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 Finance Committee Paper 3 08/09/06 CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR DECISION Title: RATIFICATION OF NEW EXPENDITURE PROPOSAL Prepared by: DENBY PETTITT, FINANCE MANAGER Purpose To approve a new expenditure proposal. Recommendations a) That the Committee approve the expenditure proposal prior to submission to the Scottish Executive. Executive Summary a) The proposal is to commission panoramic maps to be place at three, key cardinal entry points to the Park. This expenditure forms part of Phase 2 of the Point of Entry Marker project but separate approval is being requested for this expenditure since, although Phase 2 expenditure has been approved by the Board in principle (9 September 2005), detailed costings on other Phase 2 expenditure are not due to be presented to the Board until December 2006. b) Cost of the project is expected to be £14,000 RATIFICATION OF NEW EXPENDITURE PROPOSALS – FOR DECISION Discussion 1. The Finance Committee is invited to review the attached Expenditure Justification (Annex 1) and approve it if they see fit, allowing it to be passed to the Scottish Executive for final approval. DENBY PETTITT 30 August 2006 denbypettitt@cairngorms.co.uk CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY EXPENDITURE JUSTIFICATION Ref: 06/06/03 Approved: 1. Title Points of Entry Marker Project: Interpretation 2. Expenditure summary Operational Plan (Goal No. – Task No.) 11-6 Project # Entry Point Marker project 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? £0 Existing - £14,000 Additional # £0 New - 3. Description .. Brief overview of project/activity .. Specific elements for which support is sought (if not whole project/activity) a) Three key, cardinal entry points to the Park were identified in the Board Paper about the Point of Entry Marker Project (9 September 2005) and it was agreed that Park-wide interpretation would be installed at these sites (Drumochter, Kinloch Laggan and Dinnet). The CNPA Board gave approval to proceed with Phase 1 of the project which included developing Park-wide interpretation and installation at Dinnet. Installation at the remaining two sites (on the Trunk roads) was envisaged as taking place as part of Phase 2 (which has only been agreed in principle). b) Following this decision Aaron Lawton Associates (ALA) have been appointed to design and produce the interpretation following the principles set out in the Board Paper and in line with Interpretation Framework agreed by the Board at an earlier date. c) After investigating a number of options ALA consider that the best way to meet the interpretive objectives of the project is to produce a panoramic map of the Park as seen from Dinnet in the ‘Berann style’. Professor Berann is regarded as the father of the modern panorama map and is renowned throughout the world for his combining old European painting tradition with modern cartography to produce unique panorama maps. Although Professor Berann is no longer alive, the Berann name and trademark signature are now licensed to his apprentice, Heinz Vielkind, who continues the work. The drawings have a timeless quality that does not date unless there are major changes in land use. d) At the Entry Points to the Park the map would be displayed in a weather-proof housing - in Dinnet this would be located in the village car park. In the future we envisage that there will be many other ways in which this new artwork will be used – for example, the panorama could be used for many other purposes in Tourist Information Centres, visitor attractions, in leaflets and on sale as a poster. e) ALA have identified that a panoramic view along the Spey Valley would provide the interpretation at both Laggan and Drumochter points of entry. A possible further two panoramas, the Park viewed from the NE and NW would give complete coverage of the area. These latter two would not be used as part of the entry point project but would allow the panoramas to be used extensively around the Park; the set would provide a local perspective on the National Park and their use, along with visitor information would allow the whole Park to be presented from a local perspective without dividing it. f) The costs of using Heinz Vielkind to produce the map for Dinnet are some £14,000 and this is well within the budget that has already been approved. However, in bring Vielkind to Scotland there is the opportunity to produce up to three additional panoramas for a total extra cost of £14,000. The additional cost of each new panorama reduces because the fixed costs remain the similar. This Expenditure Justification is for the production of those three extra panoramas. 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) Annex 4 of the 9 September 2005 Board paper summarised the approach to interpretation at the Point of Entry markers. b) The Interpretative Framework that had been approved by the Board prior to the September 2005 meeting identified as a central theme that: i) It is really important for visitors to understand that the Cairngorm Mountains have shaped the people, culture, landscapes and natural heritage of the Park: it is the mountains that make the Park.” c) The aims of the interpretive features, as detailed in the initial Design of Interpretative Features proposal submitted by Aaron Lawton Associates are: (i) to reinforce the unique sense of place with being in the National Park; (ii) give the visit context by conveying to the visitor something of the area’s special qualities; (iii) foster respect and appreciation for the nature and culture of the area; and (iv) increase the visitor’s sense of anticipation about the place and experiences to follow. d) With this in mind it is felt that a Berann panorama would be a very appropriate way to take the work forwards. 