North Yorkshire Council
Transport, Economy, Environment and Enterprise
Overview & Scrutiny Committee
29 April 2026
Highway Maintenance Capital Funding 26/27 to 29/30
Report of the Corporate Director – Environment
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To provide members with an update on the allocation of Highway Maintenance and Highway Improvement Capital funding to North Yorkshire Council from the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority.
2.0 SUMMARY
2.1 This report provides details of the consolidated transport settlement that the Department for Transport (DfT) makes available through the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority (YNYCA) and how this consolidated settlement is allocated to North Yorkshire Council (NYC) and City of York Council (CYC).
2.2 The report identifies that NYC as the Local Highway Authority (LHA) will receive £20.5M less funding for highway maintenance during the funding period, than would have been received if funding had been awarded directly to NYC from the DfT.
3.0 BACKGROUND
3.1 Funding from the DfT from 2026/27 through to 2029/30 has been allocated to YNYCA as part of a consolidated transport settlement. This is made up of the following four funding sources:
· Highway Maintenance Block Funding
· Local Transport Grant
· Bus Grant
· Active Travel
3.2 In total between 2026/27 to 2029/30 this accounts for £428.7M of capital funding for Highways and Transportation. This funding is then allocated by YNYCA to NYC and CYC.
3.3 Highways Maintenance Block (HMB) Funding was announced by the DfT on 18 December 2025. A four-year funding settlement was confirmed, with the aim to “give local highway authorities greater funding certainty, enabling them to better plan ahead and to move away from expensive, short-term repairs and to invest in proactive and preventative maintenance”.
3.4 HMB funding is split into two elements. Base funding and Incentive funding. As per the DfT guidance published here. Incentive funding is:
“subject to local highway authorities demonstrating that they comply with best practice in highways maintenance, for example, by spending all the Department for Transport’s capital grant on highways maintenance and adopting more preventative maintenance”
In all 4 years, at least 25% of the annual incentive funding will be dependent on local highway authorities publishing transparency reports. All incentive funding will be withheld if reports are not published. The government introduced transparency reports in 2025 to 2026 and will set out further details on the requirements for transparency reports for future years in due course.
In 2026 to 2027, 50% of the incentive funding will be subject to local highways authorities’ performance. Further details on the performance-based measure will be confirmed in due course”
3.5 The following table provides a summary of highway maintenance funding awarded to YNYCA from 2026/27 with 2025/26 funding for context:
|
Year |
2025/26 |
2026/27 |
2027/28 |
2028/29 |
2029/30 |
|
Base Allocation |
£45.524M |
£47.003M |
£52.339M |
£58.250M |
£69.246M |
|
Incentive Funding |
£16.660M |
£17.299M |
£22.300M |
£22.445M |
£22.825M |
|
Total Funding |
£62.184M |
£64.302M |
£74.639M |
£80.695M |
£92.251M |
3.6 Local Transport Grant funding for 2026/27 to 2029/30 was announced by the DfT on 02 September 2025. It brings together the Integrated Transport Block (of which NYC received £3.046M annually) and Local transport Grant.
3.7 As per the DfT guidance published hereLocal Transport Grant (LTG) is a:
“simplified, long-term and consolidated funding will enable local authorities to deliver more ambitious transport projects.
“Local leaders can choose to support schemes in line with local priorities for transport maintenance and enhancements, including improving public transport, funding new zero emission buses, improving accessibility, addressing congestion, and making our streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Funding guidance will be issued later this year to support local areas decide how to best utilise their LTG allocations”.
3.8 The following table provides a summary of Local Transport funding awarded to YNYCA from 2026/27 with 2025/26 funding for context
|
Year |
2025/26 |
2026/27 |
2027/28 |
2028/29 |
2029/30 |
|
LTG Funding |
£15.372M |
£20.407M |
£22.072M |
£24.529M |
£26.985M |
|
ITB Funding |
£4.628M |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Total LTG Funding |
£20.000M |
£20.407M |
£22.072M |
£24.529M |
£26.985M |
3.9 Active Travel Fund funding was confirmed by the DfT on 10 December 2025. This funding superseded the Consolidated Active Travel Fund provided for 2026/27. As per DfT guidance published hereCapital funding supports local transport authorities with developing and constructing walking, wheeling and cycling facilities in England outside London.
