broomfield estate, comprised of Barratts David Wilson “Abbey View” and “Chaloners Green” developments together with Stonebridge Homes “Sandpiper Grange”, will provide some 474 dwellings when complete. In our assessment of the active travel provision on that estate we described the shared path alongside the main estate road, together with the absence of a compliant (3m wide shared) path suitable for cyclists to get across to the Cinder Track.

Recently there was a planning application considering the connection to the Cinder Track. We tried to make a comment on this application pointing out the flaws in what had been submitted. The first attempt used the website form for submitting comments, objecting to some compliance issues with what was being proposed. A week after submission nothing appeared on the planning item. We then tried emailing the planning officer with our comments – they were added to the planning item but instead of using a common format like PDF (as used for all other comments on the item) it was added in some obscure proprietary MSG format that the majority of internet users would not be able to read. We requested this to be corrected, and the very next day our comment had been removed and the application was approved!

The Planning Proposal

The planning application is as on the following map

Two paths are simply drawn across from an estate path to the Cinder Track (the path at the bottom).

The proposal is also to install “A-Frames” to prevent motorised vehicle access.

There is no vertical elevation provided to show how the proposed path will get from the estate path to the Cinder Track (which is on a raised track bed, and so at least 1.5m above the surrounding land).

Our Comments

Our comments are as follows

Route for cyclists to get to the southern end of the estate

Firstly, on our original assessment of this site we pointed out that no LTN 1/20 compliant path from the central spine shared path of the estate to the Cinder Track had been provided. Stonebridge Homes have still not come back with updated plans defining which path is suitable for use by people on bikes (i.e min 3m wide shared path). We are guessing that they mean the path to the right hand side of the top map diagram, and then a 90 degree turn along the bottom path. It is not clear from the provided plan whether these paths are indeed 3m wide (required by LTN 1/20), or indeed the route that a cyclist would have to take to reach this area.

Route to connect to the Cinder Track

If we assume we are travelling from Whitby Business Park (at the top of the map) and heading to Whitby, we would have to head down the side path, then turn right along the bottom path. For the first connection point we would have to turn left and double back on ourselves and then turn sharp right onto the Cinder Track. For the second connection point we would have to turn left and double back on ourselves and then when nearing the Cinder Track turn right and double back again! LTN 1/20 “Summary Principles” includes

“18) Cycle routes must flow, feeling direct and logical. Users should not feel as if they are having to double back on themselves, turn unnecessarily, or go the long way round. Often, cycling schemes – when crossing a main road, for instance – require cyclists to make a series of ninety-degree turns to carry out a movement that a motor vehicle at the same location could do without turning at all. Schemes should be based on a proper understanding of how people actually behave rather than how they might be expected to behave.”

This scheme is in direct contravention of LTN 1/20 on this principle. The connection should be much more direct, for people on bikes and people on mobility devices. Consideration should be given as to where the person on bicycle / mobility device is coming from and going to, and design the connection accordingly so as to make it feel direct.

Path construction

As said earlier, there are no vertical elevation diagrams so we cannot see the gradient of any of the connecting paths. Gradient is a critical component for cyclists, people in wheelchairs as well as mobility scooters. The Cinder Track is raised around 1.5m above the surrounding land, and so any connecting path will also have to be. This planning application does not specify information around how it will connect and the associated gradients of paths, so should not have been approved.

Barriers to entry

This was not our comment, but instead provided by NYC active travel officers who had not been consulted by NYC Highways for their response.

Stonebridge Homes have added barriers to entry for these connections – “A-Frames”. To quote Cycling UK “A-Frame barriers will not give access to all adapted cycles”. Our charity has 1 of these adaptive cycles … it is 1.1m wide. It would be blocked by such an A-Frame. Many mobility devices would not be able to use these connection points either if “A-Frames” were installed. A planning application reducing accessibility should not have been approved.

The Planning Result

For the record on the planning application NYC Highways responded with “The Local Highway Authority (LHA) has received sufficient information to discharge the condition relating to 22/02513/FL in checking the application“. If only they had asked their own active travel officers they would have been able to provide a better assessment!

This planning application was approved by NYC Planning. They deleted our objection and comments, and simply nodded it through.

We genuinely want NYC to receive a higher “active travel capability” rating by Active Travel England, but currently issues like not consulting their own knowledgeable active travel staff (around compliance with LTN 1/20, for example) in responses to planning applications is hindering this. Even when well meaning charities raise an objection quoting what is non-compliant it is also ignored, and the planning department say “well that is only guidance”, despite NYC claiming to Active Travel England that it requires all developers to observe LTN 1/20.

We will be monitoring this issue to see if/when it gets to actual construction as to whether this developer is permitted to construct the connecting paths in a non-compliant way.

Proposal : Upgrade of Stakesby Green Corridor

Andy Jefferson — Sat, 18 Oct 2025 17:54:44 +0000

It has been our intention to improve the infrastructure around the district. Much of this is on land owned by North Yorkshire Council (NYC) and, as such, we would need permission for such proposals to happen.

Our second proposal to NYC relates to a green space between Stakesby Road and Byland Road in Whitby, formerly part of Harrowing Drive, as follows.

In Whitby, between Stakesby Road and Byland Road, there is a green corridor. This corridor was historically part of the drive to Harrowing Hall, and its gate and gate posts are still existent, along with 2 gatehouses. This space is a tranquil area for children to play, and for residents to enjoy nature. It is also a connecting active travel path between Stakesby residential and Stakesby Road (which will be an active travel corridor on the Whitby LCWIP).

The problems are as follows.

Surface : The surface is an ageing tarmac that is very pitted and, as a consequence, not a very pleasant experience for anybody on bicycles, scooters, wheelchairs and mobility scooters.
Bollards : At the Byland Road end of the green corridor there are wooden bollards, preventing vehicle access. At the Stakesby Road end there are no bollards and, as a result, vehicles can ingress into this space.
Seating : There is no seating to enjoy this area.

View from Byland Road

Wooden bollards at the Byland Road end, 6″ square profile.

View from Stakesby Road

Original gates providing an imposing entrance, that does not restrict vehicle ingress beyond the gatehouse garage.

View towards Stakesby Road entrance

Particularly relevant being the position of the garage on the right hand side

View towards Byland Road entrance

Bollards being provided along the side as well as the Byland Road end

As seen, the Stakesby Road entrance is solely restricted by (permanently open) gates. The population of this residential area contains double the national average of over 60s. Elderly residents often need seating to be able to rest during a walk, and this green corridor has nothing available, which is a shame given that in summer it is a tranquil space with plenty of shade.

The issue with the surface is beyond the remit of this proposal and so will not be tackled.

In terms of a plan view of the area,

1. Introduction of bollards at the Stakesby Road end

The width of tarmac of the central path (measured from just beyond the side garage of the easterly gatehouse) is the order of 4.5m, with 3m drive length for the easterly gatehouse.

We propose

adding bollards to the side of the tarmac area of a similar form to those at the Byland Road end, namely 6” square profile wooden posts.
adding removable bollards in the tarmac area. The spacing of the bollards being set to permit all mobility vehicles, cargo bikes etc, but to prevent motor vehicles. Using the Larpool Lane exit from the Cinder Track as a guide this would imply 2 removable bollards.

2. Introduction of seating

This green corridor is located directly adjacent to large residential areas at both ends. It is of approximately 90m in length, and would easily accommodate 2 benches, reasonable spaced. Nominal locations marked on the plan above, open to consultation.

