Whitby and the North York Moors National Park Whitb… · Whitby and the North York Moors National Park ... yet does not form part of it. (b) All of the major road and rail routes

Whitby and the North York Moors National Park

The Case for Amending the National Park Boundary

Report produced by Whitby Town Council for consideration by Natural England, North York Moors National Park Authority,

North Yorkshire County Council and Scarborough Borough Council.

December 2010

2 Whitby Town Council

14 December 2010


The Case for Amending the National Park Boundary

Content Page

Introduction 3 Executive Summary 4

1. Then and Now: 1952 and 2010 6 2. Economic and Social Considerations 7

3. Recognising Community Identity 8

4. Cost Savings and Improved Efficiency 9

5. The Process of Boundary Change 10

6. Benefits for the NYM National Park and Whitby

6.1 Road Traffic…………………………………………………………………………………… 12 6.2 Affordable Housing and Second/Holiday Homes………….. 13 6.3 Landscape and Heritage Conservation……………………………….. 15 6.4 Recreation and Tourism…………………………………………………………… 16 6.5 Renewable Energy………………………………………………………………………. 18 6.6 Ecosystem Management/Climate Change Adaptation…. 19 6.7 Local Food Supply……………………………………………………………………….. 20 6.8 Inspiring Life-long Behaviour Change ……………………………….. 21

7. Issues Requiring Clarification 7.1 Planning………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22 7.2 National Park Authority Composition ………………………………… 24

8. Conclusions 25 Footnotes and Map 27


14 December 2010


Introduction Whitby is the only urban settlement in the UK that is wholly enclosed by a National Park, yet does not form part of it. Whitby and the villages of Sleights and Sandsend would have been included, had the current boundary-setting criteria been in place when the North York Moors National Park was designated in 1952. There have been major social, economic and environmental changes since 1952. National Parks are increasingly important ‘breathing spaces’ for densely-populated conurbations and Whitby is now a ‘honeypot’ destination for visitors. The ability of the North York Moors National Park Authority to meet its statutory remit in the years ahead will be substantially impaired if the boundary is not corrected. The growth potential of Whitby is severely constrained by the boundary of the National Park. Yet it does not benefit in return from the same level of protected area status, to conserve and enhance the natural setting, distinctive townscape, and nationally-important cultural heritage, on which its tourism economy depends. Radical reform of local government is underway, as a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review, formation of Local Enterprise Partnerships, and the Devolution and Localism bill. All public bodies are seeking ways to improve effectiveness and cut costs. Scarborough Borough Council and the North York Moors National Park Authority are preparing their Strategic Plans for 2011-2015. DEFRA is consulting on the future governance structure of the National Parks, to increase accountability, and the Natural Environment White Paper is due in Spring 2011. With the forward plans of all public sector bodies under review, now is the ideal time to incorporate into their revised plans this long-overdue boundary correction, to include the town of Whitby and the villages of Sleights and Sandsend within the North York Moors National Park.


14 December 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Whitby’s economy is now aligned with and inextricably linked to that of the North York Moors National Park in ways that could not have been foreseen when the Park was designated in 1952. The economies of both now depend on sustainable tourism and recreation, supported by small-scale local enterprises.

• Whitby fulfills the same accommodation, service centre, and transport interchange role for the northern half of the North York Moors as Bowness-on-Windermere does for the Lake District, or Bakewell for the Peak District. It would be unthinkable for those towns to be treated as islands within those National Parks, subject to different planning regimes and economic policies.

• Under the current criteria for setting the boundaries of a National Park, Whitby and the villages of Sleights and Sandsend would undoubtedly have been included from the start.

• Road traffic and road access to Whitby were of minor importance in 1952, since all freight and most visitors were carried by rail. Almost sixty years later, an integrated traffic management system and co-ordinated, sustainable transport infrastructure will be crucial to the future ability of the North York Moors National Park Authority to meet its statutory remit.

• Whitby’s growth potential is significantly constrained by enclosure within the National Park. But it does not benefit, in return, from the same high level of planning controls and environmental conservation and enhancement measures. Yet the economic well-being of the town is crucially dependent on its outstanding cultural heritage and unique townscape and landscape character, as an attraction to visitors.

• The State of the Countryside Reports repeatedly identified that urban settlements in sparsely-populated areas share socio-economic profiles and problems with the sparsely-populated rural areas they serve. They have significantly different profiles to similar-sized market towns serving more accessible rural areas. There are only 8 such ‘urban-sparse’ settlements in England and Whitby is the only example in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.(3) The NYM National Park’s existing socio-economic policies are, therefore, more appropriate for Whitby than those currently applicable under the Regional Spatial Strategy, designed for the needs of market towns set in more accessible, less sparsely-populated rural areas.

• With the abolition of Regional Development Agencies, Scarborough Borough Council proposes to participate in an LEP covering Scarborough->East Yorks-> Hull. But the residents of Whitby and the northern area of the National Park look towards Middlesbrough for access to employment, further education, and hospital services. The inclusion of Whitby would allow the NYM National Park Authority to represent the interests of all of the residents of SBC’s Northern Area administrative unit with the Tees Valley City Region and Tees Valley LEP.


14 December 2010

• English Heritage has identified Whitby as one of the two historic towns most ‘at risk’ in the Yorkshire & Humberside region. Including Whitby within the National Park, so according it the highest level of protected area status, would be far more timely and cost-effective than preparing and consulting on supplementary Area Action Plans and Conservation Management Plans unique to Whitby, within the Borough Council’s Local Development Framework.

• Whitby has served as a ‘safety valve’ for the NYM National Park by satisfying much of the demand for second/holiday homes within the Park. As result, house prices in Whitby match those within the National Park (1) and are 20% above those in Scarborough, despite lower average household incomes. Consequently, there is a severe shortage of affordable housing, yet the town does not benefit from the stronger planning measures available to the National Park to improve the supply of affordable housing for local residents.

• Whitby and the NYM National Park have a shared visitor profile, which differs significantly from that of Scarborough and Filey. A new marketing delivery organisation is needed to replace the Area Tourism Partnership. It would be more effective to market the National Park, with Whitby, as a separate and distinctive destination than to include Whitby in borough-wide marketing.

• Key objectives for the North York Moors National Park, over the next five years, include ecosystem management and leading the way in climate change adaptation. Boundary change would help to unify the administration of the core of Natural Character Area 25, so facilitating the introduction of an ecosystem services approach to the management of the North York Moors National Park.