3.10 The following table provides a summary of active travel funding awarded to YNYCA from 2026/27 with 2025/26 funding for context. Note the allocations are awarded per Local Highway Authority (LHA), with the consolidated amount transferred to YNYCA:
|
Year |
2025/26 |
2026/27 |
2027/28 |
2028/29 |
2029/30 |
|
NYC |
£1.256M |
£0.773M |
£0.773M |
£0.773M |
£0.773M |
|
CYC |
£0.409M |
£0.251M |
£0.251M |
£0.251M |
£0.251M |
|
Total Active Travel |
£1.665M |
£1.025M |
£1.025M |
£1.025M |
£1.025M |
3.11 Local Bus Grant funding was confirmed by the DfT on 05 December 2025. Capital Funding was announced alongside revenue funding. Capital funding is intended for investment in infrastructure and capital assets such as buses, bus stops and bus stations. Allocations were published by DfT here.
3.12 The following table provides a summary of Local Authority Bus Grant Capital funding awarded to YNYCA from 2026/27:
|
Year |
2025/26 |
2026/27 |
2027/28 |
2028/29 |
2029/30 |
|
Local Authority Bus Grant (Capital) |
£4.987M |
£4.561M |
£4.653M |
£4.745M |
£4.836M |
3.13 The table below provides a full summary of funding across the four financial years. It also separates the funding sources into maintenance and improvements. Maintenance being Highway maintenance block funding and Improvements including Local Transport Grant, Active Travel and Local Authority Bus Grant.
|
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
|
|
|
Maintenance £000s |
Improvements £000s |
£000s |
|||
|
|
Highway Mtce Block |
Local Transport Grant |
Bus Grant |
Active Travel |
Improvement Total (B+C+D) |
Total (A+E) |
|
2026/27 |
£64,302 |
£20,407 |
£4,562 |
£1,025 |
£25,994 |
£90,296 |
|
2027/28 |
£74,639 |
£22,072 |
£4,654 |
£1,025 |
£27,751 |
£102,390 |
|
2028/29 |
£80,695 |
£24,529 |
£4,745 |
£1,025 |
£30,300 |
£110,995 |
|
2029/30 |
£92,251 |
£26,985 |
£4,837 |
£1,025 |
£32,847 |
£125,098 |
|
Total |
£311,887 |
£93,993 |
£18,798 |
£4,101 |
£116,892 |
£428,779 |
4.0 FUNDING PROPOSED BY YORK AND NORTH YORKSHIRE COMBINED AUTHORITY
4.1 At the meeting of YNYCA on 27 March 2026 proposals were submitted for the allocation of highways and transportation funding from 2026/27 to 2029/30. This was based upon the allocation of the £428.7M budget over the four-year funding period.
4.2 Mayoral Combined authorities can re‑prioritise, allocate, and adjust transport funding within devolved or consolidated budgets (for example, multi‑year transport settlements),
4.3 The key proposals put forward by YNYCA were as follows:
1. Adjusting the overall split between maintenance and improvement funding across the four-year funding period
2. Adjusting the split of highway maintenance allocations between NYC and CYC
3. Establishing a Mayor’s Road Maintenance Fund (MRMF)
4.4 The proposals were approved at the YNYCA meeting on 27 March 2026 by a majority of three to two. The Leader and Deputy Leader of NYC voted against the proposals.
4.5 The following table provides an overview of each proposal and how this would impact North Yorkshire.
4.6 The proposals from YNYCA adjust the split between maintenance and improvement funding, reallocating £13.428M from highway maintenance funding to improvement funding as per the following table. It should be noted that all of this reallocation comes from North Yorkshire’s highway maintenance funding.