Additional Information

The proposed benches would be something like this [link]. The proposed removable bollards would be something like this [link]. The project, without labour, would come in around £1k-£1.5k.

Proposal : Swapping 4 CinderTrack gates for chicanes

Andy Jefferson — Fri, 17 Oct 2025 17:04:36 +0000

Our first proposal to NYC is as follows.

There are currently 6 gate barriers on the Cinder Track between Whitby and Ravenscar (the outer extent of our charity remit). They are

2 gates at the junction of the A171 at Hawsker,
2 gates at the junction with Bottoms Lane just east of Hawsker,
2 gates at Middlewood Farm.

Clearly the railway line never had gates, and these have been introduced to limit access, but they cause issues for different forms of transport. Horse riders have to dismount to access the gate. Cyclists often have to dismount. Pedestrians on mobility scooters have to alight. And the problem is much worse for non-standard cycles and for people with limited mobility such as in wheelchairs. We have to minimise the impact. The Cinder Track between Cloughton and Burniston has benefitted from investment, with gates being redesigned, as per the following image. In terms how we could replicate that here, given that the vehicle gates we have are perfectly serviceable it makes little sense to remove that part and purchase fancy new gates, and instead we focus on the pedestrian gate only and look at replacing with a chicane as per the image.

1. Hawsker A171 Junction Gates

The north and south sides of the Hawsker junction currently have vehicle+pedestrian gates (shown in white and yellow respectively). The sections of track to the north and to the south do not require gates to restrict livestock, and so could be adapted to allow freer flow of pedestrians, horse riders, mobility devices and cyclists. Also the gates cause issues for some mobility devices.

The proposal for the gate at the north side is to remove the pedestrian gate (and also possibly the pedestrian gate post to the north). Given that the track surface curves out to the pedestrian entry point, and back in after, there is no requirement to add a fence at the pedestrian side to form a chicane (since the chicane is effectively formed by the path surface).

Gate width (between posts) : 1.4m

Materials required : None

The proposal for the gate at the south side is to remove the pedestrian gate (and also possibly the pedestrian gate post to the north – we want to aim for up to 1.5m gap for entry). Once this is removed we would add a small fence (1m high) approximately 2m behind the position of the pedestrian gate, so that it forms a chicane.

Gate width (between posts) : 1.5m
Chicane Fence width : 1.8m

Materials required : 2/3 fence posts, 3 rails, and an amount of fence lats for the chicane fence.

Bottoms Lane Junction Gates

The east and west sides of the Bottoms Lane junction (just south of Hawsker) currently have vehicle+pedestrian gates (shown in white and yellow respectively). The sections of track to the north and to the south do not require gates to restrict livestock, and so could be adapted to allow freer flow of pedestrians, horse riders, mobility devices and cyclists. The pedestrian gate widths are inadequate for a side by side tandem. Also the gates cause other issues for some mobility devices.

The proposal for the gate at the west side is to remove the pedestrian gate as well as the pedestrian gate post to the north.
Once this is removed we would add a fence post slightly further out to the north where the northerly pedestrian gate post was removed from to support the fence (we want to aim for up to 1.5m gap for entry). We would then add a small fence
(1m high) approximately 2m to the east of the pedestrian gate, so that it forms a chicane.

Gate width (between posts) : 1.04m.
Chicane Fence width : 2.1m

Materials required : 1 fence post to support the gate fence. 3 fence posts, 3 rails, and an amount of fence lats for the chicane fence.

The proposal for the gate at the east side is to remove the pedestrian gate and also the pedestrian gate post to the north. Once this is removed we would add a small fence (1m high) approximately 2m to the east of the position of the pedestrian gate, so that it forms a chicane.

Gate width (between posts) : 1.03m
Chicane Fence width : 1.5m

Materials required : 1 fence post to support the gate fence.
2/3 fence posts, 3 rails, and an amount of fence lats for the chicane fence.

We await the response of NYC on this proposal. Given that we are simply mirroring some of the Sustrans improvements at the Cloughton area (which had a total spend of £700k including a new surface) and our improvements come in at under £200 (without labour costs), it would be hard to argue against them.

What do you think?

Planning : Land Between Resolution Way And Pembroke Way (South Of Mayfield Road)

Andy Jefferson — Fri, 16 May 2025 06:28:49 +0000

A current planning application for housing and the requirement for a transport assessment has highlighted how poor such documents are, particularly for cycling. The application in question is entitled “Land Between Resolution Way And Pembroke Way South Of Mayfield Road, Whitby“.

The original Transport Assessment, provided by the developer, was responded to by North Yorkshire Council asking “Section 3.4 cycling accessibility. The application documents provide information showing where the nearest, existing, recognised cycling routes are. It does not address how potential residents of the site would be able to access this route. The LHA require additional information to be included to demonstrate a safe access onto the cycling network.”

We consider it a positive step that NYC are asking for “safe access onto the cycling network”, and even the existence of a “cycling network”.

The response of the developer (via its consultant “Andrew Moseley Associates”) was as follows “Cyclists looking to utilise the nearby Cinder Track cycle route will be able to access via Anchorage Way to the east of the site. Anchorage way provides a link onto NYC PRoW 30.23/27/1, which provides southbound travel onto NYC PRoW 30.23/27/2, which runs eastbound and provides a connection the Cinder Track cycle route.“

We were somewhat puzzled by this, so decided to decipher what the consultants think is “safe access” for cycling. Here we map it out for them.

The housing development proposal is the yellow shaded area. The consultants recommend proceeding along Anchorage Way, and then down the light pink route, doing a sharp left turn below the Prospect Hill Allotments, and on to the Cinder Track. Anybody local would know the problems here.

1. The first path (heading south) is on our site as the “Ruswarp Trod Path”. This is steep incline very narrow path that is somewhat slippy, and totally inappropriate for bikes.

2. The second path (heading east) is a very rough muddy surface that terminates at the top of a bank above the old Prospect Hill Line. Using a bike here would again be inappropriate.

3. There are then a set of steep steps down on to the Prospect Hill Line. With a bike? Would the cyclist be expected to do bunny hops down on their bike?

At that point the cyclist could cycle up the (often muddy) Prospect Hill Line and finally join the Cinder Track.

One can only assume that Andrew Moseley Associates have never visited this area, and also think that charging consultancy fees for providing such appallingly inaccurate advice is “acceptable”. Maybe our charity should start charging for advice on walking and cycling planning?

Our response to this particular planning document was as follows, where we also address the Transport Assessment’s treatment of walking.

This response is submitted on behalf of Whitby & Esk Valley Active Travel (registered charity 1206506).

Our response is solely with respect to the Transport Assessment report, and particularly to active travel (walking, wheeling, cycling and scooting) components, to guide any provision to properly cater for these requirements.

In terms of cycling, the report addendum statement of how cyclists would utilise the Cinder Track is synonymous of a report where the author of the report has never actually visited the area. The report proposes that a cyclist would utilise “NYC PRoW 30.23/27/1, which provides southbound travel onto NYC PRoW 30.23/27/2, which runs eastbound and provides a connection the Cinder Track cycle route”. Anybody familiar with this area would know that the aforementioned PROW is actually a narrow “Monks Trod” Path on a very steep slope – this is utterly unsuitable for cyclists, and indeed non compliant with current DfT standards for acceptable infrastructure for cycling. The latter PROW referred to is a very rough track which terminates in a series of steep steps down on to a disused rail line formerly known as the “Prospect Hill Line”. How would Andrew Moseley Associates propose that a cyclist get down these steps ? Bunny hops on their bike? Please contact us and we will WALK this route with you!

