Improving Public Access (IPA) scheme evaluations 2015-2022
Improving Public Access (IPA) was an option offered within the Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) Agri-Environment Climate Scheme (AECS).
The SRDP 2014 to 2020 (and 2021+) was approved by the European Commission in May 2015, to deliver support under Pillar 2 of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
The previous SRDP 2007 to 2013 included the funding mechanism Rural Development Contracts–Rural Priorities (RDC-RP) through which the option ‘Area Access Management’ was available. IPA was introduced to replace this option in the successor AECS.
The IPA scheme ran from 2015 to 2018, did not open in 2019 or 2020, then ran again in 2021 and 2022. The two-year gap provided an opportunity to review IPA, make some changes for 2021-2022 and inform future plans for rural development policy and support.
Background
The aim of IPA was to support the development of new and upgraded paths in rural areas that would provide for a wide range of users. The paths and infrastructure would help and encourage responsible public access and integration with land-use and land management.
IPA was open to local authorities and administrations, public bodies, public-private partnerships, NGOs, private companies, organisations in charge of tourist and recreational development, as well as individual farmers, groups of farmers and other land managers across all accessible and remote rural areas of Scotland.
A new path, or improvements to an existing path, had to demonstrate connectivity. Further requirements for proposed paths were detailed on the IPA pages of the RP&S website.
NatureScot and Scottish Government Rural Payments and Inspection Division (SGRPID) administered the scheme. NatureScot provided advice on the option, assessed applications including through site visits, issued contracts and any variations to the original contract. SGRPID administered claims, including inspection visits and payments against claims.
Review Aims
The aims of the review were:
- To assess the efficiency of the scheme in terms of value for public money and staff resources to administer the scheme (How IPA operated)
- To quantify the achievements of IPA delivered through contracts completed (What IPA delivered)
- To identify recommendations for IPA as a future option within agricultural land-use support mechanisms (Feedback)
Review Methodology
The review took place over 12 months between March 2019 and March 2020. Quantitative data has been added in retrospectively for 2021 and 2022.
The data available from applications, contracts agreed and requested variations was extracted from NatureScot and Rural Payments systems and collated in excel spreadsheets, showing the main achievements of IPA, the geographical spread of applications and successful contracts, spend per access authority areas and applicant type.
A representative range of stakeholders were asked about their experiences and views of IPA.
How IPA operated
A quantitative review of IPA applications received was undertaken, examining:
- assessment of applications
- the capital items and value of contracts issued
- applicant type and location
- the reason for and type of variations requested.
Data was provided by SGRPID via the Rural Payments and Services Portal (the Portal) and from NatureScot’s document management systems.
The data analyses examined:
- how applications had been prepared
- financial values
- reasons for applying
- reasons for post-contract variations
- reasons for withdrawal from the scheme
- number of applications assessed as ineligible or withdrawn
- scoring profiles and comparisons.
The analyses were mainly based on data extracted from the contract Schedules of Works. SGRPID provided claim and payment figures for all contracts, as far as this was available.
What IPA delivered
The data analyses looked at a number of metrics including:
- IPA contracts: geographic spread and applicant type
- financial value of applications and contracts
- lengths of paths
- capital items
- investment in core paths and/or long distance routes.
Feedback
Consultation took place with a wide range of stakeholders using a variety of techniques and methods including focus group workshops, online and telephone surveys and face-to-face meetings.
NatureScot Case Officer and Co-ordinator workshops
Workshops with NatureScot IPA case officers and Area co-ordinators in June to August 2019 gathered views on aspects of the scheme, lessons learnt and suggestions for improvements. Four key aspects where discussed:
- The scheme design and purpose
- The application and assessment process
- Post-contract stage
- Next steps for rural development-based access funding
Land manager survey
A “snap card” survey of landowners, tenant farmers, agents and crofters took place at the Royal Highland Show in June 2019 followed by a Survey Monkey questionnaire. The survey assessed:
- levels of awareness of IPA
- if they had applied
- interest in future schemes
- their location in Scotland
Additionally, this survey gave an indication as to whether low uptake in certain areas or applicant groups was due to lack of awareness or appeal of the option.
National Access Forum
The National Access Forum (NAF) discussed IPA at three meetings during 2019, to update members on the review and to gather feedback. A sub-group, chaired by the NAF convenor and with representatives from Scottish Land and Estates, Cairngorms National Park Authority, British Horse Society Scotland, Scottish Forestry, Police Scotland, Ramblers Scotland and National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS), met in August 2019 to:
- keep the NAF informed of progress with the IPA review and the development of access-related elements of agricultural and land use policy and scheme delivery following on from CAP and SRDP.
- enable the NAF to discuss and make informed representations as appropriate, on agricultural and land use-based funding mechanisms and the wider topic of funding for outdoor access in Scotland.