4.7 Split based on Consolidated Transport fund sources:
|
|
Maintenance |
Improvements |
Total |
|
2026/27 |
£64,302,000 |
£ 25,994,115 |
£90,296,115 |
|
2027/28 |
£74,639,000 |
£27,750,811 |
£102,389,811 |
|
2028/29 |
£80,695,000 |
£30,299,507 |
£110,994,507 |
|
2029/30 |
£92,251,000 |
£32,847,203 |
£125,098,203 |
|
Total |
£311,887,000 |
£116,891,636 |
£428,778,636 |
4.8 Split based on revised YNYCA proposals:
|
|
Maintenance |
Improvements |
Total |
|
2026/27 |
£70,900,000 |
£23,630,000 |
£94,530,000 |
|
2027/28 |
£72,700,000 |
£29,830,000 |
£102,530,000 |
|
2028/29 |
£74,000,000 |
£35,730,000 |
£109,730,000 |
|
2029/30 |
£80,780,000 |
£41,130,000 |
£121,910,000 |
|
Total |
£298,380,000 |
£130,320,000 |
£428,700,000 |
4.9 The £298M allocated for highway maintenance activity would then be allocated as per a revised split between NYC and CYC.
4.10 The DfT has a longstanding methodology for the allocation of highway maintenance funding. This is available here. It takes into consideration the following:
· length of A, B&C and U roads in an LHA area
· number of bridges and structures in an LHA area
· number of street lighting columns in an LHA area
4.11 National funding is allocated to each LHA based upon the percentage of the national total of specific asset types that an LHA has. For example, NYC has 3.21% of the total A road network length in England as such NYC receive 3.21% of available national A road funding.
4.12 Calculations are made for each asset type and are then combined to work out the total funding for each LHA.
4.13 YNYCA receives the combined funding for NYC and CYC. In total NYC assets account for 92.7% of the awarded HMB funding to YNYCA, with the remaining 7.3% for CYC. As such the split of 2025/26 highway maintenance funding was 92.7% for NYC and 7.3% for CYC.
4.14 The proposals from YNYCA are to allocate the remaining highway maintenance funding of £298.380M (after reallocation of £13.428M to improvements from maintenance) as per the following
· Top slice 10% (£29.8M) of the remaining maintenance allocation to fund the MRMF
· Remaining highway maintenance funding (£268.54M) to be split between NYC and CYC based on a revised funding split of 90% NYC, 10% CYC.
4.15 The YNYCA report from 27 March states that the MRMF has been established to:
“tackle regional network maintenance challenges and other high priority issues, including but not limited to the Combined Authority’s Key Route Network. This funding will be front loaded in the first two years of the period and in 2026/27 will be allocated on a 90:10 ratio between NYC and CYC respectively, to be focused on tackling large patch repairs on roads of strategic importance with high vehicle traffic across the region identified by NYC and CYC, and to ensure DfT’s requirements for incentive-based funds are met”
4.16 Whilst funding for the MRMF has been confirmed for 2026/27, there is uncertainty over how this will be allocated in future years. Whilst an indicative allocation is proposed, further agreement will be required with YNYCA to identify how this funding will be allocated for 2027/28 to 2029/30.
4.17 It is unclear what methodology has been used by YNYCA to adjust the split of funding between NYC and CYC to 90:10. YNYCA states that this includes vehicle usage alongside asset numbers / length, however there was no consultation on the changes and NYC officers have not yet had sight of how this has been calculated.
4.18 Given the size and scale of our network, NYC faces a range of geographic and topographical challenges. Our network covers over 8600km of surfaced roads, with over 2000 bridges. The size and diversity of the network can significantly increase costs of repairs and maintenance activity.
5.0 WHAT DO THE CHANGES IN FUNDING MEAN FOR NYC
5.1 Based on the figures included in the March 27th report presented to the YNYCA board, NYC will receive just under £20.5M less highway maintenance funding over the four-year funding period.
5.2 £13.4M of this is due to the reallocation of funding from maintenance to improvements and a further £7.0M is as a result of the revised 90:10 split of maintenance funding between NYC & CYC.
