Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
1 Needs and Preferences
1
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
1
Needs and Preferences
1.1
Introduction
2
This chapter presents the needs and preferences of key audiences for access to
and recreation on and around water in the LDNP, identified by respondents across
all elements of the research.
The needs and preferences identified by respondents have been collated and listed
by key audience, for lakes, rivers and the coast. This provides a look-up table for
use with the prioritisation mechanism so that projects which meet the needs or
preferences of one or more key audiences are recognised and treated favourably
for doing so.
1.2
Needs and Preferences
Needs and preferences are defined as:
Need
A need is a measure that is critical to a decision to undertake an
activity/make use of a resource.
For landowners and water resource managers, a need is a measure that
is critical to the efficient management of land/water.
Preference
A preference is a measure that is not critical, but one that;

Would enhance the experience of use;

Would increase the frequency of use;

Would give greater choice of use; or

May encourage a more lengthy period of participation.
For landowners and water resource managers, a preference is a measure
that makes the management of land and water easier.
The primary research with key audiences (in the LDNP and elsewhere) provided an
extensive and varied list of needs and preferences for taking part in water based
and waterside activities in the LDNP. It is worth noting that a 'need' can be seen as
either a basic need, independent of what is provided at present, or a need for
something to be done, reflecting a perceived inadequacy in current provision of the
area. So, for example, anyone wanting to go canoeing needs a canoe and access
to water; this is what we mean by a 'basic need'. An alternative way of expressing
a need, and the one most commonly used by respondents, is what is needed to
address a shortfall in current provision - "We need cheaper canoeing equipment"
and " We need more access to water". Responses sometimes refer to basic needs
and sometimes to a shortfall; review of the responses suggests a mix of the two. In
order to avoid mis-interpretation of what people intended to convey, both types of
responses have been treated equally.
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
3
All of the needs and preferences were raised in the primary research by the key
audiences themselves. Tables that follow present, for each of the broad key
audiences, their needs and preferences for their chosen activities. Other than the
distinction as a ‘Need’ as opposed to a ‘Preference’ no attempt at prioritisation has
been made. This keeps the exercise transparent and unbiased, as any prioritisation
needs to be done using the mechanism. However, so that the origin of the declared
need or preference is known, we have identified its source. For each need and
preference, the source of the finding is referenced, as follows:




FG
DI
WR
QS
Focus Groups
Depth Interview
Written Response
Questionnaire Survey
For ease of use, the needs and preferences are grouped according to the type of
feature mentioned, for example, all parking related needs are listed together. Some
needs and preferences could fall into more than one of these broad categories (for
example, ‘Policy/Management’ as well as ‘Environment’) however they only feature
in the one deemed most appropriate.
The tables also show which key audiences gave the same Need or Preference, for
ready reference, as follows:









KA1
KA2
KA3
KA4
KA5
KA6
KA7
KA8
KA9
Non-Powered Boating activities
Water contact activities
Powered Boating activities
Waterside Dependent activities
Waterside Independent activities
Landowners/Managers
Wardens/ Bailiffs
Groups Leaders/ Activity Organisers
Businesses
There were a small number of needs and preferences which were common to all
five user groups (KA1 through to KA5). These were:

Good access to water by foot (provision of footpaths near water) and by car
(in relation to lakes, rivers and the coast); and

Space to park cars near water, parking for extended periods, and somewhere
to keep trailers (in relation to lakes, rivers and the coast for some user groups,
but only to lakes for all five user groups).
In addition, five of the Key Audiences (KA1, KA3, KA4, KA5 and KA7) said that a
clear and effective set of byelaws (which are acceptable to the general public so
that they can then be enforced), was a need or preference (this was in relation to
lakes).
Table 6.1 shows that similar needs and preferences, i.e. those in common themes,
have occurred across many of the Key Audiences and across lakes, rivers and the
coast.
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
4
Table 6.1 Key Audiences with Needs and Preferences relating to each Theme,
for Lakes, Rivers and the Coast
Key Audiences with
Needs and
Preferences relating
to each theme:
Cost
Awareness/Education
Facilities/Opportunities
Policy/Management
Access to water
Parking
Peace and Quiet
Transport
Environment
LAKES
RIVERS
COAST
K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9



 


 





 





 
  
 


 

 



 
 


 