NFUS and Scottish Forestry meetings
Separate meetings took place with NFUS, to discuss the farming community perspective and Scottish Forestry, to discuss synergies with the Forestry Grant Scheme options, including Public Access in Woods In and Around Towns (WIAT) and Public Access in Rural Woods.
IPA contract holder interviews
A survey of IPA contract holders and agents took place in November and December 2019, via telephone interviews and email responses to set questions. Contract holders answered questions covering:
- How they became aware of IPA
- What they hoped their project would achieve
- How easy it was to apply and provide all documentation required
- Their experience of their application assessment and site visit
- Whether any issues arose during construction
- Their experience of the claims and payments process
- Any other issues, aspects that worked well and suggestions for improvement.
Access Authority survey
Local authority and other access officers responded to an email survey via the Scottish Outdoor Access Network (SOAN) in January 2020, to gain an understanding of how access officers viewed IPA, with questions on:
- their awareness of IPA
- whether they promoted the scheme in their area
- whether applicants contacted access officers for advice
- whether IPA raised any issues
- whether access officers would be interested in applying to IPA in future
- which local policies and plans are supported by IPA.
How IPA operated
IPA opened for applications from mid to late March to the end of May, allowing a 12-week window for submission, except in the first round of IPA applications when submitted during a 9-week period between August and October 2015. Applicants used the Rural Payments and Services (RP&S) website to make their applications. The website was improved incrementally over the duration of the scheme with additional functionality being applied, mainly for administration functions. Applicants used the online application process, requiring a Business Reference Number (BRN), and uploading the required supporting documents such as maps and answered eligibility questions. There was also an opportunity to provide additional supporting documentation, such as an access plan and evidence of community support.
The guidance on how to apply to IPA was available to applicants via the AECS home page. Further guidance was contained in at least four other pages on the ruralpayments.org website.
Applicants were required to submit a copy of any planning approval or notification of requirement (or not) for planning permission received from the planning authority, as well as for other relevant regulatory authorities. This additional requirement was introduced in 2017 to 2018 following auditors concerns over compliance.
Applications were assigned to NatureScot case officers to assess, using detailed written guidance, induction training and ongoing Q&A sessions. To give an idea of the staff resource involved, in 2018 a total of 22 NatureScot case officers were involved in assessing 98 applications, with the number of applications per case officer ranging from one to 14.
The assessment process involved two stages: stage 1 eligibility checks and stage 2 scoring and site visit.
The score sheet used to assess IPA applications was available online, as well as supplementary guidance on scoring for each criterion.
NatureScot case officers applied an initial desk-based score and then a final score after a site visit. A counter-signing officer checked each score sheet for consistency in the assessment process, with the case officer making any adjustments required, and the approving officer confirmed the decision for each case (approve in full, partial approval, rejection).
All applications were notified to the relevant access authority by the case officer for information, verification and comment. NatureScot welcomed input from the access authority, though there was no obligation to respond. Access authority responses helped inform the criteria-based assessments and scoring.
Following confirmation of budgets, a threshold score was set each year (apart from 2015), below which eligible applications were rejected. IPA applications over £250k were considered by the NPAC IPA sub-group.
Applicants had the opportunity to ask for a review of the decision if their application was rejected or only partially approved. Cases were reviewed by a member of NatureScot staff not involved in the initial assessment or approval process. The original decision was revised if the reviewed score exceeded the threshold, otherwise the original decision was upheld.
Year | Request for review | Decision changed to approve | Decision unchanged |
---|---|---|---|
2015 | n/a | n/a | n/a |
2016 | 0 | n/a | n/a |
2017 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
2018 | 9 | 2 | 7 |
2021 | 15 | 4 | 11 |
2022 | 6 | 3 | 3 |
Total | 32 | 10 | 22 |
Of the 451 IPA applications submitted between 2015 and 2022, 181 applications (40%) were approved and progressed to contract.
Year | Applications | Approved to contract | Threshold score | Application score range |
---|---|---|---|---|
2015 | 28 | 16 | n/a | 8-23 |
2016 | 64 | 34 | 10 | 6-24 |
2017 | 55 | 36 | 11 | 6-29 |
2018 | 98 | 49 | 16 | 5-31 |
2021 | 147 | 38 | 20 | 8-30 |
2022 | 59 | 8 | 23 | 11-29 |
Total | 451 | 181 |
|
|
Of the 270 applications that were not approved, about 40% were assessed as ineligible, a further 40% were rejected as below the threshold score, 10% were withdrawn during the assessment process and the rest were rejected for other reasons.
Applications assessed as ineligible were generally due to errors related to capital items or because the contractual licence or the submitted map did not meet the scheme requirements. The applications that passed the stage 1 eligibility checks but were rejected at stage 2 tended to provide lower value for public money (e.g. due to higher value capital items) and/or the applications were not as well prepared with issues identified during the site visit.
