Agenda item

Recommendations

 

It is recommended that Executive:

i.            Approve option 2 to decommission the cliff lift and agree a capital budget of £199k to be met from the Strategic Capacity Reserve and

ii.           discontinue the free replacement bus service.

 

Considered a report by the Corporate Director Environment in respect of the future of Whitby Cliff Lift. Introducing the report, the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation, Councillor Malcom Taylor recognised the strong public feeling about the Whitby Cliff Lift. He noted that the lift had been closed by Scarborough Borough Council in April 2022 and highlighted that the debate included both the condition of the lift and the cost-effectiveness of the seasonal bus service. Usage figures for 2025 showed a significant decline, resulting in a cost of £41.63 per one‑way journey, which he considered unsustainable.

 

Two public questions were then presented to the Executive as follows:

 

Councillor Sandra Turner

 

Councillor Turner acknowledged the financial constraints but stressed the importance of the lift. She highlighted its role in servicing over 160 beach huts, including 10 luxury huts, and providing essential disability access. She reported a recent incident where a person using a mobility scooter suffered an accident on the zig‑zag path, requiring coastguard and ambulance assistance. She emphasised Whitby’s status as one of the UK's top seaside destinations, drawing millions of visitors annually, and expressed concern that removal of assets would diminish its appeal. She therefore asked on behalf of a resident that no decision be taken until up‑to‑date costed quotes are provided at a public meeting.

 

Peter Graham (read out by Councillor Phil Trumper)

 

Firstly I would like to thank the Scarborough and Whitby Councillors in particular Councillors Trumper and Swannick for their unanimous support for re opening the above, creating a business plan and asking for the lift to be maintained annually going forward which is something that SBC neglected previously.

I also thank the experts from Woodsmith Mine for their two inspections and for proving the £5m worse case scenario price obtained by SBC is irrelevant at best or simply a tool to get the lift closed.

Further to the meeting at Whitby on Monday 2nd March I fully understand the way NYC apply for Blue Flag Beach status.

In applying I can only presume an able-bodied person sat at a desk fills in the application without consultation with Whitby Disabled Action Group or Whish.  Both are perplexed to having never been consulted on the accessibility of the beach.

The facilities that are provided to back up the Yes answer are all based halfway along the beach near the lift but nowhere near either slipway. See answers below supplied by Chris Bourne for the two questions and answers submitted on the application.

Is the beach accessible for disabled people or people with impairments? Yes Please explain how the beach has been made accessible e.g. ramps, accessible toilets / changing facilities, beach matting, beach wheelchairs, assisted access from staff, floating aids at the beach to facilitate access onto the sand and/or into the water. Slipways, ramps, accessible toilets, and a beach wheelchair is available.

 

NYC are earning a lot of money from Whitby which has increased recently with the second homes council tax and this year's massive increase on what is already expensive car parking. Tourist tax is in the pipeline to.

I can only presume that no grants, lottery funding, sponsorship or backing from the Mayor has been looked into by NYC to help fund the reopening of the lift.

SBC neglected both Scarborough and Whitby’s infrastructures over the years but they've gone now so it's up to NYC to put right their wrongs, starting with Whitby's West Cliff Lift.

Councillor Trumper then emphasised significant public support for the lift, referencing nearly 6,000 petition signatures. He highlighted serious health and safety concerns caused by the lift’s closure, including vehicles blocking beach access for emergency services. He argued that Anglo‑American inspections contradicted earlier reports and urged the Committee to consider only options one and six in the report.

Reply

 

Councillor Taylor responded to Councillor Turner’s specific question that the Executive was aware of the resolution from the Scarborough and Whitby Area Committee at its meeting on 2 March 2026 which was included in the report before us. The Executive would consider the request as part of its decision-making process on this item.

 

The Chair then invited local North Yorkshire Council members to address the committee.

 

Councillor Colling reported that the Scarborough and Whitby Area Committee had twice considered the lift and that local confidence in the decision‑making process was undermined by the absence of up‑to‑date costings. She urged commissioning a full survey and a business case before any permanent decision. Councillor Chance shared historic knowledge of the site, stating that condensation and some water seepage had always been present, dating back to the 1960s. He warned that the current report relied on outdated and flawed information and argued that removing the lift would fail Whitby’s heritage and tourism economy. He quoted the Area Committee’s unanimous resolution calling for an up‑to‑date survey, costings, a business case, and an annual maintenance plan. Councillor Maw spoke about accessibility, drawing on his own temporary mobility challenges. He questioned what accessible route would remain if both the lift and bus service were withdrawn. He highlighted dangers for wheelchair users on the zig‑zag path and argued that the lift was a critical community asset.

 

In reply to members’ comments, the Corporate Director Environment, Karl Battersby acknowledged that the Council had inherited the issue and faced £30 million of coastal infrastructure pressures. He stated that while costs required further analysis, it was clear the lift had suffered significant internal corrosion. Option two—decommissioning but not permanently removing the lift—had been suggested as a pragmatic approach pending further work. He reiterated that the bus service had proved too expensive to justify.

 

Invited to comment further, Councillor Turner asked whether long‑term financial impacts of not reopening the lift would be considered and called again for a full business plan. Councillor Trumper restated concerns about the reliability of the earlier cost estimate and Councillor Chance clarified that he had always referred to condensation rather than ongoing water ingress.

 

Resolved (unanimously) that the Executive

       i.         commission an up‑to‑date survey of the Whitby Cliff Lift, including full costings for potential reinstatement, and withdraw the current bus service (whilst looking at alternative solutions); and

     ii.         work with Whitby Town Council and community representatives to develop options based on accurate evidence.

 

Reasons

 

To establish a solid evidence base to investigate future options for Whitby Cliff Lift