Annex B – Research report: RTP qualitative interviews

Summary

This report looks in detail at some of the main themes arising from the analysis of in-depth qualitative interviews with representatives from each of Scotland’s seven RTPs. The aim of the research was to explore the impacts and experiences of those involved in involved in rolling out People & Place.

The key findings from this research show that:

• The impact of a new approach on RTPs resulted in organisations having to adjust funding processes and pathways at pace, which had implications for resources and capacity internally.
• The impacts of People & Place itself were described in terms of requiring the management of shifting relationships with national and local partner organisations, whilst simultaneously delivering existing and ongoing active travel programmes.

• RTPs expressed that many aspects of this change have been seen as beneficial. For example, the ability to develop a potentially more agile approach to working with local active travel projects and organisations to better reflect the local and regional context.
• Challenges described by RTPs included:
• Timing of funding - RTPs reflected on the difficulties of managing expectations and relationships with delivery partners due to delays to funding approval processes;
• Differences in response to change across delivery partners – RTPs shared that community and local partners were in many cases most open to change;
• The question of how and how best to capture the gains made by the different active travel activities often working at different scales both in terms of scope and delivery remains a difficult one and will require an open and iterative approach.

This research shows that for RTPs, as People & Place of work moves forward, consideration should be given to five key elements in order to improve experience and delivery of the programme:

• The wider impact of implementation of People & Place on RTPs and other organisations.
• A flexible and iterative approach to reporting and outcome measures should be adopted.
• RTPs to be supported in nurturing and maintaining relationships across the sector.
• Continued support for RTPs to increase clarity of and timeliness across the Active Travel funding landscape.
• Ensuring responsiveness to the local context is balanced with monitoring and evaluation considerations at all stages.

Background

Through ‘People & Place’ the Scottish Government supports local government to deliver sustainable and active travel behaviour change programs. These packages of regional and local community-led interventions are aimed at increasing the number of people walking, wheeling (including using wheelchairs and other mobility aids), cycling, and using public and low-carbon transport.

People & Place was established in 2024-25. Prior to this, sustainable and active travel behaviour change programmes were supported through grant funding directly to national third sector delivery partners, a number of charities including Walking Scotland, COMO UK, Cycling Scotland, Cycling UK, Energy Saving Trust, Forth Environment Link, Living Streets Scotland and Walk Wheel Cycle Trust.

The majority of this funding is now allocated to Scotland's seven Regional Transport Partnerships (RTPs), statutory independent bodies that bring together Local Authorities (LAs) and other key regional stakeholders to take a strategic approach to transport in each region of Scotland.

This devolution of responsibility sees RTPs working in partnership with their respective LAs as well as other stakeholders and delivery partners to design their own tailored regional programmes of behaviour change initiatives under a refreshed national policy framework. This reflects a key component of the Verity House Agreement to increase autonomy at regional and local levels.

This was the biggest change to the national delivery model in over a decade, bringing significant organisational change for the RTPs as new direct funding recipients, and active travel charities as former direct funding recipients. The capacity of RTPs to adapt to the changes and communicate the vision of People & Place are therefore key elements in the success of the programme.

The aim of this research was to collect evidence on the impacts and experiences of those involved in administering the roll out of People & Place. Via the anonymised context of a research interview space was provided for those responsible for implementing the programme to share their specific insights. These insights can now be fed in alongside other engagement work being carried out by Transport Scotland as a part of an iterative approach to ensure the programme continues to deliver on its vision.

Methodology

The research team at Transport Scotland developed an interview topic guide focusing on the following themes:

• Role – exploring the interviewee’s position at the RTP, their background and wider team associated with People and Place.
• Programme – focusing on the understanding of the vision and aims of the programme.
• Process – exploring the implementation of the new approach and the impact on the RTP.
• Relationships – focusing on the wider impact of the implementation on the connections across the sector.
• Learning points – focusing on learning extracted from the first year of implementation and what could improve moving forward.

Transport Scotland’s research team conducted seven interviews, one for each RTP, with individuals who had direct responsibility for collation of data collected by delivery partners as part of People & Place. The interviews lasted 45 minutes on average and data was collected between the end of October and start of November 2025.

Microsoft Teams was used to record and transcribe the interviews, with the recordings used only for the purpose of checking the accuracy of the transcripts. Data was analysed using MAXQDA, which is a software developed for qualitative data analysis. This software was used to support with the analysis of the interview transcripts. MAXQDA includes an AI function to assist with exploration of the data, which was used to support the main researcher led analysis of the interview data.