Scheme Year | Total contract value | Minimum contract value | Maximum contract value | Mean contract value |
---|---|---|---|---|
2015 | £715,327.19 | £2,269.52 | £144,175.10 | £44,707.95 |
2016 | £1,478,150.90 | £1,312.00 | £129,870.90 | £43,475.03 |
2017 | £2,231,416.06 | £11,542.00 | £209,972.95 | £61,983.78 |
2018 | £3,382,569.95 | £4,071.50 | £308,142.53 | £69,032.04 |
2021 | £3,347,103.51 | £7,887.00 | £329,855.64 | £88,081.67 |
2022 | £1,022,787.11 | £11,576.10 | £289,041.80 | £127,848.39 |
2015 to 2022 | £12,177,354.72 | £1,312.00 | £329,855.64 | £67,278.20 |
The mean contract value increased gradually between 2015 and 2021, with the bigger increase in the mean contract value in 2022 reflecting the small number of applications that were approved to contract with larger applications having more opportunity to obtain higher scores.
Scheme Year | Contract value <£50k | Contract value <£100k | Contract value <£150k | Contract value <£200k | Contract value <£250k | Contract value > £250k |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2015 | 11 | 14 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 0 |
2016 | 24 | 31 | 34 | 34 | 34 | 0 |
2017 | 16 | 31 | 35 | 35 | 36 | 0 |
2018 | 24 | 38 | 45 | 47 | 48 | 1 |
2021 | 15 | 24 | 32 | 35 | 37 | 1 |
2022 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 1 |
Total | 92 | 143 | 167 | 172 | 178 | 3 |
Approximately half (51%) of all contracts had a value less than £50k and over three-quarters (79%) had a value less than £100k. Only 8% of all contracts had a value more than £150k and 1% had a value more than £250k. This perhaps reflected that applicants were more comfortable managing shorter sections of path in one funding year, or that applications were constrained by allocation to individual land holdings.
Changes to the schedule of works could be requested pre and post contract as amendments and variations respectively. Amendments, of which there were at 15 from 2015 to 2018, included pre-contract agreement changes and revisions to maps. Variation requests, of which there were 43 from 2015 to 2018, were usually to change capital items in the schedules of works, some of these due to unforeseen issues that only became apparent after construction had begun, though others perhaps could have been identified at the design stage e.g. that finger posts were required or that gabions were unnecessary. Other variation requests were to defer completion of some items to the next claim year, due to extreme wet weather delaying path completion or due to planning permission issues.
The number of contracts that were not signed or withdrawn after signing was relatively low, though the associated value was not inconsiderable. The reasons for not completing an agreed contract included failure to complete works in the allowed timescale and failing to obtain planning permission or additional funding where IPA capital item rates were insufficient to cover costs. In 2021 and 2022, contracts were not issued until planning consent had been obtained.
Scheme Year | Number of unsigned contracts | Value of unsigned contracted | Number of signed contracts withdrawn | Value of signed contracts withdrawn |
---|---|---|---|---|
2015 | 1 | £118,054 | 1 | £72,151 |
2016 | 7 | £333,657 | 2 | £249,667 |
2017 | 3 | £120,060 | 2 | £40,256 |
2018 | 1 | £3,720 | 2 | £292,545 |
2021 | 0 | n/a | 0 | n/a |
2022 | 1 | £133,644 | 0 | n/a |
Total | 13 | £707,137 | 7 | £654,620 |
Payment data received from SGRPID indicated significant levels of non-payment against agreed contracts. Some cases were due to failure to claim for constructed paths within the permitted timescale. Other reasons for lower-than-contract payments were due to over-specifying in the application. It is not thought that penalties have been applied widely, however it is possible that some items were found to be ineligible at inspection and thus were not paid e.g. culverts missing headwalls, ineligible seating or timber fingerposts.
The total contract value between 2015 and 2022 was £12.2 million and the actual payments to date total £10.4 million, with a further two contracts totalling £228k to be processed giving maximum payments totalling £10.6 million (87% of total contracts value).
The rates of non-payment for IPA were much higher than the 5% anticipated level of non-payment from other options within AECS.
Scheme Year | Contracts value | Payments | % payment of contract value |
---|---|---|---|
2015 | £715,327.19 | £633,707.22 | 88.6% |
2016 | £1,478,150.90 | £1,197,655.30 | 81.0% |
2017 | £2,231,416.06 | £2,034,882.86 | 91.2% |
2018 | £3,382,569.95 | £3,044,933.52 | 90.0% |
2021 | £3,347,103.51 | £2,709,270.63 | 80.9% |
2022 | £1,022,787.11 | £783,491.46 | 76.6% |
total | £12,177,354.72 | £10,403,940.99 | 85.4% |
What IPA delivered
Over the six scheme years, IPA resulted in 181 contracts with a total value of £12.2 million for the creation of 255 km of path and other path-related capital items.
