E a S T D E V O N P E B B L E B E D H E a T H S

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Footprint Contract Reference: 249 Date: 18th January 2017 Version: Final Recommended Citation: Liley, D., Panter, C., Underhill-Day, J. (2015). East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan. Unpublished report by Footprint Ecology for East Devon Council.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Summary

In recent years there has been a steady increase in the level of housing development in south-east Devon and this is set to continue at an accelerated rate. An increase in housing of well over 20% is expected within a 10km radius of the Pebblebeds Heaths in the period through to around 2031. Higher levels of housing will mean more people living in the area and access levels would be expected to rise. This report focuses on the long term visitor management on the Pebblebed Heaths to ensure they can cope with the increased levels of recreation in the future, and to give confidence that the marked growth will not result in adverse effects on the integrity of the European sites.

The report has been commissioned by East Devon District Council on behalf of three local authorities (East Devon District Council, Exeter City, and Teignbridge District Council). The report contains results from visitor survey work, predictions of the distribution of recreational use within the site and recommendations for future management. As such the report fulfils some of the components of the wider South-east Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy, which provides context for this report.

Visitor surveys involved questionnaire work at a 12 locations in the spring and summer 2015. Key findings from the visitor survey were:  The majority of interviewees were on a short visit from home and holiday makers accounted for a small (<5%) proportion of access.  Nearly three-quarters (73%) of all interviewees were visiting to walk their dog. Other activities included walking (11%), cycling (5%), wildlife watching (4%), jogging (2%) and family outings (2%).  Many visitors had been visiting the Pebblebeds for a long time: over half of interviewees had been visiting the location where interviewed for at least 10 years.  The median visit duration was short, between 30 minutes and an hour.  Most (71%) interviewees visited at least weekly. There was some evidence that regular visitors tended to avoid the main honeypots such as the Warren or Joney’s Cross.  Reasonably similar proportions of all interviewees tended to visit before 9am (23%), between 9 and 12 (24%) and after 5pm (23%), indicating visit patterns that were evenly spread across the day.  The majority (91%) of interviewees had travelled to the interview location by car or van.  The ‘scenery/variety of views’ was the most commonly given reason for the choice of site (given by 51% of interviewees). Other common factors included ‘good for dog/dog enjoys it’ and the ‘ability to let dog off lead’.  Other sites visited by interviewees were often also within the Pebblebeds. The Exe Estuary (including Topsham, Lympstone, Exmouth seafront etc.) was the most commonly named destination outside the Pebblebed Heaths. Other alternative locations included the River Otter and Haldon Forest.  Nearly half (45%) of all the people interviewed were not aware that there was any environmental protection or designations that applied to the Pebblebeds and few interviewees were aware of important species or habitats (for example around a third (32%) could not name a habitat or species for which the Pebblebeds are important).  Around three-quarters of interviewees (77%) indicated they were aware of who was responsible for looking after the site they were visiting, with 62% of all interviewees naming the Clinton Devon Estate or Pebblebed Heaths Conservation Trust.  When asked about access restrictions most interviewees were aware that lighting fires and wild camping were restricted (93% and 82% of interviewees respectively). Relatively few were

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

aware of restrictions relating to the number of dogs walked or the need to keep dogs on leads during the breeding season (9% and 28% of interviewees respectively). For dog fouling around three quarters (72%) were aware of a requirement to pick up.  A range of future management measures were scored by interviewees and parking measures (compulsory charging, closure of parking, permits) and the enforcement of dogs on leads during the breeding season were the most unpopular measures. More dog bins, more interpretation and more routes for particular activities were the most popular measures.  Routes were mapped for most interviewees and showed a median distance (all activities, all locations) of just over 3km. There were significant differences between activities, with cyclists doing the longest routes and family outings and dog walking being the shortest.  Three-quarters of all interviewees who gave valid postcodes lived within an 8.2km radius of the survey point and the median distance (home postcode to survey point) was 5.4km. The settlement with the most interviewees by far was Exmouth, followed by Woodbury and Newton Poppleford.

We used the visitor data to generate a predictive model of current access – ‘footfall’ - across the whole of the Pebblebeds. This model is useful in representing the current distribution of access and this can be plotted alongside the interest features of the European site; the model also helps inform future management recommendations.

We map bird distributions as an overlay with our visitor model. Bird distributions appear to be strongly clustered into particular areas and there appear to be marked areas of suitable habitat with no birds. We can find no significant differences in the presence of nightjar or Dartford warbler territories in areas with high and low visitor pressure and it would appear that other unexplained factors are influencing the bird distributions. These results conflict with results from some other parts of the UK where visitor numbers have been shown to relate to bird distribution. There are however some limitations with our approach here, in particular our modelling of access assumes people spread out evenly along the path network (whereas in fact particular routes are likely to be favoured) and we have relied on bird data supplied by various parties. Good annual data with near complete geographical coverage exists for Dartford warbler; however annually collected data for nightjar is patchy across the heaths, with complete geographic coverage only available from national census data - for some locations this data predates the visitor survey by nearly ten years. In the absence of mitigation it is not possible to rule out that future increases in access will have impacts – in line with results from other areas – on bird distributions. Our analysis also does not address whether there are any impacts currently resulting from disturbance having an effect on breeding success.

In order to ensure no adverse effects on integrity arising from increasing recreation in the future, we make a series of costed recommendations for the long term management of access, focusing on influencing visitors’ behaviour and ensuring the site is more robust in terms of its ability to absorb recreation pressure. The measures focus recreation rather than allowing diffuse recreation over the entire site and aim to improve how recreation is managed rather than draw more visitors to the area. These recommendations form the final sections of this report and include wardening, interpretation, path management, education work and management of parking.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Contents

1. Introduction ...... 8

Background: growth in south-east Devon ...... 8

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC & SPA ...... 9

Interest Features ...... 10

Levels of housing around the Pebblebeds ...... 10

The Challenge ...... 11

2. Methods ...... 14

Overview ...... 14

Initial GIS Data Collation ...... 14

Visitor Survey Fieldwork ...... 15

Selection of Survey Locations ...... 15

Survey Effort and Timing of Surveys ...... 15

Fieldwork methods ...... 17

Analysis of Visitor Data ...... 17

GIS analysis ...... 19

Visitor Model ...... 19

Habitat and species data ...... 21

3. Mapping Visitor Infrastructure ...... 23

Overview ...... 23

Access Points ...... 23

Path Network ...... 23

4. Visitor Survey Results ...... 26

Overview ...... 26

Visitor Numbers ...... 26

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Questionnaire results ...... 30

