North Yorkshire Council

 

Environment Executive Members

 

28 November 2025

 

Annual Flood Programme Update 2025/26

 

Report of the Assistant Director – Highways & Infrastructure

 

1.0         PURPOSE OF REPORT

 

1.1       To provide a progress report on the current Flood Risk Management Capital Investment programme to the Corporate Director of Environment, in consultation with the Executive Member for Highway and Transportation.

 

1.2       To seek agreement from the Corporate Director of Environment, in consultation with the Executive Member for Highway and Transportation, to the proposed updates and extension of the rolling flood capital investment programme up to 2031, in accordance with the approved prioritisation methodology.

 

 

2.0       BACKGROUND

 

2.1       In January 2018, the Corporate Director of the then Business and Environmental Services Directorate (BES), in consultation with BES Executive Members, approved a method of prioritising capital investment in locations where flood investigation had been undertaken by the County Council and subsequently North Yorkshire Council (NYC), following Local Government Reorganisation. This continues to be used to inform the programme for capital scheme development and delivery, the intention being to mitigate against local sources of flood risk which include surface, ordinary watercourse and ground water flooding, in line with its powers to act under the Flood and Water Management Act (2010).

 

2.2       The action plan for the delivery of the North Yorkshire Flood Risk Management Strategy 2022-27 requires the Council to maintain a prioritised capital investment programme of flood alleviation and resilience projects.

 

2.3       The programme of NYC commitments is refreshed annually to ensure communities are prioritised accordingly. Communities affected by flooding since the strategy was updated in 2022, will be included in the future programme, in particular those affected by events in 2024 once the subsequent Section 19 investigation recommendations have been formalised and published. The current capital schemes to be delivered in 2025/26 are presented in Table 1.

 

2.4       The approved capital investment programme has a total value of £3.86 million with a contribution of £1.47milllion from the Flood Risk Management (FRM) revenue reserve. In addition to this, additional funding opportunities have been identified.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.0       LOCAL LEVY FUNDING

 

3.1       The Environment Agency (EA) raises levies from local authorities to support flood risk management functions and to fund various flood protection work. The collected EA levies are subject to approval and programming of the relevant Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC). RFCCs are composed of a chair appointed by the Secretary of State, a majority of members appointed by Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) and independent members with relevant experience appointed by the EA. Their roles are to ensure that there are coherent plans for managing flood and coastal erosion risks across catchments and shorelines; encourage efficient, targeted and risk-based investment; and to provide a link between the EA, LLFAs, and other relevant bodies to build understanding of flood and coastal erosion risks in their regions.

 

4.0       GRANT IN AID FUNDING

 

4.1       As a Flood Risk Management Authority (RMA), the Council can apply for national Grant in Aid (GiA) funding through the EA to better protect properties from flooding. RMAs submit applications to the EA for funding to be allocated and profiled into the Medium-Term Plan (MTP), ready to be drawn down subject to business case approval. GiA, therefore, forms an important funding stream that NYC uses to supplement and match fund its capital flood investment programme. The MTP programme was due to run until March 2027.

 

4.2       Table 1 below presents the current funding sources available to NYC to deliver flood related capital schemes. The MTP Programme had previously allocated GiA funding to these schemes and match funded contributions had been proposed from the EA’s Local Levy.

a)         Schemes highlighted green have Flood Risk Management (FRM) Revenue Reserve funding secured and the Local Levy funding bids and/or GiA approved. The money is available to be drawn down with business cases having been submitted to the EA for approval.

b)         Amber cells indicate that GiA funding has been allocated but is less than requested. Again, business cases have been submitted for approval.

c)         Cells not highlighted do not currently have a funding allocation from the EA’s Local Levy and/or GiA.