• Whitby is defined as an urban settlement, given its population of 13,600. That is no bar to inclusion within a National Park, since the historic towns of Petersfield (pop. 13,900) and Lewes (pop.16,000) are both included within the South Downs National Park.

• Boundary correction would rationalise and streamline local government administration, resulting in considerable efficiency and administrative cost savings for public sector bodies, agencies, utilities, etc. dealing with this area.

• Whitby Town Council believes that the boundary correction would be in the best interests of the local community. It would safeguard Whitby’s socio-economic prospects, which are crucially dependent on conserving and enhancing its distinctive townscape, natural assets and cultural heritage, for visitors to enjoy.

• Including Whitby and the villages of Sleights and Sandsend within the National Park would recognise and respect the strong community identity of the Northern Area administrative unit of Scarborough Borough Council. Boundary correction would provide this community with a more coherent and unified governance structure, with a common planning regime and socio-economic policies.

• This boundary correction is long overdue. Now is the ideal time to incorporate the change, as all public sector bodies are in the process of developing revised budgets and forward plans.


14 December 2010

1. Then and Now: 1952 to 2010 (a) Then: The North York Moors National Park was established in 1952. When

first defined, the National Park boundary excluded the urban settlements of Scarborough and Whitby. Thus Whitby became, and remains, the only town in the UK that is wholly enclosed by a National Park, yet does not form part of it.

(b) All of the major road and rail routes across the NYM National Park converge on

Whitby. But in 1952, road traffic nationally was significantly less important and traffic to Whitby was further limited by the exposed moorland roads with their steep and dangerous gradients.

(c) When the NYM National Park was established, most goods and visitors to the

area were carried by rail. There was a frequent service from Whitby, via Pickering, to Malton which gave access to the main-line railway network. The line from Scarborough to Whitby served the intervening coastal villages such as Robin Hoods Bay; the Whitby-Saltburn line served the coastal villages to the north, such as Sandsend, Runswick Bay and Staithes; while the Whitby-Middlesbrough line served Sleights and the Esk Valley villages.

(d) Whitby itself was a thriving fishing port, with a good freight trade that was

carried to/from the port by rail. It was also a popular seaside resort and bustling market town, serving the Esk Valley and coastal regions. Whitby was, and is, the main service centre for half of the total population of the NYM National Park but it had a significantly different economic base in 1952 to that of its farming-dependent rural hinterland.

(e) Now: The economies of Whitby and the NYM National Park have converged.

Tourism is the main source of employment and the mainstay of both conomies. The freight trade has disappeared from Whitby harbour; the fishing industry is but a faint echo of its 1952 level; and Whitby harbour is now used predominantly for leisure purposes and as a scenic attraction for visitors.

(f) Road traffic has become the overwhelmingly dominant mode of people and

freight transport. The rail link to Whitby from Saltburn closed in 1958 and those from Scarborough and Malton in 1965. A limited passenger-only service remains on the line to Middlesbrough, providing school transport into Whitby from the Esk Valley hinterland. The single carriageway moorland roads across the NYM National Park now carry all freight and most visitors to Whitby.

(g) Whitby and the NYM National Park now have the same major concerns:

- Road traffic volumes, congestion, pollution and parking - A lack of affordable homes for local residents on below-average wages,

because property prices are driven by the high demand for second homes and holiday accommodation.

- How to protect and enhance the environment, landscape, distinctive qualities and cultural heritage of the area while encouraging more visitors i.e. the promotion and development of sustainable tourism.


14 December 2010

2. Economic and Social Considerations (a) The State of the Countryside reports clearly show that urban settlements in

sparsely-populated areas share socio-economic profiles and problems with the surrounding rural areas they serve. These ‘‘urban-sparse’ towns have a markedly different profile to similar-sized towns situated in more accessible, less-sparsely populated rural areas, such as Skipton, Ilkley or Ripon. There are only eight such ‘urban-sparse’ settlements in the whole of England, and Whitby is the only example in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. (3)

Thus, the inclusion of Whitby within the NYM National Park would not require changes to the Park’s existing socio-economic policies. These would in fact be more appropriate for Whitby than the current policies, which were developed under the Regional Spatial Strategy to meet the typical needs of market towns serving the more accessible, less-sparsely populated rural areas of Yorkshire.

(b) Boundary change would recognise that Whitby’s growth prospects are severely

constrained by its isolated location, as indicated by the fact that its population has remained between 12,000 & 14,500 for the past 200 years. The town’s economic fortunes are now crucially dependent on conserving and enhancing its distinctive townscape, natural setting and cultural heritage for visitors to enjoy – which matches exactly with the statutory duties of the National Park.

(c) With the abolition of Regional Development Agencies, Scarborough Borough

Council intends to participate in an LEP covering Scarborough ->East Yorkshire ->Hull. But the residents of Whitby and the northern area of the National Park look northwards, to the Tees Valley City Region, for access to employment, further education and hospital services, via the Esk Valley rail-line.

(d) Since the NYM National Park includes parts of Redcar and Cleveland, in the

North East region, the NYM National Park Authority will continue to work in partnership with the Tees Valley authorities and the new Tees Valley LEP. The boundary amendment would allow the National Park Authority to represent the interests of all residents of Scarborough Borough Council’s Northern Area with the Tees Valley authorities, Tees Valley LEP, rail operators, etc. – with consequent cost and efficiency savings for SBC and the Tees Valley authorities.

ØØØØ The inclusion of the Whitby urban area would not require any change to the existing socio-economic policies of the NYM National Park.

ØØØØ The boundary amendment would allow the NYM National Park Authority to engage with the Tees Valley LEP on behalf of all SBC residents in the Northern Area of the Borough – resulting in cost and efficiency savings for SBC and the Tees Valley authorities.

ØØØØ The inclusion of Whitby within the NYM National Park would enhance Whitby’s socio-economic prospects, which are crucially dependent on the conservation and enhancement of its environment, distinctive townscape, natural assets and cultural heritage, for visitors to enjoy.


14 December 2010

3. Recognising Community Identity (a) Historically isolated from the rest of England by the encircling high moorland,

Whitby and the villages of the Esk Valley and coast, from Staithes to Fylingthorpe, have always viewed themselves as one community, with a very strong identity and pride of place. Whitby has been the principal town and service centre for the area since Saxon times. Many local families have lived in the area for hundreds of years and their surnames recur across the district. The secondary school catchment area means that almost every child in the district, in the State school system, attends school in Whitby from age 11 onwards, so reinforcing and maintaining that strong sense of community identity.