5.3 The proposals mean that overall YNYCA will be spending £13.4M less than the DfT advised baseline figures for highway maintenance in York and North Yorkshire.
5.4 Following discussions with DfT our current understanding is that this reduction in funding should not impact our overall highway maintenance ranking. We are awaiting confirmation from DfT on how local highway authorities will be ranked in 2026/27, as such there is the still the potential that our highway ranking could be adversely impacted.
5.5 The MRMF is front loaded into 26/27 and 27/28, with 73% of this allocated in the first 2 years and the remaining 27% across 28/29 and 29/30. The Mayor stated during the meeting on the 27th March that this was to help address highway issues caused by damage from winter 25/26.
5.6 Whilst the uplift in funding is welcomed for 26/27, it does not negate the fact that NYC will now receive £20.5M less for highway maintenance funding up until 29/30 than would have been the case if the DfT baseline allocations had been retained.
5.7 The graph below compares the proposed YNYCA highway maintenance funding for NYC vs funding based in the DfT methodology. The DfT proposal would have provided a real terms increase in funding over next four years.
5.8 The chart in 5.7 above provides a comparison of the DfT allocation since 2021/22, what funding should have been to keep up with inflation since 2020 (inflation 26/27 onwards is assumed at 3% per annum) and the proposed YNYCA allocation. The YNYCA proposal would see a small real terms increase in funding of £800K over the four-year period. The DfT methodology would have resulted in a real terms increase of £21.4M over the four-year funding period.
5.9 To provide some level of context with every £1M of funding we could deliver one of the following:
1. Carry out 22km of carriageway surface dressing treatments
2. Treat 13km of roads with a micro asphalt treatment, which deals with surface defects and provides a long-lasting surface. For context this would be 60% of residential streets in Northallerton or 100% of residential streets in Norton
3. Retexture 33km of roads, restoring surface texture and skid resistance and further extending the life of the carriageway
4. Apply a rejuvenator solution to 44km of roads which helps to prolong the life of roads in good existing condition and slow their deterioration.
5. Deliver in the region of 20,000-25,000m2 of carriageway patching.
6. Deliver 4km of Carriageway resurfacing & reconstruction which would help to deal with longstanding carriageway issues
7. Deliver 14km of footway resurfacing
8. Refurbish (waterproofing) of 6 reinforced concrete bridge decks or
9. Redeck 4 small concrete bridge structures or
10. Strengthen 10 bridge arches
11. Deliver 5 landslip schemes
6.0 IMPROVEMENT FUNDING
6.1 The announcements by DfT of LTG, Bus Grant and Active Travel funding between 2026/27 and 2029/30 totalling £116 were welcomed by NYC. Having confirmed funding over a muti year period is beneficial as it allows for improved planning and investment decisions and is a step change in transport improvement funding.
6.2 This along with increased highway maintenance funding announced by Government back in December 2025, would have allowed NYC to deliver further transport improvements whilst also allowing us to begin to deal with the maintenance backlog. The loss of £20.5M funding for maintenance will significantly impact this.
6.3 The proposed funding for improvement is split between Minor works and Significant schemes.
6.4 Minor works funding is effectively a replacement for the integrated transport block (ITB). £18.52M has been allocated across the four-year period, with NYC receiving £12.2M in total which equals £3.046M per annum. This is used for a range of smaller scale schemes. Funding replicates what was already received from DfT and allows NYC to deliver road safety engineering schemes, traffic signal upgrades, local footway maintenance and accessibility improvements.
6.5 YNYCA has defined Significant Schemes as schemes that “range from modest (over £100k) schemes with relatively local impact to large corridor and place making schemes with region-wide benefits”.
6.6 Indicative allocations for the next four years have been identified with £111.8M allocated by YNYCA. There is no split between NYC and CYC, with allocations for each authority being determined by the schemes that are proposed by each authority.