Year | Applications | Contracts | Value | Path (m) |
---|---|---|---|---|
2015 | 28 | 16 | £0.72 million | 11,670 |
2016 | 64 | 34 | £1.5 million | 31,704 |
2017 | 55 | 36 | £2.2 million | 45,907 |
2018 | 98 | 49 | £3.4 million | 68,373 |
2021 | 147 | 38 | £3.3 million | 67,530 |
2022 | 59 | 8 | £1 million | 29,859 |
Total | 451 | 181 | £12.2 million | 255,043 |
The 255 km of pathwork comprised 145.3 km unbound path, 85.7 km semi-bound path, 21.8 km upgraded path and 2.2 km boardwalk.
Other capital items included in IPA contracts were:
- 82 bridges totalling 0.6 km in length
- 0.5 km timber aggregate steps
- 70.6 km drainage ditch
- 858 culverts
- 663 directional signs
- 488 seats
- 298 self-closing gates
- 292 information signs
- 210 stock gates
- 94.4km stock fencing
- 713 m3 gabions
- 187 trees made safe
- 14.8 m brashing
The data analyses identified patterns and trends that highlighted gaps and opportunities for improvements, in particular for:
- ensuring geographic distribution of IPA contracts
- popularity of capital item types
- distribution of funding by organisation and landowner type
- scheme popularity and demand
The most common reason to apply for IPA was to improve access for the local community, followed by providing access as part of a wider project, to provide improved access for visitors and to manage an access issue. A significant number of contracts were on, or linked to, a core path.
IPA contracts covered 21 access authority areas, with larger clusters of projects in Aberdeenshire, Dumfries & Galloway, Highland, East Lothian. This is partly due to applicants successfully submitting projects in subsequent rounds and/or having a number of smaller contracts forming part of a larger collaborative project such as on a long-distance path. It is also likely to be linked to raised levels of awareness of the scheme and levels of success e.g. amongst agents and landowners in one area.
Local authority areas containing significant rural land but with no contracts included Aberdeen City, Angus, Clackmannanshire, East and West Dunbartonshire, Falkirk, Orkney and Shetland.
Landowners and tenant farmers comprised the majority of applicants, though many community groups also benefitted. Several access authorities had IPA contracts, with Dumfries & Galloway Council accounting for the majority of these.
The majority of applicants owned the land on which the project was to be delivered, with small numbers of secure tenancy and crofting tenure. Community groups and access authorities had a contractual licence with the landowner, covering the installation and 5-year maintenance period.
Access Authority | No. contracts | Contract value (£) | Path (m) |
---|---|---|---|
Aberdeenshire | 56 | 4,935,737.61 | 91,819 |
Argyll & Bute | 12 | 789,909.22 | 12,896 |
Comhairle nan Eilean Siar | 1 | 35,033.76 | 214 |
Dumfries & Galloway | 31 | 1,352,246.61 | 34,691 |
East Ayrshire | 3 | 223,880.78 | 3,991 |
East Lothian | 11 | 821,763.69 | 19,836 |
Edinburgh | 3 | 305,809.24 | 5,506 |
Fife | 3 | 93,640.45 | 1,746 |
Highland | 27 | 1,579,417.81 | 40,177 |
LLTNPA / Stirling | 2 | 123,141.53 | 1,975 |
Midlothian | 2 | 310,127.64 | 6,697 |
Moray | 3 | 136,598.76 | 4,243 |
North Ayrshire | 1 | 71,956.00 | 936 |
North Lanarkshire | 1 | 7,701.50 | 125 |
Perth & Kinross | 7 | 367,551.45 | 6,835 |
Renfrewshire | 2 | 40,265.76 | 734 |
Scottish Borders | 4 | 402,060.04 | 9,571 |
South Ayrshire | 1 | 83,085.00 | 2,671 |
South Lanarkshire | 2 | 34,144.12 | 522 |
Stirling | 7 | 417,703.65 | 8,943 |
West Lothian | 2 | 45,580.10 | 915 |
Total | 181 | 12,177,354.72 | 255,043 |
There were a range of path-related capital items included in contracts’ Schedules of Works. A few capital items were omitted from the scheme in 2021 and 2022 because they were less popular (e.g. tree safety, perch seats) or because they were more expensive (e.g. semi-bound path surface) which impacts on the number of contracts possible based on the available budget for the scheme.