A better proposal to cater for cycling would be for this development to make an adequate S106 contribution to re-enable a disused bridge over the Cinder Track from close to Anchorage Way. This would then provide a new access point to the Cinder Track, and indeed provide a benefit to the community on the south side of Mayfield Road. There are more details of this link on
https://www.whitbyactivetravel.org.uk/project-mayfield-road-link/

In terms of walking, the Whitby LCWIP consultation process has already concluded that better prioritised crossing facilities over Mayfield Road are required. Given that the current active Local Plan aims to “prioritise sustainable modes of transport”, the proposals in the Transport Assessment are doing nothing to facilitate this end. The previous pedestrian surveys are somewhat of a misnomer since given the substantial problems in crossing Mayfield Road (no prioritised pedestrian crossing from 4-lane ends all the way down to Prospect Hill junction), many people simply do NOT walk (and subsequently do not appear in such surveys, leading to a flawed assessment).

A better proposal to cater for walking would be for this development to make an adequate S106 contribution to provide a prioritised pedestrian crossing over Mayfield Road.

How would you get to the Cinder Track from that part of the town if you were on a bike?

NYC Proposed disposal of Whitby green space near Stakesby Road

Andy Jefferson — Tue, 11 Mar 2025 13:27:59 +0000

We were referred to a proposal for North Yorkshire Council to dispose of an amount of land within a green space, which has an active travel path near Stakesby Road, Whitby. The notice from NYC invites comments. We responded as a joint response with our partners at Whitby Community Network CIC, as follows

Re: disposal of the land to the rear of 86 Stakesby Road

Dear Sir / Madam,

Regarding the proposed disposal of the land to the rear of 86 Stakesby Road

Loss of Green Space

Whitby parish has an established deficit of green space compared to both local and national guidelines. The most recent local authority audit was provided by Scarborough Borough Council (SBC) in 2014, where it concluded this, however this report also contained some errors which overestimated green space levels, and additionally there has been a sell off of some green spaces by SBC in the intervening years. Whitby
Community Network CIC has the most up-to-date analysis of green space [link]. This clearly shows a deficit of 5.4ha of natural, 6.2ha of urban park, and 1.0ha of sports green space, relative to the minimum standard.

North Yorkshire Council (NYC) has recognised in many reports the benefit that can be obtained from access to green space, and the NYC Director of Public Health has stated “There have been positive impacts from having accessible, local green spaces, which have supported both physical and mental health and wellbeing”. Whitby has some of the lowest health outcomes in the whole of the county, with a widely publicised coastal health crisis. It is essential that green space in such areas be both protected and enhanced to benefit the health and well-being of the community.

The green corridor where this proposed disposal is located consists of one of the very few collections of mature trees in the parish – such trees will presumably have tree preservation orders in place? It provides areas for local children to play, as well as providing a tranquil environment to walk away from cars. Such areas should be enhanced, not diminished, and removal of an area for private use only as well as providing vehicular ingress further into this area would significantly diminish it for the local community.

In deciding whether to dispose of this land, NYC should answer the question how they are going to provide the minimum standard of green space for Whitby parish? If NYC do not have a plan for that then disposal should simply not be an option.

If we refer to the current Local Plan (Policy HC 14 “Open Space and Sports Facilities”) which states

“b. The redevelopment of existing open spaces and outdoor sports facilities, including those identified within the Green Space Audit and Playing Pitch Strategy or any subsequent updates, for non-open space uses will only be permitted where

the existing open space does not contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area; and,
there is an identified surplus of that type of open space or sports provision in that locality and the site cannot be reclassified to meet an identified deficit in another form of open space or sports provision; or,
a replacement open space of an equal or higher quantity and quality can be provided in a nearby accessible location.”

This green space contributes positively in that it is well used. There is demonstrably no surplus of open space in this parish, and so, based on the Local Plan, such a disposal (and subsequent redevelopment) cannot go ahead.

Promoting Active Travel

The current active Local Plan (SBC) says (Policy INF1) “promoting sustainable modes of transport other than the private car”. NYC have a declared climate target of modest increase in levels of walking, along with a 900% increase in levels of cycling by 2030. Whitby & district currently has very low levels of cycling due to the lack of infrastructure (cf UK Active Lives Survey). As a result it is essential that all existing active travel infrastructure is both protected and enhanced so as to actively encourage uptake of such modes of transport. One of the benefits of this corridor is that it is virtually free from vehicles.

The green corridor in question provides a tranquil thoroughfare for connecting residential areas with Stakesby Road and onwards (via the pedestrian crossing) to West Cliff. The forthcoming Whitby Area Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) will connect in to this access path. Disposal of this land would give vehicles access further into the tranquil area, increasing the danger to pedestrians and cyclists in an era when we should be doing everything possible to encourage the uptake of such modes of transport.

The Department for Transport have established that around 70% of the public would not contemplate cycling around vehicles. Given that the community on Byland Road has many young children, with a play park just at the end of this section, even more reason to not allow vehicle ingress further up the green corridor. Further to that, Stakesby Primary Academy often use this green corridor as a route for getting to Whitby Leisure Centre. Additional vehicle ingress will increase danger to those children, in an area that should be a safe space.

We hereby request that you do not dispose of this land. Moreover, we also request that you arrange for bollards to be installed at the Stakesby Road end of the active travel section (like there are at the Byland Road end), so that no vehicles can spoil this tranquil area.

Regards

Whitby & Esk Valley Active Travel (registered charity 1206506).

Whitby Community Network CIC (company no 06393992).

Broomfield Farm Eco Development : Active Travel Provision

Andy Jefferson — Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:06:19 +0000

In 2021 funding of £17.1m was allocated to the Whitby Town Deal board for its town improvement plan. This was to provide 6 projects, one of which being an “Eco Village” housing project on the outskirts of the town. This project was initially envisaged to provide 60 affordable eco homes, but was scaled back a little to 49 homes in 2024. The development is to be provided by Brierley Homes, with £2.6m of Town Deal funding, and £2m of North Yorkshire Council (NYC) funding. It should be noted that Brierley Homes is actually owned by NYC; consequently one would expect that this would be the perfect opportunity to demonstrate their capability with provision of active travel infrastructure (rather than relying on the developer to provide it).

In terms of its location, this development is directly alongside the Broomfield Farm estate, that we previously provided an active travel assessment for. In late January 2025 it was entered in to the planning system, allowing us the chance to see how well it will provide for active travel.

As we stated for the Broomfield Farm Estate project, we have to pay attention to the current (Scarborough Borough Council) Local Plan (2011-2032). The Local Plan, written so many years ago, is a let down in terms of mandating provision of active travel infrastructure. Amongst the few relevant active travel references we have

Policy INF1 “promoting sustainable modes of transport other than the private car;”
5.19 “Applicants will also have to demonstrate that there are safe access and servicing arrangements for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians.”
9.12 “To improve the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, the Highways Authority will endeavour, where appropriate, to ensure all new layouts of residential streets restrict vehicle speeds to 20mph. By encouraging people to use more sustainable modes such as walking and cycling for shorter trips and public transport for longer trips, traffic volumes can be reduced significantly and congestion can be avoided. One of the most significant methods for achieving this modal shift is the provision of improved public transport services both through local bus services, or in larger towns, through the provision of cycle facilities at park and ride sites and transport hubs.”

