North Yorkshire Council
Executive
21 October 2025
Future of Scarborough Model Agreement
Report of the Director of Environment & Assistant Chief Executive - Localities
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To summarise the current funding arrangements under the Scarborough Model Agreement for town, parish and village councils, and to make recommendations to the Executive for proposed changes and the impact to recipients.
2.0 SUMMARY
2.1 North Yorkshire Council (NYC) has reviewed the Scarborough Model Agreement (SMA) as part of the Environment Transformation Programme aimed at harmonising service delivery and to significantly contribute to £125,000 of savings. Using 2025/26 as the baseline year, the SMA currently allocates £208,724.77 annually to 36 parish and town councils in the Scarborough area for services including grass cutting, burial ground maintenance, and public amenities.
2.2 Legal obligations have been reviewed, and a six-month termination clause has been observed.
2.3 It is proposed to harmonise services and end the current funding model after 2025/26 and implement more consistent and equitable individual agreements with individual parishes.
2.4 The review has identified opportunities to harmonise the approach and to address inconsistent, duplicated or discretionary funding for open space management, verge cutting, public seats, public shelters, bus shelters, public clocks, and administration. This has resulted in an opportunity to reduce payments from £208,724.77 by £107,747.89 to a revised total of £100,976.88. Potential savings of up to £102,347.26 can be realised once ongoing liabilities for public shelters and bus shelters are considered.
3.0 BACKGROUND
3.1 NYC is undertaking a significant transformation programme to maximise the benefits of local government re-organisation. As part of this, work is under way to review how services within the Highways and Infrastructure service unit, including Highways, Parks and Grounds, Waste and Street Cleansing, can leverage capabilities and harmonise services to ensure consistency and equity across the county. This is referred to as HAT03 within the Transformation Programme and has a budgeted savings target of £600k by 2027/28.
3.2 Within the HAT03 programme, savings of £125k are directly attributed to grass cutting and grounds maintenance for implementation by the 2026/27 financial year. By harmonising the Council’s approach it is anticipated that the saving of £125k will come from the review of the Scarborough Model Agreement (SMA) and also reviewing legacy Service Level Agreements between the former County Council, Harrogate Borough Council and Scarborough Borough Council for delivery of grass cutting. This paper focuses specifically on the SMA.
3.3 The SMA is a legacy funding regime from Scarborough Borough Council where payments are made to town, parish and village councils within the Scarborough area for the delivery of a range of services related to the local environment. These are specified in the agreement as for the following services:
· Parks, playing fields and open spaces
· Roadside verges (grass cutting)
· Burial grounds and church yards
· Public seats – maintenance
· Public shelters and bus shelters
· Public clocks
· Administration
3.4 Under the SMA, each town, parish, village council or groups of councils are given an allocation of funding for each of these service areas (where relevant) and is index linked to increase with inflation each year. There are 36 councils in receipt of SMA funding and these are listed in the table shown in Appendix A.
4.0 FUTURE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE SCARBOROUGH MODEL AGREEMENT
4.1 The review has identified opportunities to harmonise the approach and address inconsistent, duplicated or discretionary funding for open space management, verge cutting, public seats, public shelters, bus shelters, public clocks, and administration. This has resulted in an opportunity to reduce payments from £208,724.77 by £107,747.89 to a revised total of £100,976.88 as shown in the table below. Potential savings of up to £102,347.26 can be realised once ongoing liabilities for public shelters and bus shelters are considered.
|
Service spend category |
Current payment |
Proposed payment |
|
Parks, playing fields and open spaces |
57,327.88 |
57,327.88 |
|
Roadside verges (grass cutting) |
55,827.69 |
0 |
|
Burial grounds and church yards |
45,090.05 |
33,607.41 |
|
Public seats – maintenance |
19,377.86 |
10,041.59 |
|
Public Shelters & Bus Shelters |
5,400.63 |
0 |
|
Public clocks |
2,509.05 |
0 |
|
Administration |
23,191.61 |
0 |
|
TOTAL |
208,724.77 |
100,976.88 |
4.2 Members will note from the table above that the proposed payments highlight some significant changes for certain areas of service delivery. Commentary is provided on each of these in the following paragraphs.
Parks, playing fields and open spaces (POS)
4.3 Under section 10 of the Open Spaces Act 1906, a local authority that acquires an estate, interest, or control over an open space is required to hold and administer the space in trust for public enjoyment as an open space. This statutory duty includes maintaining the space in a good and decent state.
4.4 Local authorities have broad statutory powers to provide and manage parks and playing fields, ensuring their availability for public use while adhering to any legal restrictions or conditions attached to the land.