 

4.3       The total value of capital schemes to be funded was as follows: £1.47million from NYC FRM Revenue Reserve, £1.06million Local Levy and £1.22million GiA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1: Schemes to be delivered 2025/26

Project Name

Properties better protected

NYC Contribution

Local Levy

GiA Funding

Total

Financial Year

Rye Villages

Kirkbymoorside

40

£190,000

£240,000

£180,000

£610,000

2025/26

Rye Villages

39

£190,000

£240,000

£170,000

£600,000

2025/26

Upper Dales

P1. Wensleydale

30

 £97,500

 £58,017

 £168,483

 £324,000

2024/25

P6. Reeth

31

 £100,750

 £70,913

 £138,637

 £310,300

2024/25

P5. West Witton & Spennithorne

20

 £65,000

 £47,618

 £103,382

 £216,000

2025/26

P7. Upper Dales

32

 £104,000

 £ 106,700

 £120,700

 £331,400

2025/26

P3 Leyburn & Redmire

23

 £74,750

 £100,666

 £82,185

 £257,601

2025/26

P2. Leyburn

33

 £107,250

 £88,940

 £143,910

 £340,100

2026/27

P4. Leyburn 3

31

 £100,750

 £110,035

 £115,915

 £326,700

2026/27

 

Scarborough

40

£20,000

 

 

£20,000

2024/25

Hackness

10

£100,000

0

0

£100,000

2024/25

Saxton

~10

£100,000

TBC

TBC

£100,000

2026/27

Bolton Percy

12

£220,000

0

0

£220,000

2025/26

South Craven

~25

£100,000

TBC

TBC

£100,000

2026/27

Total

341

£1,470,000

£1,062,889

£1,223,212

£3,856,101

 

5.0       UPDATE ON NYC SCHEME DEVELOPMENT

 

5.1       Both the Rye Villages and Upper Dales projects are at an advanced stage.

·               The vast majority of the circa 200 properties have now received their individual property surveys containing the bespoke recommended property flood resilience (PFR) measures.

·               In the Upper Dales, 58 properties have had their design and pre-installation surveys completed.

·               These surveys are also progressing at pace in the Rye Villages with 94 having been completed

·               NEC4 Contracts for the design and installation of the property flood resilience measures were signed in September 2025 with Watertight Limited via the EAs PFR procurement framework with assistance from NYC procurement and legal teams.

 

5.2       In Scarborough, additional flood modelling review work indicated that the flood risk was less than anticipated and a viable scheme could not be identified. Future work will focus on other areas across Scarborough, where a town wide PFR scheme may attract funding under the Government’s new funding rules announced in October 2025.

 

5.3       Installations of PFR are progressing in Hackness and Bolton Percy and should be completed by March 2026.

 

5.4       Investigation work is progressing in Saxton, with new CCTV surveys being conducted on the old drainage network.

 

5.5       The investment in South Craven is on hold pending EA investigations into interconnectivity with the main river. Committing to the delivery of a PFR scheme may be premature, resulting in the NYC allocation being reduced from £100k to £20k.

 

6.0       MEDIUM TERM PLAN (MTP) PROGRAMME REFRESH

 

6.1       The EA undertake an annual programme refresh to update the allocations throughout the 6-year programme. This annual refresh usually in occurs April/May. Funding for FCRM in 2025/26 was agreed through the Spending Review 2024. Based on the reset programme, the business case, which was approved by HM Treasury in February 2024, there was less funding than originally allocated for 2025/26.

 

6.2       With Ministerial direction, £72million from the FCRM Investment Programme has been diverted to support the maintenance of existing Environment Agency assets. This means, collectively, that GiA cannot fund all of the previously planned work in 2025/26.

 

6.3       To allow a clean break in the funding cycle, to reflect the new funding rules and a national overspend, the EA has shortened the current 6-year programme which was due to expire in 2026/27 to now end in 2025/26. Schemes with allocations in 2026/27 have, therefore, been removed from the programme altogether resulting in a 50% reduction in available GiA in the Yorkshire region.

 

7.0       LOCAL CHOICES PROCESS AND RFCC ENDORSEMENT

 

7.1       At the February 2025 Committee meetings, RFCCs members were asked to review their indicative allocations and identify any changes they would like to see to their regional programmes. This is referred to as the ‘local choices’ process. This is an important step to ensure local priorities can be taken into consideration and we get the best possible outcomes from the programme both locally and nationally. With increased pressure on budgets in 2025/26 the local choices process was challenging, but the EA are keen that RFCCs ensure they are exploring the opportunities available to them.