In our assessment, specifically for cycling, we will also make reference to the Department for Transport’s LTN 1/20 (Cycle Infrastructure Design) issued in 2020, which outlines how cycle infrastructure should be provided.

The Development

In the following diagram, the solid yellow line represents paths suitable for use by people on bicycles (as well as pedestrians). These are on the previously assessed Broomfield Farm Estate. The dotted lines leading from the yellow solid line are pedestrian footpaths in the planning, but represent the 2 viable routes for shared infrastructure.

Click on the image for a zoomed in view.

Path Provision

As can be seen from the plan above, the 3m width shared path from the Broomfield Farm Estate ends once it reaches the A171! There are “End of Route” signs for bicycles. The path reverts to a 2m wide path heading east. This width is only suitable for pedestrians (as per LTN 1/20).

Consequently for pedestrians, there is a safe route walking alongside the A171 until the Yorkshire Water / Wildlife Sanctuary side road. Walk maybe 20-30m up this road and there is a 1.5-2.0m wide pedestrian link path to get on to the eco development.

The location plan submitted to planning doesn’t go in to sufficient detail to confirm such as dropped kerbs and tactile pavements at crossings, but NYC’s recent track record on installation of these is not bad, so we assume that adequate provision will be made for wheeling and for blind / partially-sighted.

For cyclists, there is a secure cycle storage at the front of the development. This is welcome. Saying that though, there is no defined route to get from the Broomfield Farm Estate shared path to this development. The 2m wide pedestrian path is not wide enough for LTN 1/20 (which requires minimum 3m width). One can only assume that NYC consider it acceptable for a cyclist to have to join the main A171 carriageway, heading east, and then turn in to the development at the new access road. Here is the relevant table from LTN 1/20 for their perusal. It really is very clear when dealing with shared paths.

As can be seen from the below photo, there is adequate width for adding a 3m wide shared path with the best location being behind the bus stop to reduce conflict with bus passengers.

Given that the Local Plan requires developments to “promote sustainable modes of transport” this means that they have to make cycling appealing to the majority of people. Given also that LTN 1/20 says very clearly that the majority (around 70%) of people will not cycle on a road. The only conclusion is that this development as currently proposed offers nothing to a person wanting to cycle yet not willing to cycle on the road. If NYC don’t provide a way to get to and from the development, it will only appeal to a minority who are either willing to cycle on the road, or who will (illegally) cycle on the pedestrian footpath. The “eco” credentials of this “eco development” certainly do not originate from catering well for active travel.

Crossing Provision

The other aspect to consider is how to cross the busy A171. This should be a key consideration for the Local Plan “promote sustainable modes of transport”. If a mode of transport has no priority can it be considered to be “promoted“?

In terms of a pedestrian wanting to get to Whitby Business Park, their only options are the uncontrolled crossing (island) at the Broomfield Estate roundabout or, alternatively, the uncontrolled crossing just to the east. Both of these options are unprioritised, and hence, dependent on vehicles. This represents a failure to observe the Local Plan requirements.

In terms of a cyclist, there is no option at all for crossing the road, … other than cycle on the road. Again, this represents a complete failure to observe LTN 1/20 as well as the Local Plan requirements.

On the map we have marked a dotted line where a parallel crossing could be sited. This crossing will be included in the forthcoming Whitby LCWIP for what it’s worth. The photo above shows the location of one of the uncontrolled crossings – this simply needs upgrading to a parallel crossing.

Conclusions

Our conclusions are as follows :

this development provides basic footpaths for pedestrians, but currently (without NYC Highways intervention) fails to give any priority to pedestrians over vehicles and, as such, will do little to encourage more walking. Moreover, significant risk is introduced at the junction with the A171 with no priority crossing point;
the development provides secure cycle storage, but no safe and convenient way of reaching the development on a bicycle from the Broomfield Farm estate alongside, nor of crossing the A171 to the business park. This represents a complete failure to observe LTN 1/20.
the development has easy access to (existing) bus stops on the A171 which will provide access to services to Scarborough, and Whitby town centre – a positive.

To summarise, it appears that catering for pedestrians and people on bicycles is more an afterthought than a prime concern, and this development fails to realise the potential benefits of active travel and also fails to meet the Local Plan target of “promote sustainable modes of transport”.

If we refer to the NYC “capability self assessment” for Active Travel for 2024 (submitted to Active Travel England), in response to the question “Do you currently require developers and planning applications to use LTN 1/20?” NYC answered “Yes”. This is demonstrably false, using the above evidence (as well as examples from other parts of North Yorkshire that we are aware of). This can only be described as disgraceful.

Improvements Required

What could be done to make this development actually promote sustainable modes of transport?

Provide an extension of the 3m wide multi-use (shared) path from the Broomfield Farm Estate, around alongside the A171 and connect directly to the development (as far as the secure bicycle storage).
Provide a parallel crossing on the A171, providing pedestrians and cyclists a safe priority route across the A171.

Given that this is currently in the planning system and not yet improved, these are all simple steps really, all readily achievable. Will NYC and (it’s own) developers step up?

We have submitted our findings into the planning system, as well as contacting NYC directly about the failings.

We received a reply from NYC (26/02/2025) as follows

“North Yorkshire Council agrees that establishing a positive connection for pedestrians and cyclists between the Brierley Homes development and the neighbouring Barrett’s development is essential. Currently, the Reserved Matters application for the Brierley Homes site is under review by the Development Management Engineer, and their comments will be available on the planning portal soon.”

Whitby Business Park : Active Travel Provision

Andy Jefferson — Fri, 06 Dec 2024 08:14:17 +0000

Whitby Business Park has developed since the 1970s, with many long standing local businesses located there, as well as some more recent ones. Whilst a business park is typically aimed as an “out of town” location with cars being the typical visitor, many people do want to visit such places either walking or cycling. Moreover, some workers at the business units also want to walk or cycle.

What are the facilities like for pedestrians, people on bikes, or people on mobility devices whether they are customers to the businesses, or whether they work there?

The business park is laid out as shown below.

Cycling Provision

The first thing to note is that there is no explicit provision for cycling whatsoever on the business park. The only ways of navigating around are “on road”, and all are 30mph, hence not compliant with LTN 1/20 and, as such, not where the majority of people will go. In addition there are no cycle friendly crossings to get across the main A171 to the business park.

For use of the retailers on the park, there are cycle racks at Sainsburys, B&M, and ALDI / Iceland, as well as very limited rack space at the Penny Hedge Inn (seemingly thrown in as an afterthought – as far from the building as possible, right next to the road and hence not on CCTV).

The 2 recent planning permissions for new units at the north west and at the east of the park will, when constructed, come with cycle parking, which will be welcome. Sadly that does nothing to make up for the lack of parking in the remainder of the park, nor viable routes to get there.

Walking Provision

Walking provision is limited to alongside roads (orange on the above map) as well as 2 small footpaths through green space (yellow on the above map) – more on these below. There are no other paths connecting different parts of the business park away from roads. Paths of this nature would be very useful to assist workers getting to/from their workplace quicker away from the roads, but sadly little effort has been invested in the design of the park in this respect – symptomatic of a site designed solely for the car, with walking being an afterthought (and cycling not even reaching that level).

