Climate change impact assessment                                                                                                                                                                                                           

The purpose of this assessment is to help us understand the likely impacts of our decisions on the environment of North Yorkshire and on our aspiration to achieve net carbon neutrality by 2030, or as close to that date as possible. The intention is to mitigate negative effects and identify projects which will have positive effects.

This document should be completed in consultation with the supporting guidance. The final document will be published as part of the decision making process and should be written in Plain English.

If you have any additional queries which are not covered by the guidance please email climatechange@northyorks.gov.uk

Version 2: amended 11 August 2021

Title of proposal	Princess Close, Ripon - Structural Stability and Options Appraisal
Brief description of proposal	This proposal sets out an options appraisal for addressing significant structural instability at a block of flats at Princess Close, Ripon. The building is located on geologically unstable ground. Following extensive investigations, three options have been identified: Retain and Monitor - maintaining the building in its current vacant state with ongoing structural and ground condition monitoring. Undertake Remedial Works - implementing extensive ground stabilisation, drainage repairs, and structural reinforcement. Demolition (Preferred Option) - controlled demolition of the block, removing the immediate safety risk and liability. Demolition is recommended as the most cost-effective and risk-averse solution, supported by structural and geotechnical evidence. However, the final decision will be subject to formal approval following consideration of all options. The future use of the site is being considered but has not yet been determined.
Directorate	Community Development
Service area	Housing
Lead officer	Imogen Downie, Housing Policy and Strategy Officer (Service Improvement)
Names and roles of other people involved in carrying out the impact assessment
Date impact assessment started	Sept 2025

Options appraisal

Were any other options considered in trying to achieve the aim of this project? If so, please give brief details and explain why alternative options were not progressed.

Three options are being considered in response to the structural instability at the Princess Close flats:

Option 1 – Retain and Monitor

This option would involve leaving the building vacant, fenced off, and subject to periodic structural and ground condition monitoring. While this avoids immediate capital expenditure, it retains a high-risk asset with ongoing liability. The adjacent block is already showing signs of movement.

• Environmental impact - continued degradation of the site, no opportunity for environmental improvement or redevelopment.
• Reasons this may not be progressed - high risk, reputational impact, and lack of long-term viability.

Option 2 – Undertake Remedial Works

This would involve extensive ground stabilisation, repairs, structural reinforcement, and refurbishment.

• Environmental impact - high carbon footprint due to use of carbon-intensive materials and processes. Risk of triggering further ground movement during works.
• Reasons this may not be progressed - high cost, complexity, and residual risk. The building would remain on a geologically unstable site.

Option 3 – Demolition (Preferred Option)

Controlled demolition of the block, leaving piles in situ to avoid disturbing the ground. This removes all immediate safety risks and liability.

• Environmental impact - short-term emissions and waste generation, but removes a non-efficient asset.
• Recommended by structural and geotechnical consultants as the safest and most sustainable long-term solution.

What impact will this proposal have on council budgets? Will it be cost neutral, have increased cost or reduce costs?

Please explain briefly why this will be the result, detailing estimated savings or costs where this is possible.

The financial implications of the proposal vary significantly depending on the option selected:

Option 1 – Retain and Monitor

While this option avoids immediate capital expenditure, it incurs ongoing costs for structural monitoring, insurance premiums, and potential emergency response. Retaining a high-risk asset may lead to increased insurance premiums or withdrawal of cover. There is also reputational risk and potential legal liability if collapse or injury occurs.

Option 2 – Undertake Remedial Works

Estimated to exceed £200,000, including ground stabilisation, repairs, structural reinforcement, and refurbishment. Early discussions suggest insurers may not cover costs if the issue is deemed pre-existing or undisclosed. Due to the unpredictable nature of gypsum dissolution and peat compression, there is no guarantee of long-term success, meaning significant investment could be lost.

Option 3 – Demolition (Preferred Option)

Estimated at approximately £70,000 based on contractor quotes. This removes liability, avoids future monitoring and emergency response costs, removing future cost concerns. There would however be loss of rental income.

