Agenda item

Rebekah Newman, Farming in Protected Landscapes (FiPL) lead Engagement Officer, gave a presentation to update LAF on the FiPL scheme.

The scheme runs across all AONBs and National Parks.  The delivery grant funding is from DEFRA and the bids are assessed against a set of 30 outcomes based on four themes of Climate, Nature, People and Place.  The scheme is due to end in March 2025, so moneys need to be spent by then, and as far as possible, capital works to be completed by the end of December 2024.  Rebekah ran through the structure of the team and how the funds have been allocated.  The scheme is monitoring intensive.  Further resource has been given through PDNP by way of staff time. 

Most Access projects have come in under £10k, with just 7 over that amount.

Clare Griffin said that this was a great project, especially to keep in budget with the governance required and the standard of work achieved, and asked if FiPL go out to every scheme.  Rebekah advised that FiPL will aim go out to every project to assess that all criteria are met to secure the funding for each scheme, and will also gather photo and documented evidence of the work.

Craig Best felt that there should be communication to celebrate the work achieved.

Rebekah responded that there are press releases.  Some of the projects may have access implications.  Some thought is needed on the publicity of the work carried out under the scheme, but it is good to celebrate the bigger projects.

Craig asked if there will be funding continued for further schemes once the FiPL scheme is ended.  Rebekah advised that FiPL had been part of a transition phase, to set up schemes and ways to access further funding through ELMS in the future.   There shouldn’t be the same need for the localised FiPL funding, although funding at a local level is valuable.  There will be ongoing funding which will be distributed through national schemes.

Martin Bennett queried the new permissive footpaths and bridleways in regard to timing and promotion.

Rebekah advised that although landowners may choose to remove this access, hopefully many of them will continue.  Although they aren’t mapped, there will be publicity through signage, website information and local meetings.

Charlotte Leech noted that only one large access project had been undertaken by a private farmer and wondered if this is because there are additional costs to supporting a piece of work which can’t be fully covered by the FiPL grant.  Larger landowners such as Chatsworth and the National Trust can more easily cover those extra costs.  Archaeologist advice may be needed, planning permission may be required for some work, and the National Park can support an applicant through the process, but they can’t fund the planning application. 

Louise suggested that the success of the FiPL scheme so far was because of good relationships with local farmers.

Rebekah mentioned that although there may be funding through ELMS and other national schemes, it was uncertain if PDNPA would be able to continue their support in the same way.  Although there is a trial that PDNPA are part of to act as a local convenor for national schemes funded by DEFRA.