6.7 YNYCA have developed a delivery plan of which the first draft has been submitted to DfT outlining proposed schemes for 26/27 and proposals on how the available budgets will be allocated by scheme type, from 27/28 to 29/30. This includes proposals from NYC which were approved at the Environment Executive Member for Highways & Transportation meeting on the 12 March 2026. Schemes submitted are listed in appendix A
6.8 NYC officers are working closely with YNYCA officers to develop a detailed local transport delivery plan which needs to be submitted to DfT by YNYCA in September 2026.
6.9 At the meeting of the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority in March 2026, several references were made to road safety across York and North Yorkshire.
6.10 NYC takes its road safety responsibilities seriously and for the purpose of road safety engineering, it employs a range of methodologies to identify and treat locations with the poorest collision history and highest risk. These include:
· Fatal collision inspections
· Cluster site analysis (based on three full years of collision data) and in-year cluster site analysis (based on one rolling year of collision data)
· Route studies
· Speed management and
· Working collaboratively with its road safety partners in the York and North Yorkshire Road Safety Partnership.
6.11 NYC also undertakes road safety audits of proposed improvement schemes, and it runs a successful Temporary Vehicle Activated Signs (VAS) scheme
6.12 Fatal Collision Inspections: NYC has a long-established Fatal Collision Procedure, which it produced and undertakes in conjunction with North Yorkshire Police (NYP). This ensures that that NYC is informed by NYP at an early stage when a road death occurs and that every fatal road collision is inspected and a report completed by NYC, which considers what, if anything, can be done to reduce risk and prevent a future occurrence.
6.13 Where there are any, recommendations are made to address either:
· ‘Contributory factors’, i.e. where the road environment is considered to have played a role in the collision causation; or less seriously, to pick up any
· ‘Observations on site’, which means during the fatal collision inspection, minor defects unrelated to the collision were spotted, which should be addressed, for good order.
6.14 Cluster Site Analysis: A cluster site is a location where the number of recorded collisions over the preceding three calendar years exceeds a set threshold of three personal injury collisions. Officers investigate sites with four or more collisions within a 50m search radius for urban sites and 100m radius for rural locations. Urban sites are classed as 40mph and under. Each year, NYC typically treats between twenty and thirty sites, where there are dominant patterns associated with collision their occurrence.
6.15 Route Studies: As personal injury collision numbers have fallen significantly over recent years, there are fewer cluster sites (with fewer collisions) emerging. A further limiting factor in the effectiveness of cluster sites is that their identification is based purely on accident ‘frequency’ and therefore, no account is taken of ‘risk’, in terms of accidents relative to traffic flow (eg accident rate). The number and severity of injury collisions, for example. recorded at sites A and B may be the same, but site A may be carrying double the traffic than site B. In cluster site analysis terms, both sites would be ranked equally, despite accident risk at Site B being twice that of Site A.
6.16 Routes of concern are highlighted through the use of NYC’s route analysis tool, which is based on spatial statistics. The top 30 ‘statistically significant’ sections of ‘A’ and ‘B’ Class Roads are highlighted for detailed investigation.
6.17 Identifying locations with the poorest collision histories through cluster site analysis will always continue to form an important part of the scheme identification process, but supplementing these existing techniques with methodologies that represent latest best practice is considered appropriate.
6.18 Speed Management: In November 2025, Environment Executive Members approved the introduction of a Speed Management Strategy and the creation of a long-term programme of proactive speed limit reviews across the County. The aim here is to achieve a greater level of coherence with respect to the setting of local speed limits, to improve road safety on both the urban and rural road network and to create the conditions for encouraging active modes, such as walking and cycling. This is in addition to an existing programme of speed limit reviews outside of all educational establishments in North Yorkshire.
6.19 York and North Yorkshire Road Safety Partnership: NYC was a founding member of 95 Alive, the first road safety partnership across York and North Yorkshire and it continues today, to recognise the importance of and prioritise, working with partner agencies, such as NYP and North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue, to reduce road casualties on the roads of York and North Yorkshire.