 

7.2       The prioritisation approach is based on the allocation principles approved by the Environment Agency Board in October 2020 and DEFRA’s current Partnership Funding Policy, as usual. RFCCs (through their Chairs) were involved in the development of the allocation principles. The hierarchy for allocating funding is:

·               Approved urgent cases based on health and safety or statutory grounds, and time-bound partnership funding contributions.

·               In construction by 1 April 2025 and delivering properties better protected by 31 March 2026.

·               In construction by 1 April 2025 (sub-ranked by adjusted partnership funding score high to low).

·               Remainder of programme ranked by adjusted partnership funding score (high to low).

 

7.3       Table 2 below, presents the outcome of the recent refresh process on the NYC capital investment programme. The table identifies the required funding vs the proposed indicative GiA allocation and the resulting £875k shortfall for the NYC surface water schemes presented in Table 1.

a)         The indicative allocations retain the funding for the Derwent Villages projects, albeit reduced, and one of the Upper Dales schemes for West Witton and Spennithorne Flood Alleviation Scheme.

b)         The retention of Derwent Villages schemes was made possible through reprofiling NYC’s internal needs as well as the North Bay coastal scheme from £1m to £800k in 2025/26 as it is unlikely that project will require all of its allocation in 2025/26.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2: Outcome of 2025/26 Grant in Aid programme refresh

Project Name

NYC Contribution

Levy funding needed

GiA Funding

Total

Proposed Indicative Allocation 25/26

Shortfall

Derwent Villages

Kirkbymoorside

£190,000

£240,000

£180,000

£610,000

£125,000

£55,000

Rye Villages

£190,000

£240,000

£170,000

£600,000

£120,000

£50,000

Upper Dales

P1. Wensleydale

£97,500

£58,017

£168,483

£324,000

£0

£168,483

P2. Leyburn

£107,250

£88,940

£143,910

£340,100

£0

£143,910

P3 Leyburn & Redmire

£74,750

£100,666

£ 82,185

£257,601

£0

£82,185

P4. Leyburn 3

£100,750

£110,035

£115,915

£326,700

£0

£115,915

P5. West Witton &

Spennithorne

£65,000

£47,618

£103,382

£216,000

£103,000

£382

P6. Reeth

£100,750

£70,913

£138,637

£310,300

£0

£138,637

P7. Upper Dales

£104,000

£106,700

£120,700

£331,400

£0

£120,700

Total

£1,030,000

£1,062,889

£1,223,212

£3,316,101

£348,000

£875,212

 

8.0       2026/2027 GIA LOCAL CHOICES PROCESS

 

8.1       Throughout 2025, the government has made several announcements of record investment in flood risk management funding, most recently £4.6bn from April 2026 for 3 years and £10.5bn, again from April 2026 to align with the 10-year national infrastructure plan. It was the intention of the Council to continue to deliver the Upper Dales schemes and resubmit the GiA bids for 2026/27 omitting the 3 Leyburn schemes (P2, P3 and P4 in Table 1) in order to fulfil the approved Local Levy funding obligations.

 

8.2       The 2026/27 indicative allocations for GiA funding were distributed ahead of the local choices process to NYC on 13th October 2025, for the programme to be approved by YRFCC in January 2026.

 

8.3       No indicative GiA allocations have been made for the Rye Villages, Wensleydale, Reeth and Upper Dales schemes in 2026/27, as expected, on the back of the recent government announcements, and results in a continued £428k shortfall, not including the Leyburn schemes. Furthermore, there is no firm commitment as to when the funding would be made available again. This proves a significant challenge in balancing funding contributions but ultimately is  not critical to the successful delivery schemes for the reasons discussed within the report

 

8.4       Whilst no indicative GiA allocations have been made, there may be funding available as in-year GiA overprogrammed. The overprogrammed exists to provide headroom in the committed programme and is not published. The schemes would therefore be allocated funding, but availability cannot be guaranteed if there is slippage in the published committed programme.

 

 

 

9.0       ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

9.1       The Rye Villages Schemes can be delivered despite the reduced GiA due to the application of FRM Revenue Reserve and the contribution from the Levy.