Overview ...... 30

Types of visit ...... 30

Tourist accommodation ...... 31

Main activity ...... 31

Length of time visiting the site ...... 35

Length of visit ...... 37

Frequency of visit ...... 37

Time of day ...... 40

Time of year ...... 42

Mode of transport ...... 42

Reasons for site choice ...... 42

Other Sites ...... 44

Awareness of designations and environmental protection ...... 45

Awareness of site management...... 47

Awareness of access restrictions ...... 49

Views on future management of access ...... 49

Routes ...... 51

Visitor Origins (postcodes) ...... 57

Discussion and limitations ...... 63

Key points from the visitor survey results ...... 64

5. Visitor Model ...... 66

6. Impacts of Recreation ...... 70

Current impacts on the Pebblebeds: visitor model in relation to species data ...... 72

Southern Damselflies and Mires ...... 76

Key Points: Impacts of Recreation ...... 80

7. Potential Mitigation Measures ...... 82

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Overview ...... 82

Focus for Mitigation ...... 82

SWOT analysis of mitigation measures ...... 83

Recommended measures ...... 91

8. Priority measures for the plan ...... 96

More dog bins ...... 96

Face-face wardening with engagement role ...... 97

Codes of conduct ...... 100

Educational work with schools ...... 101

Interpretation boards ...... 102

Liaison with local groups ...... 106

Direct contact with local clubs/users...... 107

Gorse management (as a barrier/screen for access) ...... 108

Signs directing people, including highlighting sensitive areas and routes...... 110

Signs asking visitors to behave differently ...... 111

Off-site events (village fetes etc.) ...... 112

Boardwalks/surfacing to direct access along particular routes ...... 113

Changes to car-parks (spaces, surfacing etc.) ...... 116

Face-face warden with enforcement role ...... 119

Dedicated routes for particular activities promoted ...... 120

Maps highlighting routes and sensitive areas ...... 124

Spraying/flags to highlight dog fouling issue to users ...... 125

9. Secondary measures for the plan ...... 126

Parking controls on road verges ...... 126

Provision of features (viewpoints, water for dogs etc.) ...... 126

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 Closing formal parking locations, or limiting some car parks for particular users, e.g. cars only ...... 127

Introducing parking charges ...... 127

Management of felling to ensure clearfell with low public access levels always available for breeding nightjars ...... 127

Management of heather by mowing or creation of firebreaks/short swards ...... 128

Visitor centre/reception ...... 128

Awareness raising through local/national media ...... 129

Permission for/management of events ...... 129

10. Summary of Recommendations, Discussion and Monitoring ...... 130

Summary of recommendations ...... 130

Implementation and consent for works on common land ...... 134

Discussion ...... 134

Monitoring ...... 135

11. References ...... 137

Appendix 1: Questionnaire ...... 141

Appendix 2 ...... 142

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 Acknowledgements

This report was commissioned by East Devon District Council. We are grateful to Matt Dickins (East Devon District Council) for overseeing the work. Our thanks also to the steering group comprising Sam Bridgewater (Clinton Devon Estates), Gavin Bloomfield (RSPB), Neil Harris (East Devon District Council/Exeter City Council/Teignbridge District Council), Amanda Newsome (Natural England) and Pete Youngman (East Devon AONB).

Additional information, data and useful discussion were provided by Richard Brown (RSPB), Pete Gotham, Ed Lagdon (Clinton Devon Estates), Paul Swain (Clinton Devon Estates) and Toby Taylor (RSPB).

We are also grateful to Shelley Signs for useful discussion and indicative quotes on certain items.

Visitor fieldwork as undertaken by Carolyn Petersen, Jack Rawlings, Chris Sadler and Doug Whyte and fieldwork was coordinated by Fenella Lewin. Data entry was undertaken by Jack Rawlings and Zoe Chappell. We are grateful to all those visitors who took time to answer the questions during the survey work.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

1. Introduction

1.1 This report has been commissioned by East Devon District Council on behalf of three local authorities (East Devon District Council, Exeter City, and Teignbridge District Council). The report presents data on visitor use of the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths and recommends visitor management measures to avoid long-term impacts on the heaths arising from new housing development in the wider area.

Background: growth in south-east Devon 1.2 The scale of future development in south-east Devon – as set out in the relevant local authority plans - is considerable. Overall the three authorities’ plans set out over 40,000 new homes through to roughly 2030, and covers settlements such as Exeter, Cranbrook, Exmouth and Exminster. This level of growth has implications, given the nature conservation interest and protection afforded to certain key sites in the area.

1.3 The designation, protection and restoration of European wildlife sites is embedded in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended, which are commonly referred to as the ‘Habitats Regulations.’ The Habitats Regulations are in place to transpose European legislation set out within the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) and the Birds Directive (Council Directive 2009/147/EC). These key pieces of European legislation seek to protect, conserve and restore habitats and species that are of utmost conservation importance and concern across Europe. European sites include Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), and can be either marine or terrestrial. There are three European sites in south-east Devon where particular concerns have been raised relating to impacts from development. These are the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths (SAC/SPA), the Exe Estuary (SPA/Ramsar) and Dawlish Warren (SAC). The issues are considered in detail within the relevant assessment documents linked to the various relevant local authority plans (see Liley & Underhill-Day 2012; Oxford, Liley & Jenkins 2013; King, Liley & Cruickshanks 2014).

1.4 The overarching objective of the European legislation is to maintain sites and their interest features in an ecologically robust and viable state, able to sustain and thrive into the long term, with adequate resilience against natural influences. Where sites are not achieving their potential, the focus should be on restoration.

1.5 European sites have the benefit of the highest level of legislative protection for biodiversity. There are also specific requirements for European sites set out within national planning policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). There are specific duties in terms of avoiding deterioration of habitats and species for which sites are designated or classified. All public bodies, known as ‘competent authorities,’ need to adhere to a range of requirements that contribute to securing the long term maintenance and restoration of European sites. These include, for example, stringent tests that have to be met before plans and projects can be permitted. Local Planning Authorities cannot approve development applications until they are satisfied that

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

adverse effects on European sites have been ruled out. In meeting these tests, a precautionary approach is embedded in the legislation, i.e. it is necessary to demonstrate that impacts will not occur, rather than they will. For these reasons, a strategic approach has been developed to protect the European sites in south-east Devon from the impact of increasing recreation pressure from new housing.

1.6 The competent authority proceeds through a series of steps, known as the ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment.’ Ordinarily, after completing an assessment of impacts a competent authority should only approve a project where it can be ascertained that there will not be an adverse effect on the integrity of the European site(s) in question. With a strategic framework in place, each individual planning decision that provides a contribution to the framework does not need to go through all stages of assessment. Conformity with the strategic approach rules out the possibility of an impact from this source and the decision maker can give permission with confidence that the legislation has been adhered to. All assessment work has effectively been undertaken ‘upfront’ and furthermore the necessary mitigation has been carefully secured and designed to absorb the cumulative, in-combination effects of development.