(b) Yet the area is bedevilled by splits of local authority responsibility – in effect,

not just a two-tier but a 3-tier structure, administered by North Yorkshire County Council, Scarborough Borough Council and the North York Moors National Park Authority. The fact that the area also lies on the regional border between the North East and Yorkshire & the Humberside, imposes yet another layer of coordination and consultation meetings and paperwork.

(c) The parish of Eskdaleside-cum-Ugglebarnby (predominantly Sleights village);

the parish of Lythe (including Sandsend); and the parish of Newholme-cum-Dunsley, all lie partially within the National Park, so their parish councils have to contend with two sets of planning regulations, and consultations on other local authority plans and policies. Given the town’s size, position, and role as the principal service centre, Whitby Town Council is also consulted on most plans and policies affecting both the town and its surrounding rural area.

(d) Whitby is much larger than other settlements within the NYM National Park.

Sleights is also a comparatively large village. Devolving responsibility for local service provision, within their parish areas, to Whitby Town Council and Eskdaleside-cum-Ugglebarnby Parish Council (for Sleights), would help the National Park to administer these larger settlements and also help to meet the long-standing community aspirations for more local decision-making.

ØØØØ Including Whitby, Sleights and Sandsend within the National Park would recognise and respect the strong community identity of the area and provide it with a more unified governance structure and a common planning regime and socio-economic policies.

ØØØØ Devolving responsibility for local service provision within their own parish areas to Whitby Town Council and ‘Sleights’ Parish Council would help to meet the long-standing community aspirations for more local decision-making.


14 December 2010

4. Cost Savings and Improved Efficiency

(a) There would be considerable cost savings for Scarborough Borough Council which would transfer responsibility to the National Park Authority for planning control; protection of the historic environment; forward planning; economic development; recreation and tourism; and environmental policy.

(b) The boundary change would complete NYM National Park Authority coverage of

the Northern Area of Scarborough Borough Council: one of SBC’s four geographical administrative units. This would streamline administration considerably and provide a single point of contact, resulting in savings for North Yorkshire County Council, the Police, Primary Care Trusts and parish/town councils. The existing split responsibility and different policy regimes require numerous extra meetings and consultations eg strategic plans, parish forums, coastal parish forums, area committees, traffic partnerships, the Esk Valley Community rail-line, bio-diversity action plans, LEADER, etc, etc. Not least would be the cost savings in officer time and travel expenses required to attend meetings in this remote area.

(c) There would be efficiency and administrative savings for government

departments and agencies, particularly DEFRA, Natural England, MMO, and DCMS, through the creation of a unified geographical area and prime contact point for the provisions of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006; European Landscape Convention, Marine & Coastal Areas Act 2009, etc.

(d) The creation of a unified geographical area and prime contact point would

facilitate the maintenance and improvement of the rail and utilities infrastructure. Particularly so for upgrades to the major National Grid distribution lines along the coast, as part of the smart electricity grid needed to integrate the power coming on-shore from North Sea wind farms.

(e) Much of the northern area of the National Park has no broadband provision (or

mobile phone coverage). Whitby and Sleights currently have a broadband service of up to 8MB/second. The increased population would help provide the critical mass needed to justify high-speed broadband for the northern area of the Park.

ØØØØ Boundary correction would rationalise and streamline local government administration, resulting in considerable efficiency and administrative cost savings for public sector bodies, agencies, utilities, etc. dealing with this geographic area.

ØØØØ A more unified and streamlined administration of this area would facilitate access and development of the onshore electricity grid infrastructure, in an environmentally sustainable manner.


14 December 2010

5. The Process of Boundary Change

(a) Natural England may vary a National Park boundary using powers granted under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Any boundary change made through these powers would be set out in a (Boundary) Variation Order. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also has freestanding powers to vary designations.

(b) Before making a Variation Order, Natural England would be required to consult with the NYMNPA, SBC, NYCC and the parish councils whose area, or part of whose area, lies within the proposed extension to the National Park.

(c) There is a dedicated government funding stream for National Parks over and above the funds that the principal authorities would continue to receive for their remaining functions. Natural England would need to agree a new funding level for the NYM National Park Authority, to recognise the increased workload brought by the boundary change

(d) The boundary correction would not significantly increase the land area of the

NYM National Park, but it would bring a major increase in population. Whitby has 13,570 residents and the number of Sleights, Sandsend and Dunsley residents currently living outside the National Park boundary is estimated at approximately 2,000 (5). The population of the NYM National Park would increase from 25,000 to almost 41,000. In comparison: the Peak District National Park, which covers the same land area, has a population of 38,000.

(e) The inclusion within a National Park of an urban settlement of Whitby’s size

would not be a first. Both Petersfield (pop. 13,900) and Lewes (pop. 16,000) are included within the South Downs National Park.

(f) Assuming that Whitby town council and the village parish councils were given

delivery responsibility for “in-parish” services, the most significant extra workload for the NPA would be in respect of its planning, transport and tourism functions, together with its work on historic environments.

Public Consultation (e) At this time of public sector cuts, no stakeholder would wish to entertain the

time, cost and resource implications of a Public Enquiry into a boundary alteration for a National Park. If any one of NYCC, SBC or the NYM National Park Authority objects, then a Public Enquiry would be mandatory.

(f) Clearly, Natural England and all authorities would need evidence of widespread

community support before any boundary change was implemented. (g) The views of the Whitby population have not been tested. The Sleights (parish

of Eskdaleside-cum-Ugglebarnby) parish plan, compiled in 2007, did ask the question “Would you support the extension of the National Park to include the whole parish?”. Replies were split exactly 50:50, on returns completed by about 20% of the electorate.


14 December 2010

(h) Whitby Town Council therefore proposes that the most cost effective means of

public consultation would be to hold Town and Parish polls in Whitby, Sleights and Sandsend at an estimated cost of £10,000. Parish polls are carried out under the auspices of the Electoral Commission so, if the polls are in favour of boundary change, such evidence should avoid any need for a Public Inquiry.

ØØØØ While some residents will object to National Park planning controls, Whitby Town Council believes that the majority will strongly welcome measures to better conserve and enhance the town’s unique heritage and townscape, together with stronger powers to improve the supply of affordable homes for local residents.


