WARNING - By their nature, text files cannot include scanned images and tables. 
The process of converting documents to text only, can cause formatting changes and 
misinterpretation of the contents can sometimes result. Wherever possible you 
should refer to the pdf version of this document.


CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY 
Paper 3 20/04/07 


CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY 


FOR DECISION 


Title: DEVELOPING A PARK-WIDE TRUST FOR THE NATIONAL PARK 

Prepared by: 
Bob Grant, Senior Outdoor Access Officer 
David Cameron, Head of Corporate Services 
Murray Ferguson, Head of Visitor Services and Recreation 


Purpose 

This paper seeks approval in principle for the development of a Trust for the National Park 
which would, in its first few years, carry forward a programme of work focussed on 
providing opportunities for people to enjoy the outdoor environment and the special 
qualities of the National Park. As an interim measure the paper also seeks approval for 
funding a programme of work in the eastern Cairngorms which will be delivered by the 
Upper Deeside Access Trust. 


Recommendations 

That the Board: 

a) Notes progress with the collection and analysis of the technical information required 
to develop and set up a Trust; 

b) Approves in principle the establishment of a Park-wide Trust, subject to the 
expression of sufficient partnership support and submission of a detailed business 
case; and 

c) Approves the CNPA funding contribution of £90,000 towards a work programme for 
2007/08 of access improvements in and around the Upper Deeside area. 


Executive Summary 

This paper reviews the options for delivering key priorities identified within the National 
Park Plan and Outdoor Access Strategy and seeks approval in principle to proceed with the 
more detailed work required to develop a Park-wide Trust as this is the most efficient and 
effective means by which these priorities can be delivered. In addition, the outcomes from 
the 2006/07 funding of the Upper Deeside Trust’s work are detailed together with proposals 
for 2007/08. 



DEVELOPING A PARK-WIDE TRUST FOR THE NATIONAL PARK – FOR DECISION 

Background 

1. A proposal to establish a Trust for the Cairngorms National Park was discussed at 
the Board meeting on 30 June 2006 as part of the considerations of the draft Outdoor 
Access Strategy. The Board asked officers to undertake further investigation and 
appraisal of the options and matters of technical detail and asked them to report 
back, presenting a single recommendation for the most effective delivery mechanism. 

2. Since the Board meeting in June 2006, the development work has been taken 
forwards as part of three broad strands, each of which is described in further detail 
below under appropriate headings: 

a) Finalising the Outdoor Access Strategy in the light of consultation responses 
and liaising further with partners to assist in evaluation options and to gauge 
partner support; 

b) Investigating further the technical aspects of the formation of a Trust with 
financial advisers; and 

c) Developing the work programme of access improvements in and around the 
Upper Deeside area and ensuring that the Upper Deeside Access Trust 
(UDAT) are well appraised of developments so as to keep open the 
possibility of transition options. 

3. It is recognised that there is a need to develop partnership support for a Trust and to 
take this process further a meeting of potential partners, chaired by David Green, 
was scheduled to take place on 19 March. However, due to bad weather the meeting 
had to be postponed. The meeting is now scheduled for 30 April and will seek to 
establish the level of support from the partners for the Trust, the scope of activity 
that they would wish to see the Trust deliver and the level of partnership support 
available. 


Policy Context 

4. The National Park Plan provides the strategic context for our work on outdoor 
access. Providing high quality opportunities for outdoor access is one of the seven 
Priorities for Action. Establishing a Park-wide Trust or similar mechanism is one of 
the actions identified within the Park Plan that will assist in delivering the outcomes 
listed in Table 1. This is further expanded in the Outdoor Access Strategy which 
provides greater detail on the necessary polices that require to be implemented 
across the National Park to ensure the Park Plan is delivered. 

5. Greater integration between public bodies delivering public benefits is being actively 
encouraged by the Scottish Executive, for example through initiatives such as “On 
the Ground.” The establishment of a Trust, with public sector partner support and 
engagement, will facilitate this collaborative approach. A Trust should be viewed as 
an effective mechanism to deliver a range of public benefits. Whilst it is proposed 
that these would initially relate primarily to outdoor access infrastructure, such 
works will deliver a range of wider benefits. Opportunities for informal recreation 
close to where people live will contribute to wider government agendas on, for 
example, adaptation to climate change, social inclusion, health and sustainable 
transport. 

6. In due course the availability of a Trust dedicated to the National Park may be 
valuable to take forward a number of other areas of work that are highlighted in 
future Park Plans. 