6.20 Road Safety Audits: To identify potential road safety concerns with highway improvement schemes, NYC undertakes a number of Road Safety Audits (RSA) throughout the year. RSAs are carried out on highway improvement schemes which meet the criteria outlined in the Council’s Road Safety Audit protocol. The audit aims to identify any potential road safety problems during the design, implementation and post construction of the scheme. They are undertaken by specially qualified and experienced engineers, for schemes both by commercial developers and the Council itself. A Road Safety Audit report is produced at various stages of the design process and where necessary recommendations are presented to the project sponsor for consideration.
6.21 Temporary Vehicle Activated Sign (VAS) Protocol: To meet the interest from local communities to finance and manage their own vehicle activated signs, the Council approved the use of community owned temporary speed limit reminder signs on the highway from 01 April 2019. This remains the process for installing temporary VAS in North Yorkshire.
6.22 The VAS are activated when the radar detects a vehicle that is exceeding a set threshold speed. This is generally 1-2mph above the posted speed limit. The sign displays the speed limit sign and a SLOW DOWN message, prompting any speeding motorists to reduce their speed if necessary. The sign serves as a reminder of the speed limit in force.
6.23 A solar powered VAS with a post is funded by the local community. The cost to NYC is officer time to guide communities through the process. This usually involves a site meeting to help the community identify the most appropriate location for the VAS.
6.24 Currently, there are 272 temporary VAS deployed on the network that are located within 174 local communities. All these signs comply with the Temporary VAS Protocol and they are maintained by the appropriate parish or town council. The Temporary VAS Protocol remains a popular scheme with enquiries received on a weekly basis.
6.25 Road Safety – A National and Regional Comparison
6.26 National Comparison
· Overall road collisions in North Yorkshire have shown a downward trend from a total of 2222 road collisions in the year 2000 to 1383 in 2014 and the most recent figure for 2024 was a total of 967, representing a reduction of approximately 30% in the ten-year period from 2014 to 2024.
· North Yorkshire closely follows the national trend in road collisions which reduced from 146,322 in 2014 to 100,927 in 2024, a reduction of 31%.
6.27 Fatal Accidents
· North Yorkshire shows a significant downward trend in fatalities – fluctuated between 50 to 60 deaths per year in 2000’s and now approximately half of that figure fluctuating between 20 to 30 deaths per year.
· In the last ten years from 2014 to 2024 a slight downward trend has continued.
· Over the last 10 years North Yorkshire has broadly matched the national trend in fatalities in Great Britain which saw a reduction from 1,658 fatal collisions in 2014 to 1,502 in 2024, a reduction of 9% over the ten-year period.
6.28 Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI) Accidents
· Significant downward trend in KSI collisions in North Yorkshire from 538 in 2000 down to 320 in 2014 and then 237 KSIs in 2024 representing a reduction of 26% compared to 2014 which is ahead of the national trend.
· Across Great Britain there were 26,734 KSI collisions in 2024 compared to 31,540 in 2014, a reduction of 15%.
6.29 A roads and Urban compared to Rural Roads
· KSI collisions on North Yorkshire’s A roads have reduced from 241 in 2014 to 156 in 2024, a reduction of 35% over 10 years which is a greater percentage reduction than seen on the North Yorkshire network overall.
· Overall numbers of road casualties are roughly the same between urban and rural with a total of 450 on the urban network in 2024 compared to 517 on the rural network. Rural roads are classed as those with a speed limit greater than 40mph.
· KSI numbers are higher on the rural network - 153 rural, 84 urban – reflecting the higher speeds and greater severity of injuries.
6.30 In summary, North Yorkshire’s road safety record is broadly consistent with or ahead of national trends over the long-term, depending on which road collision trend data are used. Regional comparisons, eg, accident rates between North Yorkshire (without fixed cameras) and West Yorkshire (with), indicate a similar picture. The West Yorkshire KSI collision rate for 2024 was 0.00054 KSI per head of population, whereas the same rate for North Yorkshire was 0.00055. Further, if we compare the data between 2014 and 2024, the chart and table below indicate a clear long-term downward trend in KSI rates in North Yorkshire, unlike in West Yorkshire, where the rates have remained broadly the same.