Fairfield Way is notorious for cars being parked fully on the footpath, preventing pedestrian access. Cholmley Way is not much different in this regard, the difference with that road being that businesses there generally have inadequate parking space.

The appalling parking stems from the following

The design of the business park solely for cars, yet not providing adequate (off street) parking, particularly in the areas like Cholmley Way and some parts of Fairfield Way.
Entitlement of vehicle drivers, thinking about their vehicle rather than the people who need to use the footpath.
Lack of enforcement by North Yorkshire Police. See below, obstruction of the footpath is currently a criminal matter and can be pursued by the police. Only if there is a law change could this become a civil enforcement matter for North Yorkshire Council to manage.

IMPORTANT : It is an offence to obstruct a pavement – via Regulation 103 of The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. The definition of obstruction is not spelt out, but many vulnerable people need a pavement width of 2 metres, e.g. someone needing a guide dog, or in a wheelchair, or groups of parents with buggies.

North Yorkshire Police could prosecute such obstruction of the pavement, as it is a criminal matter. There was a consultation by the Johnson UK Government to convert this to a civil matter that could be dealt with by local authorities such as North Yorkshire Council; sadly the results were never published and so we are currently reliant on North Yorkshire Police in this respect.

Here we present some examples of the “parking” along the length of Fairfield Way on just one day. It would be impossible for a pedestrian to utilise the footpaths without having to walk on the road for significant distances.

1

Fairfield Way “parking” leaving no room for pedestrians.

2

Fairfield Way “parking”.

3

Fairfield Way “parking”. Why should a cone make a difference?

4

Fairfield Way “parking”. Pedestrian friendly zone.

5

Fairfield Way “parking”.

6

Fairfield Way back road : one car parked correctly (on the road) whilst all others think the footpath is their space.

The end result is that pedestrians have to walk on the road, putting their lives at risk with HGVs passing. It also means that anybody in a mobility device (wheelchair, mobility scooter, etc) needing to get to any of the business units on this site have to navigate the whole of Fairfield Road on the road since there are no dropped kerbs either. The whole area is in breach of the Equality Act 2010 due to the flagrant abuse of parking (and lack of enforcement by North Yorkshire Police).

Edit : Please note, we haven’t even looked at the detailed requirements for such as people who are blind or partially sighted, since these paths are currently a no go zone due to this level of illegal parking. Should the illegal parking ever be addressed, be assured that this assessment would then be updated accordingly to include such as tactile paves and dropped kerbs.

Green Space Footpaths

As mentioned there are 2 paths through the green space across the central swathe of the business park. One (connecting to Cholmley Way) is nothing more than a mud path (becomes unusable after wet weather) with no lighting at all, and unusable for disabled people. The other (connecting to Fairfield Way) does have an asphalt surface but has very limited lighting as well as being overgrown. These 2 small paths are potentially very useful for workers to get to/from their business, however, the path connecting to Cholmley Way has severe limitations as mentioned. As a result it would be unsafe for, say, a female worker walking home alone after a shift in the dark to use this path. There are no other paths connecting different parts of the business park away from roads.

Click on an image below to zoom.

Cholmley 1

Connection to Cholmley Way with bridge over tiny beck.

Cholmley 2

Looking towards Cholmley Way

Cholmley 3

Heading around towards back of Fairfield Way.

Cholmley 4

Cholmley path connecting to back of Fairfield Way

Fairfield 1

Path from Fairfield Way, leading north west towards the back end of Fairfield Way.

Fairfield 2

Path from Fairfield Way with streetlight, but path surface very overgrown.

Fairfield 3

Path connecting to the back of Fairfield Way, near the path across to Cholmley Way.

Vegetation Encroachment

Parts of Fairfield Way are subject to bushes and trees blocking the passage of pedestrians along footpaths.

Additionally, the green space swathe through the centre of the business park is left largely unmaintained, and so does not fulfil its potential. This is an issue for North Yorkshire Council.

1

Footpath completely blocked due to lack of NYC maintenance

2

Further lack of vegetation management restricting the width of available footpath (never mind the illegal parking).

Update (March 2025) : North Yorkshire Council Parks department have seemingly now cut back the overgrown vegetation from this section. Thank you!

Lighting

There are parts of the business park that have insufficient lighting. There are areas of car parking with little lighting, and additionally the path across to Cholmley Way has no lighting whatsoever. This results in the safety of pedestrians being put at unnecessary risk.

Conclusions

In a recent survey (Nov 2024) for the Whitby Neighbourhood Plan, many businesses reported parking issues as being one of the main areas of concern with the business park – both a lack of on-site parking in some areas, as well as illegal pavement parking. This is particularly an issue when wanting to provide active travel, with valuable space that should be allocated to vulnerable road users being taken up by vehicles.

If we look at the current active Local Plan (2011-2032) we find the following

Policy INF1 “promoting sustainable modes of transport other than the private car;”
5.19 “Applicants will also have to demonstrate that there are safe access and servicing arrangements for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians.”

Given that there are absolutely no paths suitable for cycling, and the only footpaths present are either alongside roads which carry HGVs, or are overgrown paths with little to no lighting, it is a reasonable assessment that the Local Plan aim to promote sustainable modes of transport has been an abject failure in the area within this business park.

Given the utter lack of enforcement of Regulation 103 of The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 by North Yorkshire Police, it is also clear that the lives of pedestrians and mobility device users are being put at unnecessary risk by the design of the business park, the illegal actions of vehicle owners, coupled with North Yorkshire Police’s lack of enforcement. With the exception of the retail units along the A171, the business park is effectively a no-go zone for disabled people currently.

Active Travel Proposals

Whilst retrofitting a sane design on the Whitby business park is clearly not cost effective, there are things that could be done to improve the situation for vulnerable road users.

Vehicle Parking on footpaths

As said, this is an offence, and North Yorkshire Police could run an education campaign about parking on pavement before any enforcement in this park area. Should that not be effective, then enforcement would be required. Otherwise, much more expensive redesign of some of the roads and parking areas may be needed.

Access for less able-bodied (Equality Act 2010).

As the assessment says, currently much of the business park is currently an effective no-go zone for disabled people. Following removal of the illegal parking problem above, there should be a thorough assessment of the needs of disabled users, such as mobility scooters, wheelchairs, blind or partially sighted, and so on. This would involve consideration of dropped kerbs, tactile pavings etc.

Active Travel paths through green space

These should be developed to provide a 3m wide multi-use (shared) path (length would be 250m) through the central part of the business park. Such a path would also require lighting for its full extent. This would be an effective way of “promoting sustainable modes of transport” and offsetting the over reliance on vehicles around the estate. The aim would then be to eventually provide complete compliant active travel routes for workers to get between home and their location of employment.

Bicycle Storage

Whilst new business units will be getting bike storage, there is still the issue of providing bike storage for the many existing units. Either a central store could be provided near the green space in the central area next to Fairfield Way, or employers be encouraged to provide this for their employees. If any employers on the site do indeed provide bike storage on their unit, please let us know.