4.5 Under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, local authorities are empowered to provide recreational facilities both within and outside their areas. These facilities may include outdoor spaces such as pitches for team games, athletics grounds, and other recreational amenities. Authorities may also provide associated facilities such as parking spaces, food and drink outlets, and staff to manage these facilities. They have discretion to make these facilities available to the public either free of charge or for a fee.
4.6 28 parishes receive SMA funding for POS totalling £57,327.88. There is currently a lack of data on the POS sites that receive this funding, therefore making an assessment of value for money difficult. As each location is unique with different features from grass verges to cricket pitches, it will be necessary to ground truth every area with estimated NYC maintenance costs so to provide the evidence base for decision making.
4.7 This work has begun and is prioritised to the areas with the largest SMA allocations. However, to date the assessment results are varied and there remain significant unknowns with regard to parish maintenance standards particularly for sports pitches. To give certainty for 2026/27 it is proposed to maintain current funding levels via individual agreements with individual parishes whilst this assessment work is completed in partnership with parishes.
Roadside Verges (grass cutting)
4.8 Highway authorities, have several statutory duties under the Highways Act 1980 to ensure the safety and usability of highways maintainable at public expense. The duty to maintain encompasses repair and upkeep to prevent the highway from becoming dangerous to traffic or pedestrians.
4.9 Grass cutting on highway verges is a discretionary power granted to highway authorities under section 96 of the Highways Act 1980. This section allows highway authorities to lay out and maintain grass verges, as well as to undertake actions expedient for their maintenance or protection. However, the Act does not impose a mandatory obligation to carry out grass cutting
4.10 Analysis of the current spend allocation of £55,827.69 for roadside verges (grass cutting) has highlighted that funding is provided over and above the basic level of cutting ‘visibility splays’ where the safety of road users is maintained by ensuring at road junctions there is appropriate visibility of oncoming traffic.
4.11 All verges have been mapped accurately to identify visibility splays - and costed at 8p per metre squared - which is commensurate with relevant highway policy associated with urban grass cutting. Funding for the visibility cuts at this rate, is already allocated from local highways budgets and totals £12,377.69 per year with payments made either directly to parishes or a local contractor.
4.12 The SMA payment of £55,827.69 for roadside verges is therefore both a duplication of funding for visibility splays and is not equitable with other parishes that do not receive funding for ‘whole verge’ grass cutting. It is proposed that by harmonising our approach in line with other areas in the county, to cutting visibility splays only, would harmonise the service offer and generate a saving of £55,827.69 by ceasing this payment.
Burial grounds and church yards
4.13 Local authorities have specific responsibilities regarding churchyards and burial grounds, which are governed by various legislative provisions. Under the Open Spaces Act 1906, local authorities are empowered to acquire, manage, and maintain burial grounds. Once acquired, the Act requires local authorities to hold and administer the burial ground in trust for public enjoyment and to maintain it in a good and decent state. This includes enclosing the burial ground with proper railings and gates, as well as carrying out improvements such as planting, lighting, and providing seating.
4.14 Additionally, the Local Government Act 1972 addresses the maintenance of closed churchyards. Church of England Parish churchyards can be closed by Privy Council Order (when there is no proper room for new graves, although the order can permit for further burials (e.g. additional interments in an existing plot or ashes interments). Once a churchyard is closed the responsibility for maintenance falls on the Parochial Church Council (PCC), who are required to keep the churchyard in decent order and its walls and fences in good repair. A churchyard remains consecrated ground and the responsibility for further interments and records of burial is retained by the incumbent minister and PCC. The 1972 Act allows the PCC to serve, at any time, a written request on the local council (parish/town) to take over this responsibility. If such a request is made, the parish/town council is obligated to assume the maintenance duties after three months, unless specific resolutions are passed to transfer the responsibility to NYC in which case the responsibility becomes NYC’s.
4.15 Where the maintenance of churchyards is transferred to NYC, they must be in good order and repair and have been maintained to the satisfaction of the parish Council at the point of transfer. The duty of the local authority is substantive, requiring the churchyard to be kept in decent order and its boundaries maintained in good repair. This obligation is not conditional on the availability of funds, and it extends to ensuring the churchyard is properly maintained rather than merely managing its decline.