Findings

Impact of a new approach on RTPs

Overall, the participants referenced the new approach as a valuable change and that People & Place has been of overall benefit to the active travel sector.

In terms of the model and how it works, is good and people are responding positively to and I think we've set up good foundations for going forward.

(RTP 1)

However, as a result of what was considered to be a swift introduction of People & Place, usually alongside the need to carry on supporting existing initiatives, RTPs reported feeling higher demands as there was a need to adapt existing systems, procedures, capacity and resources to incorporate the new approach.

(…) We've learned a lot over the last 18 months or so and it's been a really steep learning curve because it was quite a sudden change without any prior discussion. (…)

(RTP 6)

Capacity

RTPs’ existing active travel teams varied in size. These variations were reflected in the reported numbers of staff within their RTP handling Active Travel related work and the implementation of People & Place.

So there's three of us that look after the various strategic projects within [RTP 2]. (…) And then we have our active travel delivery officer (…) as well as our, well, he's called a graduate transport officer, but he's not really a graduate, you know, he's been in the role for a while, but our transport officer and he's got excellent data knowledge as well. (…) And we also get support from our marketing communications officer. (…) So we're a small team, but I would say nearly everybody's got some sort of involvement in the programme.

(RTP 2)

So my own area, I'm the only person really dedicated to policy and projects apart from my boss (…).

(RTP 4)

Interviewees highlighted new demands placed on existing teams and relationships with partners arising from the roll out of People & Place. Internally, this had implications for how existing active travel teams are constituted. In some instances, participants reported that there is an overlap of functions, with the team having to be spread across other areas of work:

I would say four out of the seven in the whole transport team are pretty much full time on bus stuff because there's also the adult social care transport and the school transport which all gets wrapped up together with public transport in terms of contracting.

(RTP 4)

As such, resourcing was one of the main factors highlighted when participants discussed the impact of the new approach. Participants described the implications for their job descriptions and day-to-day tasks. In particular, the emphasis for some was on the need to extend their existing role.

So People and Place is in one way it would, but it wouldn't really be part of my job day-to-day at all. But in reality it is. And actually it's been probably the main thing I've been doing all year because it has been quite resource intense I suppose.

(RTP 4)

Several research participants referenced the need to increase resource and to add to existing RTP teams as a way to adjust and respond to the demands of People & Place.

[A new colleague] just started this financial year. One working on the community fund aspect of the programme and the other helping with the main programme aspects that I still kind of do all the kind of overarching strategic work around it and I kind of lead, I suppose, that team of the three of us, I've just sort of passed down some of the kind of admin and grant management duties to them still very much in that kind of like main active travel sphere and sort of looking forward will be taking forward a lot of the kind of actions.

(RTP 3)

We have as of this year, funded one admin person who is very much, been an absolute amazing help to me in terms of dealing with the financial management side of things and pulling together invoices etc.. So that's been a massive benefit to us (…).

(RTP 5)

However, simply increasing the number of staff was not always seen as immediately possible.

It would be resource implications, probably the thing that we speak about the most that it's not like we were overburdened with time before and you know we're being asked to do more with the same amount of funding in terms of staff funding and the same number of staff, we haven't changed the number of staff. Part of that is because we haven't recruited for that post, but I think it's a, it's very much a human resource, I think issue for us.

(RTP 2)

Another change for RTPs was the way these teams interact with local councils. This element varied between those within RTPs tasked with administrating People & Place, in this context some RTPs deal only with one council whilst others work across as many as 12. In some of the smaller RTPs, the local council and the RTP share personnel, which it was noted can be helpful in terms of communication but also created challenges.

(…) and a colleague [name] is one of the other transport executives and she gives a lot of support working with [Council name] finance in managing the money for People and Place. So [name] is a really important cornerstone in our People and Place Programme.

(RTP 2)

So it does make it harder and when you have this relationship with the local authority, where we're all wearing two hats all the time, it makes it challenging because the local authority and the regional transport partnership have different statutory duties and they are legally required to deliver on them.

(RTP 4)

Where we may be different from the other RTPs that have multiple local authorities bidding into them and then a lot of that delivery is actually done by the councils as opposed [inaudible]. So the RTPs are much more so hands off and actually just coordinating funding bids rather than that actually on the ground delivering to the same extent.