How will this proposal impact on the environment? N.B. There may be short term negative impact and longer term positive impact. Please include all potential impacts over the lifetime of a project and provide an explanation.		Positive impact (Place a X in the box below where relevant)	No impact (Place a X in the box below where relevant)	Negative impact (Place a X in the box below where relevant)	Explain why will it have this effect and over what timescale? Where possible/relevant please include: · Changes over and above business as usual · Evidence or measurement of effect · Figures for CO2e · Links to relevant documents	Explain how you plan to mitigate any negative impacts.	Explain how you plan to improve any positive outcomes as far as possible.
Minimise greenhouse gas emissions e.g. reducing emissions from travel, increasing energy efficiencies etc.	Emissions from travel		x		Minimal travel required for demolition and site clearance. No ongoing travel emissions post-demolition.	Use local contractors to reduce travel distances. Encourage car sharing or use of electric vehicles.	N/A
	Emissions from construction			x	Demolition will generate short-term emissions from machinery and transport. Estimated CO₂e not calculated but expected to be lower than remedial works.	Use low-emission equipment, efficient scheduling, and dust suppression.	Any potential redevelopment to follow low-carbon construction standards.
	Emissions from running of buildings	x			Removal of inefficient, vacant building eliminates ongoing energy use.	N/A	Any potential redevelopment to meet high energy efficiency standards (e.g. EPC A rating).
	Emissions from data storage		x		No significant data storage involved in the proposal.	N/A	N/A
	Other		X		No other emissions identified.	N/A	N/A
Minimise waste: Reduce, reuse, recycle and compost e.g. reducing use of single use plastic				x	Demolition will generate construction waste.	Maximise salvage and recycling of materials (e.g. bricks, metals). Avoid landfill where possible.	Potential future use of site could impact community benefit e.g. green space
Reduce water consumption			x		No significant water use expected.	N/A	N/A
Minimise pollution (including air, land, water, light and noise)				x	Short-term noise and dust during demolition.	Controlled demolition and dust suppression	Improved site conditions post-demolition.
Ensure resilience to the effects of climate change e.g. reducing flood risk, mitigating effects of drier, hotter summers		x			Removal of unsafe structure reduces risk of collapse due to subsidence. Enables potential for future climate-adaptive land use.	N/A	Any future use would need to incorporate flood resilience and green infrastructure.
Enhance conservation and wildlife			x		No known ecological features affected.	N/A	Potential future use of landscaping post-demolition could support biodiversity (e.g. wildflower planting).
Safeguard the distinctive characteristics, features and special qualities of North Yorkshire’s landscape			x		No heritage or landscape features affected.	N/A	Site clearance may improve visual amenity.
Other (please state below)			x		No other impacts identified.	N/A	N/A

Are there any recognised good practice environmental standards in relation to this proposal? If so, please detail how this proposal meets those standards.

The demolition would be carried out in accordance with BS 6187:2011, the UK Code of Practice for Demolition, which ensures safe and environmentally responsible practices including dust and noise control, risk assessment, and waste management.

Summary Summarise the findings of your impact assessment, including impacts, the recommendation in relation to addressing impacts, including any legal advice, and next steps. This summary should be used as part of the report to the decision maker.

This Climate Change Impact Assessment has evaluated the environmental implications of three options for addressing the structural instability of the flats at Princess Close, Ripon: (1) Retain and Monitor, (2) Undertake Remedial Works, and (3) Demolition (Preferred Option). The assessment identifies that while demolition will result in short-term negative environmental impacts, such as increased greenhouse gas emissions and construction waste, it also removes a high-risk, inefficient asset. Retaining the building would maintain a non-performing, environmentally vulnerable structure, while remedial works would involve high-carbon materials and processes with no guarantee of long-term success.

The next steps will depend on the decision taken by the Executive Member. If demolition is the preferred option, and is formally approved following the decision-making process, the council will proceed with the legal steps required for Housing Revenue Account (HRA) stock demolition, implement mitigation measures during demolition, and explore opportunities for future use of the site that enhance environmental and community value. If an alternative option is selected, further planning will be required to manage the associated environmental and financial risks.

Sign off section

This climate change impact assessment was completed by:

Name	Imogen Downie,
Job title	Housing Policy and Strategy Officer
Service area	Housing
Directorate	Community Development
Signature	Imogen Downie
Completion date	Sept 2025

Authorised by relevant Assistant Director (signature): Andrew Rowe

Date: 4 November 2025