 

9.2       Table 3 below considers options for the continued delivery of the Upper Dales schemes. The “original funding” and the “without Leyburn” option assumes GiA is received whilst all other options omit the delivery of the Leyburn schemes. The two options considered, if GiA is not received, are to increase NYC’s FRM Revenue Reserve contribution, or the preferred option, to make additional Local Levy bids.

 

Table 3: Financial Implications of options to progress schemes

 

9.3       Increased NYC FRM Revenue Reserve -Contributions - As discussed in paragraph 8.1 we will not progress Leyburn’s schemes in 2026/27 but defer to future years. The NYC FRM Revenue Reserve contribution to the collective scheme including Leyburn schemes is £650k. Based on the curtailed programme not including Leyburn, the NYC FRM Revenue Reserve contribution is reduced to £367k, providing £283k to cover some of the reduced GiA. The remaining £145k deficit of the £428k identified in paragraph 8.3 could be covered by increasing NYC’s overall reserve contribution to £795k as demonstrated in table 3.

 

9.4       We have identified that the shortfall can be underwritten by the first £100k of spend in each year being covered by the FRM base budget supplemented by the FRM Revenue Reserve in 2025/26 in 2026/27without significant detriment to the programme, other than to defer schemes to future years. Spend in future years will continue to be funded from the FRM base budget supplemented by the reserve until 2028/29 at which point it is fully committed.   

 

9.5       Additional Local Levy-Notwithstanding the above, it is possible to make a further request to the RFCC for additional funding of £219k. Based on the advice given by the EA at the time, and a sizeable contribution from NYC, the bids for the Local Levy were less than our eligibility under the Local Levy funding rules, our bids being considered conservative.

 

9.6       Under the criteria of the Flood and Coastal Committee Local Levy, North Yorkshire is eligible for £5k per property. As the projects have progressed and greater confidence has emerged in delivery figures, table 4 below shows the difference between the original Local Levy funding request and the eligibility amount of funding that could have been available for us to apply for.

 

Table 4 – Upper Dales Agreed Local Levy vs Local Levy Eligibility

Project title

Council contribution

Local Levy agreed

Total Local Levy eligibility

Additional Local Levy application

P1. Wensleydale

£97,500

£58,017

£150,000

£91,983

P6. Reeth

£70,913

£70,913

£155,000

£84,087

P7. Upper Dales

£106,700

£106,700

£150,000

£91,983

Total

£275,113

£235,630

£455,000

£219,370

 

 

 

9.7       The additional £219k will reduce the shortfall of £428k to £209k which can comfortably be covered within the original £650k allocation without affecting the wider programme and leaving some FRM Revenue Reserve contribution from NYC to cover the Leyburn schemes in the future.

 

9.8       In light of the GiA shortfall and the Local Levy positions, a separate paper will seek to obtain permission to bid for the remaining Local Levy eligibility in December 2025.

 

9.9       The local choices programme may add the three remaining schemes and provide an additional £54k to the Rye Villages scheme, but this is not guaranteed. If GiA is forthcoming through overprogramming, the schemes can be delivered in their entirety and will return the additional funding requested to the same value as originally agreed in Table 1.

 

10.0     LOCATIONS TO REMOVE FROM THE PROGRAMME

 

10.1     Easingwold was included in the approved list of studies in the August 2022 programme delivery update to the then BES Executive Members meeting. However, following engagement with the Town Council and an attempt from NYC to instigate a feasibility study, there was neither the appetite locally to work with the flood team nor a compelling case to invest in a feasibility study due to lack of notable instances of flooding where the number of properties having flooded internally would attract a sufficient level of external GiA or Levy investment.

 

11.0     LOCATIONS TO BRING INTO THE PROGRAMME

 

11.1     A significant thunderstorm affected Knaresborough on the 06 May 2024 resulting in 51 residential properties and 4 commercial properties flooding internally. The Council instigated its Section 19 protocol and published an investigation report. The recommendations of the report included exploring opportunities to deliver PFR to areas of high risk of flooding as well as working with other organisations to find opportunities to deliver SuDS to reduce the impact on the local sewer network. It is recommended that funding is allocated to Knaresborough for feasibility work.