(RTP 5)

Adjusting processes

Another element discussed by the RTPs was the need to adjust processes and systems to accommodate People & Place. This was the case for RTPs and the delivery of projects.

[they] had to really pivot what [they] were doing in quite a short space of time and develop a behaviour change strategy and think about what [they] wanted to deliver and how [they] would do that with the budget that was available.

(RTP 6)

Additionally, the impact on RTPs was also felt with regard to funding processing and allocation. One RTP respondent highlighted the need to adapt, for example, to the new channels for both distribution and accountability in terms of funding.

Just in terms of the amount of funding as well as that is now coming through us as an organisation. Um and just the level of oversight that you know is public funding, is public money you need to make sure that this is all being spent appropriately and some of those sort of due diligence checks and that kind of admin side of it is probably the bit that takes up quite a good amount of time. (…).

(RTP 2)

The new methods of funding distribution also meant a change in the ways of working with the various organisations. Another RTP respondent shared that “wetook the decision to deliver some things ourselves. (…) And to work with local third sector organisations as our delivery partners rather than like the bigger charities based in the Central Belt.” (RTP 6)

Impact of People & Place implementation

When talking about implementation of the new process, respondents discussed what worked well in their view and what positive changes had resulted from the new approach to funding projects, despite the hurdles presented by the initial roll out.

So I think this the new model caught people unaware for a bit for the first year. I think the model we've got this year, where the RTPs get the bids from project partners as well as community projects place projects of larger regional projects and assess them and work with local authorities has definitely been a lot better as I think there's a feeling that a few teething problems aside, it's a better model this year and everybody's quite happy with it. Everybody would like a wee bit more money. But you know that's par for the course. But like, there is a feeling that the model has been a bit better. So and just how we are building on that for next year.

(RTP 1)

Working with national and local delivery partners

People & Place Programme represents a change from national to regional and local delivery of active travel behaviour change interventions and the RTPs largely acknowledged the positive impact of this change on the community and wider sector. One respondent suggested that the relationship with Transport Scotland had been productive and collaborative during this transitionary period and had fostered a locally responsive approach.

Yes, that is actually been quite a significant change and I think it's rather than them dictating a narrative to us, we're looking very much at what works for us locally. I think what we've seen historically and I think what we saw the beginning of the programme. And the bids coming in from those national partners were very good bids and you know very strong strong bids outlining what they were trying to achieve. But there is that localised understanding that they're missing. And I think that that was particularly through the communities fund that we saw coming back that you know everything that had come in that had been previously funded nationally on the community level were really good bids.

(RTP 5)

Respondents noted that this shift in the funding model has created conditions in which money is being channelled to reach smaller partners working on specifically local projects.

And then you get all your new kind of local projects popping up through the Community funding through the local authorities that target different specific niches that are happening in local areas.

(RTP 3)

The new approach also enabled support for local organisations that “would just not have capacity to do any of that [work] internally” (RTP 7) despite potentially the need and additional value of these activities being recognised. One respondent suggested that there was increased understanding now of what sorts of initiatives were being funded. There was “more clarity and certainty on the kinds of projects that people can apply for and things that they wanted to support and as a result of that, a lot more opportunities and projects and issues been brought to the table.”(RTP 3)

Additionally, the change in process resulted in allocation of funding to organisations being seen as more meaningful and targeted, which had resulted in a better understanding of the impacts of the activities being undertaken by organisations.

I think that's been a positive and we've been able to channel money through a competitive process to organisations perhaps we'd previously supported, but now we're able to do so in a more meaningful way and we can see the impacts that that's having.

(RTP 2)

One respondent highlighted a risk to be overly focussed on one area of active travel. However, another suggested that the current funding approach creates conditions in which this can be potentially addressed.

What's good about it is, particularly from the local delivery partners perspective, is that what we're doing now is starting to look at, OK, where we have things being delivered, but where do we not have things being delivered that we would like to see delivery. And so now we can start building relationships and partnerships in those areas. And I think without the People and Place Programme, that just wouldn't happen.

(RTP 6)

Knowledge exchange

People & Place offered opportunities to gather understanding about what is happening across the sector locally. Respondents flagged the value of having more information about what is happening and how that can address previous knowledge gaps and contribute to future planning.