14 December 2010

6. Benefits for the NYM National Park and Whitby The 1995 Environment Act sets out two purposes for National Park Authorities:

• To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Parks; and

• To promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Parks by the public.

The Act goes on to place a duty on National Park Authorities in pursuing the two purposes ‘to seek to foster the economic and social well being of local communities.’

The ‘English National Parks and the Broads UK Government Vision and Circular 2010’ issued by DEFRA, requires the following key outcomes from National Parks over the next five years:

• a renewed focus on achieving the Park Purposes;

• leading the way in adapting to, and mitigating climate change;

• a diverse and healthy natural environment, enhanced cultural heritage and inspiring lifelong behaviour change towards sustainable living and enjoyment of the countryside;

• foster and maintain vibrant, healthy and productive living and working communities;

• working in partnership to maximise the benefits delivered. The following sections detail how the boundary amendment would help the NYM National Park to achieve these outcomes and also benefit the residents of Whitby:

6.1 Road Traffic (a) As the 2006 NYM National Park Management Plan Review stated: “One of the

more pressing issues that the National Park has to deal with relates to transport issues involving both local residents and visitors. There has been a steady increase in traffic throughout the 1990’s and indications are that traffic levels are now 29.5% higher than they were 1994. Increases in traffic levels reflect both the reliance on personal modes of transport in rural areas coupled with a more mobile society as a whole.”

(b) Department for Transport statistics indicate that traffic levels nationally are now

over 8 times higher than when the National Park was established. The 2010 levels are predicted to increase a further 12.5% by 2015, and 26.9% by 2025. (2)

(c) Some 95% of visitor days in the National Park are undertaken using a private vehicle: the figures for Whitby must necessarily be very similar. The 1994 National Park Visitor Survey showed that 25% of day trippers and 83% of holidaymakers visiting the Park, included Whitby in their visit. The CREST traffic survey, based on a full year of NYCC road-monitoring data, showed that 5 million vehicles entered Whitby town during 2005.

(d) All of this traffic is carried to Whitby over single-carriageway moorland roads

that have not been improved significantly since 1952. Government policy (7)


14 December 2010

states “There is a strong presumption against any significant road widening or the building of new roads through a National Park, unless it can be shown there are compelling reasons for the new or enhanced capacity and with any benefits outweighing the costs very significantly. Any investment in trunk roads should be directed to developing routes for long distance traffic which avoid the Parks “

(e) The obvious corollary is that road links to Whitby will not improve, yet the EU,

national and SBC economic development policies currently applicable to Whitby are directed towards regeneration, by encouraging inward investment, new business formation, growth and industrial development. Indeed, the National Park boundary had to be amended to allow sufficient space for the construction of a Whitby Business Park. Yet occupancy is still largely restricted to small businesses serving the local area – hardly surprising when most larger companies seek to site their operations close to the main road and motorway networks, to provide timely and cost-effective product distribution.

(f) Traffic and parking congestion within Whitby town have reached such levels

that they affect the quality of life for local residents and discourage the visitors on whom the economic fortunes of the town depend. There is insufficient suitable space for a Park & Ride site within the town boundary. The provision of an out-of-town site would infringe the National Park boundary and conflicts with the DEFRA circular requiring that consideration be given to sustainable low carbon transport initiatives, before consideration of schemes to create more capacity for car access. (7)

(g) Controlling road traffic, parking and the provision of a sustainable transport

infrastructure will be crucial to the future ability of the National Park Authority to meet its remit. The NPA forecasts that road traffic volumes in the Park could quadruple over next 20-30 years. Such uncontrolled growth would endanger the unique environment of the National Park and the residents’ quality of life.

(h) In common with other National Parks, traffic management measures such as

road pricing; controlled entry; mandatory use of park & ride etc. may become necessary - together with a much improved public transport system to replace the use of private vehicles by visitors, within the Park.

(i) Such control measures could not be implemented effectively unless Whitby was

subject to the same policies and regulations, since all road traffic has to cross the National Park to gain access to Whitby. Equally, as the road/rail hub and interchange for the northern area of the National Park, Whitby is pivotal to effective traffic management and other measures to encourage visitors and residents to use more sustainable means of transport within the National Park.

ØØØØ Fully-integrated transport plans and traffic management measures are essential for the future sustainability, environmental protection, and quality of life for the residents of Whitby and the National Park.


14 December 2010

6.2 Affordable Housing and Second/Holiday Homes (a) National Park policies minimise new housing development within the

boundary, except for local residents and essential workers. (6) Developers and speculators aiming at the lucrative, unsatisfied demand for second/holiday homes therefore target Whitby. With its picturesque setting, totally surrounded by the National Park, few potential purchasers are aware that Whitby does not currently form part of the Park.

(b) Without the same level of planning controls, Whitby cannot protect its

townscape adequately. The result is over-intensive, over-tall developments that comply with urban density planning regulations, but are incompatible with the historic townscape and setting, which form Whitby’s key attraction to visitors.

(c) An Historic Building Survey, conducted in 2004, found that 85% of the several

hundred dwellings in Whitby Old Town were holiday/second homes, destroying any sense of community for the few remaining permanent residents. A similar situation exists in several coastal villages within the National Park. Any policies to address this issue must apply equally to Whitby and the NYM National Park.

(d) The demand for second homes and holiday accommodation in Whitby has

resulted in a severe shortage of affordable housing for local residents. In a small, tightly-built town, few developments are of a size to trigger the mandatory provision of a proportion of social housing (currently 15 new dwellings in Whitby compared to 2 within the National Park, though these figures are subject to Viability Assessments and may change over time).

(e) Virtually all available space for housing within both Whitby and Sleights has

been used. Whitby now has less than half the green space per resident than either Scarborough or Filey. Further development sites for housing will require extensions of the town/village development limits, requiring consultations between Scarborough Borough Council and the NYM National Park Authority.

(f) The severe shortage of affordable homes in Whitby affects not only town

residents, but youngsters from the Esk Valley and coastal villages within the NYM National Park, who might otherwise hope to find lower cost accommodation in Whitby, such as their first flat-share or family home.

(g) The NYM National Park would have more control over, and options for, the

provision of affordable housing for all local residents in its northern area, if Whitby was included within the National Park.

ØØØØ The Planning regime applicable to Whitby needs to be consistent with that in operation within the National Park. It would be far more cost-effective to include Whitby within the existing NYM National Park framework than to develop and consult on the adoption of supplementary plans unique to Whitby, within the Scarborough Borough Council Local Development Framework.