Finalising the Outdoor Access Strategy and further evaluation of options d for a 
delivery mechanism 

7. On 2 March 2007 the Board approved the Outdoor Access Strategy for the National 
Park, following a period of consultation with stakeholders. The outcomes to be 
delivered collectively by partners are shown in Table 1. 

Table 1: Outcomes for 2012 

1. A wider range of people will have the opportunity to enjoy the outdoors. 

2. Land managers and those enjoying the outdoors will have a better 
understanding of their respective rights and responsibilities which will 
positively influence behaviour and enable all to enjoy the special qualities 
of the National Park. 

3. There will be a more extensive, high quality, well maintained and clearly 
promoted path network so that everyone can enjoy the outdoors and move 
around the Park in a way that minimises reliance on motor vehicles. 

4. There will be greater involvement of communities, land managers and 
visitors in the management and maintenance of the paths. 

5. There will be more effective connections between public transport and 
places with outdoor access opportunities. 

6. There will be locally based healthy walking groups throughout the 
National Park and active promotion of outdoor activity by health 
professionals in order to contribute positively to the physical, mental and 
social health of residents and visitors. 



8. It is important to note that, despite its title, the scope of the Outdoor Access Strategy 
is about much more than paths or access rights. The Strategy is the place to find the 
outcomes and actions on improving health, public transport and people’s active 
experience of the outdoors and of maximising enjoyment while minimising impacts 
on the natural or cultural heritage. The Strategy is also about more than visitors’ 
experience of the Park – it encompasses proposals to improve travel to school and 
workplaces too. There are also very strong links to the strategic work going on in the 
Park on sustainable tourism, strengthening communities and on ensuring that the 
Park is increasingly demonstrating to other parts of Scotland how a low carbon 
economy can function. Fundamentally, the Strategy provides a key route-map in the 
development of the world class National Park that we collectively aspire to. 

9. The Strategy highlights in Section 5 the need for an effective “delivery mechanism” 
for many aspects of work to do with outdoor access in support of all the Outcomes 
described above, specifically including: 

a) work on enhancing paths, bridges, car parks and associated infrastructure on 
both low and higher ground; 

b) providing infrastructure for a greater range of users in terms of abilities and 
recreational type; 

c) supporting the creation of business opportunities in the outdoors through the 
provision of a high quality recreational resource that has something to offer 
for everyone; 

d) promoting enhanced visitor information and marketing of recreational 
opportunities; 

e) improving public transport links and information for recreational users; 

f) improving the range of travel options for school, work and daily life; and 

g) developing programmes of activity for health purposes. 

10. It is important to recognise that whichever delivery mechanism is chosen it is 
envisaged that CNPA staff will continue to have an important role to play. In 
particular CNPA staff will focus on implementation of the core duties of the Park 
Authority, development of strategic work and integration of outdoor access work 
with other activities of the Park Authority. The work associated with the four legal 
duties of the Park Authority will take a high priority. Other work will include the 
allocation of funds for path repair and maintenance and development of policy and 
best practice advice. CNPA staff will also lead on coordination of those aspects of 
the Strategy relating to Transport and Health. 

11. At the Board meeting on 30 June 2006 an initial analysis of the three possible options 
for a delivery mechanism were described (see Annex 1): 

a) Option A – establishment of a Park-wide Trust; 

b) Option B – direct delivery by CNPA; and 

c) Option C – work through existing mechanism. 


12. Experience in the Cairngorms and elsewhere in Scotland has shown that there can be 
considerable advantages in using a trust or similar mechanism to assemble funding 
programmes spanning several years and running the project management of the 
works. The particular advantages include development of commitment from a 
variety of funding partners around an agreed set of goals and encouragement of the 
planning of work programmes over a number of years. A Trust, being an 
independent entity and frequently holding charitable status, is also often a good 
mechanism for delivery of visitor payback initiatives and it is relatively easier for it 
to access funds from charitable sources. The Trust can also be flexible and 
entrepreneurial in its approach, directing resources to certain parts of its geographic 
area as priorities demand – for example working with very light touch where there is 
existing capacity at local level and taking more of a delivery role in other parts. 

13. For the reasons given above, Options A and C should not therefore be viewed as 
mutually exclusive. Where there currently exists an active and appropriate Trust, 
community or path group, funding of works could be channelled through that 
organisation. However, for a very substantial part of the Park no such organisation 
exists and a Trust would provide the essential management service of improving and 
maintaining access infrastructure and related visitor information. 