1.7 In south-east Devon the issues identified primarily relate to access and the impacts of increased recreation. The strategic approach is set out in the South-east Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy (Liley et al. 2014b). This strategy provides the context for this report. The strategy identified particular gaps in the evidence base relating to the Pebblebed Heaths (these gaps included analysis to consider the distribution of birds in relation to visitor density and information on where visitors come from). As a result further visitor work and analysis was considered necessary. The strategy also recommended that a visitor management plan should be produced for the Pebblebed Heaths, following on from the additional visitor work. This report has been commissioned to address the evidence gaps and provide the visitor management plan. As such it focuses on the Pebblebed Heaths, presents new visitor data collected as part of the project and makes recommendations for the long-term management of access on the Pebblebed Heaths.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC & SPA 1.8 Most of the Pebblebed Heaths have been under a single ownership for many centuries and fall within the Clinton Devon Estate. These areas are now managed by the Pebblebed Heaths Conservation Trust, which manages the heaths for the benefit of wildlife and to promote the public enjoyment and appreciation of the heaths. Some areas are leased or owned by the RSPB and remaining areas are privately owned and managed by the Devon Wildlife Trust.

1.9 The Pebblebed Heaths are registered commons and as such are Open Access Land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000). Under the Act the public have full and free access to all areas of the Pebblebed heaths by foot. The Act excludes horse- riding, cycling, vehicles, organised games or any activity for commercial gain. However, Clinton Devon Estates applied to the Access Authority, Devon County Council, to give general permission for horse riders and cyclists to use the heaths, so long as the user is

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

acting in accordance with the CROW Act legislation. As a result, horse-riding and cycling by individuals is permitted.

Interest Features 1.10 The Pebblebed Heaths cover some 1,400 ha and make up the largest block of lowland heath in Devon. While heathland is widely distributed in the uplands, in the lowlands heathland has been lost to development, forestry and agriculture and the little that now remains is fragmented and isolated. The Pebblebed Heaths are an important representative of the inland Atlantic-climate lowland heathlands of Britain and north- west Europe. A significant feature of the site is the diversity of heathland associated communities, related to its large area and the range of substrates and topography. These include dry heath grading to wet heath in a series of shallow valleys with mineral rich-flushes on the valley sides, and valley mire in the valley bottoms.

1.11 Parts of the Pebblebed Heaths were first notified as a SSSI (“Site of Special Scientific Interest”) in 1952, and the various areas of heath were consolidated into the current SSSI of some 1,119 ha in 1986. The SAC designation (notified in 1998) covers 1,119.94 ha with the primary reason for selection being the north Atlantic wet heaths with cross- leaved heath Erica tetralix, European dry heaths and the populations of southern damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale, for all of which the Pebblebed Heaths were considered one of the best areas in the UK. Both the wet and dry heaths are listed as Annex I in the Habitats Directive and are considered to be of global importance, while the southern damselfly is listed under Annex II and the population is considered to be of national importance.

1.12 The East Devon Heaths were classified a Special Protection Area (SPA) in 1998 qualifying under Article 4.1 as the area regularly supports 2.4% of the UK population of breeding nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus (as at 1992), and 8% of the UK population of breeding Dartford warbler Sylvia undata (as at 1994). The SPA covers 1,119.94ha, matching the SAC boundary.

1.13 The Pebblebed Heaths and designated site boundaries are shown in Map 1. It can be seen that the designated land is largely a continuous block of heathland, although the northern commons are slightly separated from the main blocks of heath.

Levels of housing around the Pebblebeds 1.14 There are currently around 58,759 residential properties1 within the 10km of the Pebblebeds (as shown in Map 1). Of these, 42,657 residential properties are within East Devon. Ten kilometres represents the zone of influence used in the South-east Devon Mitigation Strategy and that zone is that used in Map 1. The East Devon Local Plan sets out a provision for 13,459 new dwellings within 10km of the Pebblebed Heaths, and this therefore represents an increase of over 30% over the coming plan period (to 2031)

1 This figure is calculated using GIS data on the number of residential properties per postcode (dated February 2016), based on Royal Mail/Ordnance Survey PostZon data.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

within East Devon alone. Looking in the past, postcode data from 20032 indicates that there were 49,553 residential properties within the 10km zone. Between 2003 and 2015 the level of housing had therefore increased by around 19%. These data suggest housing numbers have grown steadily in the past and will continue to grow – at an accelerated rate – in the future. Higher levels of housing will mean more people living in the area and access levels would be expected to rise. Studies elsewhere show a clear link between the number of houses in an area and the level of recreation (e.g. Clarke et al. 2006; Liley, Jackson & Underhill-Day 2006; Ross et al. 2014).

The Challenge 1.15 This report has been commissioned to provide a visitor management plan that specifically relates to the European site interest and to ensure adverse effects related to the housing growth can be ruled out.

1.16 The impacts of recreation on the Pebblebed Heaths are considered in detail by Liley et al.(2014b) and can be summarised as:

 Disturbance to Annex I bird species  Increased risk of wild fires  Contamination, including increased nutrient levels (e.g. from dog fouling)  Direct damage, such as trampling of vegetation and soils  Management constraints

1.17 Any visitor management measures set out within the plan must address these impacts (i.e. directly relevant to the SAC and SPA interest) and find solutions that resonate with the current, on-going management. Recommendations must be relevant to access from new housing (i.e. it is unfair for new development to carry the burden of resolving existing issues, especially if those are not necessarily exacerbated by further development). Other possible impacts of urban development (such as hydrological issues) are outside the scope of this plan, which is focused on recreational use. Similarly the focus of the mitigation is on residential development. There may however be some cross-over with tourism, as tourist related development may also result in increased recreation and impacts from recreation. Indeed some mitigation measures may also be just as relevant for tourist use (for example new interpretation might be used by all visitors, not just local residents).

1.18 In order for development to proceed, mitigation must provide the confidence that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the European sites, as a result of cumulative effects of new development (which will come forward across a wide geographic area over a number of years). The overall aim of mitigation should therefore be to ensure that impacts do not increase. This is different from ensuring that the levels of access do not increase, as people are visiting the countryside more (e.g. TNS Research International 2011) and therefore even if the population size was to remain constant, an increase in access levels over time might be expected. Furthermore, impacts will

2 This is as far back as Footprint Ecology holds data for

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

relate to how people behave on sites, and it is therefore potentially possible for some areas of sites to support increased levels of access without additional impacts. As a simple example, measures resulting in more dogs on leads along a particular path might mean that more people could use the path and still overall a possible net decrease in impacts be observed.

1.19 Mitigation measures will need to work in perpetuity3, and therefore there is a need for mitigation measures to last. It is difficult to be confident of how the site may change over time, in terms of the interest features and access patterns. Different weather conditions may result in people using the area differently and result in seasonal shifts in bird numbers/interest features and access levels. As such any mitigation package needs to be flexible, able to respond to circumstances and carefully monitor changes, to provide an early warning of the need to adapt.

1.20 Furthermore, measures need to be cost effective, proportionate and deliverable. There is a difficult balancing act to ensure long-term access provision and management for nature conservation in a context of increasing demands for recreation and biodiversity declines.