14 December 2010

The coastline from Whitby to Sandsend

6.3 Landscape and Heritage Conservation (a) The National Park is an Article 1 (5) area under Planning legislation, giving the

whole Park the highest level of protected area status.

(b) The NYM National Park leads the management of the North Yorkshire and Cleveland Heritage Coast which extends for 55km [34miles] except for the two miles of coastline from Sandsend to Whitby that lies outside the National Park. The boundary amendment would seal that gap in protected status.

(c) National Park policy prevents encroachment onto disused railway tracks, to

allow for possible future re-instatement, or for use as long-distance footpaths or cycle routes, to access more remote areas of the Park. No such protection exists once the track crosses the National Park boundary. On reaching Whitby such land becomes a brownfield site, ripe for intensive redevelopment at urban densities - as around the former West Cliff Station which used to link the former Whitby-Saltburn and Whitby-Scarborough railway lines.

(d) English Heritage recently identified Whitby as one of the two historic towns

most ‘at risk’ in the Yorkshire & Humberside region. Yet in 2004, DCMS indicated that Whitby could be a candidate for submission as a World Heritage Site. Unfortunately, the necessary resources were not available within SBC to develop the detailed Management Plans required to support the application.

(e) Boundary correction would help to rectify this situation. The NYM National

Park has specialist historic environment staff, since it is responsible for 42 village Conservation Areas; some 3,000 Listed Buildings; and almost one-third of the Ancient Monuments in Yorkshire. Management Plans are produced for the National Park and the Heritage Coast to provide ‘a strategic framework promoting the protection, enhancement and public appreciation of and engagement with the historic environment, cultural heritage and landscapes, together with measures to promote the regeneration of historic places.’ (7)

(f) 2018 marks the 250th anniversary of Captain Cook’s departure from the UK on

his first world voyage of exploration. Whitby’s designation as a World Heritage Site, to mark that anniversary, would crown the National Park’s outstanding record in heritage conservation. The North York Moors would then join the growing number of UK National Parks to achieve this distinction.

ØØØØ The planning regime in Whitby needs to mirror that of the National Park. It would be far more cost-effective to include Whitby within the existing NYM National Park framework than to develop and consult on the adoption of supplementary plans unique to Whitby, within the Scarborough Borough Council Local Development Framework.

ØØØØ Whitby’s aspirations to World Heritage status would fit well with the National Park remit to conserve and enhance historic environments.


14 December 2010

6.4 Recreation and Tourism (a) As the Chief Executive of the NYM National Park said, in November 2010, “The

North York Moors and Whitby are historically and culturally intertwined.” Whitby and the NYM National Park also have a common and interdependent economic base. Directly or indirectly, recreation and tourism is the main source of employment and the mainstay of both economies.

(b) The National Park estimates that 9M visitor days were spent in the Park last year.

The CREST survey estimated that over 2M visitor days were spent in Whitby in 2005. Not surprisingly, the visitor profiles for Whitby and the National Park are very similar – but they differ markedly from the visitor profiles for Scarborough and Filey.(5) The CREST Survey also showed that 45% of visitor cars entered Whitby from the West Yorkshire /East Midlands direction via Pickering; 45% from the Middlesbrough and Tees Valley direction, via Guisborough; with only 10% arriving from the Scarborough direction.

(c) Tourism businesses in Whitby recognise this difference in market and so fund

their own visitor guides and websites, independent of official provision by SBC and the Moors and Coast Area Tourism Partnership. The National Park also maintains its own website and visitor guides, to fulfil its remit of ‘promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Park by the public.’

(d) The Moors and Coast Area Tourism Partnership will cease promotional activity

in April 2011. Efforts are underway to forge a borough-wide tourism association to support an enhanced borough–wide accommodation guide and website. Given the marked difference in visitor profiles, it would be more effective to market the NYM National Park, with Whitby, as a single distinctive destination. Since Scarborough, Filey and Bridlington have similar visitor profiles, tourism promotion through the proposed Scarborough ->East Yorkshire >Hull LEP would be more effective for those resorts, in both cost and marketing terms.

(e) The inclusion of Whitby within the NYM National Park would add a range of

water-based activities to help meet one of DEFRA’s desired key outcomes: “Authorities should continue to identify and promote new access and recreational opportunities and ways of delivering them”(7). The beach between Whitby and Sandsend is used for surfing and shore-angling, while rowing and sailing take place in the bay. Passenger boat trips from Whitby harbour allow views of the varied geological formations of the Heritage Coast that are largely invisible or inaccessible from the coastal path – and sometimes of seals and dolphins. Whitby is also the premier sea-angling port on the East Coast.

(h) The NYM National Park is charged with ensuring an effective Rights of Way

network and has PROW responsibility within its boundary, delegated from NYCC. Including Whitby within the Park would enable unified, ‘end-to-end’ management of footpaths and former railway lines, particularly long-distance routes such as the Cleveland Way and the Esk Valley Walk.


14 December 2010

(i) The NYM National Park exerts strict control over applications to provide tourist/holiday accommodation within the Park, allowing only small-scale provision. The bulk of visitor accommodation is provided by the ‘fringe’ towns of Whitby, Pickering, Kirbymoorside and Helmsley. Whitby is the largest such provider and the only town serving the northern area of the Park, but the number of serviced bed-spaces in Whitby is falling rapidly, as hotels and B&Bs are being converted to apartments.

(j) Many schools bring parties of children to Whitby, particularly from the West

Riding. For many, this is their first introduction to Whitby and the North York Moors and they frequently become regular visitors for the rest of their lives. While Whitby Youth Hostel and the Sneaton Castle Centre still accommodate school parties, many of the B&Bs that used to cater for school parties have now been converted to apartments.

(k) Whitby is the closest harbour to the Dogger Bank Wind Farm. There is much

speculation about the potential to accommodate construction and other workers in the town and transport them to the site using fast passenger boats. However, the development consortium, Forewind, plans to provide on-site accommodation using platforms or an artificial island. Passenger transport by helicopter, as used for N. Sea oil rigs, would appear more probable over the long-term. Therefore, any large-scale demand for worker accommodation in Whitby would be temporary. But regular visitors who cannot find, or are priced-out of, their usual holiday accommodation may never return. The noise of fast boats departing Whitby harbour during the night would reverberate around the town. Whitby is the major accommodation provider for the National Park and the viability of many other small businesses in Whitby and the Park depends on visitor spend. A very careful evaluation is needed of the potential long-term consequences for the tourism economy of both Whitby and the National Park.