14. Option B would have some advantage in the Park Authority having direct control of 
delivery but the disadvantages include : 

a) difficulty in generating significant partnership buy-in to programmes of 
work; 

b) managing large multi-year programmes with sufficient flexibility between 
years; and 

c) accessing funds from visitor payback schemes or from sales of Park 
merchandise. 

15. For all these reasons Option B is not considered an effective mechanism to deliver the 
works required. Further analysis of the benefits that a Trust can deliver would 
suggest that, in particular, a Trust provides the best opportunity to develop a strong 
partnership approach in this area of work across the geographic area covered by the 
Park, with the flexibility to direct resources to particular parts of the Park as 
priorities demand. Funding activities through a Trust would provide a transparent 
use of resources delivering prioritised and agreed work programmes. More detailed 
technical information on the creation of a Trust is described in the following section. 
A full business case will be developed by staff and Board approval will be sought 
once the degree of partnership support has been ascertained. 


Further technical information on the formation of a Trust 

16. Technical information has been supplied by Scott Moncrieff, Chartered Accountants 
and by Scottish Natural Heritage who have in-house legal advisors and first hand 
experience of some 40 Trusts operating throughout Scotland. This advice has 
enabled us to consider how best a Trust might work. Key aspects of this advice is 
shown below. 

a) Governance: It is anticipated that the Trust would be led by a Trust Board, 
comprising around 6 to 12 members. Responsibility for overall direction and 
management of the body would rest with Trust Board members rather than 
with funding partners. There would require to be strong links with the 
National Park Authority and other funding partners, land managers and 
users. It would be important to design governance arrangements that did not 
duplicate existing structures. Trust secretariat services could be provided by 
CNPA. There are potential difficulties associated with a Trust comprising a 
small number of staff, limited resources and large cash flows. These require 
careful planning and management and the development of sound 
relationships with funding bodies. 

b) Business planning: The Trust Board would be responsible for agreeing a 
Business Plan, drawing from information set out in the National Park Plan, 
Outdoor Access Strategy and other documents, that comprised a three year, 
rolling programme of works. The Business Plan would form the basis for 
discussions with funding partners, including CNPA. The Trust Board would 
also be required to establish and monitor an annual operational plan and 
annual budget. The Trust Board would need to be supported by some staff 
resource and a small team of the relevant contact officers from each funding 
partner. 

c) Partnership working: In areas where there is a strong local and appropriate 
Trust or Community Company, the Park-wide Trust could play a minimal or 
merely coaching role, allowing it to pass on resources or other support while 
focussing on other parts of the Park. Elsewhere the Trust could assemble 
funding packages and manage projects directly, generally through 
supervising commissioned works. 

d) Scale of funding: It is difficult to be precise about figures with so many other 
variables. However, as the access authority for the National Park, the CNPA 
anticipates that significant level of funding would require to be transferred to 
the Trust in order that it can deliver its work programmes. Funding 
availability will depend on the next budget settlement and on competing 
priorities in the Corporate Plan. Currently, it is estimated that contributions 
of up to £250k would be made annually from CNPA. Funding partners may 
become involved with a Trust either through block funding an annual 
programme of works, or match funding specific projects to be delivered by 
the Trust. We anticipate total match funding requirement from partners of 
around the same amount again, to give the Trust a total annual budget of 
around £500k. It is hoped that, in time, the Trust would also benefit from 
other sources of funding – for example through bequests and other donations. 
The bid for a Landscape Partnership Project that is currently being led by 
CNPA may also be a potential route through which to bring in additional 
funds. 

e) Staffing: The Trust Project Manager is potentially the only new post to be 
created as a result of the development of the Trust. Actual levels of staffing 
would require to be balanced between the cost of direct staff employment and 
the requirements for delivery of work programmes. The role of the Project 
Manager will be to commission and contract individual works and 
recommend external grant funding to the Board in line with business and 
operational plans. 

f) Administration and other support: In order to minimise the “overhead” draw on 
the resources available to the Trust, CNPA would in the first instance 
consider providing administrative, finance and facilities support from within 
existing resources. This is likely to include the provision of office 
accommodation and other facility support such as human resources but 
would require legal advice to be bought in. 

g) Legal status: It is anticipated that the Trust would be established as a separate 
legal entity. CNPA has sought specific advice on this matter and the most 
likely option at this stage seems to be a Company Limited by Guarantee with 
charitable status. 

h) Transition arrangements with existing Trusts: At this stage no firm proposals 
are being considered for any transition arrangements between existing Trusts, 
notably the Upper Deeside Access Trust. This is a matter that will have to be 
looked into in detail at a later stage. 