1.21 It is now increasingly recognised that access to the countryside is crucial to the long term success of nature conservation projects and has wider benefits such as increasing public awareness of the natural world and health benefits (Alessa, Bennett & Kliskey 2003; Pretty et al. 2005; Moss 2012) or economic benefits (e.g. Bennett, Tranter & Blaney 2003; Downward & Lumsdon 2004). Nature conservation bodies are trying to encourage people to spend more time outside4 and government policy (for example through enhanced coastal access) is promoting access. Furthermore access to the Pebblebeds is a legal right, with an extensive Public Rights of Way network and open access through the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000). There is therefore a challenge to resolve impacts associated with recreation without compromising the ability of people to be outside and enjoying the green spaces near their homes.

3 In perpetuity is defined here (following advice from East Devon District Council) and in the South East Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy as 80 years. 4 For example through Project Wild Thing, http://projectwildthing.com/

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

2. Methods

Overview 2.1 On-site visitor surveys involving counts of people and face-face interviews with a random sample of visitors were undertaken to provide data to inform the visitor management plan. The survey approach followed the methods used widely by Footprint Ecology, including at a range of other heathland sites (e.g. Clarke et al. 2006; Liley, Jackson & Underhill-Day 2006; Cruickshanks, Liley & Hoskin 2010; Fearnley, Clarke & Liley 2010; Liley, Fearnley & Cruickshanks 2010; Fearnley, Liley & Cruickshanks 2011, 2012; Fearnley & Liley 2012; Liley et al. 2014a). In this section we describe how the survey was undertaken, how the data were used to predict visitor levels across the Pebblebeds and how visitor data were combined with ecological data to look at the distribution of birds in relation to people.

Initial GIS Data Collation 2.2 A project boundary was established within the GIS (Map 2). This boundary formed the basis for models of recreation levels developed later in the project. The project boundary encompasses the European Site boundary, but was extended to include areas adjacent to the European site where there was existing access, and the blocks of land between commons where it is possible to move between the different parts of the site. The boundary therefore reflects the area in terms of access/recreation, rather than the designated site boundaries. Within the project boundary there are two areas with no public access – reflecting areas used for military training (the danger area) and the quarry.

2.3 A GIS layer reflecting potential access routes within the project boundary was then established. This layer was derived from a range of different sources, including Public Rights of Way (provided by East Devon AONB), Open Street Map5 and cross reference to Ordnance Survey maps. The aim was to map all possible paths that could provide access routes within the project boundary, including informal paths, desire lines etc. As much of the area is dedicated open access land, access is likely to extend well beyond the public rights of way network. The path network as mapped then provided the basis for maps used in the visitor interviews and the modelling of access at later stages in the project.

2.4 A GIS layer of access points was then added. This layer was generated from the maps of parking locations initially identified by site managers and Natural England staff to ensure complete coverage in the previous visitor survey (Ecology Solutions 2012). Locations, parking capacity and the classification of parking as formal/informal were derived from the previous survey and checked through cross-reference to aerial

5 http://www.openstreetmap.org/about

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

imagery. Foot access points were added where main paths (tracks, Public Rights of Way etc.) cross the project boundary.

Visitor Survey Fieldwork

Selection of Survey Locations 2.5 Using the map layers described above, a sample of access points were selected for visitor survey work. The GIS layers provided the basis to ensure the selected survey points gave a good geographical spread across the Pebblebeds, covered a range of sizes and types of access point and would ensure a wide range of people were interviewed. The budget allowed for a total of 15 points to be surveyed.

2.6 Overall the data showed 296 parking spaces within formal car-parks and 203 parking spaces across informal parking locations. Informal parking locations are typically small in size, but there are many of them (59 locations) whereas there are fewer formal parking locations (13 formal car-parks) which typically are larger and offer more parking spaces. In addition 25 foot only access points were identified; most of these are well away from housing and likely to be used only infrequently.

2.7 Based on the above, survey effort was largely focused on formal car-parks, but included some informal parking and some locations where visitors who had arrived by other means than by car might be intercepted.

2.8 Survey points are shown in Map 2 and summarised in Table 1.

Survey Effort and Timing of Surveys 2.9 Twelve survey points were identified (see Map 2 and Table 1). Each survey point was surveyed for a total of 16 hours, with survey effort split equally over a weekday and a weekend day. Survey work was undertaken in two hour time slots (0700-0900; 1000- 1200; 1300-1500; 1700-1900) to ensure coverage across the day, and all survey slots were covered on a weekday and weekend day to give the sixteen hours. Clearly two hour slots result in some gaps in the surveyed day, and it is recognised that these may miss certain individuals who arrive at these times. Sensor data from four main car parks (Castle, Estuary, Four Firs, Warren) would suggest 85% of visitors are on site between 07:00 and 19:00 hours and that our survey periods within these would capture 52% of visitors (however it should be noted sensor data will have limitations and this data was not calibrated or rigorously cleaned). Surveys were undertaken in May and June, ensuring coverage during the bird breeding season but outside holiday periods.

2.10 The available budget (15 survey points) allowed for a second pulse of survey work to be undertaken in the summer holiday period (late July – end August) to ensure some visitor data was collected for sites where access was likely to be different during the school holiday periods (i.e. potentially attracting local families or holiday makers). However, the budget only allowed for this pulse to cover three survey locations. While ideally all survey locations would be repeated, a carefully selected subset allows for an indication of the level of increase in visitors in the summer. The three locations were surveyed in August and these are highlighted in Map 2 and Table 1.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Table 1: Survey Points. ID numbers, name and capacity are taken from the Ecology Solutions visitor survey in 2012. Parking Likely to intercept non Surveyed By Ecology Surveyed in May/June Resurveyed in August ID Name Type capacity car visitors Solutions 2015 2015 Stowford Woods Crook 21 10 Informal parking   Woods Road edge Hawkerland 15 8 Informal parking  road C 12 Hunger Hill, Burrow 6 Informal parking    8 Lympstone 15 Formal parking    11 Squabmoor 15 Formal parking   2 Uphams 30 Formal parking  6 Woodbury Castle 25 Formal parking    7 Warren 20 Formal parking   1 Joney’s Cross 40 Formal parking    13 Venn Ottery 3 Formal parking   4 Four Firs 40 Formal parking  10 Wheathill 30 Formal parking 

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 Fieldwork methods 2.11 Surveyors were stationed at the survey points identified above and all visitors were counted entering/leaving the site during the fixed time periods. This tally data provides basic information on the visitor flows (number of people, groups and dogs) passing each point. A random sample of people passing was interviewed, with the random sample achieved through surveyors approaching the next person seen (if not already interviewing). No unaccompanied minors were approached or interviewed.