Capital item | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2021 | 2022 | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
New Path Semi-bound | 8 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 14 | n/a | 67 |
New Path Unbound | 4 | 23 | 18 | 25 | 21 | 8 | 99 |
Upgrade Path | 3 | 2 | 5 | 10 | 9 | 3 | 32 |
Boardwalk | 3 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 16 |
Timber aggregate steps | 0 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 12 |
Bridges | 4 | 8 | 11 | 14 | 8 | 1 | 46 |
2-way self-closing gate | 6 | 11 | 6 | 18 | 20 | 3 | 64 |
1-way self-closing gate | 3 | 8 | 14 | 13 | 3 | 1 | 42 |
Stock gate | 4 | 7 | 11 | 18 | 11 | 4 | 55 |
Drainage ditch | 6 | 8 | 17 | 20 | 14 | 5 | 70 |
Culvert 300mm | 3 | 7 | 12 | 20 | 17 | 1 | 60 |
Culvert 450mm | 4 | 12 | 8 | 11 | 7 | 2 | 44 |
Perch seat | 4 | 0 | 2 | 5 | n/a | n/a | 11 |
Timber Bench seat | 5 | 11 | 23 | 26 | 26 | 5 | 96 |
Picnic table | 5 | 5 | 11 | 17 | 11 | 4 | 53 |
Finger post | 7 | 12 | 19 | 24 | 22 | 6 | 90 |
Waymarker | 6 | 8 | 20 | 20 | 11 | 3 | 68 |
A3 panel | 7 | 15 | 18 | 25 | 24 | 5 | 94 |
Stock fence | 8 | 16 | 16 | 27 | 22 | 6 | 95 |
Gabions | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 9 |
Entrance sign | 5 | 8 | 9 | 14 | n/a | n/a | 36 |
Tree inspections | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | n/a | n/a | 2 |
Tree safety works | 1 | 1 | 4 | 6 | n/a | n/a | 12 |
Brashing | 1 | 4 | 9 | 10 | n/a | n/a | 24 |
New path with an unbound surface was included in 55% of the agreed contracts, new path with a semi-bound surface was included in 37% and an upgrade to an existing path in 18% of contracts.
Timber bench seats, stock fencing, A3 information panels and fingerposts were included in at least half the agreed contracts. Waymarkers, self-closing gates, stock gates, culverts, drainage ditches, bridges and picnic tables were included in at least a quarter of agreed contracts.
Capital item | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2021 | 2022 | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
New Path Semi-bound (m) | 7,368 | 6,917 | 18,920 | 25,268 | 27,211 | n/a | 85,683 |
New Path Unbound (m) | 2,791 | 23,235 | 20,946 | 36,011 | 36,122 | 26,129 | 145,324 |
Upgrade Path (m) | 720 | 1,510 | 5,896 | 6,153 | 3,845 | 3,640 | 21,764 |
Boardwalk (m) | 791 | 43 | 145 | 942 | 352 | 0 | 2,272 |
Timber aggregate steps (m) | 0 | 84 | 84 | 76 | 290 | 15 | 549 |
Bridges (m) | 23 | 129 | 139 | 216 | 107 | 6 | 619 |
Bridges (no.) | 4 | 14 | 19 | 24 | 20 | 1 | 82 |
2-way self-closing gate (no.) | 11 | 23 | 20 | 71 | 54 | 4 | 183 |
1-way self-closing gate (no.) | 4 | 26 | 37 | 35 | 6 | 7 | 115 |
Stock gate (no.) | 14 | 37 | 30 | 81 | 37 | 11 | 210 |
Drainage ditch (m) | 1,967 | 4,676 | 16,273 | 24,038 | 22,132 | 1,576 | 70,662 |
Culvert 300mm (no.) | 15 | 25 | 127 | 335 | 214 | 3 | 719 |
Culvert 450mm (no.) | 13 | 16 | 33 | 62 | 13 | 2 | 139 |
Perch seat (no.) | 14 | 0 | 15 | 14 | n/a | n/a | 43 |
Timber Bench seat (no.) | 14 | 24 | 68 | 65 | 104 | 47 | 322 |
Picnic table (no.) | 10 | 8 | 27 | 36 | 27 | 15 | 123 |
Finger post (no.) | 19 | 38 | 54 | 53 | 69 | 65 | 298 |
Waymarker (no.) | 51 | 49 | 94 | 69 | 81 | 21 | 365 |
A3 panel (no.) | 14 | 24 | 34 | 58 | 71 | 24 | 225 |
Stock fence (m) | 6,197 | 13,136 | 16,421 | 29,095 | 26,288 | 3,258 | 94,395 |
Gabions (m3) | 45 | 371 | 0 | 126 | 171 | 0 | 713 |
Entrance sign (no.) | 9 | 12 | 20 | 25 | n/a | n/a | 66 |
Tree inspections (ha) | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | n/a | n/a | 2 |
Tree safety works (no. trees) | 6 | 11 | 60 | 110 | n/a | n/a | 187 |
Brashing (m) | 675 | 4,870 | 4,955 | 4,335 | n/a | n/a | 14,835 |
Feedback
A summary of stakeholder comments is available on pages 16 to 18.