 

11.2     Instances of flooding have also been reported in Stokesley. A previous commitment from NYC to support partner investment in Stokesley as part of the Northumbria Integrated Drainage Partnership programme, did not progress due to changing regulatory drivers. We intend to re-open dialogue with NIDP partners on progressing a feasibility study for Stokesley

 

11.3     A scheme has been identified through the NIDP Stage 2 feasibility study for Great Ayton. In accordance with the Stage two report, a £10,000 match contribution from NYC would unlock a scheme that would attract in the region of £1.4million of GiA.

 

12.0     EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS

 

12.1     A Full Equalities Impact Assessment is included in Appendix A.

 

12.2     The Assessment finds that the proposals will have no heightened effect upon any protected characteristic or combination of protected characteristics.

 

13.0     FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

13.1     There is currently £1,472,954 in the FRM Revenue Reserve. The profile of use in Table 5 includes the shortfall in GIA for the Upper Dales which can be accommodated for within the reserve over the next two years without impacting the pipeline of projects.

 

13.2     As other schemes progress, where required, third party funding would be sourced for any projects which were not affordable within the NYC indicative contribution. NYC has successfully applied for funding in recent years from funders including the EA, RFCC, DEFRA and also from other Risk Management Authority partners.

 

13.3     The FRM base budget carries an annual underspend of £100k which replenishes the flood reserve and allows the continual development of future projects to be funded from the base budget. There is an amount of uncertainty regarding the implementation of the Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) Approval Body (SAB). In 2024 the government consulted on its implementation following the enactment of Schedule 3 in Wales. However, no proposal has come to light in respect of enacting Schedule 3. The SAB function will generate revenue through application fees; however, these are an unknown quantum and therefore we can only anticipate overhead costs for implementing the Service. With no new developments or updates for implementation, it is now unlikely to occur in 2026/27. The overspend in years 27/28 and 28/29 are speculative and conservative.

 

Table 5 – Flood Risk Management Budget with re-profiled flood reserve

Rye Villages Line does not show previous year spend 2024/2025

Dales Villages line does not show previous year spend for 2024/25

 

14.0     LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

 

14.1     North Yorkshire Council has permissive powers under both Section 14 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 to undertake work to mitigate surface water flooding or groundwater flooding and to undertake works to ordinary watercourses and under Section 25 of the 1991 Act to require works to maintain the free passage of flow on ordinary watercourses.

 

14.2     Under the Council’s Constitution, the Corporate Director Environment has delegated powers to exercise all functions of the Council as Lead Local Flood Authority under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and the Land Drainage Act 1991, including (but not limited to) the granting (or otherwise) of land drainage consents for ordinary watercourses.

 

14.3     This report seeks to update on the progress of scheme development in the locations which are of the highest priority to NYC in which to exercise these powers. The affordance of a priority to “high risk locations” is detailed in the NY Flood Risk Management Strategy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

15.0     CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS

 

15.1     A Climate Change Impact Assessment is included as Appendix B, of this report. No significant impacts are anticipated resulting from the report; however, flood mitigation offers positive benefits to resilience to future climate change projections and can offer secondary water quality and environmental benefits if delivered sympathetically. Overall, then, the proposals are therefore anticipated to have a positive impact upon climate change.

 

16.0

RECOMMENDATION(S)

 

16.1

 

 

 

 

16.2

It is recommended that the Corporate Director of Environment, in consultation with the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation Note:

i.            The progress of scheme development in the priority locations already in development

 

It is recommended that the Corporate Director of Environment, in consultation with the Executive Member for Highway and Transportation approve.

i.            The allocation of the flood risk reserve as detailed in table 3 of this report for 2025/26 and 2026/27

ii.           Removal of the Easingwold project from the flood risk programme.

iii.          The addition of projects for Knaresborough, Great Ayton and Stokesley into the flood risk management capital programme.

iv.         The allocation of funds from the flood risk management revenue reserve as detailed in section 13 of this report.

 

 

 

APPENDICES

Appendix A - EIA Screening Form

Appendix B – Climate Change

 

 

Barrie Mason

Assistant Director – Highways and Infrastructure County Hall

Northallerton

28 November 2025

 

 

Report Author – Meirion Jones, Lead Local Flood Authority Team Leader

Presenter of Report – Meirion Jones, Lead Local Flood Authority Team Leader