Update : March 2025

We have contacted North Yorkshire Police and North Yorkshire Council. After a period of time NYP came back to us and said that at the current time they have no plans to take action, however they were aware that NYC were intending to implement a “solution” to the pavement parking. We contacted NYC again to get an update and were informed that “We have consulted with the businesses on placing parking restrictions on one side of Fairfield Way – this will make parking wholly on the footway an offence. Currently we are in the process of drafting a report for the Director and the Executive Member for Highways to consider. If all goes well, we expect some yellow lines to be in place in a few months’ time.“

Good news?

Update : November 2025

The yellow lines around Fairfield Way have not materialised. The whole area is still a virtual no-go zone for disabled and pedestrians.

References

For reference, there are several documents related to the design of the Business Park. These are listed below

It has to be said that many of the objectives in these documents with respect to active travel have been an utter failure. To name but one

“To improve vehicle and pedestrian connectivity through the Business Park by connecting the major roads within the site and provide a choice of transport modes to/from and around the Business Park by providing cycle and pedestrian routes linking it with the local highway network and the rest of the town”.

Broomfield Farm Estate : Active Travel Provision

Andy Jefferson — Tue, 20 Aug 2024 06:38:12 +0000

The largest housing estate in the Whitby area in many years is located on east side, bordering the Eskdale Park estate, on the south eastern edge of town. It has to be said that the estate is directly adjacent to the Yorkshire Water sewerage works, and so the aroma may not appeal to some. It is a fact that active travel has to be promoted as a viable means of transport, and that starts in residential areas, where people live. It also needs to be mentioned that whilst Whitby has national average levels of walking, it has amongst the lowest uptake in cycling in the country, largely due to a lack of infrastructure.

What about the provision of active travel infrastructure in this new estate? From the outset we need to say that all previous housing developments in the Whitby area have

provided footpaths alongside roads, though provision of footpaths away from roads has only been the exception rather than the norm (i.e design for the road rather than for people);
apported precisely nothing to support cycling;
typically not provided much in the way of road crossings, with North Yorkshire Council (NYC) seemingly unwilling (or unable, due to funding?) to offer encouragement for pedestrians to get about safely.

Is this development any better for promoting active travel?

As background we have to pay attention to the current (Scarborough Borough Council) Local Plan (2011-2032). The Local Plan, written so many years ago, is a let down in terms of mandating provision of active travel infrastructure. Amongst the few relevant active travel references we have

Policy INF1 “promoting sustainable modes of transport other than the private car;”
5.19 “Applicants will also have to demonstrate that there are safe access and servicing arrangements for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians.”
9.12 “To improve the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, the Highways Authority will endeavour, where appropriate, to ensure all new layouts of residential streets restrict vehicle speeds to 20mph. By encouraging people to use more sustainable modes such as walking and cycling for shorter trips and public transport for longer trips, traffic volumes can be reduced significantly and congestion can be avoided. One of the most significant methods for achieving this modal shift is the provision of improved public transport services both through local bus services, or in larger towns, through the provision of cycle facilities at park and ride sites and transport hubs.”

The Estate

The estate is made up of two parts, Barratts “Abbey View”/ David Wilson “Chaloners Green” (see planning application) to the east of this composite image (providing 233 dwellings), and the Stonebridge development (see planning application) to the west of the image (providing 241 dwellings). It features a spine road stretching from the A171 at the north east (roundabout) to Sandpiper Place (on the Eskdale Park estate) to the north west. It is supposed to eventually provide connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists to the Cinder Track at the south west of this image. It should be noted that this site is in the Local Plan to nominally provide 320 dwellings, not the 474 now approved. Such a “shoehorning in” of homes will clearly have an impact on what is provided along with the dwellings, with less space for green areas / paths (in a town with a large deficit of green space compared to the minimum standard).

In the following diagram, the yellow line represents paths suitable for use by people on bicycles (as well as pedestrians), whereas the white paths are pedestrian only (click on the image for a zoomed in view).

Path Provision - Spine

The main spine road through the estate has a footpath on both sides. The northerly side is a 3m wide multi-use (shared) path, permitting cycling. The southerly side is solely for pedestrians, with the exception of the last maybe 75m which is multi-use (shared). The spine road stretches for approximately 1km (500m for the Barratts / David Wilson development and 500m for the Stonebridge development), from the junction with the A171 near Whitby Business Park through to the junction with Sandpiper Place (at the very north west of the site).

Type of Path

Above we have the multi-use (shared) path on the northerly side of the spine road (at the Barratts / David Wilson side of the estate). Firstly, it has good separation from the road at this location, though the separation from the road for later stretches are not so good. LTN 1/20 states “Shared use routes away from streets may be appropriate in locations such as … paths through housing estates”. It has to be said though, there is ample space for segregated pedestrian and cycling paths, with a dedicated 2-way cycle path. That would reduce conflict between pedestrians and cyclists; and had the developer(s) been permitted to develop just the number of dwellings as specified in the Local Plan then there would have been more than adequate space. As LTN 1/20 also says “Shared use facilities are generally not favoured by either pedestrians or cyclists”. It goes on “Where a shared use facility is being considered, early engagement with relevant interested parties should be undertaken”; this never happened. As a consequence, we would state clearly that segregating cycling from walking, and providing a 2-way dedicated cycle path would have been eminently doable, and would have done more to promote sustainable travel.

In the original outline planning permission NYC Highways did indeed say “Highway Authority further advises that provision should also be made within the internal site layout for a segregated cycle path that runs adjacent to the main spine road and a connection to the Cinder Track”. It seems that this was not heeded, and the developer was allowed to water down the active travel support. Let’s not forget that the NYC Local Transport Plan states “limit traffic growth by reducing the need to travel and developing alternative non-car modes”. The way to develop non-car modes, such as walking and cycling is to make it as viable and conflict free as possible. This requirement has not been followed on this estate, with this shared path more like a grudging token effort.

Note that there is currently street furniture (internet cabinet(s)) on the multi-use path. This is another example of how not to provide cycle infrastructure (LTN 1/20). Maybe by the time the estate is complete it will be repositioned?

Junction Treatment

The image above shows a typical side road crossing along this spine multi-use (shared) path (at the Barratts / David Wilson end of the estate). In this case there has been no effort to provide a raised path to reinforce any prioritisation for pedestrians and cyclists. Looking at the side road junctions with the multi-use (shared) path across the whole estate we have 9 side roads along its length. Of these we have 5 with raised paths (and raised junctions) and 4 without (i.e as per the photo).

The planning does not specify if there will (eventually) be road markings to define prioritisation for the multi-use path; this is left to NYC Highways to define when they eventually adopt it. Without explicit markings we are left to drivers observance of the current Highway Code which asserts that pedestrians and cyclists have priority when crossing or ready to cross but this is currently badly observed by road users; this road junction design would then lead to pedestrians and people on bikes having to give way most of the time. Explicit “give way” markings such as in Fig 10.16 of LTN 1/20 (see below) are required … we have to wait and see if Highways will do this.

A lack of prioritisation at junctions with side roads would most likely lead to many cyclists not using this path due to the stop-start nature of transit; this would represent a failure of adherence to LTN 1/20.

Similarly use of a raised path on all side road junctions would have reinforced the need to slow down traffic in all side road communities, providing a safer environment for children playing; another opportunity missed.

Given that the estate is only partially constructed, maybe there is still time for NYC and the developers to work together and correct these failings. To quote the NYC Transport Issues and Development Guide when talking about residential schemes “Vehicle speeds should be low and ‘Home Zone’ design principles [link] should be used to give walkers and cyclists a perceived priority”. If residents have to wait for adoption until some potential prioritisation is applied, then this scheme will have failed in its remit in the meantime – the best way to establish habits is to have the environment configured from the outset, not three years down the line.