It should be noted that suggestions of ‘needs’ such as ‘better weather’ have not
been included in the tables.
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
5
Table 6.2 Needs and Preferences Relating to Lakes
Access to water
Awareness/Education
Facilities/Opportunities
Parking
Policy/Management
KA1 Non-Powered Boating activities
Canoeing (flat, river-touring and ‘white water’), rafting, rowing,
sailing
NEEDS
Easy access to water e.g. jetties, moorings, ramps
Good access to water by foot (provision of footpaths near water)
and by car
Launch areas
Legal access to the water
Raise awareness of where to canoe / where restricted / where to
camp and canoe (which lakes are restricted, e.g. on map on
LDNP, available at TIC)
Boating facilities at more locations (including hoist/crane for
masts, ramp for launching, workshop for repairs, drying room,
changing room, emergency room (bunks etc), water, and power
)
Disabled boating facilities at more locations - minimum
requirements on lakes are hoist for wheelchairs, floating jetty,
and disabled toilets and showers
Facilities to take on clean water
Marker buoys
Public toilets
Storage facilities
Waste water extraction facilities
Cheaper car parking (e.g. season ticket for car parks)
Space to park car near lakes, parking for extended periods, and
somewhere to keep trailers
Good warden facilities, presence of wardens
Maintenance of speed limits
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
KA1
Samplers, Learners,
Dabblers, Enthusiasts
KA3 KA4
WR
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 KA5
KA1 KA2 KA3
KA3 KA4
KA1
L
S
KA1
D
KA8
L
D
E
WR, FG
E
WR, FG
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR, FG
E
WR, FG
WR
WR, QS
KA5
KA3
S
L
WR, QS
WR
WR
FG
KA3
KA3 KA4 KA5
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 KA5
KA3 KA4
KA1
KA1 KA2
Management plan/ code of conduct (Work with governing bodies
(LDNPA, Wardens, EA, SLDC etc))
KA1
Well qualified instructors
KA1
S
E
L
KA1
KA1
KA1
KA1
KA1
KA1
KA1
KA1
Research
Reference
D
E
WR
WR
Faber Maunsell
Access to water
Awareness/Education
Facilities/Opportunities
Parking
Peace and Quiet
Policy/Management
Transport
Error! No text of specified style in document.
PREFERENCES
Better launching access to lakes
Good access to water by foot (provision of footpaths near water)
and by car
Improved slipways for easier launching
Raise awareness about where and when to go
Raise awareness about wildlife, plant life and water life,
consideration and disturbance
Good opportunities for informal participation
Improved changing, toilet and shower facilities
Modernised clubhouses
Secure storage for tender/dinghy
Car parking for extended periods close to water (e.g. dedicated
parking facility for group use)
Low cost, secure car parking
More and cheaper parking, season ticket for car parks
Space to park cars near water and near launches
For lakes to be quieter
Less traffic in the LDNP
10mph speed limit on Windermere (with enforcement)
Absence of power boats / jet skis on lakes
Access limited in some areas/ quiet areas (e.g. through
Clear and effective set of byelaws (which are acceptable to the
general public so that they can then be enforced)
Good liaison/ partnership to ensure expertise is shared between
land owners/providers and participants in activities
Maintain open use of lakes for non powered activities
6
WR
KA1
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 KA5
KA1
KA3 KA4 KA5
KA1
S
S
D
E
KA5
KA1
KA1
KA1
KA1
KA1
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
KA4
KA1
KA1
KA1
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 KA5
KA1
KA1
KA1
KA1
KA1
KA1
L
KA3 KA4 KA5
E
S
KA7
WR
WR
FG, WR
WR
WR
FG, WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
KA1
KA1
Minimal interference from regulation/ reasonable regulations and
access granted/ helpful land owners
KA1
Open access to shorelines
KA1
Better access to lakes by public transport (suggested free
transport from hotels, shuttle buses from train stations, Park and
Ride)
KA1 KA2 KA3
QS
WR
WR, QS
WR
WR
KA5
S
L
FG, WR, QS
Faber Maunsell
Access to water
Cost
Facilities/Opportunities
Parking
Policy/Management
Transport
Access to water
Error! No text of specified style in document.
7
KA2 Water contact activities:
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
Swimming, Ghyll scrambling/canyoning, Sub-Aqua, Windsurfing
NEEDS
Good access to water by foot (provision of footpaths near water)
and by car
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 KA5
Launch areas
KA1 KA2 KA3
Less restricted access for swimming outdoors and ghyll
scrambling/canyoning
KA2
Cheaper ways of doing activities
KA2
KA5
Changing facilities e.g. for windsurfing and swimming outdoors
Greater availability of low cost accommodation (e.g. for
participants in activities)
Space to park car near lakes, and somewhere to keep trailers
Maintenance of speed limits
Better access by public transport (more services, more places
served)
KA2
Samplers, Learners,
Dabblers, Enthusiasts
S
L
S
L
WR, QS
WR
QS
QS
KA5
KA2
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 KA5
KA1 KA2
QS
S
S
S
L
L
L
D
KA5
S
L
D
Cheaper transport options for getting to and around the LDNP
KA2
PREFERENCES
Good access to water by foot (provision of footpaths near water)
and by car
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 KA5
S
L
KA1 KA2 KA3
Research
Reference
KA8
E
QS
WR, QS
QS
WR, QS
QS
D
QS
Faber Maunsell
Access to water
Awareness/Education
Facilities/Opportunities
Parking
Policy/Management
Transport
Awareness/Education
Facilities/Opportunities
Parking
Policy/Management
Error! No text of specified style in document.
KA3 Powered Boating activities
Low Speed <5mph: Pleasure cruising, narrow-boats, High
NEEDS
Easy access to water e.g. jetties, moorings, ramps
Fully accessible paths to waterside suitable for disabled people
Good access to water by foot (provision of footpaths near water)
Launch areas
Legal access to the water
Raise awareness about where and when to go
Deeper water for boating (e.g. water levels during droughts)
Marker buoys
Public toilets
Space to park car near lakes, and somewhere to keep trailers
Good warden facilities, presence of wardens
Managed areas of lakes for power boating
8
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
KA1
KA3
KA3
KA1 KA2 KA3
KA1 KA2 KA3
KA1
KA3
KA1
KA3
KA3
KA1
KA3
KA3
KA1
KA1 KA2 KA3
KA1
KA3
KA3
Management plan/ code of conduct (Work with governing bodies
(LDNPA, Wardens, EA, SLDC etc))
KA1
KA3
Removal of 10 mph speed limit
KA3
Better access by public transport (more services, more places
served)
KA1 KA2 KA3
PREFERENCES
Raise awareness of codes of conduct and mutual respect; more
dissemination of information about no-go areas and collision
regulations
Additional jetties
More time limited public pier access
Organised events and activities
Winter storage of boats
Reasonably priced parking for extended periods
Space to park cars near water
Clear and effective set of byelaws (which are acceptable to the
general public so that they can then be enforced)
To restrict development
KA4
KA4
KA4 KA5
KA4
KA4 KA5
KA4
Research
Reference
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
KA8
KA4 KA5
KA4 KA5
KA4
WR
WR, QS
KA5
S
KA3
KA5
KA3
KA3
KA3
KA3
KA3
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 KA5
KA1
Samplers, Learners,
Dabblers, Enthusiasts
KA3 KA4 KA5
KA3
KA8
KA7
L
D
E
WR, QS
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
KA4 Waterside Dependent activities
Fly fishing, Angling, Model Boating
NEEDS
Easy access to water e.g. jetties, moorings, ramps
Access to water
Awareness/Education
Environment
Facilities/Opportunities
Parking
Policy/Management
Access to water
Awareness/Education
Environment
Facilities/Opportunities
Parking
Peace and Quiet
Policy/Management
Transport
Fully accessible paths to waterside suitable for disabled people
Good access to water by foot (provision of footpaths near water)
and by car
Legal access to the water
Raise awareness about where and when to go
Good water quality, clean water
Deeper water for angling
Good fish stocks
Public toilets
Space to park cars near water
Good warden facilities, presence of wardens
PREFERENCES
Boat launching sites and moorings - more of them in more
places
Legal access to the water
Public access to lakes
Online information about where and when to go
Attendance to biomass shortcomings (including fish) within river
and lake environments
More fishing clubs
More live stock; More stocked coarse and trout fisheries in
Northern LDNP
Specific locations for Anglers to keep boats
Additional parking spaces at fisheries
Car parking for extended periods close to water
For LDNP to be quieter, less crowds
Peace and quiet on lakes (e.g. continuation of speed limit)
Clear and effective set of byelaws (which are acceptable to the
general public so that they can then be enforced)
Regulations on when fish can /cannot be killed
Restricted access when spawning
Later operating public transport (i.e. until/after 10pm)
9
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
KA1
KA1
Research
Reference
KA3 KA4
WR
KA3 KA4
WR, FG
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4
KA3 KA4
KA1
KA3 KA4
KA1
KA4
KA3 KA4
KA4
KA3 KA4
KA1
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4
KA1
KA3 KA4
KA1
Samplers, Learners,
Dabblers, Enthusiasts
KA5
KA5
KA6
KA8
KA8
KA9
S
S
L
L
D
E
KA5
KA5
WR
WR, QS
WR
WR, QS
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
KA4
KA4
KA4
KA4
WR
WR
WR
WR
KA4
KA4
WR
WR
KA4
KA4
KA4
KA4
KA4 KA5
KA4
KA3 KA4 KA5
KA4
KA4
KA4
S
L
E
S
S
L
L
D
D
KA7
S
L
D
E
E
WR, FG
FG
WR
WR
WR
FG
WR
WR
WR
QS, FG
Faber Maunsell
Access to water
Cost