There were 141 responses to the snap card and survey monkey questionnaires:
- 58% of responses were from landowners, 18% from crofters, 14% from tenants and 10% from agents.
- 58% of respondents had heard of IPA and 23% of these had applied to the scheme.
- 63% of respondents would be interested, and 20% might be interested, in applying to IPA in future.
Access officers in local and national park authorities provided feedback via an email survey:
- 15 responses were received, of which 12 were aware of IPA.
- 4 responders were not aware that local authorities could apply.
- 5 had been approached for advice by applicants.
- 14 stated they would be interested in access funding in future.
Access officer responses also included a list of local policies and plans that IPA would support, such as core path plans, active travel strategies, local development and community plans. Some access officers reported on the value of IPA to deliver rural access projects, but that ensuring a certain level of use and connectivity to wider networks was important.
Telephone and email surveys were conducted with the holders of 49 agreed contracts. Word of mouth was the most common way that applicants found out about IPA, along with NatureScot and SGRPID websites and recommendation from access officers.
- There was unanimous support for the continuation of funding for access in rural Scotland, although the Rural Payments Service mechanism was unfamiliar to some groups of applicants.
- Comprehensive guidance was available to applicants and contract holders but was not easily found on the AECS and IPA websites.
- The list of capital items supported by IPA was adequate, but some additional items were suggested for inclusion in future. Offering fixed rates for capital items was favoured.
- The payment rates offered were inadequate to cover costs for some remote, island and upland projects.
- Improved guidance on submission of maps and contractual licences was requested.
- The time taken between claim and payment was considerable in some cases and caused financial difficulty.
Summary of comments provided by applicants and case officers:
Application process:
Awareness of IPA
- Word of mouth was the most common way applicants found out about the scheme e.g. from access authority or agent.
- NatureScot and SGRPID websites were the next commonly cited means.
- Requests were made to inform previous applicants if or when the scheme opens again e.g. by email.
Applying through the Portal
- Easier if applicant had prior experience.
- Minor technical glitches did not prevent application.
- Applicants were unaware of available RPID assistance for applications.
- Timescale to apply was adequate, but longer pre-application planning time recommended or consider a 2-stage application process to allow for adequate preparation of applications.
Guidance
- Guidance spread across several web pages: hard to find information.
- Unclear which AECS requirements relate to IPA.
- Technical guidance, if read, was useful.
- Additional on-site technical advice at pre-application stage would help.
- Consider how to best encourage collaborative applications.
Capital items
- The list of eligible items was mostly comprehensive but low uptake on tree inspection.
- Remote and Island locations can be disadvantaged by rates offered being too low or capital items being too expensive.
- Requested additions:
- Timber finger posts
- Timber rail fencing
- Mechanical brashing
- Bound surface option for private road crossings
- Self-closing deer gate
- Larger culverts
- Car park
- Perforated drainage pipe
- Box/grate drain
- Stone infill
- Groundworks
- A1 sized information board
- Stone or timber revetment
- As-dug new path construction
- Stone water-bars
- Stone-pitching
Planning permission
- Applicants were reluctant to apply for planning permission until notification of a successful application, but time taken to obtain permission could cause significant delays to construction starting.
- Improved understanding of the respective planning authorities’ requirements for paths would be useful.
Documents required
- Templates or good examples of maps and contractual licences were requested.
Assessment
Eligibility
- Failure to provide adequate contractual licence or map were the most common reasons for applications to be initially rejected.
- More stringent rejection of ineligible applications could improve efficiency of the assessment process.
Site visit
- Unanimous support for site visits, aiding scoring and allowing opportunity for advice.
- Time and travel commitment. Suggestion not to complete site visit for initially very low scoring applications.
- Path design and construction training for case officers.
Scoring
- Felt to be straightforward.
- Applicants requested further advice on obtaining a high score.
- Case officers and access officers requested greater weighting for strong community support and local context, tourism, public health or biodiversity benefits to ensure value for money.
- Involve a local or regional group to assess applications.
- Ensure focus remains on end use of the path.
- Consider improved guidance on assessing collaborative applications.
- Record assessment scores on a spreadsheet and avoid any double recording.
- With an increased demand for IPA funding, there is also an increased demand for staff time and resources. A centralised admin support was suggested as a better way to co-ordinate and support case officers/co-ordinators.
Decision
- Time taken between application and decision was long, or did not align with match funding obtained.
- An indicative timeline in the application guidance would be helpful.
- Match applications to access authority’s policy to prioritise funding, e.g. core paths.
Eligibility |
|
---|---|
Site visit |
|
Scoring |
|
Decision |
|
General feedback
Other issues that were requested for consideration in the review were:
- Where possible ensure that IPA path connects fully with the wider network where applicable, i.e. avoid a gap of rough ground on a verge between pavement or road and path. Consider use of contract conditions.
