Cost recovery model

The Ure Dales scheme has a working cost recovery model that sits behind the financial planning across all four governance options. The model is detailed and live; it covers one-off set-up costs, ongoing operational overhead per option, line-item costs (office, IT, HR, finance, audit, insurance) where they apply, and the timing across the development and implementation phases of the agreement.

The model’s headline figures do not appear in body text on the public site. This is a deliberate editorial decision: working estimates that read as final numbers in a public-facing context risk implying a precision the figures themselves are not yet ready to carry. This page describes how the model is built without quoting the figures.

The full document is available on request to any landowner, advisor, or steering-group member who needs to see the underlying numbers.

• One-off set-up costs by option. Incorporation fees, articles of association drafting, professional advice, initial systems set-up, audit-cycle establishment.
• Ongoing annual operational overhead by option. Office, IT, finance systems, audit, insurance, payroll, HR, compliance — broken down line by line and compared with what YWT can absorb into existing infrastructure under Option 1.
• Audit costs at scheme and holding level. Pooled scheme-employed model versus each holding contracting its own auditor.
• Shared services costs and savings. Procurement, vet, insurance, training, admin — pooled procurement vs holding-level individual procurement.
• Cost-recovery profile across the 20-year term. The shape of operating cost over time: front-loaded set-up, steady-state running, mid-term renegotiation, wind-down.
• Cross-option differential. The cost-of-governance-structure analysis used in the comparison page.

The model is built up from several sources in parallel:

• Line-item benchmarks. Office rent, external IT contract, HR services, payroll, standalone audit, insurance policies, finance system licences — sourced from third-party benchmarks at typical UK small-charity / small-CIC scale.
• YWT’s existing finance function. Independent professional advice from YWT’s finance team, applied to the absorption case under Option 1.
• Accelar’s blended-finance modelling. The ongoing income mix and how it shifts over the 20-year term, built with Accelar as YWT’s blended-finance partner.
• Comparable scheme evidence. Operating cost ranges from comparable Round 1 and Round 2 Landscape Recovery projects in delivery, where published.

The figures from each source are cross-checked against the others. Where they diverge, the divergence is documented. The model is updated as new evidence becomes available — it is not a single fixed estimate.

• It does not predict per-holding income. Per-holding figures are bespoke and produced separately for the workshop financial pack.
• It does not assume DEFRA payment rates as fixed. DEFRA payments under Landscape Recovery are negotiated per project; the model treats them as a range.
• It does not include speculative carbon-credit or trustmark-premium revenue. Those sit in Accelar’s upside scenarios but not in the cost-recovery base case.

The full cost-recovery model is held by the Consortium facilitator and the YWT finance function. Any landowner, advisor, family member, or steering-group member who wants to see the underlying figures can request a copy. Requests are not logged or treated as concerns; the document is shared on a working basis, with the same caveats about working estimates that apply to the rest of the scheme’s financial planning at this stage.