|
West Yorks KSI RTC rate: |
North Yorks KSI RTC rate: |
|
|
KSIs per billion km |
||
|
Year |
|
|
|
2014 |
46.78 |
57.64 |
|
2015 |
45.65 |
56.24 |
|
2016 |
41.38 |
55.50 |
|
2017 |
39.48 |
50.04 |
|
2018 |
39.39 |
42.62 |
|
2019 |
35.64 |
38.98 |
|
2020 |
36.32 |
39.04 |
|
2021 |
44.87 |
38.41 |
|
2022 |
49.42 |
32.82 |
|
2023 |
49.84 |
44.42 |
|
2024 |
45.51 |
38.92 |
6.31 Safety Cameras in North Yorkshire:
6.32 NYP operates 12 safety camera vans (SCV) using speed and collision data to identify sites. Recent independent academic review concluded a 36% reduction in casualties since 2013 due to their use. The study also reported that in the context of other mobile SCV operations across the country, this evaluation was extremely positive.
6.33 A Task and Finish (T&F) Group comprising representatives of NYP, YNYCA, CYC and NYC has been established to investigate the detailed financial, legal, technical and other implications of the introduction of fixed cameras in York and North Yorkshire. It is NYC’s position that the Council will consider the potential for their introduction, once the T&F Group has competed its investigations and reported back on the findings. In the meantime, more formal governance arrangements are in the process of being established, to oversee and direct the work of the T&F Group.
6.34 It is understood that the Deputy Mayor has proposed funding allocations for the introduction of safety cameras across York North Yorkshire for each of the years 2026/27 to 2029/30, though the figures are as yet unconfirmed.
7.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED
7.1 As identified in the report the alternative option supported by NYC was to retain the original DfT allocations between NYC and CYC and retain the £13.4M funding in highway maintenance instead of moving to improvements
8.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
8.1 There are no additional financial implications arising directly from this report as it provides an update on the allocation of Highway Maintenance and Highway Improvement Capital funding to NYC from the YNYCA
8.2 The Key financial implication of the decisions being reviewed is the reduction in NYC Highway maintenance capital funding of £20.5M over the period 2026/27 to 2029/30 and associated increase in YNYCA Improvement funding of circa £13.5M and increase in highway maintenance funding for CYC of circa £7M.
8.3 Based on revised funding allocations, NYC will adjust allocations for highway capital maintenance activities during the period 2026/27 to 2029/30 to match funding allocated by YNYCA.
9.0 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
9.1 There are no legal implication arising directly from this report as it provides an update on the allocation of Highway Maintenance and Highway Improvement Capital funding to NYC from the YNYCA.
9.2 It should be noted that at the time of writing this report NYC has issued a letter before action to the YNYCA about the decision made on 27 March 2026.
9.2 The Council’s Highway Capital Maintenance delivery programmes will be developed based upon available funding and prioritised in line with the Council’s duties and responsibilities under the relevant legislation. Further consideration of whether any legal implications arise will be required during the delivery of the operational services under the programme.
10.0 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
10.1 An initial equalities impact assessment form was completed and is included as Appendix B. The assessment of this report concluded that there is no impact on people with protected characteristics.
11.0 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS
11.1 A Climate Change Impact Assessment as Appendix C has been undertaken in respect of the proposals. No impact based on the recommendations of this report
12.0 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
12.1 To allow members the opportunity to review future highway funding proposals and provide comment and feedback.
|
13.0 |
RECOMMENDATIONS
|
|
13.1 |
It is recommended that the Transport, Economy, Environment and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee: (a) notes the report; (b) provides feedback on the proposals discussed within the report
|
APPENDICES:
Appendix B Initial equalities impact assessment form
Appendix C Climate Change Impact Assessment
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS:
Karl Battersby
Corporate Director Environment
County Hall
Northallerton
Report Authors:
James Gilroy Team Leader Highway Asset Management
Allan McVeigh Head of Network Strategy
Presenter of Report
Barrie Mason – Assistant Director Highways and Infrastructure
Note: Members are invited to contact the author in advance of the meeting with any detailed queries or questions.