2.12 The questionnaire was conducted using tablet computers. The questionnaire included questions relating to type of visit, activities, transport, frequency and duration of visit, alternative sites visited, reason for site choice, home postcode and routes taken within the site. A copy of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix 1. Route data within the site were plotted in the field as part of the questionnaire process, using paper maps.

Analysis of Visitor Data 2.13 Visitor survey data from the questionnaires and tally counts are presented within Section 4. Data are presented using graphs, maps and tables as appropriate. Key differences between survey points, activities and seasons are drawn out as relevant. We use a range of statistical tests to determine whether there are significant differences between particular results – for example between activities or survey points. These statistical test results are given within the text as relevant. In all cases p values reflect the statistical significance of each test; values of less than 0.05 indicating 95% probability that the difference has not occurred by chance.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 GIS analysis

Visitor Model 2.14 Using the data from the visitor survey we developed a visitor model to show comparative levels of footfall across the Pebblebeds. Such a model is useful in that it shows where recreation levels are highest and allows this to be considered in relation to the biodiversity/conservation interest of the site and how recreation is managed.

2.15 The path network across the Pebblebeds was digitised using a variety of data sources, as described above. This network was edited for use in the visitor model. Busy roads (A or B roads) were assumed unsuitable as part of the pedestrian focused visitor model, and were excluded. However, all minor roads and all path crossings over any road type were included. Short sections of A or B roads were included if they provided a route from an access point to an “on-site” path (path within 150m radius). This criteria ensured that almost all access points were located along the network. Only one access point (Heather Down) located along the B3180 was excluded.

2.16 The finalised network was converted to a raster layer, at a 5m resolution, to create a regularised grid of 5 x 5 metre cells. Cells included within the network amounted to 30,199 cells. Manual edits were applied to the path network, to ensure more accurate visitor flows, distance calculations and path splits. All cells located in the raster path network were assigned a value of one. From this cumulative count through raster cells moving away from an access point provide an approximation of network distance for each cell along the network to an access point. This was repeated to provide a distance matrix for all cells and for all access points (30,199 cells x 98 access points). All calculated values are later multiplied by five, to provide an approximated distance in meters (as raster cells are 5 x 5 m).

2.17 All distance values were rounded to the nearest hundred and then related to visitor distance curves to estimate the proportion of visitors which would be recorded at this distance. Visitor distance curves were calculated using routes from our questionnaire data. Each interviewee’s route length on the site was calculated and the total length halved to account for the return back to the access point. These distances show how the percentage of interviewees decreases with increasing distance from the survey point

2.18 Using this depletion curve we calculated the expected number of visitors at set distances from the access points along the path network. These curves were considered separately for those arriving by foot and by car. The proportion of visitors predicted at the given distance for each cell for a single access point was applied to the number of daily visitors expected at the specific access point (arriving by car and by foot). At distances greater than 10,800m or 5,200m from a car park or foot access point, respectively, the predicted number of visitors was automatically assigned to zero (i.e. virtually no interviewees were recorded at these distances, and it was therefore the point at which the proportion of visitors expected reach a negligible value).

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

2.19 The estimated number of daily visitors at each access point to use in the model was determined by a combination of the number of houses in the local area and the number of cars recorded in car park counts. Number of houses surrounding an access point informs the number of visitors arriving by foot. The number of interviewees arriving by foot from our interviews at each location was examined in relation to the number of houses within set distances. This relationship can then be applied to all other access points. We examined the number of residential properties within a 500m, 1,000m and 1,500m radius of access points. The strongest relationship was observed from correlations between the number of residential properties in the 1,000m distance band and the proportion of interviewees arriving by foot (Pearsons = 0.642, n=12, P = 0.024). This relationship was described with a fitted line by the equation: x = 1.911 + 0.0201 * y (R2 = 41.3), where x is the number of visitors on foot and y is the number of houses in 1,000m radius. This was used to estimate number of visitors arriving on foot at all access points. For visitors arriving by car the number of visitors was estimated from 20 car counts conducted at a range of times of day in a previous survey (Ecology Solutions 2012). This total was averaged for each visit and multiplied by twelve to cover the daylight summer hours to give the estimated number of cars per day. This assumes most visits last one hour, as observed from our interviews. Then values were multiplied by 1.6, to give the number of visitors, assuming average group size of 1.6 people per car, as also observed from our interviews. Where zero cars were recorded at the car parks a value greater than zero was necessary for the location to be included in the model. As such, an extremely low baseline value of 0.14 was assigned, equivalent to 1 visitor a week, to ensure all access points had a value for modelling. This value is an estimation, but it would appear these locations have some use and a value of one visitor a week would be an appropriate conservative value, relative to the values recorded at other locations.

2.20 A separate version of the path network raster considers the number of path splits in the network. In the split network, cells which were at a splitting node were assigned a value based on the number of splits, and all other cells not on nodes were assigned a value of zero. As such, cumulative addition of these cell values away from an access point provides the cumulative cost, in terms of the number of splits having moved past to arrive at any cell. The expected number of daily visitors at a given cell from a single access point was then divided by the cumulative number of splits at the given cell from the access point to provide the estimated number of daily visitors passing through a given cell. Summing all cell values for each access point layer together provides the estimated number of visitors.

2.21 The final visit model data layer resamples the 5m cells at a 25m resolution to provide data at a reasonable level for analysis. In addition, to also categorise visitor pressure over a wider area and therefore account for the possible effects of visitor pressure which are more diffuse (e.g. people and dogs straying from paths), a second visitor pressure metric was calculated. This was conducted by buffering the 25m cells by 50m, and the daily number of people from the original 5m cells within the combined area of the 25m cell and 50m buffer were totalled. This provides a more diffuse estimation for visitor pressure and better categorises “areas” of high and low pressure. Furthermore

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

this dataset is more robust in analysis as it reduces the number of zero values which are extremely prevalent in the 25m cell values.

2.22 The model therefore predicts visitor distribution across the Pebblebeds and shows the intensity of recreation use. Given the scale of the site it would be prohibitive to position surveyors or automated counters at every path junction or along every path section, and therefore some kind of model or extrapolation is the only way recreation pressure across the whole area can be mapped. We have used a similar approach on other European heathland sites such as the Dorset Heaths (Liley et al. 2006), Thames Basin Heaths (Liley et al. 2006), the New Forest (Sharp, Lowen & Liley 2008) and Ashdown Forest (Clarke, Sharp & Liley 2010). Other approaches are possible (see Beeco & Brown 2013 for general discussion), for example agent-based models (Pouwels, Opdam & Jochem 2011), however such approaches involve very large datasets and highly complex models that are beyond the scope of this project.

Habitat and species data 2.23 Habitat data for the study area was collated from two NVC surveys, both completed in 2005. One survey (Prosser & Wallace 2005) covered areas of Venn Ottery Commons, Woodbury Common, Lympstone Common, Tucker’s Plantation, Withycombe Raleigh, East Budleigh Common and Squabmoor. While another survey (McCarthy 2006) covered Hawkerland, Colaton Raleigh Common (including Woodbury castle) and Bicton Common. It is noted that these datasets are now around 10 years old, but represent the best available information.