17. The summary appraisal of the options and the technical advice received to date 
provides corroboration that the creation of a Park-wide Trust will be the most 
effective and efficient mechanism of delivering the outcomes listed in Table 1. It is, 
however, acknowledged that partner support and further consideration of matters of 
detail are required before a Trust can be established. 


Recommendation 

18. That the Board: 

a) Notes progress with the collection and analysis of the technical information 
required to develop and set up a Trust; and 

b) Approves in principle the establishment of a Park-wide Trust, subject to 
the expression of sufficient partnership support and submission of a 
detailed business case. 


Developing the work programme of access improvements in and around the 
Upper Deeside area 

19. In the interim period leading up to the development of an effective mechanism at 
Park-wide scale, the Board approved in September 2006 expenditure of £100,000 as a 
contribution towards a programme of access work totalling £496,000 in the eastern 
side of the Park. This work was to be delivered by UDAT. Progress with the work 
programme has been extremely good with only one slight delay in the completion of 
the Clarack Loch all-abilities path near Dinnet. 

20. Detailed discussions have taken place on delivering a programme of works in the 
2007/08 financial year. The proposed programme of works again reflects many of the 
specific elements of work that are detailed in the Outdoor Access Strategy. The 
proposed funding from the Park Authority towards the programme is £90,000 out of 
a total funding package of £274,250. The expenditure justification for the Park 
Authority’s contribution towards this programme of works is shown in Annex 2. 

21. The Directors of UDAT are also currently considering future options for the Trust 
and there is an inevitable degree of uncertainty until the Park Authority determine 
the most effective and efficient delivery mechanism for the whole of the Park. To try 
and minimise this uncertainty both bodies have been keeping each other informed 
about current thinking. The Chairman of the Trust has recently sent a very positive 
letter to the Park Authority making suggestions about the potential for integration if 
CNPA and partners decide to establish a Park-wide Trust. At this stage options are 
being kept as open as possible but further details will be considered as part of the full 
business case that is to be submitted to the Board. 


Recommendation 

22. That the Board approves the CNPA funding contribution of £90,000 towards a 
work programme for 2007/08 of access improvements in and around the Upper 
Deeside area. 


Implications 

Financial Implications 

23. The Park Authority currently spends between £250,000 and £300,000 per annum on 
outdoor access related projects which result in new or improved infrastructure or 
visitor information. A sum of around £250,000, with leverage of at least similar sum 
from partners, would be required to ensure an effective programme of works can be 
delivered annually. Further external funding sources to deliver such things as 
elements of the Landscape Partnership Project could also be channelled through a 
Trust. Partner support is however still to be obtained and an initial view of this will 
be obtained at the meeting of 30 April. 


Presentational Implications 

24. It is recognised that there is a sensitivity in seeking Board approval for the principle 
of a Trust prior to initial discussions with potential partners. The meeting at the end 
of April will, however, emphasis the “in principle” nature of the decision and the 
need to ensure that partners’ views are incorporated into the business case. 

25. Equally, there is a continued requirement to keep UDAT Board and staff informed of 
decisions and progress and this will be done to ensure that there is a common 
understanding of the way ahead. 


Implications for Stakeholders 

26. There are potentially funding and engagement implications for key partners. Early 
engagement and support of partners is required to ensure funds are in place for the 
potential start up in April 2008. 


Next Steps 

27. Following the meeting with partners in late April, a further paper will be brought to 
the Board in June with a full business case seeking detailed approval for the creation 
of a Trust. 



Bob Grant 
David Cameron 
Murray Ferguson 
April 2007 

bobgrant@cairngorms.co.uk 
davidcameron@cairngorms.co.uk 
murrayferguson@cairngorms.co.uk 



Annex 1: Evaluation of options for a delivery mechanism relating to outdoor access 

(Not available in full text format)

EXPENDITURE JUSTIFICATION 

Ref: 
Approved: 

1. Title 
Developing a programme of access improvements in and around the upper Deeside area 


2. Expenditure summary 
Operational Plan (Goal No. – Task No.) /  9-3 /  Project 
Outdoor access infrastructure   /  Grant  /  # 
Core /  (detail) /  Account /  Consultancy  / 

Is this spend to be funded from an existing 
budget line, existing line with additional funds 
or is it a totally new spend? 
£90,000   /  Existing  /  # 
£   /  Additional  /  
£  /  New  /  
(delete as appropriate) 


3. Description 
.. Brief overview of project/activity 
.. Specific elements for which support is sought (if not whole project/activity) 


Summary 

a) The Upper Deeside Access Trust is seeking £90,000 support from CNPA towards an 
agreed programme of works for the 2007/08 financial year. The total value of the 
programme amounts to £274,250. 

