Methodology

The Ure Dales site makes claims about Landscape Recovery, governance options, surplus distribution, audit, payment ranges, and ecological outcomes. This page sets out how each kind of claim is grounded so an advisor or careful reader can quickly verify any specific point.

The short version: claims about scheme design, payments, BNG, nutrient neutrality, and the regulatory framework are grounded in primary sources from GOV.UK, DEFRA, Natural England, and statutory legislation; claims about governance options are grounded in the SPB Report; ecological evidence is grounded in peer-reviewed publications and recognised assurance frameworks; and figures that are scheme-internal estimates are flagged as such.

1. Statutory and regulatory claims

Anything about how Landscape Recovery works, what the BNG rules say, how CRoW Act access is handled, how heather burning is regulated, what AHA / FBT tenancies do legally, what charity / CIC asset-locks require — these are grounded in primary statutory or regulatory sources. The site cites GOV.UK guidance pages, statutory instruments on legislation.gov.uk, and Natural England guidance directly.

Where the site is repeating a regulatory position, the wording follows the source rather than re-deriving it. Where the site is interpreting a regulatory position, the page flags the interpretation as such.

2. Governance and legal-form claims

Claims about how the four shortlisted Single Legal Entity options work — their structures, advantages, disadvantages, regulatory exposure, asset-lock mechanisms — are grounded in the SPB (Squire Patton Boggs LLP) Governance Report. Where a specific bullet draws on a section of that report, the source is cited inline as “[SPB Section X]”.

The full SPB Report is available on request via the Consortium facilitator. The site does not reproduce the report in full; it lifts the specific claims that bear on the consortium’s decision and cites back.

3. Financial figures and scheme-internal estimates

Some claims involve numbers — per-hectare LRS payment ranges, indicative scheme surplus figures, shared-services savings estimates, multipliers under the trustmark. The site distinguishes:

• DEFRA-published or programme-published ranges are quoted as ranges with the source. Round 2 applicant guidance for LRS is the source for the £200–£900 per hectare per year band.
• Scheme-internal working estimates are described qualitatively in body text and held in detail in the cost recovery model (available on request). Where a figure could mislead about precision, the site uses qualitative language rather than the figure.
• Worked examples on the three-holdings page are explicitly flagged as illustrative rather than predictive. Real per-holding figures are bespoke and produced separately for the workshop financial pack.

Every external citation that appears on the site is recorded in the verified resources hub. The hub is the single source of truth: any new external claim is registered to it before the claim ships, and an automated check confirms that every inline external link on the site points to a hub entry. This prevents the site from accumulating orphaned or unverifiable citations over time.

The categories of external source the site relies on:

• GOV.UK — Landscape Recovery scheme pages, BNG statutory guidance, ELM landing, Countryside Stewardship guidance, Open Access Land guidance, agricultural-tenancies guidance, Rock Review government response, General Licences GL40 / GL42.
• legislation.gov.uk — Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021 + 2025 amendment, Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004, Community Interest Company Regulations 2005, Charities Act 2011.
• Natural England — nutrient neutrality calculator and guidance, conservation general licences.
• Charity Commission — CC35 guidance on trading subsidiaries.
• IUCN UK Peatland Programme — the Peatland Code framework.
• Parliament POST briefings — environmental land management (POST 728), landscape recovery / biodiversity (POST 755).
• Local Government Association — nutrient neutrality FAQ.
• Recognised institutions — LSE Grantham Research Institute, ICVCM, VCMI, ICROA, FCA Handbook, BSI, ISO, UN PRI, UN Global Compact, TCFD, TNFD, IFRS.
• Yorkshire Wildlife Trust + Wikipedia — YWT track record (organisation’s own page + independent third-party summary).

The site is written under a settled set of editorial conventions:

• No individual names in body text. Roles only — the Project Manager, the Consortium facilitator, the Financial Advisor, ASC chair (proposed: EQM, subject to confirmation). Decisions belong to the Consortium and to the named bodies, not to specific people.
• Qualitative on operational costs. Specific operational cost figures do not appear in body text. The exception is filing fees with Companies House and the CIC Regulator (in the £50–£86 range).
• DEFRA criteria phrased consistently. “Value for money and minimum risk of non-delivery” is the canonical phrasing, used identically on every page that touches the criteria.
• Plain English first, citations second. The substantive point is in the body of each bullet; the SPB Section reference, where used, sits at the end in square brackets.
• Source-quality verified. Every external link goes through the resources hub; the audit script confirms it before each commit.
• Reading age ~14. The site is intended for a working farming audience with mixed reading preference, not a specialist policy audience.

Any claim on the site can be challenged. If a citation is wrong, a figure is out of date, an interpretation is unsupported, or a piece of wording overclaims, the right response is to say so — either through the contact page or directly to the Consortium facilitator. Corrections feed back into the site and are recorded in the change history.