4.16 Regular maintenance activities would typically include cultivated and uncultivated areas, trees, paths, walls, fences and the safety of memorials to ensure that they do not present a hazard. Maintenance carried out or contracted by the Council will be in line with the Church of England’s guidance and the recommendations of ‘Caring for God’s Acre’ to promote biodiversity. Where the PCC or Parish Council wish for a higher level of maintenance or wish to seek an alternative scheme of maintenance, this can be negotiated at the point of transfer or at any later stage. Any additional cost will be borne by the PCC or Parish. Any unforeseen emergency maintenance or repairs will be addressed by the Council as additional works.
4.17 The SMA NYC funding to Parish/Town Councils for burial grounds and churchyards adds up to £45,090.05 for the current financial year. This is shared out between 29 Parish/Town Councils. The majority has been allocated out to only five parishes i.e., Filey, Hinderwell, Newby and Scalby, Cayton and Fylingdales.
4.18 Analysis of each Parish/Town Council included in the SMA and our database of officially “closed” churchyards revealed that only 15 out of the 29 have ones that are the responsibility of NYC to maintain. The total allocated SMA funding for these 15 Parish/Town Councils in 2025/26 is £33,607.41, noting two of these Parishes have the highest proportions of SMA funding, i.e., Filey (£11,613.21) and Hinderwell (£9,650.67). Each parish has one closed churchyard NYC are responsible for, along with their own open cemetery sites, where most of the SMA funding goes to cover their annual operational costs. It should be noted that both these parishes keep all the burial income from grave and ashes internments at their cemetery sites.
4.19 From the list of parishes that have closed churchyards that NYC are responsible for, only three in Hinderwell, Snainton and Filey, have direct arrangements with NYC’s Parks and Grounds teams to cut their grass during the spring and summer seasons. For the remaining, it is assumed the Parishes make their own grass cutting arrangements. Snainton, Cayton and Hunmanby also have their own cemetery sites managed by the Parish Council.
4.20 It is proposed that for the 14 Parishes in receipt of funding for burial grounds and churchyards where NYC have no direct maintenance responsibilities, that these arrangements are regularised, resulting in a financial saving of £11,482.64.
Public seats – maintenance
4.21 Local authorities in England and Wales have the power to provide public seating in streets, public places, and other appropriate locations. Under the Public Health Act 1925, local authorities, or any person with their consent and subject to conditions they may impose, may erect and maintain seats in proper and convenient situations in streets or public places for public use.
4.22 Similarly, parish councils are empowered under the Parish Councils Act 1957 to provide and maintain seats and shelters for public use, which may be installed in proper and convenient locations on or abutting roads within the parish. Additionally, local authorities may authorise the placement of chairs or seats in public parks or pleasure grounds under their management and control. They may also impose conditions on such installations, ensuring they are appropriately situated
4.23 There are 28 parishes in receipt of £19,377.86 of SMA funds towards public seats. Nearly half of this (£10,041.59) goes to Filey Town Council, where they maintain a large number of benches on the Council’s behalf. Property Services have recently taken on responsibility for benches County wide. It is recommended the current arrangements with Filey Town Council will continue for one further year, whilst arrangements are harmonised.
4.24 There has been a recent example in the Harrogate locality with Pannal and Burn Bridge Parish Council who are in the process of an asset transfer to take over management of local benches following an NYC project to bring them up to an acceptable standard. This example can be used as a case study to transfer benches countywide to parishes, and in harmonising the approach, realising savings of up to £9,336.27.
Public Shelters and Bus Shelters – maintenance
4.25 Local Authorities, including parish councils, have powers to provide and maintain bus shelters but do not have a statutory duty to do so. There are over 450 shelters in North Yorkshire. Many were installed by county, district or borough councils and are now the responsibility of NYC with others having been provided by parish councils. There are also 47 in Harrogate and Scarborough owned or managed by a commercial advertising company.
4.26 Where shelters have been installed by a parish council we would expect them to manage and maintain them and Fleet Services do not provide funding for this. Regarding the bus shelters included within the Scarborough Model Agreement, as these were previously the responsibility of Scarborough Borough Council, Fleet Services will assume responsibility for these using the budget provided, therefore removing this from the SMA payment but not resulting in any budgetary saving from the current £5,400.63 expenditure.
Public clocks
4.27 Urban authorities, as per section 165 of the Public Health Act 1875, may provide public clocks as they consider necessary. They are authorised to fix these clocks on or against public buildings, or, with the consent of the owner or occupier, on or against private buildings in convenient locations.
4.28 Under the Parish Councils Act 1957, parish councils are empowered to provide, maintain, and light public clocks within their parish. They may install these clocks on or against any premises or in other convenient locations, subject to certain provisions outlined in section 5 of the Parish Councils Act 1957.