2.24 Key areas without NVC GIS data are focused to Wheathill plantation, Dalditch plantation, Aylesbeare and Harpford Common. NVC maps for Aylesbeare and Harpford Common were used to identify mire communities (labelled as “Mire”).These areas were supplemented by coarse habitat data from the Natural England Priority Habitat Inventory GIS dataset6 to categorise large parts of the remaining area (e.g. labelled as “Lowland heath”). Surface water was identified from Ordnance Survey vector files (buffered by 10 metres to categorise wet margins). Additional areas of woodland were identified from satellite imagery; these were categorised into broadleaved woodland or coniferous plantation.

2.25 This combined habitat dataset was used to identify coarsely suitable habitat for territory centres of both nightjar and Dartford warbler. Whilst these other habitats and wider landscape may be important for foraging, the habitats selected as suitable are those predominantly used for breeding territories. Dartford warbler suitable habitat was defined as Atlantic gorse heaths (NVC communities H4, H8), which in some areas also included some small patches of other habitats as a mosaic (Bracken-bedstraw stands (U20), Bramble/thorn scrub (W22-25), Lowland calcifuge grassland (U3-4)). Disturbed, bare and recently burnt areas were also included, on the assumption these heath plots are now just under 10 years old and are now well vegetated. Areas for which NVC data were missing but that were categorised as “lowland heath” from the

6 © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2015.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Priority Habitat Inventory were also included. Nightjar suitable habitat included all of these classes with the addition of woodland habitat, including coniferous plantation, but excluding wet woodland. This also includes areas where NVC surveys had not been undertaken but which could be categorised broadly as “broadleaved woodland” and “conifer” from aerial photography. Areas of Atlantic Purple-moor grass meadows (M24, M25), Wet heath (M14, M26), Bog vegetation (M21, M22), Bog soaks (M29), Improved grassland (MG6-7), paths and tracks were the main unsuitable habitats which were removed in classification of suitable habitat for both species.

2.26 In 2010 a large uncontrolled fire burnt a significant area (c. 80 ha) of mostly heathland. This area was excluded in analysis of the distribution of Dartford warbler territories in 2015, on the assumption that this area was probably unlikely to be suitable at present. Regeneration of heathland and therefore habitat suitability for Dartford warbler following fires can vary. In the New Forest burnt areas did not recover sufficiently to support good Dartford warbler densities until seven years after a fire (Fearnley et al. 2012).

2.27 Data on the current distribution of the key bird species nightjar and Dartford warbler were provided from the RSPB and the annual monitoring reports (L. Kerry & E. Lagdon 2015). One nightjar territory was not within the study boundary and therefore was not included in analysis. In total, 77 Dartford warbler and 56 nightjar territories were mapped for 2015. Data was provided in the form of territory centres as point data. Individual points were buffered by 150m for nightjar and 50m for Dartford Warbler to provide an approximate territory area.

2.28 However, some constraints of this most recent data were noted. Many areas were not visited during the 2015 nightjar surveys and had to be excluded from analysis, and for Dartford warblers there was the possibility that the distribution recorded in the 2015 surveys was altered following the 2010 fire on Colaton Raleigh. For comparison nightjar and Dartford warbler data were therefore also used from the complete, systematic national surveys in 2004 and 2006 respectively (Conway et al. 2007, 2009). These data was used in addition to the 2015 surveys and analysis repeated with this dataset.

2.29 Data on the distribution of Southern Damselflies were obtained from Clinton Devon Estates and RSPB, populations of which are also monitored annually. These data were in the form of polygons to indicate individual sections of mire supporting populations. Although populations can fluctuate considerable, the areas used are consistent between years.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 3. Mapping Visitor Infrastructure

Overview 3.1 This short section summarises the current visitor infrastructure, based on the GIS data collated as part of the project. The distribution and current provision of access infrastructure is important baseline information to underpin a visitor management plan.

Access Points 3.2 Overall, 99 access points were identified in the Pebblebeds (map 3) from previous surveys (Ecology Solutions 2012). These comprised 13 formal car-parks, 59 informal car-parks and 27 foot access points. In total, these provide approximately 499 spaces, with on average 22.8 spaces at formal car-parks and 3.4 spaces at the informal car- parks.

3.3 There are generally few access points that have no parking and are foot-only access points, and all these have relatively few houses nearby (i.e. there are no areas with high housing density adjacent to the edge of the heath). Considering all access points, the number of residential properties within 1km of these was 3,391 in total. On average, 34 properties were within 1km of the access point, and the largest number of properties was at Hunger Hill, which provides ones of the primary access points onto Aylesbeare and Harpford Commons from Newton Poppleford.

Path Network 3.4 The path network from the access points across the study area is shown in map 4. Paths across the study area amount to a total length of 157 km (excluding roads). The density of paths in the area is visibly much higher in certain areas such as Hawkerland, the southern parts of Bicton Common and around the parking areas at Woodbury Castle.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 4. Visitor Survey Results

Overview 4.1 This section gives the results of the visitor survey and includes sections on visitor numbers (the tally data), questionnaire results, routes and postcodes. These results provide context for management recommendations and later stages of the report. The results also provide important baseline data on visitor use of the Pebblebeds and are therefore presented in full to allow potential for future comparison.

Visitor Numbers 4.2 Across all survey locations and all visits a total of 705 groups and 1,150 people were counted. This is equivalent to 2.9 groups and 4.8 people per hour of survey work. Results are summarised by survey point in Table 2, Figure 1 and Map 5 (in the figure and the map the data used are those for the spring period only, allowing direct comparison between all survey locations). Differences between the numbers entering and leaving can occur due to people entering and exiting at different locations, and also due to groups entering/leaving during set gaps in the surveying window.

4.3 Visitor numbers were markedly higher at Woodbury Castle than the other survey points. During the spring surveys around a quarter of the visitors counted entering all survey points were counted here. This equated to approximately 12.5 adults per hour entering at this survey location (15.8 adults per hour in August). Group size (calculated based on the total number of people divided by the number of groups) was relatively consistent across survey points (Figure 1) but highest at Wheathill and also relatively high at Woodbury Castle, Four Firs and Joney’s Cross. The quieter locations tended to have a higher ratio of dogs per person, for example the most dogs per person were counted at Hawkerland Road Edge and Uphams, both relatively quiet survey points in terms of visitor numbers.

4.4 Comparing the three survey points surveyed in both the spring and August, there were slightly fewer groups (190 groups compared to 201) and people (324 compared to 341) counted in the spring. The number of dogs counted entering in the spring was slightly higher (180 dogs compared to 167) and the number of minors was much higher in August (44 minors in the spring and 83 in August).