NYC, when asked to comment, said “The internal road layout has already been agreed with the developer and they have built in accordance with those plans, which do not include at grade priority access for cyclists at the junctions. However with very light traffic flows on the residential side roads, there is unlikely to be significant delays to either pedestrians or cyclists using the path”. Namely that they have no plans to make any intervention, and are seemingly ok with delivery of non-LTN 1/20 compliant infrastructure. This is precisely the reason that NYC’s “capability rating” from Active Travel England is currently 1, the joint lowest of all English councils, and why they have missed out on funding in ATF3 and ATF4 rounds from Active Travel England – infrastructure has to be LTN 1/20 compliant, and this is another example where it is not.

Signage

Whilst it is early to assess the signage being used on this development (given that only the first half of the Barratts / David Wilson side of the estate is built at the time of writing), we can comment on what is present currently.

As said above, there are no road markings. What there are though are painted-on shared path markers on the tarmac shared use path.

Path Provision - A171 Junction

The junction with the A171 is critical to any active travel provision in that it connects pedestrians and cyclists with Whitby Business Park at the other side of the road. The image carousel below shows the three crossings on this roundabout.

Broomfield Estate entrance crossing

Broomfield Estate A171 east crossing

Broomfield Estate A171 west crossing

The (uncontrolled) crossing over the estate entry spine road gives no priority to pedestrians – with 474 dwellings this road is likely to have significant traffic at completion. This is a failure to consider the needs of the pedestrian.

The crossing over the estate entry spine road also apports nothing for the cyclist, who is seemingly encouraged to cross this road due to a shared path sign at the other side. As LTN 1/20 states “at higher speeds and traffic volumes uncontrolled crossings are unlikely to meet the needs of all users”. In fact the multi-use (shared) path actually ends once you get across to the other side of the road and approach the (uncontrolled) crossing over the A171 east side. Presumably the idea here is that a cyclist will dismount and walk with their bike? This is a failure to consider the destination of a cyclist, and hence another failure of adherence to LTN 1/20 (one of the core design principles of LTN 1/20 is to allow people to reach their destination).

The 2 (uncontrolled) crossing points over the A171 are similarly for pedestrian only, and give no priority to pedestrians. Whilst the 2022 Highway code changes say that drivers “should” give way to pedestrians wanting to cross, this is largely ignored by motorists, resulting in no priority. The A171 at many times of the day has heavy traffic, and this will lead to pedestrians having to wait for long time periods. This is yet another failure by NYC in pedestrian provision. The pedestrian is faced with crossing over the entry to the layby, and a 50m walk to the sole light-controlled (pedestrian) crossing. The fact that there are no facilities of note for cyclists to either get across the A171, or even to join the road traffic, really does sum up the provision. It would be better to have a parallel crossing for both pedestrians and cyclists (coming off the multi-use (shared) path) and then they could reach the Whitby Business Park safely. The majority of stores on that site have cycle parking, so provide a joined up link.

Considering the 474 dwellings on this estate, which would imply the order of 1000 residents (with the order of 700+ vehicles), and for pedestrians to then have no priority over vehicles in crossing the A171 to get to the shopping area is frankly ludicrous. It will only be a matter of time before the first road collision involving a pedestrian or cyclist at this junction. Maybe NYC Highways have a planned intervention that has not been made public?

NYC Highways were asked to comment on the proposed route for a cyclist to cross the A171 and came back with “the current Barratts development at this site was granted permission five years ago (actually incorrect, it was 3.5 years) and the offsite highway works required were agreed at that time, unfortunately we are not able to go back and ask the developer to provide additional infrastructure, such as a Parallel Crossing as suggested”. So basically there is no route, no plan for a viable route, so you’re on your own cyclists. Note that the Local Plan “promote sustainable modes of transport” existed when this was in planning, as did LTN 1/20 – just that NYC decided to ignore them!

Please note that the planning permission committee report for Barratts / David Wilson development stated “Providing changes are made to the layby and suitable provision is made for pedestrian and cyclists the access arrangements are considered satisfactory”. The problem is that there is currently no suitable provision for pedestrians and cyclists. Additionally it says “it is recommended that widening of existing paths within the highway extents be undertaken where required to achieve minimum widths of 2m for footways and 3m for cyclepaths”. Again, there is no visibility of this provision.

The NYC Transport Issues and Development Guide states “the County Council considers that priority attention should be given to promoting a shift in mode from car to more environmentally friendly forms of transport including public transport, cycling and walking”. Not having any priority for pedestrians to cross the A171 from this large new estate represents a failure to meet this remit. Similarly not having any method for a cyclist crossing the A171 from the estate without having to dismount represents a further failure. These failures negate any positive value of having the multi-use (shared) path.

Path Provision - Sandpiper Place

The other junction is where the Broomfield Farm estate reaches Sandpiper Place (on the neighbouring Eskdale Park estate), as shown below.

The multi-use (shared) path will simply come to an end. This will need to have associated signage (at the Sandpiper Place side indicating a shared path, and at the Broomfield Farm estate side indicating the end of the shared path), and a way of releasing cycle traffic on to the road (without using the dropped kerb / drive of the last property on Sandpiper Place. The site layout for the Stonebridge development does not show any release path for bikes to get on/off near Sandpiper Place. Something else that will need resolving.

Path Provision - Cinder Track Junction

The most significant path in the Whitby area is the Cinder Track (sole piece of cycle infrastructure in the district), which skirts the southern end of this estate. It is essential that the connections between estate and Cinder Track are effective. If we zoom in to that part of the estate

For pedestrians there are several paths that lead to the 2 Cinder Track connections; whilst they may not be particularly direct they do provide the needed connection.

For cyclists, there is no permitted route from the spine multi-use path to the Cinder Track; the paths all seem to be pedestrian footpaths (width 2m or less) and there is no multi-use path (3m width minimum) alongside the adjoining roads. Below is the snippet from LTN 1/20 clearly defining the need for a minimum 3m wide shared path for it to be considered suitable to allow people on bicycles.

This is almost like the provision for cycling was an afterthought. As per LTN 1/20 any route should be direct. Even if we take the route from the corner of the spine path and head south on pedestrian footpaths, cyclists are still faced with 4 sharp bends if wanting to head towards Whitby on the Cinder Track. This is another failure to observe basic cycling infrastructure design. Cyclists will inevitably take short cuts and the green space surface will become eroded, due to the failure to provide a more direct route (and respect LTN 1/20).

Clearly the planning for this part of the estate has only just been passed, and there is time before development for Stonebridge Homes to put this right. This connection should have been designed in from the outset, not addressed as an afterthought!

Stonebridge Homes have been invited to comment on this situation (watch this space if we get a reply).

Evidently not one NYC councillor flagged this issue, but then judging by the utter lack of infrastructure in this district they seemingly have little understanding of the requirements of active travel (and certainly not enough to match the rhetoric in the approved NYC climate strategy).

Estate Paths

The Barratts development provides additional pedestrian paths around the south western “park” area, and along the southern flank of the estate. They provide nothing to the north, so people on the north of the estate are limited to using the path alongside the road – it would have been a simple task of providing some greenspace and a path around the northern boundary.