Facilities/Opportunities
Parking
Peace and Quiet
Transport
Access to water
Awareness/Education
Facilities/Opportunities
Parking
Peace and Quiet
Policy/Management
Error! No text of specified style in document.
KA5 Waterside Independent activities
Rambling, cycling, dog walking, horse-riding, bird-watching, art
NEEDS
Good access to water by foot (provision of footpaths near water)
and by car
Legal access
Cheaper ways of doing activities
Changing rooms to be able to change clothing
Good signage and way marking
Public toilets
Free/cheaper car parking
Space to park cars near water
For LDNP to be quieter, less crowds
Better access by public transport (more services, more places
served)
PREFERENCES
Bridges to be kept in good condition and not vandalised, bridges
which are safe in all conditions
No physical barriers, e.g. fences to climb, on walking/cycle/horse
riding routes
Safer cycle routes
Promotion of family friendly walks; picnic sites
Raise awareness about where and when to go
Raise awareness about wildlife, plant life and water life,
consideration and disturbance
Raise awareness among users about what is legal/legitimate
and what is not
Raise awareness of codes of conduct and mutual respect; more
dissemination of information about no-go areas and collision
regulations
Cafes, tea shops
Cheaper car parking
To maintain peace and quiet through curtailment of noisy water
based activities
Undeveloped, unspoilt areas
Clear and effective set of byelaws (which are acceptable to the
general public so that they can then be enforced)
For regulations to be reasonable
Maintenance of footpaths, clear footpaths, keep hedge rows and
vegetation cut back
10
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
Samplers, Learners,
Dabblers, Enthusiasts
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 KA5
KA5
KA2
KA5
KA2
KA5
KA5
KA3 KA4 KA5
KA1
KA5
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 KA5
KA4 KA5
S
S
S
S
KA1 KA2 KA3
S
KA5
L
L
L
Research
Reference
D
D
D
E
E
E
D
E
L
D
E
WR, QS
WR, QS
QS
WR
WR
WR
WR, QS
WR
WR, QS
L
D
E
WR, QS, FG
KA5
WR
KA1
KA5
KA5
KA5
KA3 KA4 KA5
KA1
KA5
WR
KA5
WR
KA3
KA1
S
S
KA5
KA5
KA5
KA8
KA5
KA5
KA1
KA3 KA4 KA5
KA5
KA5
L
L
S
L
S
L
D
D
D
E
E
E
WR
WR
WR, QS
WR, QS
FG
WR
FG
WR
WR
KA7
WR
WR
WR
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
KA6 Landowners/Managers
Environment
Policy/Management
NEEDS
Good water quality, clean water (To maintain and improve water
quality, to ensure fish stocks, for environmental reasons, and for
drinking water supplies.)
Policy/Management
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
KA4
KA6
KA8
KA9
Research
Reference
DI
A permit system - no automatic right of public access on the
waterways in the LDNP
KA6
DI
Measures to prevent trespassing: Signage on the shore/by the
roads, better policing and more assistance from LDNPA to
prevent trespassing
KA6
DI
KA6
DI
KA6
DI
KA6
DI
KA6
DI
KA6
KA6
DI
KA6
DI
KA6
DI
Not to extend access any further but to focus on currently
accessible areas: To maintain no-boating areas, and to continue
to maintain quiet areas on the lakeshore for the ‘hydrosere’ (the
succession of plants from a freshwater lake to the land) and
wildlife
PREFERENCES
Awareness/Education
11
Clarification of responsibilities (e.g. owners not to be held
responsible for the safety of those coming onto the land on a
free access basis)
Raise awareness about the differences between coastal access
and river/lake access
Raise awareness of landowners/ occupiers duty of care towards
visitors
Ability to withhold permission for access onto privately owned
land -otherwise get trespassers who think they have the right to
walk across it because of open access/CRoW and then leave
litter, create noise disturbances or damage plants.
Enforcement of bye-laws, e.g. a police launch
For some permissive paths alongside lakeshores to be made
into Public Rights of Way (therefore would be up to LDNPA to
maintain)
More of a partnership approach to wardening, with the big
stakeholders sharing the burden
DI
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
KA7 Wardens/Bailiffs
Awareness/Education
Policy/Management
Awareness/Education
Policy/Management
NEEDS
Raise awareness of the wardens and what they do, for safety
reasons
Clear and effective set of byelaws (which are acceptable to the
general public so that they can then be enforced)
12
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
Research
Reference
KA7
DI
KA7
DI
Consider removal of speed limit on Lake Windermere in
zoned/regulated areas to bring back visitors and lost revenue
KA7
DI
Non-motorised boating to be less restricted in some areas e.g.
Buttermere, Wastwater and Loweswater
KA7
DI
KA7
DI
KA7 KA8
DI
KA7
DI
KA7
DI
KA7
DI
Removal of speed limit on Windermere for wardens for
safety/rescue operations
PREFERENCES
Raise awareness of rules/ regulations and responsible use of
Lakes e.g. information boards, for visitors
Introduction of licences for water skiers/ sailors - then they are
able to self regulate
More safety boats and trained safety experts manning the boats
for organised activities e.g. Great North Swim
Restriction of times when powerboats can go on Windermere
KA1
KA3 KA4 KA5
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
KA8 Group Leaders/ Activity Organisers
Access to water
Awareness/Education
Facilities/Opportunities
Disabled boating facilities at more locations - minimum
requirements on lakes are hoist for wheelchairs, floating jetty,
and disabled toilets and showers
Access to water
Wider legal access to water for canoeing (e.g. more uniform
access agreements)
Raise awareness of rules/ regulations and responsible use of
Lakes e.g. information boards, for visitors
Single source of information showing latest information on which
lakes are accessible to disabled people
Parking
Policy/Management
KA5
KA1
Flexibility in what’s available so that course activities can be
adjusted to fit circumstances
Prevention of storm water overflows on Windermere
PREFERENCES
Facilities/Opportunities
KA3
Source of information to be able to find out what the ‘rules’ are
governing access at the time you want to use it and whether
somewhere is open
Better telephone and broadband services to help businesses
Policy/Management
Environment
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
NEEDS
Greater access to lakes for canoeing
Raise awareness of codes of conduct and mutual respect; more
dissemination of information about no-go areas and collision
regulations
Greater availability of low cost accommodation (e.g. for
participants in activities)
Awareness/Education
13
Control of weed on lakes
Good water quality, clean water e.g. Sewer overflows not to go
into lakes
A white water canoe trail
Additional canoe launch/alighting points with faculties for
disabled people
Deeper water for angling, canoeing, boating etc. (e.g. water
levels during droughts)
Increased changing facilities for disabled people
Increased disabled toilets
Vouchers for disabled parking in places close to put-in points, as
with NT
For the proposals for closing off the road on the West side of
Thirlmere go ahead
KA2
KA4
KA3 KA4
KA6
Research
Reference
KA8
DI
KA8
DI
KA8
KA8
DI
KA8
DI
KA8
DI
KA8
DI
KA8
DI
KA8
DI
KA7 KA8
DI
KA8
DI
KA8
DI
KA8
KA8
DI
KA9
DI
DI
KA8
DI
KA8
DI
KA8
KA8
DI
DI
KA8
DI
KA8
DI
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
KA9 Businesses
Access to water
Facilities/Opportunities
Awareness/Education
Environment
Facilities/Opportunities
Policy/Management
14
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
NEEDS
Legal access to lakes
Mooring space for boats on lakes; additional short term mooring
locations
PREFERENCES
Promotion of underused but accessible areas e.g. western side
of Windermere where there is National Trust shoreline e.g. take
a ferry
Good water quality, clean water e.g. Good quality beck water
feeding into the lake to reduce pollution and improve vegetation
Provide opportunities/space for new/additional water based
activities (e.g. Canoe trails, canoe orienteering, geo caching on
water)
Policing of water by LDNPA
Re-introduction of power boats, but not "wet bikes"
KA4
KA6
KA8
Research
Reference
KA9
DI
KA9
DI
KA9
DI
KA9
DI
KA9
KA9
KA9
DI
DI
DI
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
15
Table 6.3 Needs and Preferences relating to Rivers
KA1 Non-Powered Boating activities
Canoeing (flat, river-touring and ‘white water’), rafting, rowing, sailing
NEEDS
Access to water
Access to water
Access to water
Policy/Management
Policy/Management
Good access to water by foot (provision of footpaths near water) and by car
Launch areas
Legal access to the water
Raise awareness of where to canoe / where restricted / where to camp and canoe
(which rivers are restricted, e.g. on map on LDNP, available at TIC)
Disabled boating facilities at more locations
Space to park cars near water, parking for extended periods, and somewhere to keep
trailers
Good warden facilities, presence of wardens
PREFERENCES
Good access to water by foot (provision of footpaths near water) and by car
More locations where rivers/ river banks can be accessed
Raise awareness about where and when to go
Car parking for extended periods close to water (e.g. dedicated parking facility for
group use)
More and cheaper parking, season ticket for car parks
Space to park near water and near launches
Less traffic in the LDNP
Clear and effective set of byelaws (which are acceptable to the general public so that
they can then be enforced)
Good liaison/ partnership to ensure expertise is shared between land
owners/providers and participants in activities
Less restriction on access to rivers / access agreements