5. Option Analysis .. Are there other ways in which the above objectives could be achieved? .. If so, why is this the preferred option? a) At both the tender interview and inception meeting it was felt that a map would be the best way of meeting the interpretive objectives (set out in Annex 4 of the 9 September 2005 board paper). A map would provide a simple orientation function, allowing visitors to build up a mental spatial model of the area, including the villages and communities, Tourist Information Centres and Ranger bases, where further orientation and information functions take place; and locate themselves within it, thus contributing to making visitors feel welcome to the area. b) When considering the type of map, other options included: i) 3D relief maps – these could not display sufficient land surface detail; ii) Contour based maps – these rely on the viewer’s map-reading abilities in order to visualise the landscape, limiting accessibility; iii) Shaded relief maps – these too did not bring the landscape to life, the absence of sky or horizon added to the image’s artificiality and the ability to exaggerate features of interest and vertical dimensions is limited. c) It was therefore agreed that a panoramic map style was best suited to the purpose. Two options were available for producing this style of map: overlaying existing aerial photographs onto a digital map and then commissioning an illustrator to draw a panorama from the base data, or, commissioning a Berann map. d) CNPA, along with other public bodies, is currently reviewing its contract with Ordnance Survey. At the moment we do not have access to digital data or aerial photographs. It is unknown when, or even if, CNPA will have access. Acquisition of this data was not felt to be cost effective (£10 – 15,000), especially considering the data could only be used for this project. A further consideration for this approach was that no illustrator in the UK has worked on maps of this nature before. Whilst capacity building in the UK would be a positive secondary outcome, this aspect was felt to increase the risk with this approach, which, along with the increased cost, resulted in the decision to further investigate commissioning a Berann map (who does not work from base data, but simply from flying over the area). e) As discussed earlier one significant advantage to using Berann style panoramas is that the work can be readily used for many applications not just interpretation at points of entry. Costs for this work include CNPA copyright for unlimited use. 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) There is a risk that the area may not lend itself to panoramic views because of the domed nature of the Cairngorms plateau and the relatively small height gain in the Cairngorms compared with other areas such as Yosemite and the Alps that Berann panoramas have previously been used to interpret. To overcome this risk, simple digital views have already been generated and sent to Heinz for comment. b) Also, an interpreter/flying guide has been approached to act as an intermediary. This will minimise risks associated with language barriers (Heinz does not speak fluent English) and maximise flying time by considering bad weather options and flying plans (the translator has experience of producing aerial photography maps). c) The risk of not undertaking all of the panoramas together in one contract is that we use Heinz again in 2007 as a separate contract to produce a panorama map for the Drumochter/Laggan interpretation. This would be substantially more expensive. 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) Illustrative costs are shown below. The costs of panoramas reduces with the number created, drawing a single panorama would cost around £6,500 with a second costing £5,100 and subsequent ones being £3,100 each. However, there are considerable fixed costs in getting the artist to the Park and leasing with him during the visit. The costs shown are for the three extra panoramas. £ Additional digital views (Macaulay Institute) 375 Illustrations (3 panoramas) 11,300 VAT 2,043 Total 13,718 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) Three panoramas, with associated copyrights, in order that we can use them in a range of visitor service related products such as posters, leaflets etc. 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) Given the choice to go with a Berann panorama which is a unique product there is little leeway on price. However, the cost of alternative interpretive features (section 5) indicate that using an untried and untested alternative method would be at least as expensive with much higher risk of failure. 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 discrete, time limited piece of work. 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) No duplication. This element of the project is solely funded by CNPA. 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) Producing Park-wide interpretation at three points of entry received to support of the CNPA Board in September 2005. b) The concept of producing panoramic views of the Park from the entry point as Park-wide interpretation has been discussed with communities of interest at both Laggan and Dinnet. There is support for a simple approach that clearly shows the visitor the scale and nature of the area while also indicating where they are and what lies ahead. In both these locations the Park-wide panorama will be backed up by local information. c) The use of panorama/map approach to interpretation will also be discussed with the ViSIT Forum in September. 13. Recommendation a) That an additional budget of £14,000 be approved for the commissioning of up to 3 extra panoramas to complement the work being undertaken for the Park-wide interpretation at Dinnet. Name: Andy Ford Signature: Date: 27 August 2006 14. Decision to Approve or Reject Head of Group Name: Murray Ferguson Signature: Date: 28 August 2006 Chief Executive Not applicable. Name: Signature: Date: Management Team Name: Signature: Date: Finance Committee Name: Signature: Date: Board Not applicable. Name: Signature: Date: SEERAD Name: Signature: Date: