Skip to content
Please be aware the content below has been generated by an AI model from a source PDF.

Accessible paths toolkit 2026

More paths for more people

An access­ible paths toolkit June 2026

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Cov­er image © Will Hall


Intro­duc­tion

Access­ible paths are routes for every­one and are suit­able for people with lim­ited mobil­ity. This includes wheel­chair users, fam­il­ies with push­chairs, people using mobil­ity scoot­ers, people with visu­al impair­ments, and any­one who wants an easi­er walk with no steps or steep slopes.

Back­ground

There is wide­spread evid­ence to show the health and social bene­fits that come from spend­ing time out­doors and con­nect­ing with the nat­ur­al envir­on­ment. How­ever, these bene­fits and access to the coun­tryside are not equally avail­able to every­one. People liv­ing with dis­ab­il­it­ies or health con­di­tions and older people are par­tic­u­larly impacted by phys­ic­al bar­ri­ers to access.

This toolkit provides inform­a­tion and advice for path man­agers about access­ible paths, the required stand­ard, how to audit exist­ing paths and identi­fy any improve­ments required to improve the access­ib­il­ity of a path.

It is imprac­tic­al to make all areas of the coun­tryside access­ible to every­one, but simple inter­ven­tions can improve access­ib­il­ity. This guid­ance aims to provide a real­ist­ic, prac­tic­al and effect­ive approach to deliv­er­ing access improve­ments, cre­at­ing more paths for more people across the Cairngorms Nation­al Park.

2


1. Access­ible path standards

There is no stat­utory stand­ard for access in the coun­tryside and the huge vari­ation in land­scape char­ac­ter and ter­rain make a one-size-fits-all approach chal­len­ging. How­ever, a nation­al access stand­ard has been developed for paths, detailed in the Out­door Access­ib­il­ity Guid­ance (2023) doc­u­ment pro­duced by Walk­ing Scot­land and The Sens­ory Trust.

This recog­nises dif­fer­ent stand­ards for urb­an / form­al land­scapes and for coun­tryside land­scapes. Coun­tryside paths are defined as being those in wilder, lightly man­aged land­scapes eg open coun­tryside, nature reserves, wood­lands, and for these the access­ible stand­ard is lower.

This toolkit sum­mar­ises the key points from the guid­ance rel­ev­ant to coun­tryside paths (iden­ti­fied in the guid­ance as Zone C’ paths). For more spe­cif­ic inform­a­tion on any point or design stand­ards please refer to the Out­door Access­ib­il­ity Guidance.

Any path improve­ments should always adopt the approach of least restrict­ive access, aim­ing for the highest stand­ards pos­sible. For example, a gap is less restrict­ive than a self-clos­ing gate, which is less restrict­ive than a manu­ally closed gate. The first option would be a gap, but if that is not pos­sible, the highest spe­cific­a­tion of wide, easy latch­ing, self-clos­ing gate that meets the Brit­ish Stand­ard would be the next option.

3


The access­ible stand­ard for coun­tryside paths is sum­mar­ised in table 1 on page 6.

Any new access­ible paths being con­struc­ted should be built to meet this stand­ard. It may be more chal­len­ging to bring exist­ing paths or struc­tures up to this stand­ard, but any improve­ments made towards the stand­ard are of bene­fit and are worth undertaking.

While fea­tures such as mod­er­ate slopes, nar­row sec­tions and rough patches are accept­able with­in the coun­tryside access­ib­il­ity stand­ard, ideally these would occur infre­quently and be con­sidered as excep­tions, rather than the norm. Mul­tiple chal­len­ging fea­tures can impact on the over­all access­ib­il­ity of the path for some users. A single ele­ment such as a patch of rough sur­face may be man­age­able for most users to cope with, but repeated rough patches, numer­ous gates to open or repeated slopes can cause fatigue or cre­ate a poor user experience.

If the access­ible route is a there-and-back’ path, then an adequate turn­ing space needs to be provided at the turn-around point. Any there-and-back route should still deliv­er a qual­ity vis­it­or exper­i­ence, ie offer a pleas­ant user exper­i­ence and ideally lead to a des­tin­a­tion, fea­ture or viewpoint.

4


Addi­tion­al bar­ri­ers to access

In addi­tion to the phys­ic­al path stand­ard oth­er bar­ri­ers to access exist for many people liv­ing with a dis­ab­il­ity or health issue, or people with con­cerns about per­son­al safety or lack­ing in con­fid­ence. The improve­ment of any access­ible path should be con­sidered with­in this wider context.

Com­mon bar­ri­ers to access include:

  • Lim­ited inform­a­tion about access­ib­il­ity, lack of inform­a­tion in altern­at­ive formats or languages
  • Lack of con­fid­ence, not feel­ing wel­come, fears over safety or get­ting lost
  • Lack of access­ible toi­lets near the path
  • Lack of park­ing options or access­ible trans­port, and costs of both
  • Poorly main­tained environment

The Access Chain

The Access Chain was developed by the Sens­ory Trust to look at access from the per­spect­ive of the vis­it­or. It recog­nises mul­tiple steps, start­ing with the decision to vis­it. This is made at home and relies on off-site inform­a­tion provid­ing adequate detail about access­ib­il­ity in rela­tion to park­ing, trans­port, toi­lets etc as well as the path itself. If there is insuf­fi­cient inform­a­tion then the decision to vis­it the path might not be made at all.

5


Table 1 Coun­tryside paths – access­ible standard

Cri­ter­iaPath stand­ard require­mentNotes
Bar­ri­ersNo bar­ri­ersBar­ri­ers are any phys­ic­al fea­tures that cre­ate an obstacle in the path, includ­ing steps, stiles, cattle grids, large rocks etc. These are impass­able to many users.
Sur­faceGen­er­ally firm, even, well-drained and non-slip. Occa­sion­al tree roots, odd rough patches or some loose mater­i­al, are con­sidered accept­able in the countryside.Avoid loose mater­i­als like gravel or bark, these are par­tic­u­larly chal­len­ging for people with lim­ited mobil­ity and often impass­able for wheel­chair users.
Sur­face breaksMax­im­um sur­face break should ideally not be more than 12mm, but up to 75mm would be accept­able in exist­ing structures.Sur­face breaks run across a path and are things like cross drains or gaps in board walks. They can trap walk­ing sticks or wheels or may pose a trip hazard.
WidthMin­im­um useable width of the path should be 1.2 metres. Where per­man­ent fea­tures like trees or walls force a pinch point the path can nar­row to 1m.Path width is import­ant to ensure a wheel­chair can pass along eas­ily or two people walk­ing side-by-side (one may be an aide).
SlopesMost of the path would ideally be flat (<2% gradi­ent) or with gentle slopes (2 – 5%). Mod­er­ate slopes up to a max­im­um of 10% gradi­ent over short dis­tances are accept­able but ideally wouldn’t exceed 8%.Slopes (includ­ing ramps or gradi­ents) are one of the most sig­ni­fic­ant bar­ri­ers lim­it­ing access to paths and routes. They are poten­tially haz­ard­ous and exhaust­ing to people with lim­ited mobil­ity. Mobil­ity scoot­ers are only rated to use on slopes of less than 10% gradi­ent. The steep­er the slope the great­er the impact on people. Aim for smooth gradu­al changes in gradient.

6


Cri­ter­iaPath stand­ard require­mentNotes
Cam­ber / crossfallIdeally the cross­fall should be less than 3% gradi­ent. A cam­ber from the centre of the path is more useable (but ideally cross­fall still wouldn’t exceed 6%).If gradi­ent can’t be reduced,