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Table 2: Tally data Entering Leaving Survey point Groups People Dogs Minors Groups People Dogs Minors Spring 1 Joney’s Cross 38 62 29 3 35 81 29 4 2 Uphams 45 70 80 9 31 50 45 15 3 Four Firs 57 101 73 12 62 111 80 11 4 Woodbury Castle 113 201 109 41 108 161 112 23 5 The Warren 58 84 78 5 68 99 81 11 6 Lympstone 26 35 30 1 26 35 28 1 10 Wheathill 33 67 44 24 29 41 40 6 11 Squabmoor 39 61 42 0 35 60 43 1 12 Hunger Hill 44 57 49 5 42 57 45 8 13 Venn Ottery 8 11 6 1 6 6 3 2 15 Hawkerland Rd Edge 15 19 23 1 10 11 14 0 21 Stowford Woods 28 41 34 2 24 34 27 2 Spring Total 504 809 597 104 476 746 547 84 August 1 Joney’s Cross 32 46 28 5 29 39 27 2 6 Woodbury Castle 139 252 96 75 132 232 125 79 11 Squabmoor 30 43 43 3 24 32 34 1 August Total 201 341 167 83 185 303 186 82 Overall Total 705 1150 764 187 661 1049 733 166

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Number of groups Number of people 200 100 150 75

100 50

25 50

0 0 Group size Dogs per person 2.0 1.2

1.5 0.9

1.0 0.6

0.5 0.3

0.0 0.0 l r l l r l ss s irs t le en ne il o il ry ge ds ss s irs tle en ne il o il ry ge ds o m F s r o th o H te d o o m F s r o th o H te d o r ha r a ar t a m r t E o r ha r a ar t a m r t E o C p u C ps e b ge O d C p u C ps e b ge O d ys U o ry W h a n n R W ys U o ry W h a n n R W e F u e ym W u u n d rd e F u e ym W u u n d rd n b Th L q H e n o n b Th L q H e n o Jo d S V la f Jo d S V la f o er w o er w o k to o k to W aw S W aw S H H

Figure 1: Tally data for spring (May/June) surveys only. Groups describes the number of discrete parties or individuals counted (16 hours survey work at all sites), group size is the number of people divided by the number of groups and dogs per person is the number of dogs divided by the total number of people.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 Questionnaire results

Overview 4.5 A total of 492 interviews were conducted, with 373 (76%) conducted during the first pulse of fieldwork in the spring period and 119 (24%) conducted during August.

Types of visit 4.6 The majority (93%) of people interviewed were undertaking a short visit or day trip and had travelled from home (Table 3), and in total 5% of people interviewed were on holiday (26 interviewees). The proportion of holiday makers was therefore low. August surveys were undertaken at three locations (Joney’s Cross, Woodbury Castle and Squabmoor) that were also surveyed in the late spring. At these three locations the proportion of people on holiday in August (10 holidaymakers out of 119 interviewees) was higher than the late spring (5 out of 118), but the difference was not significant 2 (Χ 1=1.735, p=0.188) suggesting that the proportion of holiday makers does not change during the summer holidays. Overall holiday makers contribute a small proportion of those visiting, are only a small sample, and as such we do not examine results from these individuals separately. As they form a negligible proportion of visitors nor were these visitors excluded from any later analyses.

4.7 Woodbury Common, Warren and the Four Firs were the three locations where the most interviews were conducted; at least 40 interviews were conducted at each of these locations.

4.8 Two interviewees indicated that they were not on a day trip/short visit from home, nor were they staying with friends or family or on holiday. One of these was an employee of the MOD and the other was connected to a local riding stable and was on horseback.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Table 3: Numbers (%) of interviewees according to interview location and type of visit. Percentages are calculated for each row. Data from question 1. Day trip/short Short trip & On holiday in visit and staying with the area, Other Total travelled from friends or staying away home family from home Late spring 1 (Joney’s Cross) 26 (96) 1 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 27 (100) 2 (Uphams) 27 (96) 0 (0) 1 (4) 0 (0) 28 (100) 4 (Four Firs) 47 (98) 0 (0) 1 (2) 0 (0) 48 (100) 6 (Woodbury 51 (91) 0 (0) 4 (7) 1 (2) 56 (100) Castle) 7 (Warren) 47 (90) 1 (2) 4 (8) 0 (0) 52 (100) 8 (Lympstone) 28 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 28 (100) 10 (Wheathill) 23 (96) 0 (0) 1 (4) 0 (0) 24 (100) 11 (Squabmoor) 33 (94) 0 (0) 1 (3) 1 (3) 35 (100) 12 (Hunger Hill, 29 (91) 0 (0) 3 (9) 0 (0) 32 (100) Burrow) 13 (Venn Ottery) 6 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 6 (100) 15 (Road edge Hawkerland road 14 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 14 (100) C) 21 (Stowford Woods Crook 22 (96) 0 (0) 1 (4) (0) 23 (100) Woods) Spring total 353 (95) 2 (1) 16 (4) 2 (1) 373 (100) August 1 (Joney’s Cross) 25 (83) 0 (0) 5 (17) 0 (0) 30 (100) 6 (Woodbury 61 (91) 1 (1) 5 (7) 0 (0) 67 (100) Castle) 11 (Squabmoor) 21 (95) 1 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 22 (100) August total 107 (90) 2 (2) 10 (8) 0 (0) 119 (100) Overall total 460 (93) 4 (1) 26 (5) 2 (0) 492 (100)

Tourist accommodation 4.9 For those interviewees who were on holiday, a total of 22 indicated the type of accommodation they were staying in (Q2). Most (41%) were camping (this includes those in campervans) and around a third (32%) were staying in self-catering accommodation. Other responses included bed & breakfast (18%), hotel/motel (5%) and other (1%). Although it should be noted holiday makers were only a small sample of the interviewees (26 interviewees).

Main activity 4.10 Question 2 asked for the main activity undertaken. Responses were categorised by the surveyor and where the surveyor was unable to classify the response then the activity was recorded as ‘other’ and additional free text information recorded on the questionnaire. There were fifteen cases where the surveyor had been unable to assign

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

a main activity as multiple activities were given by the interviewee: these all involved dog walking and another activity such as jogging, cycling or exercise and these were all therefore re-classified as dog walking. These included one person dog walking while his daughter was horse riding. Two further interviewees were classified as wildlife watching based on the free text responses (“identifying plants” and “on a beetle walk”). Geocaching and horse riding were two activities not listed on the questionnaire and added subsequently based on the additional details recorded by the surveyors.

4.11 Activities are summarised by location in Table 4 and Map 6. Dog walking was by far the most commonly recorded activity, undertaken by nearly three-quarters (73%) of interviewees. The only site where dog walking was not the most commonly given activity was Venn Ottery (where the overall number of visitors was relatively low). The reasons for this are unknown. The most interviews with dog walkers were conducted at Woodbury Castle in the late spring (47 interviews).

