Planning – Whitby and 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.

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?