- Allow sign posting from a location distant to the IPA path, e.g. from a car park that is connected to the IPA path via an existing route. Existing guidance ‘Any land is eligible, Signs must relate to upgraded or new paths.’ Similarly change guidance where it currently states ‘signs to be visible from road’ as this may not apply.
- Assign a unique reference to IPA cases so they are readily identifiable from other AECS contracts e.g. Year followed by IPA followed by Case Number.
- Bridges guidance to be updated to include a description of the range of users that will benefit from the bridge, with a specification compliant with Paths for All Bridges guide.
- Improve guidance for designing a path on a steep slopes/gradients and use of steps, ramps etc to maximise accessibility.
- Provide guidance on preparing a schedule of works that then allows interim payment claims to be made which may help with cash flow and path contractor management.
- As per current guidance, photographs should be kept by the contract holder and made available on request by inspectors or auditors.
- Include guidance to ensure no loss, or minimal impact on biodiversity due to construction or upgrade of path.
- Improve the speed of the claims and payment process.
Some comments from contract holders: |
Path is popular and takes people off the farm track, especially as there is a day support centre close by |
Very well used; parents with buggies, disabled people and school kids now have safer access |
People have started using the path already and it’s still being built |
What can be done to ensure maintenance of paths after 5 years? |
Flexibility should be increased to cover minor errors in the application |
Liaise with local authority if hazard signs e.g. ‘people crossing’ would improve safety where path crosses a road |
A mid-construction visit would be helpful |
Having a case officer to call with questions was good |
Need to review payment rates annually |
Funding for paths and access through rural development funds is seen as an invaluable contribution to ensuring the public can benefit from Scotland’s world-class access to the outdoors, whilst providing land managers the means to manage access on their land alongside operating a productive and economically viable business.
Recommendations
Short-term scheme improvements:
The model for IPA should be improved in the following key areas to enable a new scheme to be launched should funding be made available by Government:
- Guidance for applicants and contract holders
- Application process refinements
- Administration and Assessment processes
- Fixed cost rate review.
Key recommendation:
The provision of better pre-application guidance and advice for applicants:
- To make the process of designing a path project easier and to a higher and fit for purpose standard.
- To minimise the number of errors in an application and to make application supporting documents easier and quicker to assess.
- To create a dedicated “one stop shop” IPA funding scheme section on the ruralpayments.org website, not mixed in within AECS pages, with enhanced guidance including capital item drawings for guiding construction and installation to meet capital item requirements.
- Provision of a dedicated pre-application advisor to answer queries and advise.
- Provision of either a downloadable map template with a standardised legend; or ideally RP&S web-embedded mapping tool linked to the schedules of work and contract issue.
- Provision of training, learning and sharing good practice events and opportunities for applicants to learn more about path design and construction.
Longer-term recommendations:
The further development of access funding including consideration of models for:
- Annual path and access management support for lapsed IPA projects (post 5 years)
- Annual path and access management support for other type of existing access or path provision e.g. core paths, National Cycle Network, Scotland’s Great Trails, access authority endorsed paths.
- A revised capital items menu choice with options for smaller-scale, lower-cost access improvements e.g. gates, advisory signs, erosion controls; and options for other path types e.g. upland paths, mountain-bike paths.
- Addition of “greening measures” e.g. wildflower/grass verges, woodland fringes and hedges, as-dug paths option.
- Integration with Forestry Grant Schemes and Woodlands In and Around Towns funding, so that there is one path funding scheme to cover all land-uses.
- Integration with outcome-based approaches for conservation and land management, with an access provision and people management component.
- Use of regional land-use partnerships in deciding funding priorities and distribution in their respective areas e.g. Cairngorms National Park.
Additional research:
Now that the funded paths have been built, further research should be undertaken to include assessing the benefits delivered by IPA. This could include:
- Path and infrastructure longevity (design/build/management)
- Public benefits – quality of experience, user levels and types
- Costs analysis - full project costs and relationship to fixed payment rates.
- Spatial mapping and gaps analysis
- Contribution to core paths planning and strategic route developments.