(…) we were aware of a number of local organisations that were potentially delivering active travel prior to [People and Place] through this business as usual approach. And I think that. I mean, I think that business as usual approach in the first year to find out what these organisations were doing was a real strength and that again maybe highlights a weakness with the previous system in that as an RTP we should have known what these organisations were doing.

(RTP 5)

Respondents also highlighted several instances where knowledge sharing events were organised and added value to the delivery of the programme by enabling peer to peer learning. One respondent also highlighted that these events aimed to support partners by providing a space where they could:

chat through what they're doing and kind of build like a support network within themselves so that if one of them has had a problem or is experiencing difficulties with something, maybe someone, one of the others has encountered that and they can give advice or even encouragement.

(RTP 6).

Thus, it was felt that these events also facilitated links across the sector, developing networks as the next section will demonstrate.

So we were really trying to bring that together and now we're trying to go even further and sort of really bringing everyone. So local authorities, delivery partners and community groups just to really learn from each other, just to kind of understand who's doing what, how can we best work to better work together. And I think that is a big thing that without the program probably would have been hard to achieve.

(RTP 7)

Linked with this, respondents also highlighted the value of having reporting systems in place that allows them to show the value of the work being done and sharing that with the wider sector as part of the process.

I think it's easier if you, because we've got the report and it's easier to justify it to turn around and saying yes, we've spent so in [RTP 1] and it's [sum] on People and Place, but you can turn around and say, well, here's the report. And here's the justification of what this money has been spent on. It's there's been good outcomes.

(RTP 1)

Relationships/ links across the sector

A key positive impact reported by RTPs is the potential to strengthen established relationships and links as a result of People & Place. The new approach supported delivery partners leading to the realisation of “this regional picture that's trying to be built and that they're not on their own and that they're part of a bigger (…) jigsaw.” (RTP 2) From the perspective of some RTPs, the existing relationships with local authorities have been enhanced as a result of the programme.

With like you know specific elements for people to think about or to share or and it's we've had just quite a lot of like very positive feedback. I think just if you look at our local authorities, quite a lot of them before People and Place just didn't have those relationships across you know like with the other local authorities.

(RTP 7)

Improvements in relationship were also reported as a result of communication strategies that RTPs used when implementing People & Place.

I think that works quite well. It kind of again when you're trying to build a relationship with these people that you don't really know. You've never worked with before. That's quite a nice trusting relationship to build when you're just kind of upfront and honest with people about what you're doing.

(RTP 3)

Respondents mentioned that during the initial phase of the programme, there was a need to “make some quite hard decisions about what we could continue and what we couldn't” (RTP 6) and that this impacted the relationship with some organisations.

(…) in a way soured the relationship from the start, but there wasn't anything else that we could do.

(RTP 6)

In one case a respondent was keen to stress that whilst the landscape had shifted to permit a local approach the national delivery partners still had much to offer in terms of existing expertise, which could be utilised.

Also been really good in terms of that community support that I think as we move away from national providers to local community delivery, we're finding that you know once the enthusiasm happened locally, it's that specific knowledge that they might not have that [National Delivery Partner] have been really useful in bringing that together and building some more monitoring and evaluation framework around that as well.

(RTP 5)

Challenges

Adaptability

With the introduction of the new funding model, partners were also required to adapt to a new way of delivering active travel activities. Whilst one respondent highlighted that the “response has been really positive right across the board of all the delivery partners.” (RTP 6) Participants also shared that delivery partners responded differently to the demands, with smaller organisations in some cases displaying more adaptability to the introduction of People & Place.

I think the local organisations have maybe responded more positively because they may be, they don't have a fixed way of doing things. So in the first year, we pretty much just said carry on doing what you're doing. But this year we've been a bit like, well, can you, you know, can you add this in? Can you change that slightly? And they've been really positive and responding to that, whereas I think it's a little bit more challenging for the larger national delivery partners to do that because they maybe have a set model that they want to deliver the same thing in every place.

(RTP 6)

Is building those relationships and delivery partners wise is a bit mixed and I think. That's partly the way they've adapted to the new programme. (…) there was quite a stark difference between how some delivery partners responded to it and how others did. Some just sort of, you know, they saw the change, it was happening and they just adapted to the way they work. And build those relationships with us in quite a positive way.

(RTP 7)

Some delivery partners required support through the journey including a flexible approach to collecting information for monitoring and evaluation purposes, depending on the size and focus of the organisation.