The Stonebridge development provides additional pedestrian paths along the western edge as well as around the southern flank, joining with the Barratts path, and 2 connections to the Cinder Track. As for the Barratts development, the houses to the north-eastern end of the estate have no path or greenspace on their doorstep. Based on the site layout diagram and the width of the paths (2m or less), they are seemingly only for pedestrians, begging the question how a person on a bicycle would get to the Cinder Track (legally)?

Urban Design Aspects

Whilst it is not the prime focus of this charity, the urban design of a housing development impacts on the propensity to use active travel. Our comments on the urban design of this estate :

the two developments are designed around the roads, first and foremost, not around people. That said, there are several raised junctions to attempt to calm many of the side roads, which is welcome, and should lead to more opportunities for children to play in roads (which they would have to do due to the lack of green space in the immediate vicinity of many houses);
the location of the vast majority of “green space” to the south side is primarily for “odour exclusion” purposes (around the sewerage works) and not for provision of quality green space. This means that the housing, in general, will lack any connection with nature, with large swathes of tarmac / block-paving and its associated water run-off. Given the smell, only time will tell whether many residents make use of this space;
cycle storage : the original suggestion of cycle storage for plots without garages on the Barratts development was watered down during planning resulting in them providing no storage for cycles. Thankfully Stonebridge Homes will be providing such storage, so anybody who does want to use sustainable forms of transport can purchase on that development rather than on the Barratts development. This type of provision should be standard anywhere, so why a housebuilder like Barratts thinks that such cost cutting is somehow worthwhile is beyond us;
the absence of green space distributed through the development means that there are very few paths connecting different parts of the development – a further sign that this development is designed around the car rather than the person and will likely fail in creating a sense of community.

Conclusions

Our conclusions are as follows :

this estate provides basic footpaths for pedestrians, but currently (without NYC Highways intervention) fails to give any priority to pedestrians over vehicles and, as such, will do little to encourage more walking. Moreover, significant risk is introduced at the junction with the A171 with no priority crossing point;
the estate provides a basic 1km multi-use path for use by cyclists, but in its implementation it apparently disregards much of LTN 1/20, treating cycling provision as a box ticking exercise with little consideration for actually making it attractive. There would have been ample space and opportunity to provide a 2-way segregated bike path through the estate, but this opportunity has not been taken and instead opting for cramming in more dwellings with fewer facilities. The junction with the A171 provides no cycle crossing priority (an appalling omission) with the cycle facilities simply ending. There is no connecting path to connect to the Cinder Track for cycling, and neither are the pedestrian paths direct. This does not meet the Local Plan policy of “promoting sustainable modes of transport”. We have to ask, are developers even remotely aware of LTN 1/20?;
the provision of cycle storage for some dwellings on the Stonebridge Homes development is welcome but, without suitable cycling infrastructure, will make no difference to the appallingly low levels of cycling in this district. Most likely the cycle storage will remain unused, or used for alternative storage, until there is suitable cycle infrastructure around this area. But another box was ticked, so NYC councillors and officers can feel good. Worth noting that Barratt’s couldn’t even be bothered in providing anything;
the estate has no designated public transport connection within easy reach for the ageing population that the town has, and given that the active travel offering in the town leaves much to be desired, this will only increase the reliance on private vehicles. The NYC policy-induced carmaggedon that the town currently suffers from will undoubtedly worsen. Saying that, it is allegedly NYC “policy” to encourage modal shift, only that any action, such as providing a bus service for new estates like this one, is not materialising, rendering the policy a joke.

To summarise, it appears that catering for pedestrians and people on bicycles is more an afterthought than a prime concern, and this development largely fails to realise the potential benefits of active travel and also fails to meet the Local Plan target of “promote sustainable modes of transport”.

As an addendum [Jan 2025], we refer to the NYC “capability self assessment” for Active Travel for 2024 (submitted to Active Travel England), and in response to the question “Do you currently require developers and planning applications to use LTN 1/20?” they answered “Yes”. This is demonstrably false, using the above evidence (as well as examples from other parts of North Yorkshire that we are aware of).

Improvements Required

What could be done to make this estate actually promote sustainable modes of transport?

Provide a parallel crossing (or similar) on the A171 that feeds straight from the multi-use (shared) path, providing pedestrians and cyclists a safe priority route across the A171.
Provide “Give Way” markings on all side road junctions with the multi-use (shared) path, so that pedestrians and cyclists have priority.
Provide an extension of the multi-use (shared) path across to the Cinder Track. This should be seamless, including prioritised crossing of the spine road.

Setting aside the failure to provide a segregated cycle path (which is too late to fix for this development) these are all simple steps really, all readily achievable. Will NYC and developers step up?

We have now (26/02/2025) received a reply from NYC regarding the Stonebridge Homes development, as follows

“As part of the recent S38 technical review and road safety audit for the proposed Stonebridge development adjacent to the Broomfield estate, the perimeter path linking to the Cinder track at the south will be widened from its initial proposal of 2 meters. Additionally, a crossing facility will be provided to allow cyclists and pedestrians to cross from the 3-meter shared-use footway/cycleway and access this link path at its boundary with the Broomfield estate.

The developer of this estate is also proposing a link into the Broomfield estate towards the south, enabling residents to access this link path that connects to the Cinder track. Discussions regarding these proposals are ongoing.”

The Future

From June 2023, Active Travel England is a statutory consultee on all developments of more than 150 dwellings. Sadly that change came too late for the Broomfield Farm estate. It is expected that this change will lead to far greater scrutiny over provision of paths, lighting and connectivity, with much more thought put in to how active travel provision connects with the rest of the infrastructure network. We can only look back and think, if only ?

NYC are in the process of writing a new Local Plan for the whole county which, it is hoped, will provide a much enhanced requirement for active travel, but this is not likely to arrive before 2028. They have climate targets which imply a 900% increase in use of bicycles as form of transport, so this Local Plan (and associated Local Transport Plan) will have to include the implementation of LTN 1/20 concepts for it to match those climate ambitions, otherwise their active travel policy will be even more a laughing stock than it is currently.

Probably the best hope for having future developments with decent active travel support is via the Neighbourhood Plan for Whitby parish. This is being worked up by a steering group led by Whitby Town Council, with representation from the community (including from our charity) to include suitable policies to mandate promotion of active travel, and cycle infrastructure that does take into account LTN 1/20.

Anything is better than what we have currently.

Barriers To Access Survey 2024

Andy Jefferson — Sun, 07 Apr 2024 17:54:23 +0000

We are doing a survey, alongside Whitby, Scarborough and Ryedale DAG, to gather information about barriers to access for the many paths, trails and rights of way throughout the Whitby and District area. The types of barriers we are immediately thinking of are steps, steep slopes, gates, stiles, etc, things that prevent people using paths. We are particularly interested in barriers for people in wheelchairs, mobility scooters, non-standard cycles, or with prams/pushchairs/buggies.

All data gathered during this survey will be entered onto a map of the district. This has 2 purposes :

firstly so that we have a record of the likely problem areas so that when we can obtain suitable funding we can endeavour to fix some of the problems.
secondly as an information source for people considering a walk, and the likely barriers that they may come across.

Once the survey is complete we will provide this (baseline) map and, additionally, an online form whereby people can continue to report such barriers to access and they will be added. Similarly, when a barrier is fixed / removed then it will be removed from the map.

The survey will be open between April 8th and May 31st 2024.

Please share it with family and friends.