ØØØØ The NYM National Park would have more control over, and options to maintain, the level and type of visitor accommodation, if Whitby was part of the National Park.

ØØØØ Marketing the NYM National Park, including Whitby, as a single, distinctive destination would be more effective than more diffuse, borough-wide promotion.

ØØØØ Whitby’s immense cultural heritage attracts school parties from urban centres, including groups who are otherwise under-represented in National Park visitor numbers. More could be made of the potential to use Whitby as an introductory gateway to the less well-visited , more rural areas of the NYM National Park.

ØØØØ Careful evaluation is needed of the long-term effects on tourism in both Whitby and the National Park, of any proposals to use Whitby harbour as a personnel transfer station for North Sea wind farms.


14 December 2010

6.5 Ecosystem Management and Adaptation to Climate Change

The forthcoming DEFRA white paper on the Natural Environment, due in Spring 2011 is expected to be based on an ecosystem services approach(8). This is a framework for managing land, water and living resources in an integrated way to promote their conservation and sustainable use, and to build the capacity of the natural environment to support sustainable economic growth. Effective ecosystem management necessarily involves consideration of naturally defined geographic areas, such as National Character Areas, which do not necessarily reflect current administrative boundaries.

The NYM National Park does cover most of National Character Area 25: The North York Moors and Cleveland Hills. But, given Whitby’s key coastal location at the mouth of the River Esk, boundary amendment would ease significantly the adoption of an ecosystem services approach by the National Park. (a) As detailed in earlier sections, boundary amendment would allow integrated

management of traffic, housing, recreation and tourism, which are all essential components of ecosystem management for the North York Moors National Park.

(b) The River Esk provides a clear example of the benefits of introducing an

ecosystem services approach: this is a short river, some 28 miles long, which drains all of the moorland in the northern half of the NYM National Park. It is subject to flash floods and flows into the North Sea through Whitby harbour. Whitby town is at risk from both fluvial and tidal flooding – plus rising sea-levels. The last 2-3 miles of the river, together with significant areas of potential flood plain, currently lie outside the National Park – as does a small Site of Importance for Nature Conservation of salt marsh in danger from development. Salmon and sea trout swim through Whitby harbour to spawn up-river. There are otter and water vole populations along the river banks.

(c) The National Park is tasked by DEFRA(7) to improve the condition, and hence

carbon retention, of the moorland peat soils. This involves increasing the water retained in the peat by blocking the grints (man-made drainage ditches). Carried out on a large scale, this would reduce drainage into the Esk and so reduce the water flow downstream, possibly affecting the salmon and sea trout migration. All of the potable water supply for Whitby is extracted from the Esk, downstream at Ruswarp. Climate change forecasts are for more extreme weather events; a 16% overall reduction in rainfall; and wetter winters and drier summers(8) . Yet summer is the time of peak demand for water in Whitby, when the visitor season is at its height – and coastal tourism demand is expected to rise in hot weather.

ØØØØ Balancing the competing demands involved in managing the Esk River ecosystem would be eased considerably if the whole river lay within the NYM National Park.

ØØØØ The boundary change would unify the administration of core areas of National Character Area 25, so facilitating the introduction of an ecosystem services approach to the management of the North York Moors National Park.


14 December 2010

6.6 Renewable Energy

(a) The DEFRA circular (7) requires National Parks to develop renewable energy generation “appropriate to the national value of the landscape”. The River Esk offers such potential, through the use of in-stream turbines, as already explored by the NYM National Park in partnership with the Esk Valley Energy group. However, such potential is at its maximum on the tidal reaches of the Esk, outside the National Park boundary. Using bi-directional turbines on the tidal reaches would capture both the energy of the fresh water flow of the river and the energy generated by the ebb and flow of each tide.

(b) This was one of many ideas proposed by the Whitby Area Development Trust to

Yorkshire Forward under the Low Carbon Rural Capitals Scheme. Two of the most innovative project ideas submitted by the Development Trust were each awarded £50,000 of funding, administered by SBC, to commission feasibility studies. Only 4 such awards were made in total, for the Yorks & Humber region.

(c) One proposal was to incorporate wave-energy generation devices into the

planned reconstruction work on the Whitby Piers. The other was the development of kelp-farming off-shore from Whitby, with the potential to use kelp as an accelerant in bio-digesters and/or as a natural fertiliser. Many less innovative but perhaps more immediate, practical proposals were made by the Trust, covering both carbon-reduction measures and renewable energy.

ØØØØ The National Park would find a ready audience within Whitby, plus a source of ideas and existing community-led groups, to support the development and implementation of appropriate carbon-reduction measures and renewable energy generation.

ØØØØ The development of kelp-farming off-shore from Whitby, for use as an accelerant in bio-digesters using agricultural waste products, would help the development of renewable energy generation appropriate to the national value of the landscape.

ØØØØ The inclusion of Whitby would “fill the gap” in Heritage Coast protected status, so facilitating more coherent management of the Heritage Coast, in partnership with other ICZM authorities: particularly in respect of potential shore-line, near-shore or off-shore renewable energy generation.


14 December 2010

6.7 Local Food Supply (a) The National Park objectives include the promotion and delivery of agri-

environment schemes and food security. DEFRA notes (7) that local food marketing and processing can increase the economic viability of marginal areas and draw more visitors to National Parks. Since Whitby is the service centre and traffic interchange for the northern area of the NYM National Park (and a ‘honeypot’ destination for visitors) it offers an obvious potential high-visibity marketing opportunity for food producers in the Park.

(b) In addition, the NYM National Park’s agri-environment policies have

contributed significantly to the clean offshore waters along the Cleveland and North Yorkshire Heritage Coast. Whitby seafood is a renowned attraction for visitors. The development and marketing of a local supply of Marine Conservation Area accredited seafood would enhance sustainable food production and educate visitors in marine environmental issues.

(c) The development of kelp-farming off-shore from Whitby, for use as a

natural fertiliser and accelerant in bio-digesters, would support local agriculture in the National Park. Co-production of kelp and farmed shellfish would support the economic viability of kelp-farming and also increase local food supply.

ØØØØ As the principal service centre, with a population of 13,600 and over 2M visitor days per year, Whitby would provide the ideal location for a large local produce market.

ØØØØ As a honeypot destination and major accommodation provider, Whitby offers many opportunities to promote and showcase local foods through its accommodation and catering businesses.

ØØØØ There is a clear opportunity to produce and market Marine Conservation Area accredited seafood, from a NYM Marine Protected Area that mirrors the NYM National Park and Heritage Coast on land – with Whitby providing the harbour gateway between the two.


14 December 2010

6.8 Inspiring lifelong behaviour change towards sustainable living and enjoyment of the countryside

(a) The NYM National Park has created several initiatives which support this

objective, such as the Moorsbus service and the Green Business Accreditation scheme. But, they do not operate in Whitby since it is not part of the Park. According to the 1994 National Park Visitor Survey, 25% of day trippers and 83% of holiday-makers who visited the Park also visited Whitby, with the vast majority not realising that it is outside the Park. The total lack of visibility of such initiatives in Whitby means they lose much of their potential to inspire behaviour change in visitors. Boundary change would rectify this situation.

(b) Creating the necessary critical mass of community engagement to effect such

behaviour change is immensely challenging, given the dispersed small settlement /sparsely-populated nature of the northern half of the Park. As the principal service centre for this area, Whitby could provide that critical mass. Whitby Community College was one of the ten schools, ten hospitals, etc that launched the 10-10 campaign in London. A public 10-10 event was held in Whitby, supported by the Co-op and Whitby Town Council. Most schools in Whitby, some accommodation providers, businesses, Rotary clubs, etc. are 10-10 signatories. The town is also the meeting point for numerous interest groups, such as the Whitby Naturalists Society, ramblers groups, RSPB and CPRE, who would help to disseminate information more widely.

Whitby would provide the National Park with a ‘test-bed’ for new initiatives and act as a catalyst, to help disperse successful ideas across the rural area. (c) On a larger scale, several community-led organisations in Whitby are very

committed to promoting sustainability. Whitby Beacon Town Forum secured EU funding to participate in a two-year Interreg North Sea project, with partners from Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Orkney. The EU CREST (CREation of Sustainable Tourism destinations) project brought together communities from small, remote, coastal, tourism-dependent destinations: to examine how such communities could take practical actions to develop and promote sustainable tourism. The project outcomes were individual action plans for each partner community and the production of a Guide and Toolkit for use by communities in similar, peripheral tourism destinations around the North Sea. These could be readily incorporated into the NYM National Park Management Plan for 2011-2015.

ØØØØ Community groups in Whitby have an established track record of securing funding for environmental sustainability projects.

ØØØØ As the principal service centre, Whitby would provide the National Park with a ‘test-bed’ for new initiatives and act as a catalyst, to help disperse successful ideas across the sparsely-populated rural areas.


14 December 2010

7. Issues Requiring Clarification 7.1 Planning (a) National Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

determines most NYM National Park planning policies. PPS7 states that National Parks have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty and that:

• The conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside should be given great weight in planning policies

• The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations

• Planning policies should also support suitably located and designed development necessary to facilitate the economic and social well-being of these areas, including the provision of adequate housing to meet identified local needs

• Major development should not take place in these designated areas, except in exceptional circumstances.

(b) PPS 7 states that it is applicable to ‘country towns’, but Whitby is classed as an

urban town, since its population is over 10,000. Much of the historic central area of Whitby is designated as a Conservation Area, under the provisions of PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment, so confirmation would be needed that PPS7 could be applied to the remaining urban areas of Whitby. In effect, more modern housing in Whitby would be subject to the same controls as more modern housing in National Park villages such as Hinderwell or Fylingthorpe.

(c) It is not known how the South Downs National Park plans to handle this

situation in relation to the urban towns of Lewes and Petersfield, outwith their Conservation Areas. The South Downs National Park Authority is operating in shadow mode at present and has yet to establish its own Planning Department.

(d) The NYM National Park Authority does have a well-established Planning

Department, though it would need additional staff. Scarborough Borough Council has planning officers based in Whitby, who are familiar with the town. A staff transfer to the National Park Authority would seem sensible.

Housing (e) The NYM National Park Authority’s housing objectives are to resist new

development aimed at satisfying external demand and to provide for a range of types and sizes of housing to meet local needs.(6) The development of open market housing is restricted to Helmsley and the larger villages near the edge of the Park (including Sleights) and, currently, 50% of open market dwellings have to be affordable housing. The National Park Authority will consider proposals for a variety of types of affordable housing but all schemes must meet the requirement of providing well designed, good quality housing that is affordable for local people in perpetuity.


14 December 2010

Where a building to be converted is currently in use as a residential dwelling, the 50% affordable housing requirement applies to the extra dwellings created by the conversion.

(f) The NYM National Park has a Local Needs Housing policy in smaller villages, such that all new housing development should be for people with a strong local connection and will be subject to a local occupancy condition. This would presumably be applicable to Sandsend.

(g) As a principal service centre, Whitby would presumably be subject to the same policies as Helmsley and Sleights. The 50% affordable housing requirement is subject to a Viability Assessment, so may vary according to local market conditions. Nonetheless, even if a lower threshold prevails, affordable housing provision in Whitby would benefit enormously from the application of National Park housing policies.

ØØØØ Confimation would be required from the Government that PPS 7 should be applied to urban towns within a National Park. It is clearly desirable that all National Parks follow a consistent approach.

ØØØØ Confirmation would be required from the NYM National Park Authority of the housing policies that would be applicable to Whitby and Sandsend – and made public before any town/parish polls were held on the boundary amendment.


14 December 2010

7.2 Composition of the NYM National Park Authority

(a) The Members of the National Park Authority are not directly elected:

• 1 is appointed by Hambleton District Council

• 5 are appointed by North Yorkshire County Council

• 2 are appointed by Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council

• 2 are appointed by Ryedale District Council

• 2 are appointed by Scarborough Borough Council

• 4 are Parish Members elected by Parish Councils in the National Park and appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

• 6 are appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

(b) If this structure is retained, then the number of Parish members elected by

Parish Councils would presumably need to increase, given the large increase in population that would result from the boundary amendment.

(c) However, the Government has committed to increase the accountability of

National Parks. DEFRA is currently conducting a public consultation on the future governance of all National Parks. The consultation is part of a review that will look for ways to:

• improve the way the National Park Authority is governed;

• make the Authority more responsive to the concerns of local communities,

whilst keeping its existing statutory purposes; and to

• consider the extent to which special local arrangements are needed

ØØØØ The future governance structure of the NYM National Park Authority will depend on the outcome of the current DEFRA consultation and subsequent recommendations.