That's kind of what we've been trying to do at the moment, just to, yeah, just to try and provide as much support as possible, just so that especially now with the community groups, they can just refer to that guidance document and they can exactly see what they should be looking at and how to sort of manage that and then obviously they're sort of free to sort of do what they can do. We're just not going to say all of that is like fully mandatory, but this is kind of where we're trying to go so that when the project starts, they know exactly what they should be looking at.

(RTP 7)

M&E. Yeah, M&E and the other thing about monitoring and evaluation is because we deal with a number of different partners now, small community groups struggle to find the capacity to do you know large scale monitoring and evaluations. So I'm trying to make that as easy for them as possible.

(RTP 1)

Communicating new ways of working

Another challenge raised was around the speed of changes and the need for RTPs to be familiar with them in order to communicate their implications to the various delivery partners.

Mainly through the third sector partners and Transport Scotland and the third sector partners had a relationship and I don't think we understood that that was the model. So we just assumed that everybody had an understanding of what was happening and maybe they never and everything was happening really, really quickly.

(RTP 3)

RTPs shared their experiences of getting up to speed before communicating the changes related to funding, roles and responsibilities associated with the new Active Travel Framework.

You know […] multiple organisations have been told that you know there isn't any funding this year and you know then having to explain well, there's no funding this year from that organisation, but we've now got that funding and.

Actually communicating that so that in itself was quite a task to actually communicate to everybody that [had] previously been funded by these organisations, that their funding’s gone away, but the funding itself is still there. And I think that is a task that's now probably been completed.

(RTP 5)

Views around how the programme has been communicated to the RTPs were on the whole positive.

The communication has improved a huge amount and I think the clarity of expectations, of what Transport Scotland expect, but also an understanding from them of what it's reasonable for us to deliver.”

(RTP 6)

The benefits of taking a collaborative approach in a dynamic environment, where new ways of working were still being absorbed, were highlighted.

You know, we were very much an evolving programme and I think that was coming from Transport Scotland as well, you know, but in some ways that was actually good and actually we just felt as though we were working much more collaboratively with Transport Scotland in that respect and that they were finding the way as much as we were. It wasn't. It felt less imposed on us by the fact it was evolving rapidly and I think we've now got to a point where we have a programme, that's won’t stay static. I mean, it's got to continually evolve, but it's (…) stable.

(RTP 5)

Procedural timings and funding allocation

Generally, in terms of funding, four of the seven RTPs interviewed explicitly mentioned issues caused by the need to wait for funding to be confirmed at the start of each year, including leaving some smaller organisations with a good deal of uncertainty and threats to continuity in delivering interventions.

We'd like the money at the start of April. It does feel and this will keep coming up, everybody will say this. It's and it is government spending getting things signed off but you do feel that you're maybe looking at one or two months at the start of the project where you're just treading water because we were sending out emails to partners saying, sorry, we've not had anything yet. So I'm that just people are keen to get moving, smaller community groups, wanting to keep the lights on and you've got this two months of limbo where the money hasn't appeared.

(RTP 1)

One of the sort of biggest challenges or two, two of the biggest challenges. First of all, the main one is definitely timelines around financial years and there's the gap between the financial year finishing and the new financial year starting and is really challenging for a lot of these organisations.

(RTP 3)

Respondents in some cases had begun to look for mitigations to the risks posed by the timings of funding confirmation at a local level.

I think it's across the whole programme, so last year I, because the funding is so uncertain and sometimes there's delays in having our funding confirmed by Transport Scotland, I had advised our local organisations. If they have or can find match funding that they should do that so that at least they would have something to carry them through April in the event that the funding was delayed. So actually most of our local partners have match funding, but none of the national partners do.

(RTP 6)

Changes in funding also impacted how RTPs deliver activities and their programme of work. In some cases, this meant being flexible and finding ways to deliver activities using different resources available, maximising existing connections and knowledge.

If there was things that we couldn't fund directly through People and Place, our local authority partners said, well actually we could run this through LADA, the Local Authority Direct Award and they agreed between them that this could be a region wide project for example. (…) So that's been something that Transport Scotland has said that they were really happy with that we’ve tried to look at all of the money available and not just be really siloed in our thinking around this is the People and Place pot.