4.29 Local authorities also have the discretion to pay for the reasonable costs of repairing, maintaining, winding, and lighting public clocks within their district, even if the clocks are not vested in the authority. There are 11 recipients of the SMA for public clocks with a value of £2,509.05. However, as a discretionary service that does not happen elsewhere it is proposed to cease this payment.
Administration
4.30 A total of £23,191.61 is allocated to the provision of ‘administration’ to councils via the SMA. This is inconsistent with any other agreement in place with town, parish and village Councils and it is therefore proposed to harmonise our approach and remove this element in full as part of this review.
5.0 CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN AND RESPONSES
5.1 All councils in receipt of SMA payments were written to in October 2024 confirming the proposed payments for 2025/26 and gave notice there would be no further payments under the current arrangements as NYC was undertaking a review to ensure consistency of the operation for services. Stakeholders are anticipating feedback on the outcome of this process this Autumn. In addition to divisional member engagement, Officers will facilitate a workshop to be held in the Scarborough area with all parishes in the immediate days after proposals set out in this paper are considered by the Executive.
5.2 It is further noted that some parishes within the old Scarborough Borough Council boundaries - Eastfield, Filey, Newby and Scalby, Osgoodby, Whitby, and Scarborough (prior to being parished) currently have their urban grass cutting managed by the NYC parks and Grounds team, with a payment made from NYC highways to NYC parks and grounds for this activity. This was a legacy arrangement prior to Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), whereby a service level agreement (SLA) was in place between NYC and the relevant District / Borough Council – and results in an enhanced level of service in those areas. A separate piece of work to harmonise these grass cutting standards in relation to SLAs is being progressed, but engagement with parishes on the SMA will be combined with an overview of the SLA proposals.
6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED
6.1 A proposal to not review or harmonise the current funding resulting from the Scarborough Model Agreement was considered. This was rejected as affected parishes had already been given notice in October 2024 that no further payments would be made under the current arrangements.
7.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
7.1 The financial implications of this report are set out in paragraph 4.1 where total savings of up to £102,347.26 across different service areas can be realised once ongoing liabilities for public shelters and bus shelters are considered. Full details for each parish are provided in Appendix A.
8.0 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
8.1 Councils can consider their financial constraints when deciding to withdraw non-statutory services or modify the delivery of statutory ones. Consultation with affected service users ahead of making any decision is a critical requirement and the council will need to ensure compliance with its public sector equality duty and taking steps to mitigate any disproportionate effects.
8.2 Legal Services have seen an example of the SMA dated 2009 and note that it contains a term enabling termination on not less than 6 month’s notice being served. Other legal implications are reflected throughout paragraph 4 of this report.
9.0 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
9.1 The equality impact assessment of the proposals has highlighted that some rural communities may be affected, if implemented. However, the risk that a reduction in external funding for some environmental services, may lead to service delivery at a lower specification, is not certain. Parishes will be able to mitigate any reduced funding by reviewing their own precepts. A post implementation review 12 months after the decision is made would be prudent to ground truth this assessment.
10.0 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS
10.1 A climate change impact assessment screening exercise concluded a full impact assessment would not be proportionate. The decision report outlines proposed changes to the current funding arrangements under the scheme known as the ‘Scarborough Model Agreement’. However, there is no direct correlation between the funding model and any possible future changes in activities that would either impact positively or negatively on the environment.
11.0 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
11.1 The proposals will ensure a harmonised approach to how environmental services for open space management, verge cutting, public seats, and public clocks are funded in the county. This will help deliver against the agreed transformation programme whilst ensuring Parishes are informed to set precepts in their localities.
|
12.0 |
RECOMMENDATIONS
|
|
|
i) To agree that the SMA funding is replaced with the revised schedule of payments that will form individual agreements between services with individual parishes as summarised in paragraph 4.1 of this report and set out in detail in Appendix A.
ii) To note the overall opportunity to deliver savings of up to £102,347.26 as part of the Environment transformation programme.
iii) That NYC convene an in-person engagement event in the Scarborough area for parishes at the earliest opportunity after the Executive’s decision, to support and assist stakeholders. |
|
|
|
APPENDICES:
Appendix A – Summary of payment schedule and proposed changes
Appendix B – Equalities Impact Assessment
Appendix C – Climate Change Impact Assessment
Karl Battersby Corporate Director, Environment
Rachel Joyce Assistant Chief Executive, Local Engagement
Report Presenter Executive Member for Highways & Transportation
Executive Member for Corporate Services
Report Author Jon Clubb, Head of Parks & Grounds