Appendix 1: IPA detailed scheme recommendations
Final list of emerging options presented to Environment Thematic Sub-Group in August 2019
Pre-application changes
No. | Activity | Action | Why? |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Improved pre-app guidance |
| To raise quality of applications and reduce time required to process. |
Scheme changes
No. | Activity | Action | Why? |
---|---|---|---|
2 | Spatially targeting | Introduce regional or peri-urban targeting of areas closer to populations and/or low IPA uptake. | To spread areas benefiting, and address Aberdeenshire hotspot. |
3 | Path targeting | Only fund core paths, SGTs, NCN, PROWs and links to or between them; or paths that have an access authority’s endorsement statement. | To ensure maximum public benefits. |
4 | Review capital options menu |
| To reflect uptake of options and IPA review findings. |
5 | Review standard costs | Standard costs set in 2015, review costs | To ensure affordability and minimise any disadvantage because of location (within reason); also to ensure correct options are used |
6 | Application value | Cap applications at £200K maximum | To spread the value of scheme |
7 | Single year applications | Must deliver in one year | To allow an annual budget response to number/quality of applications. |
8 | Application window | Consider launching the schemes and having a focused 1-month pre-app stage before opening scheme for applications, run concurrently with other schemes e.g. AECS. | To encourage pre-app planning and to allow better resource planning for application processing stages. |
Application changes
No. | Activity | Action | Why? |
---|---|---|---|
9 | Portal improvements to supporting documents: maps | Online map either downloadable editable template with standard legend; or ideally online mapping tool linked directly to the Schedule of Works and contract issue. | To speed up application processing time and claims/inspection time; and reduce number of errors in applications. |
10 | Portal improvement to supporting documents: photos | Photos: storage mechanism for uploading images of application site/locations as part of application requirements. | To speed up and improve case officers pre-site visit assessments. |
11 | IPA application reference numbers | Differentiate easily between IPA and AECS cases e.g. an IPA unique reference numbering system to help with reports, tracking etc. | To enable differentiation between AECS and IPA on portal generated reports. |
12 | Planning permission and other regs compliance | Online tick box and upload “evidence of requirements or not” document prompt. With planning as essential, others optional. | Providing this at application stage will speed up assessment process and clarifies contract requirements. |
13 | Introduce access statement requirement | Change access authority’s notification stage undertaken by case officer, to an application requirement to have an access statement describing the project and including support statement from access officer or local authority officer. | Providing this at application stage will speed up assessment process, as not having to wait for access authority response. |
14 | Remove requirement for core path context map in supporting documents. | Delete item/question on portal. | This data is now publicly available online. |
15 | Provide a contractual license template | Provide a basic requirements template including essential minimum requirements e.g. statement, map, dates, signatures. | To ensure consistency and speed up eligibility checks. |
Scoring and assessment changes
No. | Activity | Action | Why? |
---|---|---|---|
16 | Revise Eligibility checks |
| To speed up and make eligibility checks more efficient. |
To speed up assessment process. | |||
To ensure maximum public benefits. | |||
17 | Revise Scoring criteria |
| To reflect latest priorities in access and build on use of criteria in previous scheme. |
18 | Revise Site visit checks | Revise site visit checklist. | |
19 | Thresholds. | Apply threshold to manage budget allocation; have tighter eligibility checks and site visit checks to remove bad schemes. | |
20 | Scoring and Assessment recording | Introduce a new database or excel system for recording scoring. | To reduce human error in scoring and totalling, ensure consistency and allow separation and recording of QA and approval processes. |
Contract changes
No. | Activity | Action | Why? |
---|---|---|---|
21 | Contract | Maps automatically generated, remove need for separate signing/stamping of maps? | Speed up contract issue and any variation requests. |
22 | Contract and authority to start letter. | New clause to be added for essential items which must be built e.g. all signage and path to connect/reach start/end points. | To maximise public benefit and ensure value for money. |
23 | Introduce a mid-contract and end contract inspection during maintenance period | Either random cases, or all cases to be checked; requires a procedure to deal with non-compliance and/or any remedial repairs. | To ensure public money and benefits are maximised and contracts are being complied with. |
Portal changes summary of actions (taken from above)
Proposed change | Details |
---|---|
IPA online image log
| Create or build in an easy to use and record online database within portal for use by applicants during application and building stages and use by inspectors during claims processing.
|
IPA online mapping | Create an online mapping system (or downloadable template) with standard capital item legend and usable scales for applicants to record items on and link to Schedule of Works, forms contract and easy to use during inspection checks. |
Piloting ideas
Proposed change | Details |
---|---|
Forestry grant scheme | Can we introduce an improved IPA to woodlands or forestry, pilot in one region? Consider additional or amended capital options? |
Integrated management approaches which include AECS and IPA as whole farm outcomes based approach. | Include path maintenance and upkeep, signage and wider management of public access on land; and piloting pollinator or greenway-type corridors for people and nature using path and verge management techniques. |
Maintenance funding for lapsed IPAs and any core paths | Build in an IPA maintenance payment, staged payment over 10 years, claimed at mid-point and end; potentially based on % of capital value. To safeguard the IPA investments and address core path maintenance issues in all access authorities. |
Plan preparation payment | Payment to prepare access plan and scheme design. |
Reduce underspend | Set a lower threshold score based on likelihood of budget slippage |
Appropriate and best value | Ensure applications contribute to local policies and plans, e.g. by access officer involvement earlier |
Appropriate and best value | Ensure option contributes to Scottish Government priorities, with consideration of NatureScot priorities for halting loss of biodiversity and addressing climate change |