Final Report to DEFRA - Jurassic Coast

there was a degree of consensus around the need to streamline process without
weakening protection in this area. Better explanation of why sites are designated
would also be welcome as some stakeholders complained of being told that work
could not be carried out on an SSSI or an SAC without being informed about the
purpose of such designations.
5. RESPONSES TO DEFRA EVALUATION QUESTIONS
This section seeks to answer the evaluation questions posed by DEFRA, but should
be read in conjunction with sections 3.5, 3.6 and 4 above which draw out lessons
which are not necessarily addressed by these questions. The text cross-references
to other parts of this report where answers have already been provided.
Were you able to deliver everything set out in your original bid? What differed
from your original plan and why? Were any elements less successful than you
had hoped and why?
The project remained reasonably faithful to its original project plan. Resources were
diverted from some of the original project ideas into other areas when it became clear
through contact with other Pathfinders that we were unlikely to add any value to what
they were learning from similar, more advanced (in terms of timescale), larger or
more ambitious projects. For example, we could see little merit in pursuing our
proposed ‘trial negotiations’ with property owners when it became clear that other
Pathfinders were doing this ‘for real’. Resources from this were diverted into other
areas of the project, particularly the scenario planning workshops, which proved to be
more resource intensive than originally envisaged. Appendix 1 gives a detailed
commentary on what, if any, changes were made during the course of the project for
each project envisaged within our original bid,
Did risks and issues arise during the course of the Pathfinder that you had not
anticipated?
A detailed risk register (appendix 2) was created at the outset which identified and
helped mitigate most of the key risks encountered. There were, however, some
unintended consequences – while these were anticipated in general terms, they
could not by definition be entirely foreseen. See section 4.3 above for further details.
What were the benefits (obvious/expected and otherwise)? Please refer to any
formal evaluation of benefits you have made, and comment on how far the
benefits fell to individuals and how far to the wider community.
The benefits of the project were perhaps best illustrated by the feedback provided by
participants in various elements of the project – see sections 3.5 and 3.6 for
summaries of evaluation and appendix 1 for project by project summaries.
Would you have been able to achieve these benefits without the Pathfinder
funding? If no, why not?
Pathfinder coincided with the start of a period of severe restraint on local authority
budgets so it is difficult to see how the process might have been kick-started in the
absence of Pathfinder funding. Part of the power of Pathfinder was that it was
interpreted positively by communities as a recognition from Government that where
they are facing loss, Government wants to support them in adapting rather than
ignoring the problem. As such, even if alterative sources of funding had come
forward, the process may not have been as effective, as it would not have had the
32