Background 

b) The Upper Deeside Access Trust has delivered a wide-range of path projects and 
associated infrastructure and information over the last 9 years. Funding to date has 
stemmed from Aberdeenshire Council, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Enterprise 
Grampian and Balmoral Estate with further income deriving from car parking charges at 
Glen Muick, sale of leaflets covering promoted walks, donations to the Trust and other 
sources. In addition, a large scale path programme – the Eastern Cairngorms Access 
Project (ECAP) – attracted substantial funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund, 
European Union (ERDF) Angus Council and other partners in Angus. 

c) Changes in legislation have resulted in the statutory elements of access now being 
delivered by the Cairngorms National Park Authority rather than Aberdeenshire 
Council within Upper Deeside. This has required UDAT and its partners to review and 
consider the most effective means of funding and delivering their access objectives both 
within and outwith the Upper Deeside area in the future. 

d) It had been envisaged that decisions on the most effective mechanism by which the Park 
Authority could deliver access infrastructure would be in place by April 2006, however 
the lead in time required has proved considerably longer. To maintain the momentum 
and ensure that a range of suitable projects which deliver the outcomes of the Park Plan 
and Outdoor Access Strategy, it is proposed to offer a single year grant to UDAT. 


4. Rationale and Strategic Fit 
.. Objectives/intended beneficiaries 
.. Evidence of need and demand 
.. Fit with National Park Plan/Corporate Plan/other relevant strategies 
.. Linkages to other activities/projects 

a) The range of work planned provides a mix of both high and low ground work, with 
supporting signage and leafleting. Improving path provision will enable people of all 
ages and abilities to enjoy the special qualities of the Park and, for the upland areas, help 
protect fragile plant communities from pressures arising from outdoor access. These are 
both strategic objectives within the draft Park Plan. In addition, the Outdoor Access 
Strategy has policies that seek to improve the path provision and quality and seeks 
greater provision for people of all abilities and multi-use. The addition of health related 
walks in the Strathdon and Deeside areas to the work being delivered by UDAT has a 
further close tie with the policy objectives within the Outdoor Access Strategy. The 
proposed programme has therefore a very close fit with the strategy for the Park. 

b) The identification of works within the UDAT programme has stemmed from 
consideration of the Outdoor Access Strategy and broad consultation with stakeholders 
and through area wide audit and assessment processes. 


5. Option Analysis 
.. Are there other ways in which the above objectives could be achieved? 
.. If so, why is this the preferred option? 

a) The management of this overall programme of works by a single body provides a 
coordinated and cost effective approach to delivering a diverse range of individual 
projects. It would be possible in some instances to have elements of the programme 
taken forward as single, stand alone projects developed through individual initiatives 
and led by communities where this capacity exists. Such an approach would involve a 
much greater degree of management and involvement from potential funders, as there 
would not be the level of project management experience, quality control and contract 
supervision that can be assured through UDAT. For all these reasons, it is felt that the 
most appropriate means of delivery is through UDAT. 


6. Risk Assessment 
.. Are there risks to the CNPA in funding this project/activity? 
.. Are there risks in the project/activity not being delivered to required timescale/quality? 
.. Comment on the likelihood of such risks occurring, their potential impact, and (where 
appropriate) any action that would be taken to mitigate the risks. 

a) The risks to CNPA of funding this programme are very low. UDAT have considerable 
experience of handling a diverse annual programme of works of this magnitude and 
content. The main risk is in relation to partnership funding, however all other funding 
sources have been agreed which includes Aberdeenshire Council, SNH, Paths to Health, 
private estates and income generated from UDAT’s own efforts. A further risk would 
exist if there was further staff turnover with the Trust (the Trust’s manager left last 
year). This threat is slightly greater than in previous years due to existing uncertainty 
over the long term future of the Trust. The Trust does, however, continue to utilise self-
employed contractors on a regular basis to augment the work of its core staff and 
therefore this risk is mitigated to some extent. 

b) Statutory and other permissions have already been obtained for the majority of works 
with others in advanced stages of planning. All landowners concerned have given 
consent for the works to take place. As such there would appear to be little external risk 
posed through permissions being refused. 

c) Financial risks have also been considered as UDAT operates without reserves nor can 
they borrow to bridge funding gaps. Cash flow projections have been considered and 
are based on funding streams being delivered at agreed times. 

d) There is the continued potential for funding of this work programme to be viewed as 
favouring one area within the Park. Whilst this is possible the proposed programme 
provides a very clear link to the outcomes detailed in the Park Plan and future decision 
on a delivery mechanism will ensure a more consistent, Park-wide approach to 
infrastructure development. 


7. Costs and Funding 
.. Detail the financial costs of the project/activity 
.. Detail the sources of funding 
.. Detail any non-monetary costs to the CNPA (such as Member or staff input) 

a) The total value of the programme amount to £274,250 and the breakdown of the 
component parts is shown in the table below. 

b) If funding is approved, CNPA’s overall contribution will be 33% of planned expenditure. 

Total Expenditure £274,250 

Aberdeenshire Council £30,000 

SNH £80,000 

Balmoral £3,000 

Paths to Health 5,000 

UDAT (income and reserves) £66,250 

Potential CNPA Contribution £90,000 

CNPA proportion 33% 

More detail of the works being delivered is shown in Annex 3. 


8. Deliverables/ Impact Assessment 
.. What end products/outputs will be delivered? 
.. How will success be measured? 
.. How will the project be monitored and what will be the feedback to the CNPA? 


a) Each product will result in improved access opportunities in and around the Upper 
Deeside area. Combined, they will enhance the range of opportunities that already exist 
in the area and will make a positive contribution to both local and visitor experience 
within the Park. 

b) There are a range of measures that will be used to gauge success. These will include 
sales of leaflets, feedback from visitors and reduced damage to fragile ecosystems. 

c) The monitoring of all path and other projects is undertaken through the UDAT 
Management Group. CNPA is represented on this group by Bob Grant, Senior Outdoor 
Access Officer. Progress reports, including financial monitoring are presented to this 
group quarterly. The Management Group have responsibility for recommending 
changes to the work programme, noting that such changes require ratifying by the 
UDAT Board of Directors. 


9. Value for Money 
.. In view of the costs, do the deliverables appear to offer value for money? (consider cost 
of comparable projects, where available). 

a) The Upper Deeside Access Trust has proved to be effective at delivering access related 
projects. Delivery through an established Trust provides an efficient mechanism to 
deliver a broad programme of works. Delivering such works on a project by project 
basis would require considerably more staff time and would prove harder to ensure a 
consistent, high quality output. 

b) The leverage gained by contributing to this programme is provides good value for 
money (CNPA contribution is 33% of total budget). 

c) The programme of works provides good value for money by delivery being undertaken 
through a single organisation with a recognised pedigree for delivering high quality 
work timeously. 


10. Exit or Continuation Arrangements (where applicable) 
.. If this is not a discrete, time-limited , project or piece of work, what are the 
exit/continuation arrangements for when CNPA support ceases? 

a) This is a one year offer of funding. Future funding will be dependant on decisions 
CNPA take on how best to deliver the access remit within the Park. 

b) A single year funding ensures a broad programme of identified work which meets the 
Park’s objectives is fully delivered, provides continuity and retention of existing UDAT 
staff, and allows CNPA to work up the options under consideration to ensure sufficient 
time is available to enact any changes from 2008/09. 


11. Additionality 
.. Does this work/project substitute for or duplicate work being carried out or proposed by 
others? 

.. What would be the effects of the CNPA not supporting the project? Would it proceed 
without CNPA support? 

a) The proposed work programme does not duplicate or impinge on other projects. 

b) CNPA’s contribution is essential to allow the full programme of works be delivered. 
Without it, the programme would have to be seriously curtailed and remaining partners 
contributions could not be guaranteed leading to a potential impact on UDAT staffing. 

e) Overall the Authority will be making contributions which allows UDAT’s interim 
2007/08 programme to be delivered. 


12. Stakeholder Support 
.. Have the organisations and/or communities that would have an interest in this 
work/project been involved, and are they supportive? 

a) UDAT has broad support in the relevant communities and has representatives from this 
wider group on the Management Group. There are some 47 affiliated organisations who 
are kept up to date with the work of UDAT and who are invited to attend the Annual 
General Meeting to feed in their views on the work of UDAT. 

b) The other funding agencies: particularly SNH and Aberdeenshire Council hold UDAT in 
high regard. 

Cairngorms National Park Authority 
April 2007