14 December 2010

8. Conclusions On the basis of the criteria examined in this report, the case for boundary correction so compelling that it is difficult to understand why this irrational situation has been tolerated for so long.

• The inclusion of the Whitby urban area would not require any change to the existing socio-economic policies of the NYM National Park.

•••• The boundary amendment would allow the NYM National Park Authority to engage with the Tees Valley authorities and LEP on behalf of all SBC residents in the Northern Area administrative unit of the Borough of Scarborough – resulting in cost and efficiency savings for SBC and the Tees Valley authorities.

•••• The inclusion of Whitby within the NYM National Park would enhance Whitby’s socio-economic prospects, which are crucially dependent on the conservation and enhancement of its distinctive townscape, natural assets and cultural heritage, for visitors to enjoy.

•••• Including Whitby, Sleights and Sandsend within the National Park would recognise and respect the strong community identity of the area and provide it with a more unified governance structure and a common planning regime and socio-economic policies.

•••• Devolving responsibility for local service provision within their own parish areas to Whitby Town Council and ‘Sleights’ Parish Council would help to meet the long-standing community aspirations for more local decision-making.

• Boundary correction would rationalise and streamline local government administration, resulting in considerable efficiency and administrative cost savings for public sector bodies, agencies, utilities, etc. dealing with this geographic area.

•••• While some residents will object to National Park planning controls, Whitby Town Council believes that the majority will welcome stronger powers to improve the supply of affordable homes for local residents, together with measures to better conserve and enhance the town’s unique heritage and townscape.

•••• The Planning regime applicable to Whitby needs to be consistent with that in operation within the National Park. It would be far more cost-effective to include Whitby within the existing NYM National Park framework than to develop and consult on the adoption of supplementary plans unique to Whitby, within the Scarborough Borough Council Local Development Framework.

•••• The National Park would find a ready audience within Whitby, plus a source of ideas and existing community-led groups, to support the development and implementation of appropriate carbon-reduction measures and renewable energy generation. As the principal service centre, Whitby would provide the


14 December 2010

National Park with a ‘test-bed’ for new initiatives and act as a catalyst, to help disperse successful ideas across the sparsely-populated rural areas.

•••• The inclusion of Whitby would “fill the gap” in the Heritage Coast protected area status, so facilitating more coherent management of the coast, in partnership with other ICZM authorities: particularly in respect of potential shore-line, near-shore or off-shore renewable energy generation.

•••• There is a clear opportunity to produce and market Marine Conservation Area accredited seafood, from a NYM Marine Protected Area that mirrors the NYM National Park and Heritage Coast on land – with Whitby providing the harbour gateway between the two.

ØØØØ The ability of the North York Moors National Park to meet its remit and key objectives for the next five years will be severely impaired if the boundary is not corrected. In particular, fully-integrated transport plans and traffic management measures are essential for the future sustainability, environmental protection, and quality of life for the residents of Whitby and the National Park.

ØØØØ Whitby Town Council believes that including the town within the National Park would be in the best interests of the local community. It would improve the supply of affordable homes for local residents and safeguard Whitby’s socio-economic prospects, which are crucially dependent on conserving and enhancing its distinctive townscape, natural setting and nationally-important cultural heritage, for visitors to enjoy.


14 December 2010

Footnotes (1) The average house price in the National Park exceeds the average house price in

Whitby, but this reflects the greater proportion of larger detached houses with land in the Park, and the greater proportion of terrace houses and apartments in Whitby. On a like-for-like comparison, there is no significant difference between house prices in Whitby and those in surrounding villages within the Park, such as Staithes, Hinderwell, Robin Hoods Bay and Fylingthorpe. Again on a like-for-like comparison, there is no detectable difference in price between houses inside / outside the Park, in ‘split’ villages such as Sleights and Sandsend.

(2) Source: DfT Transport Statistics Great Britain 2009 edition:

Road Traffic: All vehicles: 1952=60.8 bil. km travelled; 2008=508.9 bil.km travelled Forecasts of Road Traffic in England 2010-2025: All vehicles: billion km travelled Index 2003=100, 2010=104, 2015=117, 2025=132

(3) The Office of National Statistics classifies settlements as either urban or rural, with all settlements with a population greater than 10,000 defined as urban. ONS further identifies whether settlements lie in a surrounding area which is either sparsely populated or less-sparsely populated.

There are only eight towns in England that are classed as ‘urban settlements in sparsely-populated areas’: Whitby, Penrith, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Ilfracombe, Minehead, Louth, Mablethorpe and Leominster. All have a population under 20,000, and most are below 15,000. All are principal service centres/ market towns for a large rural hinterland. All are isolated – most are either remote coastal settlements or former border towns. The State of the Countryside Reports show that these eight “urban-sparse” settlements have similar socio-economic profiles and common problems with the sparsely-populated rural areas they serve. They have a significantly different profile to similar-sized market towns serving more accessible rural areas. As the introduction to the 2005 State of the Countryside Report (published by the Commission for Rural Communities) highlighted, “these sparse areas may only account for a small proportion of the rural population; nevertheless their condition demands attention.”

(4) North Yorkshire estimated civil parish populations 2008: Whitby 13,570, Eskdaleside-cum-Ugglebarnby 2200, Lythe 400, Newholme-cum-Dunsley 210. Source: Population Estimates are calculated by Performance, Research and Intelligence, Chief Executive's Group, NYCC. They are constrained to the Registrar General's District Based Revised Mid-Year Estimates for 2001 & Mid-Year Estimates for 2008 (Revised 2010); ONS; Crown Copyright.

(5) Sources: Yorkshire & Humber Tourism Study 2002 by KPMG.

Commissioned by Yorkshire Forward and: Scarborough Borough Visitor Survey 2004 Commissioned by Scarborough Borough Council.

(6) Source: NYM NPA Housing Supplementary Planning Document April 2010 (7) Source: English National Parks and the Broads. UK Government Vision and

Circular DEFRA. March 2010

(8) Source: Applying an Ecosystem Services Approach in Yorkshire & Humber University of York and URSUS Consulting Ltd, Sept 2010

Commissioned by Yorkshire Futures.


14 December 2010

Documents

Whitby and the North York Moors National Park Whitb… · Whitby and the North York Moors National Park ... yet does not form part of it. (b) All of the major road and rail routes