(RTP 2)

Lessons learned for the future

Participants were asked about lessons learned and what improvements could be made to the existing approach in order to support delivery. The main elements raised by RTPs focused on: reporting of outcomes and funding allocation.

Reporting on outcomes: flexibility and clarity

Issues around the variation in partner size and resources were mentioned as creating challenges for reporting on outcomes and when using the Transport Scotland reporting template. This respondent shared that they would welcome:

assistance with that wider evaluation, (…) particularly when it's smaller community groups that don't do. You know, that don't have that knowledge when you're moving away from national partners (…).

(RTP 5)

Related to support and guidance, RTPs also flagged the need to update and improve guidance around monitoring and evaluation. Participants shared suggestions for improvement and that it could be helpful for the future to focus on establishing an “agreed minimum standard of data” where after that each RTP could specify their requirements and needs according to:

what it is that you're trying to achieve regionally, what you know, the political influences are regionally, what the challenges that you're facing, whether that's looking at SIMD groups or whether it's looking at other marginalised groups.

(RTP 2)

Another suggestion from participants related to the value of an iterative approach to updating reporting guidance, templates and requirements so that these could offer the best fit to measuring the projects RTPs are encountering in their regions.

We've basically been for a few projects we'd be like, OK, not sure what we're trying to measure here. So we're just going to go, what do we think is a good thing to measure here? So just a wee bit more guidance from Transport Scotland at, upfront would have been good. We're going to get there for next year.

(RTP 1)

And Transport Scotland did provide the RTPs with a template for their end of year monitoring and evaluation report. It was largely based around comparing projects within the themes of the programme, but what we found was it was actually really difficult to compare projects under themes because what the projects were actually doing was very different. (…)

(RTP 3)

Respondents also acknowledged that what constitutes best practice for reporting is evolving and this can be a challenge in itself.

It's you know, what do we need to record? I don't know yet. We haven't. Transport Scotland haven't agreed that. And I think that's, there's some discussion on that right now.

(RTP 5)

I suppose in terms of, I mean the People and Place, there's a lot of work going into making it coherent and us all working together.

(RTP 4)

RTPs also shared some reservations about the template for reporting. Respondents mentioned that it needed to be more outcomes driven and that the template should focus more on understanding the wider impact of the work. One respondent referenced that they have been discussing with Transport Scotland the potential to collect qualitative data as a valuable contribution to support the monitoring and evaluation process.

For the programme as a whole, we need to report on the outcomes, not just the output, so you know. 1000 people participated in doctor bike sessions. So what? What difference has it made?

(RTP 6)

(…) I'm getting feedback from delivery partners as well that they know that the work they're doing actually has other benefits. It's not just what we're reporting on, which is obviously all the kind of active travel behaviour change elements, but all the other kind of social benefits that come with that and health benefits and that we're not recording but are definitely happening or at least the work is contributing to them in some way shape or form, so.

(RTP 3)

Funding

A point repeated by several RTPs was the need to allow for multi-year funding. Respondents discussed multiple advantages of this approach and the added value it would bring to the entire programme:

For some of our delivery partners, it's so precarious and to be able to administer multi-year funding I think would allow some of these projects to really grow and it also avoids that uncertainty and scrabble at the start of the financial year when you're waiting for the process within Transport Scotland to burst into life and you know, grant offer letters to come forward. (…).

(RTP 2)

I think it would be a lot easier and less stressful to manage the programme if we had multi-year funding, so if we knew if we were, if we had a three-year programme even, you know, we could, we could develop a great programme and our partners would be, you know, they would know what they were doing, they wouldn't be this anxiety every year between January and March.

(RTP 6)

One RTP suggested funding streams could be made more coherent, allowing for better understanding of different funds and more joined up delivery of People & Place:

Maybe it's an aspiration, but having like more of a connection between that [People and Place] and some of the other active travel focused funds (…).

(RTP 4)

Conclusions

Overall, there is evidence to suggest that RTPs experienced the introduction of People & Place as generally positive despite some clear challenges. According to the respondents, this programme allowed relationships to be fostered in a locally responsive way via investment in the community through local organisations whilst also enabling knowledge sharing across the sector. RTPs highlighted several instances where this programme of work was valuable in providing a funding avenue to deliver activities that would otherwise not be possible.

Some of the challenges and learning points shared by the RTPs during the interviews offer opportunities for future improvements and actions to support the following years of People & Place implementation.