Policy/Management
Transport
Awareness/Education
Facilities/Opportunities
Parking
Policy/Management
Access to water
Access to water
Awareness/Education
Parking
Parking
Parking
Peace and Quiet
Policy/Management
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
Samplers, Learners,
Dabblers, Enthusiasts
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 KA5
KA1 KA2
KA4
KA1
S
S
KA1
KA1
L
D
E
L
L
D
E
KA1 KA2 KA3
KA4
KA1
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 KA5
KA1
KA4 KA5
KA1
KA1
KA1
KA1
KA1
KA4
KA1
KA4 KA5
E
S
S
L
D
E
E
S
Research
Reference
WR, QS
WR
WR
FG
WR, FG
WR, FG
WR
QS
WR
WR, QS
WR
FG, WR
WR
FG, WR
WR
KA1
KA1
WR
WR
Minimal interference from regulation/ reasonable regulations and access granted/
helpful land owners
KA1
WR
Better access to rivers by public transport (suggested free transport from hotels,
shuttle buses from train stations, Park and Ride)
KA1
S
L
FG, WR, QS
Faber Maunsell
Access to water
Access to water
Access to water
Cost
Facilities/Opportunities
Facilities/Opportunities
Parking
Transport
Transport
Access to water
Access to water
Access to water
Access to water
Parking
Error! No text of specified style in document.
KA2 Water contact activities:
Swimming, Ghyll scrambling/canyoning, Sub-Aqua, Windsurfing
NEEDS
Good access to water by foot (provision of footpaths near water) and by car
Launch areas
Less restricted access for swimming outdoors and ghyll scrambling/canyoning
Cheaper ways of doing activities
Changing rooms to be able to change clothing
Greater availability of low cost accommodation (e.g. for participants in activities)
Space to park cars near water, parking for extended periods, and somewhere to keep
trailers
Better access by public transport (more services, more places served)
Cheaper transport options for getting to and around the LDNP
PREFERENCES
Good access to water by foot (provision of footpaths near water) and by car
16
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 KA5
KA1 KA2
KA2
KA2
KA5
KA2
KA5
KA2
KA1 KA2 KA3
KA2
KA2
KA8
KA5
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 KA5
KA3 Powered Boating activities
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
Low Speed <5mph: Pleasure cruising, narrow-boats, High Speed: Sport powerboats,
NEEDS
Easy access to water e.g. jetties, moorings, ramps
KA3 KA4
Fully accessible paths to waterside suitable for disabled people
KA3 KA4
Good access to water by foot (provision of footpaths near water) and by car
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 KA5
Space to park cars near water, parking for extended periods, and somewhere to keep
trailers
KA1 KA2 KA3
PREFERENCES
Samplers, Learners,
Dabblers, Enthusiasts
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
S
S
L
L
L
Research
Reference
WR, QS
WR
QS
QS
QS
QS
D
WR, QS
WR, QS
QS
D
QS
Samplers, Learners,
Dabblers, Enthusiasts
Research
Reference
WR
WR
WR
WR
Faber Maunsell
Access to water
Access to water
Access to water
Access to water
Awareness/Education
Environment
Facilities/Opportunities
Facilities/Opportunities
Parking
Policy/Management
Policy/Management
Access to water
Access to water
Awareness/Education
Environment
Facilities/Opportunities
Facilities/Opportunities
Parking
Peace and Quiet
Policy/Management
Policy/Management
Policy/Management
Policy/Management
Transport
Error! No text of specified style in document.
KA4 Waterside Dependent activities
Fly fishing, Angling, Model Boating
NEEDS
Easy access to water e.g. jetties, moorings, ramps
Fully accessible paths to waterside suitable for disabled people
Good access to water by foot (provision of footpaths near water) and by car
Legal access to the water
Raise awareness about where and when to go
Good water quality, clean water
Good fish stocks
Public toilets
Space to park cars near water
Good warden facilities, presence of wardens
Management of rivers and riverbanks
PREFERENCES
Access along the riverbanks - i.e. removal of physical obstructions
Legal access to the water
Online information about where and when to go
Attendance to biomass shortcomings (including fish) within river environments
More fishing clubs
More live stock; More stocked coarse and trout fisheries in Northern LDNP
Car parking for extended periods close to water
For LDNP to be quieter, less crowds
Clear and effective set of byelaws (which are acceptable to the general public so that
they can then be enforced)
Regulations on when fish can /cannot be killed
Restricted access when spawning
Riverbank restoration work
Later operating public transport (i.e. until/after 10pm)
17
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
KA1
KA1
KA1
KA1
KA1
KA1
KA1
KA3 KA4
KA3 KA4
KA2 KA3 KA4 KA5
KA4 KA5
KA4 KA5
KA4
KA6
KA4
KA4 KA5
KA4 KA5
KA4
KA4
KA4
KA4 KA5
KA4
KA4
KA4
KA4
KA4
KA4 KA5
KA4 KA5
KA4
KA4
KA4
KA4
KA9
Samplers, Learners,
Dabblers, Enthusiasts
Research
Reference
S
S
L
L
D
E
S
L
D
E
WR
WR, FG
WR
WR, QS
WR
WR, QS
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
E
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR, FG
WR
WR
S
L
S
L
S
L
D
D
WR
WR
WR
WR
QS, FG
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
Awareness/Education
KA5 Waterside Independent activities
Rambling, cycling, dog walking, horse-riding, bird-watching, art and photography,
NEEDS
Good access to water by foot (provision of footpaths near water) and by car
Legal access
Cheaper ways of doing activities
Changing rooms to be able to change clothing
Good signage and way marking
Public toilets
Free/cheaper car parking
Space to park cars near water
For LDNP to be quieter, less crowds
Better access by public transport (more services, more places served)
PREFERENCES
Access to riverbanks, i.e. path/route to walk/cycle etc
Bridges to be kept in good condition and not vandalised, bridges which are safe in all
conditions
No physical barriers, e.g. fences to climb, on walking/cycle/horse riding routes
Promotion of family friendly walks; picnic sites
Raise awareness about where and when to go
Raise awareness about wildlife, plant life and water life, consideration and
disturbance
Awareness/Education
Raise awareness among users about what is legal/legitimate and what is not
Access to water
Access to water
Cost
Facilities/Opportunities
Facilities/Opportunities
Facilities/Opportunities
Parking
Parking
Peace and Quiet
Transport
Access to water
Access to water
Access to water
Awareness/Education
Awareness/Education
Awareness/Education
Facilities/Opportunities
Parking
Peace and Quiet
Policy/Management
Policy/Management
Policy/Management
Raise awareness of codes of conduct and mutual respect; more dissemination of
information about no-go areas and collision regulations
Cafes, tea shops
Cheaper car parking
Undeveloped, unspoilt areas
Clear and effective set of byelaws (which are acceptable to the general public so that
they can then be enforced)
For regulations to be reasonable
Maintenance of footpaths, clear footpaths, keep hedge rows and vegetation cut back
18
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 KA5
KA5
KA2
KA5
KA2
KA5
KA5
KA4 KA5
KA5
KA4 KA5
KA4 KA5
KA2
KA5
Samplers, Learners,
Dabblers, Enthusiasts
S
S
S
S
S
L
L
L
L
L
D
D
D
E
E
E
D
E
D
D
E
E
KA5
KA1
KA5
KA5
KA5
KA4 KA5
WR, QS
WR, QS
QS
WR
WR
WR
WR, QS
WR
WR, QS
WR, QS, FG
WR
S
S
L
L
D
D
E
E
WR
WR
WR, QS
WR, QS
KA5
WR
KA5
WR
KA5
KA5
KA5
KA5
KA1
Research
Reference
KA4 KA5
KA5
KA5
S
L
S
L
D
E
FG
WR
FG
WR
WR
WR
WR
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
19
KA6 Landowners/Managers
Environment
Policy/Management
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
NEEDS
Good water quality, clean water (To maintain and improve water quality, to ensure
fish stocks, for environmental reasons, and for drinking water supplies.)
Measures to prevent trespassing: Signage on the shore/by the roads, better policing
and more assistance from LDNPA to prevent trespassing
PREFERENCES
KA4
KA6
KA9
Research
Reference
DI
KA6
DI
Awareness/Education
Clarification of responsibilities (e.g. owners not to be held responsible for the safety of
those coming onto the land on a free access basis)
KA6
DI
Awareness/Education
Awareness/Education
Raise awareness about the differences between coastal access and river/lake access
Raise awareness of landowners/ occupiers duty of care towards visitors
KA6
KA6
DI
Policy/Management
Ability to withhold permission for access onto privately owned land -otherwise get
trespassers who think they have the right to walk across it because of open
access/CRoW and then leave litter, create noise disturbances or damage plants.
KA6
DI
KA8 Group Leaders/Activity Organisers
Access to water
Awareness/Education
Facilities/Opportunities
Facilities/Opportunities
Facilities/Opportunities
Access to water
Awareness/Education
Facilities/Opportunities
Facilities/Opportunities
Parking
KA9 Businesses
Environment
Facilities/Opportunities
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
NEEDS
Greater access to rivers for canoeing, rivers to canoe in summer
Source of information to be able to find out what the ‘rules’ are governing access at
the time you want to use it and whether somewhere is open
Better telephone and broadband services to help businesses
Flexibility in what’s available so that course activities can be adjusted to fit
circumstances
Greater availability of low cost accommodation (e.g. for participants in activities)
PREFERENCES
Wider legal access to water for canoeing (e.g. more uniform access agreements)
Single source of information showing latest information on which rivers are accessible
to disabled people
A white water canoe trail
Additional canoe launch/alighting points with faculties for disabled people
Vouchers for disabled parking in places close to put-in points, as with NT
PREFERENCES
Good water quality, clean water
Provide opportunities/space for new/additional water based activities (e.g. Canoe
trails, canoe orienteering, geo caching on water)
DI
KA2
KA8
DI
KA8
KA8
DI
DI
KA8
DI
KA8
DI
KA8
DI
KA8
KA8
KA8
KA8
DI
DI
DI
DI
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
KA4
KA6
Research
Reference
Research
Reference
KA9
DI
KA9
DI
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
20
Table 6.4 Needs and Preferences relating to the Coast
KA1 Non-Powered Boating activities
Canoeing (flat, river-touring and ‘white water’), rafting, rowing, sailing
Access to water
Access to water
Access to water
Access to water
Facilities/Opportunities
Facilities/Opportunities
Facilities/Opportunities
Parking
Policy/Management
Access to water
Awareness/Education
Parking
Parking
Parking
Policy/Management
Policy/Management
NEEDS
Easy access to water e.g. jetties, moorings, ramps
Good access to water by foot (provision of footpaths near water) and by
car
Launch areas
Legal access to the water
Boating facilities at more locations (including hoist/crane for masts, ramp
Public toilets
Storage facilities
Space to park cars near water, parking for extended periods, and
somewhere to keep trailers
Good warden facilities, presence of wardens
PREFERENCES
Good access to water by foot (provision of footpaths near water) and by
car
Raise awareness about where and when to go
Car parking for extended periods close to water (e.g. dedicated parking
facility for group use)
More and cheaper parking, season ticket for car parks
Space to park near water and near launches
Good liaison/ partnership to ensure expertise is shared between land
owners/providers and participants in activities
Minimal interference from regulation/ reasonable regulations and access
granted/ helpful land owners
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
KA1
Samplers, Learners,
Research
Dabblers, Enthusiasts Reference
KA3 KA4
WR
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 KA5
KA1 KA2
KA3
KA1
KA1
KA4 KA5
KA1
KA1
L
D
E
KA1 KA2 KA3
KA4
KA1
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 KA5
KA4 KA5
KA1
KA1
KA1
KA1
E
E
S
S
L
D
E
E
WR, QS
WR
WR
WR, FG
WR
WR
WR, FG
WR
QS
WR, QS
WR
FG, WR
WR
KA1
WR
KA1
WR
Faber Maunsell
Access to water
Access to water
Cost
Facilities/Opportunities
Parking
Transport
Transport
Access to water
Error! No text of specified style in document.
KA2 Water contact activities:
Swimming, Ghyll scrambling/canyoning, Sub-Aqua, Windsurfing
NEEDS
Good access to water by foot (provision of footpaths near water) and by
car
Launch areas
Cheaper ways of doing activities
Greater availability of low cost accommodation (e.g. for participants in
activities)
Space to park cars near water, parking for extended periods, and
somewhere to keep trailers
Better access by public transport (more services, more places served)
Cheaper transport options for getting to and around the LDNP
PREFERENCES
Good access to water by foot (provision of footpaths near water) and by
car
Parking
KA3 Powered Boating activities
Low Speed <5mph: Pleasure cruising, narrow-boats, High Speed: Sport
NEEDS
Easy access to water e.g. jetties, moorings, ramps
Good access to water by foot (provision of footpaths near water) and by
car
Legal access to the water
Space to park cars near water, parking for extended periods, and
somewhere to keep trailers
Facilities/Opportunities
Organised events and activities
Access to water
Access to water
Access to water
Access to water
Access to water
Access to water
Awareness/Education
Environment
Facilities/Opportunities
Facilities/Opportunities
Parking
Policy/Management
Transport
KA4 Waterside Dependent activities
Fly fishing, Angling, Model Boating
NEEDS
Easy access to water e.g. jetties, moorings, ramps
Fully accessible paths to waterside suitable for disabled people
Good access to water by foot (provision of footpaths near water) and by
car
Raise awareness about where and when to go
Good water quality, clean water
Good fish stocks
Public toilets
Space to park cars near water
Good warden facilities, presence of wardens
PREFERENCES
Later operating public transport (i.e. until/after 10pm)
21
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 KA5
KA1 KA2
KA2
KA5
KA2
KA8
KA1 KA2 KA3
KA2
KA2
KA5
Samplers, Learners,
Research
Dabblers, Enthusiasts Reference
S
L
S
L
WR, QS
WR
QS
S
L
QS
S
S
S
L
L
L
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 KA5
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
KA1
D
WR, QS
WR, QS
QS
D
QS
Samplers, Learners,
Research
Dabblers, Enthusiasts Reference
KA3 KA4
WR
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 KA5
KA3
KA1
WR
WR
KA1 KA2 KA3
WR
KA3
WR
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
KA1
Samplers, Learners,
Research
Dabblers, Enthusiasts Reference
KA3 KA4
KA4
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4
KA4
KA1
KA4
KA4
KA4
KA1
KA4
KA4
KA1
KA4
WR
WR, FG
KA5
KA5
KA9
S
S
L
L
D
S
L
D
KA5
KA5
E
WR
WR
WR, QS
WR
WR
WR
WR
QS, FG
Faber Maunsell
Access to water
Access to water
Cost
Facilities/Opportunities
Facilities/Opportunities
Facilities/Opportunities
Parking
Parking
Peace and Quiet
Transport
Access to water
Access to water
Awareness/Education
Awareness/Education
Awareness/Education
Awareness/Education
Awareness/Education
Facilities/Opportunities
Parking
Policy/Management
Policy/Management
Policy/Management
Error! No text of specified style in document.
22
KA5 Waterside Independent activities
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
Rambling, cycling, dog walking, horse-riding, bird-watching, art and
photography, conservation (including landscape, wildlife and heritage).
NEEDS
Good access to water by foot (provision of footpaths near water) and by
car
KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 KA5
Legal access
KA5
Cheaper ways of doing activities
KA2
KA5
Changing rooms to be able to change clothing
KA5
Good signage and way marking
KA5
Public toilets
KA4 KA5
KA1
Free/cheaper car parking
KA5
Space to park cars near water
KA4 KA5
For LDNP to be less busy, less crowds
KA5
Better access by public transport (more services, more places served)
KA2
KA5
PREFERENCES
Bridges to be kept in good condition and not vandalised, bridges which
are safe in all conditions
KA5
No physical barriers, e.g. fences to climb, on walking/cycle/horse riding
routes
KA5
Promotion of family friendly walks; picnic sites
KA5
Raise awareness about where and when to go
KA1
KA4 KA5
Raise awareness about wildlife, plant life and water life, consideration and
disturbance
KA5
Raise awareness among users about what is legal/legitimate and what is
not
KA5
Raise awareness of codes of conduct and mutual respect; more
dissemination of information about no-go areas and collision regulations
KA5
Cafes, tea shops
KA5
Cheaper car parking
KA5
Clear and effective set of byelaws (which are acceptable to the general
public so that they can then be enforced)
KA5
For regulations to be reasonable
KA5
Maintenance of footpaths, clear footpaths, keep hedge rows and
vegetation cut back
KA5
Samplers, Learners,
Research
Dabblers, Enthusiasts Reference
S
S
S
S
S
L
L
L
L
L
D
D
D
E
E
E
D
E
D
D
E
E
WR, QS
WR, QS
QS
WR
WR
WR
WR, QS
WR
WR, QS
WR, QS, FG
WR
S
S
L
L
D
D
E
E
WR
WR, QS
WR, QS
WR
WR
S
L
S
L
D
E
FG
WR
FG
WR
WR
WR
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
23
KA6 Landowners/Managers
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
PREFERENCES
Awareness/Education
Awareness/Education
Awareness/Education
Policy/Management
Clarification of responsibilities (e.g. owners not to be held responsible for
the safety of those coming onto the land/coast on a free access basis)
Raise awareness about the differences between coastal access and
river/lake access
Raise awareness of landowners/ occupiers duty of care towards visitors
Ability to withhold permission for access onto privately owned land otherwise get trespassers who think they have the right to walk across it
because of open access/CRoW and then leave litter, create noise
disturbances or damage plants.
KA8 Group Leaders/Activity Organisers
Facilities/Opportunities
Facilities/Opportunities
Facilities/Opportunities
Facilities/Opportunities
Parking
NEEDS
Better telephone and broadband services to help businesses
Flexibility in what’s available so that course activities can be adjusted to fit
circumstances
Greater availability of low cost accommodation (e.g. for participants in
activities)
Improved capacity for mooring boats on the coast to increase revenue
PREFERENCES
Vouchers for disabled parking in places close to put-in points, as with NT
KA9 Businesses
Environment
Facilities/Opportunities
NEEDS
Good water quality, clean water
Provide opportunities/space for new/additional water based activities (e.g.
Canoe trails, canoe orienteering, geo caching on water)
KA6
DI
KA6
KA6
DI
DI
KA6
DI
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
KA2
Research
Reference
KA8
DI
KA8
DI
KA8
KA8
DI
DI
KA8
DI
Key Audiences with this Need / Preference
KA4
Research
Reference
Research
Reference
KA9
DI
KA9
DI
2 Development of a Prioritisation
Mechanism
2
2.1
Development of a Prioritisation
Mechanism
Introduction
Having identified a series of needs and preferences for lakes, rivers and the coast,
there needs to be a means by which to allocate a level of priority to projects or
initiatives that are intended to meet these needs and preferences of key audiences.
This requires the development of a prioritisation mechanism, which needs to be
designed to incorporate the following characteristics:



Fair – to all parties, such that the results produced are unbiased;
Transparent – the results produced are traceable by those using the
mechanism and others;
Simple to use and understand – the tool should be capable of being applied
by anyone without requiring specialist knowledge.
The LDNP Local Access Forum (LAF) and representatives from other relevant
organisations played a key role in the development of the mechanism, and this is
described below.
2.2
Workshops
Two workshops were held with members of the LDNP LAF and representatives of
relevant organisations, some of whom represented water based activity user
groups. The workshops allowed these representatives of key stakeholders to
contribute to the development of the mechanism, through debating the criteria by
which to judge new projects, and the relative weighting of the various criteria.
2.2.1
Workshop 1
The first workshop was held in December 2008 and was attended by thirteen
people. Attendees were given the background and objectives of the research, and
the methodology used was described to them. Some of the initial findings of the
qualitative research were presented to attendees and their views sought on these.
Attendees were asked to discuss how the LDNPA ought to prioritise projects, i.e.
what criteria potential projects should be judged against, and this was used in the
development of the prioritisation mechanism. There were suggestions that the
approach should be as consistent as possible as that used for land-based activities
in the Cumbria Rights of Way Improvement Plan.
The factors that were considered ‘show stoppers’, or those factors which should
stop a proposed project going any further, were those which:

Contravene Policy
If a project does not comply with current planning policy/ LDNP policy (or any other
policy) it was thought that it should not proceed any further.

Have a detrimental impact on water quality
It was thought that if a project would impact negatively on water quality in the
LDNP then it should not proceed any further as water quality was of paramount
importance.
Other factors were considered to be potential show stoppers, but which could be
negotiable, and these included projects that were:

Illegal
Some thought that if a project were to make a change that was against the current
law, it should not be assessed any further. Others thought that there may be scope
to change current law so that a project could go ahead or to modify the project to
make it legal (e.g. obtain permission for an activity). Their view was that this should
not be a screening criterion but should come later in the process and if the
mechanism showed a project should be a high priority then it should be asked
whether the legal situation could accommodate it/ be negotiated/ change.

Unwilling landowners/managers
If the landowners/managers would not allow a project to go ahead then this could
put a stop to it right away. Again, others thought that this should not be a screening
criterion but should come later in the process and if the mechanism showed a
project should be a high priority then it should be asked whether the
landowner’s/manager’s position was negotiable.
It was largely agreed that the broad criteria against which projects and initiatives
should be judged should be as follows (including some key themes of the Cumbria
Countryside Access Strategy):
2.2.2

Beneficiaries - Will it help to alleviate inter-user conflict/ bring different user
groups together?

Location

Network

Accessibility

Safety

Education

Health

Local Economy (and sustainability)

Sustainable Transport

Social Inclusion

Environment (and sustainability)

Objectives of the National Park
Workshop 2
The second workshop was held in January 2009 and was attended by twelve
people, as well as representatives of LDNP. This workshop discussed the criteria
in more detail, and the relative weight that each of the criteria should receive in the
mechanism.
Workshop attendees were told, in brief, how it was proposed that the mechanism
worked in three stages, and were asked to comment on the detail of each stage,
but to focus mainly on the weighting of criteria in Stage 2. They were presented
with suggested weights for each criterion, for them to debate.
The key outcomes in the development of the mechanism were as follows:

Beneficiaries
It was agreed that it should refer to the number of Key Audiences to benefit rather
than the number of people to benefit; that residents and visitors are to be weighted
equally; and that a score should be given for managing/resolving conflict as well as
a negative score for creating user conflict.

Location
There was concern that this criterion overlapped with others relating to conflict,
sustainable transport, ease of access, and network. There was a consensus that a
project should receive a high score if conflict is managed by a project regardless of
where it is located.

Network
There was uncertainty that this was right question to ask for all cases/catchments
and whether it could be applied to water bodies in the same way as land based
access. It was suggested that the inclusion of ‘network’ as a criterion be reviewed,
and that a criterion about ‘offering’ (about whether it adds to the variety of
sites/activities on offer in the District) would be more appropriate.

Accessibility
There was uncertainty about whether this refers to ‘access for all’ e.g. disabled
access (and therefore overlaps with social inclusion), or wider access to the site by
transport, or at the location, e.g. access onto the water. It was agreed that a
definition needed to be given to avoid varying interpretations.

Safety
It was agreed that Safety was an important criterion, but should be ask whether
“Project will reduce risk/ vulnerable user interaction” in order to focus on the safety
of third parties and not the participants themselves.

Education
It was agreed that there should be a high score for those projects which do
educate people. It was also agreed that the wording ought to omit reference to user
conflict, and that responsibilities and awareness should include reference to the
environment.

Health
It was agreed that this criterion should remain, and that there needed to be an
awareness that health and well being is both mental and physical

Local Economy
There was agreement that this is an important criterion. As it was deemed difficult
to measure and judge whether a contribution was sustainable, there was a
suggestion to replace the word ‘sustainable’ with the word ‘positive’. It was also
agreed that the acceptability of the project in the community was equally important;
therefore the wording should incorporate ‘local economy and/or community’.

Sustainable Transport
There was a general feeling that this is too big an issue, and needs to be tackled
on a wider scale. It was therefore decided that this should be removed from the list
of criteria.

Social inclusion
It was agreed that this criterion was necessary as a separate question to
beneficiaries, but that it needed a definition, ensuring that refers to excluded/underrepresented groups.

Environment
It was agreed that Environment should score highly and have a high negative
weighting if there was a negative impact, and possibly a positive score if it has no
impact. It was also suggested that the word ‘minor’ ought to be removed from the
most negative weight’s description.

LDNPA Objectives
There was a consensus that this should be removed from the list of criteria and
included in the initial screening, and should refer to ‘vision’ rather than objectives.
The mechanism was revised based on the feedback received at the second
workshop. The revised mechanism was then sent to all present at the workshop,
along with some imaginary project proposals, inviting feedback on the weights
applied. This allowed another stage of feedback and review of the mechanism.
3 The LDNPA Prioritisation Mechanism
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
3
The LDNPA Prioritisation
Mechanism
3.1
30
Introduction
After several stages of development and testing, the finalised Lakes, Rivers and
Coast mechanism for the LDNPA can be summarised as shown in Figure 8.1. The
mechanism has been designed to operate using an Excel spreadsheet. This
allows the scores to be calculated automatically and reduces the possibility of
operator error in producing the scores. This is capable of being converted to other
packages such as ACCESS.
Figure 8.1 Summary of Lakes, Rivers and Coast Prioritisation Mechanism
Stage 1 Feasibility
Screen for ineligible or infeasible projects
Comply with current
LDNPA vision
Need or Preference of
Key Audience met
Stage 2 Project Prioritisation
Assess project against criteria
Meets Need/Preference
Offering
Inter-user Interaction
Access
Safety
Education
Health
Local Economy
Local Community
Social Inclusion
Environment
Priority Score
(%)
Stage 3 Staging
Review score
Rationality of score,
Measures/action needed to mitigate impacts of the
project/interaction with other projects,
Cost and value for money of the project,
Funding need and availability,
Partnership work required to deliver the project,
Achievability in terms of overcoming any
legal/ownership obstacles.
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
31
It is assumed that details of projects to be assessed would be received on a
proforma designed to ensure the relevant information is submitted to allow the
assessment to be undertaken.
3.2
Stage 1 Feasibility Screening
There are two key aspects of a proposed project that should be questioned before
considering it for progression to the second stage of the prioritisation process:


Does the proposed Project comply with current LDNPA vision?
Does the proposed Project meet any needs or preferences of key audiences?
If the answer to any of these questions is no, then the project assessment should
go no further. As well as providing a Yes/No answer, the assessor must also justify
their response by providing details in the adjacent box.
Figure 8.1 below shows an example of how Stage 1 of the Mechanism ought to be
completed.
Figure 8.1 Stage 1
3.3
Stage 2 Project Prioritisation
Stage 2 of the mechanism produces a numeric value which indicates the relative
priority of a project. The scores are referenced to the maximum possible score and
are presented as a percentage, such that for a project that meets all the given
criteria fully, the Prioritisation Score (PS) equals 100%. (It should be recognised
that any scheme is unlikely to achieve the maximum).
The project is assessed against a series of criteria, each of which has a scoring
system. This varies for different criterion, but generally ranges from -5 (a negative
impact), to 5 (a positive impact), and this is now described for each criterion.
3.3.1
Needs
All potential projects are to be assessed against this criterion. Here the assessor
must refer to the Needs and Preferences identified for the Key Audiences, which
are shown in the adjacent tab in the Excel document.
For each Need that will be met by the project, the reference number of the Key
Audience and Need should be entered into the box adjacent to the score, using the
reference number assigned to it as shown in the list of Needs and Preferences.
This is to be done for Needs relating to Lakes, Rivers, and the Coast. When this
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
32
exercise is complete, the number of Key Audiences whose Needs will be met by
the project can be selected from the drop down list. This automatically assigns a
score for this criterion.
The score for ‘Needs’ is doubled by so that a project that meets the Needs of at
least one Key Audience scores more than a project that only meets the
Preferences of at least one Key Audience. This is shown in Table 8.1 below.
Table 8.1 Scoring system for ‘Needs’
Needs
3.3.2
Initial
Score
Factor
Final
Score
a) Does not Meet / Not Applicable
0
2
0
b) Does not meet, but has potential to do so for
one Key Audience OR partially meets for one Key
Audience
1
2
2
c) Meets need(s) of one key audience
5
2
10
d) Meets need(s) of two key audiences
6
2
12
e) Meets need(s) of three key audiences
7
2
14
f) Meets need(s) of four or more key audiences
8
2
16
Preferences
A score is only given for meeting a Preference (or Preferences) if the project does
not meet any Needs. If the score for ‘Needs’ is one or more, then ‘Preferences’ is
skipped. If the score for ‘Needs’ is zero, the assessor needs to refer to the Needs
and Preferences list again. The mechanism reminds the assessor of this
automatically when completing the scores.
For each Preference that will be met by the project, the reference number of the
Key Audience and Preference should be entered into the box adjacent to the
score, using the reference number assigned to it. This is to be done for
Preferences relating to Lakes, Rivers, and the Coast. When this exercise is
complete, the number of Key Audiences whose Preferences will be met by the
project can be selected from the drop down list. This automatically assigns a score
for this criterion.
‘Preferences’ has a factor of one in the Mechanism therefore the score assigned to
it is the final score for this criterion.
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
33
Table 8.2 Scoring system for ‘Preferences’
Preferences
Initial
Score
Factor
Final
Score
a) Does not Meet / Not Applicable
0
1
0
b) Does not meet, but has potential to do so for
one Key Audience OR partially meets for one Key
Audience
1
1
1
c) Meets preference(s) of one key audience
5
1
5
d) Meets preference(s) of two key audiences
6
1
6
e) Meets preference(s) of three key audiences
7
1
7
f) Meets preference(s) of four or more key
audiences
8
1
8
Figure 8.2 shows an example of the Needs and Preferences section of the
mechanism, demonstrating that the proposed project meets the needs of four Key
Audiences (KA1, KA3, KA4 and KA8), giving a score of 8 from the dropdown list.
The mechanism will then automatically multiply this by 2 in the overall score
calculation. The project has not been assessed against ‘Preferences’ as it meets at
least one need and therefore does not receive a score for any preferences met.
Figure 8.2 Stage 2: ‘Needs and Preferences’
Stage 2 - Assessment against Criteria
Need
REFER TO NEEDS & PREFS.
Improvement is a NEED identified
for a Key Audience, or
Factor
2
Improvement is a PREFERENCE
identified for a Key Audience
Preference
3.3.3
1
Assess:
Give details / Justify response:
List Relevant Key Audiences and Needs:
LAKES:
f) Meets need(s) of four or more
RIVERS: KA1 N1, KA1 N7, KA3 N1, KA4 N1, KA8
key audiences (8)
N5
COAST:
List Relevant Key Audiences and Preferences:
LAKES:
a) Does not Meet / Not
RIVERS:
Applicable (0)
COAST:
Offering
All potential projects are to be assessed against this criterion.
‘Offering’ refers to any new activity offered by the project which is not currently
available in the LDNP, as well as any existing activity being offered by the project
in a new location in the LDNP where it is not currently available.
If the project does not offer a new activity to the LDNP, or the opportunity to do an
existing activity in a new location in the LDNP, then it scores zero for this criterion.
If the project will remove the opportunity to take part in an activity altogether in the
LDNP or at a single location in the LDNP, then it scores -5 for this criterion, as
shown below.
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
34
Table 8.3 Scoring system for ‘Offering’
Offering
Initial
Score
Factor
Final
Score
a) Removes an opportunity (an activity and/or
location)
-5
1
-5
b) Does not offer a new opportunity (new activity
and/or in a new location), nor does it remove an
opportunity (an activity and/or location)
0
1
0
c) Offers a new opportunity (new activity and/or in
a new location)
5
1
5
As shown in Figure 8.3 below, the assessor needs to provide details and a
justification for the score assigned for this criterion.
Figure 8.3 Stage 2: ‘Offering’
Offering
Project…
1
3.3.4
c) Offers a new opportunity (new Will provide opportunity to canoe on this River
activity and/or in a new location) which was not possible before, therefore it is
(5)
providing a new location for an existing activity.
Inter-user Interaction
All potential projects are to be assessed against this criterion.
‘Inter-user Interaction’ refers to conflict between Key Audiences, which may be
caused or worsened by the project, or which may be eased or resolved.
If the project is likely to cause or worsen conflict between users then it receives a
score of -5 for this criterion, and if it is likely to have a positive contribution to
managing or resolving inter-user conflict then it receives a score of 5. This refers to
any impact of the project upon inter-user interaction both at the site or location of
the project itself, as well as elsewhere in the LDNP. The impact on other users may
not be limited to the site itself, and the project may not be site based (e.g.
promotional activity).
Table 8.4 Scoring system for ‘Inter-user Interaction’
Inter-user Interaction
Initial
Score
Factor
Final
Score
a) Creates or exacerbates conflict between KAs
-5
1
-5
b) Has no impact on conflict between KAs
0
1
0
c) Contributes towards resolving or managing conflict
between KAs
5
1
5
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
35
The assessor needs to provide details and a justification for the score assigned for
this criterion, including the likely location(s) of any conflict that may be caused or
exacerbated, or resolved. This is shown in Figure 8.4 below.
Figure 8.4 Stage 2: ‘Inter-user Interaction’
Inter-user
interaction
(either at site or
elsewhere in
LDNP)
3.3.5
Project contains measures to
mitigate potential conflict between
Key Audiences
1
a) Creates or exacerbates
conflict between KAs (-5)
The presence of canoeists on this River could
create conflict between Anglers and canoeists
particularly at XXX which is a popular angling
location in the summer.
Access
All potential projects are to be assessed against this criterion.
‘Access’, for this purpose, refers to access both to water and onto the water.
Access to the water includes wider access such as improved transport links which
improve physical access to water bodies from elsewhere, as well as physical
access to the water itself at the actual riverbanks, lakesides and beaches, for
example.
‘Access’ in this context does not refer to ‘access for all’ such as access for
disabled people, as such, but to anyone (although if access to water for disabled
people is improved then the project would score positively for this criterion).
A project might also score positively for ‘Access’ if the project enhances or
introduces legal access for an activity previously prohibited at a location in the
LDNP, so is not limited to physical, on-the-ground access improvements.
Table 8.5 Scoring system for ‘Access’
Access
Initial
Score
Factor
Final
Score
a) Removes an access opportunity
-5
1
-5
b) Not applicable
0
1
0
c) Creates a new access opportunity
5
1
5
As shown in Figure 8.5 below, the assessor needs to provide details and a
justification for the score assigned for this criterion.
Figure 8.5 Stage 2: ‘Access’
Access
Project improves accessibility
to/onto the water body itself
1
c) Creates a new access
opportunity (5)
The project will introduce legal access to the River
by canoeists in the summer, which was previously
illegal.
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
3.3.6
Safety
36
All potential projects are to be assessed against this criterion.
The assessor is to consider the extent to which the potential project reduces risk
for third parties, as opposed to that of the participants in an activity. It is assumed
that participants in an activity have given their consent and accept the risks
involved, and that the risk sometimes enhances the experience for participants
therefore should not be eliminated. It is the safety of non-participants in this
particular activity which is to be assessed here.
Table 8.6 Scoring system for ‘Safety’
Safety
Initial
Score
Factor
Final
Score
a) Will have a major negative impact
-20
1
-20
b) Will have a minor negative impact
-5
1
-5
c) Not at all
0
1
0
d) In a minor way
3
1
3
e) In a major way
5
1
5
The assessor needs to provide details and a justification for the score assigned for
this criterion, including the likely location(s) of any impact the project has on third
party risk.
Figure 8.6 Stage 2: ‘Safety’
3.3.7
Education
All potential projects are to be assessed against this criterion.
This criterion refers to the extent to which the potential project raises awareness of
responsibilities among the key audiences. This includes, but is not limited to,
responsibilities relating to the environment, and those relating to inter-user interaction.
A project does have to have an element of education and awareness raising in order to
score positively for this criterion. For example, it would not score positively here for
resolving user conflict in itself, but would score positively for this criterion if there was
also promotional activity to raise awareness of inter-user interaction and people’s
responsibilities, as part of the project.
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
37
Table 8.7 Scoring system for ‘Education’
Education
Initial
Score
Factor
Final
Score
a) Not at all
0
1
0
b) In a minor way
3
1
3
c) In a major way
5
1
5
As shown in Figure 8.7 below, the assessor needs to provide details and
justification for the score assigned for this criterion.
Figure 8.7 Stage 2: ‘Education’
Education
3.3.8
Project raises awareness of
responsibilities, such as the
environment and user conflict
1
b) In a minor way (3)
The project includes disemmination of a
new leaflet about the Country Code and
signs at the site about not dropping litter
Health
All potential projects are to be assessed against this criterion.
This criterion refers to the extent to which the potential project improves the health
and well being of participants in the activity. This refers to both physical health and
mental well being.
Table 8.8 Scoring system for ‘Health’
Health
Initial
Score
Factor
Final
Score
a) Not at all
0
1
0
b) In a minor way
3
1
3
c) In a major way
5
1
5
The assessor needs to provide details and a justification for the score assigned for
this criterion, by describing how the project contributes to health and well being (or
not).
Figure 8.8 Stage 2: ‘Health’
Health
3.3.9
Project increases health and well being
of participants
1
b) In a minor way (3)
The project may have a minor impact by
adding to the times and variety of
canoeing for participants.
Local Economy
All potential projects are to be assessed against this criterion.
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
38
The assessor must consider whether the project has an impact on the local
economy, whether this is a negative or positive impact, and the extent of this
impact. Projects that are likely to result in increased spending in local businesses or
increased opportunities for local businesses would score positively for this criterion.
Table 8.9 Scoring system for ‘Local Economy’
Local Economy
Initial
Score
Factor
Final
Score
a) Will have a negative impact
-5
1
-5
b) Not at all
0
1
0
c) In a minor way
5
1
5
d) In a major way
10
1
10
Figure 8.9 shows an example of how the assessor should provide details and a
justification for the score assigned for this criterion, by describing how the project
does impact on the Local Economy, if at all.
Figure 8.9 Stage 2: ‘Local Economy’
Local
Economy
Project makes a positive
contribution to the local economy
1
3.3.10
c) In a minor way (5)
Enhancing opportunities for canoeists to
use the River in the Summer will result in a
small amount of extra spending at local
businesses generated by increased visits.
Also allows local outdoor centres - which
are local businesses- to use the River
which is good for the Local Economy.
Local Community
All potential projects are to be assessed against this criterion.
This criterion refers to the impact of the project on the local community, distinct
from the local economy. There may be contributions to the community which are
not economic but are social, and so here the assessor must consider whether the
project has a positive, negative or neutral impact on the local community, and the
extent of this impact.
Table 8.10 Scoring system for ‘Local Community’
Local Community
Initial
Score
Factor
Final
Score
a) Will have a negative impact
-5
1
-5
b) Not at all
0
1
0
c) In a minor way
5
1
5
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
39
10
d) In a major way
1
10
The assessor should provide details and a justification for the score assigned for
this criterion, by describing how the project does or does not contribute to the Local
Community, as shown below.
Figure 8.10 Stage 2: ‘Local Community
Local
Community
3.3.11
Project makes a positive
contribution to the local community
1
b) Not at all (0)
The project will not have an impact on the
local community
Social Inclusion
All potential projects are to be assessed against this criterion.
‘Social Inclusion’ refers to increased inclusion of groups of society who are
generally excluded or who are under-represented. This may include, but is not
limited to, disabled people, those with a low income, or ethnic minorities.
A project may have a negative impact on social inclusion, by further excluding underrepresented or excluded groups. When this is the case, the project receives -5 for this
criterion.
Table 8.11 Scoring system for ‘Social Inclusion’
Social Inclusion
Initial
Score
Factor
Final
Score
a) May have a negative impact
-5
1
-5
b) Not at all
0
1
0
c) In a minor way
3
1
3
d) In a major way
5
1
5
Again, details and a justification for the score assigned for this criterion ought to be
provided by the assessor, by describing how the project contributes to social
inclusion, as in Figure 8.11.
Figure 8.11 Stage 2: ‘Social Inclusion’
Social
Inclusion
Project makes a sustainable
contribution to social inclusion
i.e. it benefits excluded or underrepresented groups
1
b) Not at all (0)
The project will not make a contribution to
social inclusion as there are no measures
to target or include excluded or underrepresented groups
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.
3.3.12
Environment
40
All potential projects are to be assessed against this criterion.
This refers to the impact of the project on the natural environment at the site in
question and in the LDNP, if applicable. This includes the impact of the project on
water quality, nature conservation, landscape, and/or cultural heritage at the site or
water body, or elsewhere in the LDNP. However it does not include wider or
indirect environmental impacts outside of the LDNP, such as the impact of
increased car use as a result of a project.
Table 8.12 Scoring system for ‘Environment’
Environment
Initial
Score
Factor
Final
Score
-20
1
-20
-3
1
-3
c) No impact on the natural environment
1
1
1
d) Some positive impact on the natural
environment
e) A strong positive impact on the natural
environment
3
1
3
5
1
5
a) A detrimental impact on the natural environment
that cannot be mitigated
b) A minor detrimental impact on the natural
environment that can be mitigated
Further details and a justification for the score assigned to ‘Environment’ need to
be provided by the assessor, by describing how the project either has a detrimental
or a positive impact on the natural environment of the LDNP, shown in Figure 8.12
below. This ought to include a description of any designations the site has, for
example if it is an SSSi.
At this stage the impact ought to be considered based on all available knowledge.
It may not be apparent at this stage whether a proposed project will have a
negative environmental impact, and hence this assessment has to be based on the
available information and local knowledge and awareness. It may be necessary for
a full Environmental Impact Assessment to be undertaken before a clear decision
can be reached. If the mechanism places a reasonably high priority on the project,
this criterion can be re-visited when a full and detailed assessment has been
carried out.
Figure 8.12 Stage 2: ‘Environment’
3.3.13
Final Score
When all of the criteria have been assessed, the mechanism automatically
calculates the final score, and converts this into a percentage, which is the final
score as a proportion of maximum possible score. The higher the percentage, or
Prioritisation Score, the higher priority the project should have placed upon it.
Faber Maunsell
3.4
Error! No text of specified style in document.
41
Stage 3 Review
This stage provides the opportunity to carry out a ‘common sense’ check of the
final score produce in Stage 2, and to consider outside issues relating to the
implementation of the project. This may include securing landowner permission or
forming relationships with other organisations to work in partnership.
This section also questions the cost and value for money of a project, and the
interaction of the project with other schemes being carried out in the location or
area which may impact on the value of this particular project.
The questions which are asked of the assessor in Stage 3 are as follows, and as
well as providing a Yes/No answer, they must also complete details about what is
required:

Any measures needed to mitigate any impacts on different user groups;
landscape; ecology; historic environment; land management?

Enter Costs if known (£)

Does scheme appear to represent value for money?

Does funding exist for the project?

Are partners needed to implement the project? List where appropriate

Are there ownership or legal issues to be resolved? Describe

Will other projects in same location/vicinity interact with the project? If yes,
consider overall impact
The relative value of the Prioritisation Score will indicate whether the project should
be considered further, and whether the LDNPA ought to try and resolve and
overcome any issues or barriers highlighted in Stage 3.
Faber Maunsell
Error! No text of specified style in document.