4.12 There was no significant difference in the proportion of people interviewed who were dog walking when comparing the August and late spring surveys at the three locations surveyed during both time periods (in August, 78 out of 119 interviewees were dog 2 walking while in the late spring 86 out of 118 interviewees were dog walking; Χ 1=1.496, p=0.221).

Figure 2: Main activities undertaken. Data from all survey locations and both times of year combined.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Table 4: Number (%) interviewees by activity and location interviewed. Percentages are row percentages. Pale grey shading indicates cells with values of at least 5 interviewees (i.e. 1% or more of the total interviews conducted across all locations). Data from question 2. Wildlife / Jogging / Outing Dog Horse Walking Cycling bird power with family Photography Geocaching Other Total walking riding watching walking / picnicking Late spring 1 (Joney’s Cross) 15 (56) 2 (7) 1 (4) 6 (22) 0 (0) 1 (4) 1 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (4) 27 (100) 2 (Uphams) 19 (68) 6 (21) 1 (4) 2 (7) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 28 (100) 4 (Four Firs) 39 (81) 2 (4) 4 (8) 0 (0) 1 (2) 2 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 48 (100) 6 (Woodbury Castle) 47 (84) 4 (7) 1 (2) 1 (2) 1 (2) 1 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2) 56 (100) 7 (Warren) 35 (67) 9 (17) 4 (8) 0 (0) 3 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2) 52 (100) 8 (Lympstone) 24 (86) 1 (4) 1 (4) 0 (0) 1 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (4) 28 (100) 10 (Wheathill) 21 (88) 2 (8) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 24 (100) 11 (Squabmoor) 24 (69) 3 (9) 2 (6) 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (6) 1 (3) 2 (6) 35 (100) 12 (Hunger Hill, Burrow) 24 (75) 7 (22) 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 32 (100) 13 (Venn Ottery) 2 (33) 3 (50) 0 (0) 1 (17) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 6 (100) 15 (Road edge Hawkerland Road C) 13 (93) 1 (7) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 14 (100) 21 (Stowford Woods Crook Woods) 18 (78) 2 (9) 3 (13) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 23 (100) Late spring total 281 (75) 42 (11) 18 (5) 10 (3) 7 (2) 4 (1) 1 (0) 3 (1) 1 (0) 6 (2) 373 (100) August 1 (Joney’s Cross) 14 (47) 0 (0) 1 (3) 11 (37) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (10) 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 30 (100) 6 (Woodbury Castle) 46 (69) 8 (12) 7 (10) 1 (1) 0 (0) 4 (6) 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 67 (100) 11 (Squabmoor) 18 (82) 3 (14) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 22 (100) August total 78 (66) 11 (9) 8 (7) 12 (10) 1 (1) 4 (3) 4 (3) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0) 119 (100) Total 359 (73) 53 (11) 26 (5) 22 (4) 8 (2) 8 (2) 5 (1) 3 (1) 2 (0) 6 (1) 492 (100)

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Length of time visiting the site 4.13 Just over half (54%) of interviewees had been visiting the site where interviewed for at least 10 years (Table 5), indicating that most visitors have been visiting the Pebblebeds for some time. Reviewing the responses by activity type (Figure 3), for all activities more than 10 years was the most common response. Outings with the family/ picnicking was the activity that involved the highest proportion of respondents that were visiting for the first time (but note the small sample size of just eight interviewees). By contrast very few dog walkers and no horse riders or geocachers were visiting for the first time (again note the small sample size for the latter two activities).

Figure 3: Length of time visiting the location where interviewed, by activity. Data from question 4. Numbers in brackets give the number of interviewees undertaking each activity.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Table 5: Number (%) of interviewees and length of time visiting the location where interviewed. Percentages are calculated for each row. Data from question 4.

Less than or approximately Don't more than first visit know/ not Total 10 years sure 6 months 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Late spring 1 (Joney’s Cross) 1 (4) 0 (0) 2 (7) 3 (11) 2 (7) 7 (26) 12 (44) 0 (0) 27 (100) 2 (Uphams) 1 (4) 3 (11) 3 (11) 2 (7) 3 (11) 6 (21) 10 (36) 0 (0) 28 (100) 4 (Four Firs) 2 (4) 3 (6) 1 (2) 4 (8) 3 (6) 6 (13) 28 (58) 1 (2) 48 (100) 6 (Woodbury Castle) 4 (7) 1 (2) 1 (2) 6 (11) 8 (14) 9 (16) 26 (46) 1 (2) 56 (100) 7 (Warren) 8 (15) 1 (2) 2 (4) 4 (8) 5 (10) 1 (2) 31 (60) 0 (0) 52 (100) 8 (Lympstone) 1 (4) 1 (4) 1 (4) 1 (4) 2 (7) 5 (18) 17 (61) 0 (0) 28 (100) 10 (Wheathill) 1 (4) 1 (4) 1 (4) 2 (8) 2 (8) 4 (17) 13 (54) 0 (0) 24 (100) 11 (Squabmoor) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (9) 3 (9) 3 (9) 26 (74) 0 (0) 35 (100) 12 (Hunger Hill, Burrow) 2 (6) 1 (3) 1 (3) 4 (13) 3 (9) 11 (34) 10 (31) 0 (0) 32 (100) 13 (Venn Ottery) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (17) 0 (0) 1 (17) 4 (67) 0 (0) 6 (100) 15 (Road edge Hawkerland Road 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (7) 0 (0) 1 (7) 12 (86) 0 (0) 14 (100) C) 21 (Stowford Woods Crook 0 (0) 1 (4) 1 (4) 2 (9) 2 (9) 2 (9) 15 (65) 0 (0) 23 (100) Woods) Late spring total 20 (5) 12 (3) 13 (3) 33 (9) 33 (9) 56 (15) 204 (55) 2 (1) 373 (100) August 1 (Joney’s Cross) 3 (10) 0 (0) 1 (3) 3 (10) 6 (20) 5 (17) 12 (40) 0 (0) 30 (100) 6 (Woodbury Castle) 2 (3) 0 (0) 1 (1) 13 (19) 8 (12) 8 (12) 35 (52) 0 (0) 67 (100) 11 (Squabmoor) 1 (5) 2 (9) 2 (9) 3 (14) 1 (5) 0 (0) 13 (59) 0 (0) 22 (100) August total 6 (5) 2 (2) 4 (3) 19 (16) 15 (13) 13 (11) 60 (50) 0 (0) 119 (100) Total 26 (5) 14 (3) 17 (3) 52 (11) 48 (10) 69 (14) 264 (54) 2 (0) 492 (100)

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Length of visit 4.14 Over half (59%) of interviewees were visiting for less than an hour (Table 6). For dog walkers, joggers, family outings and horse riding the median length of visit was between 30 minutes and an hour.

Table 6: Number (%) of interviewees by activity and visit duration. Data from question 5. Pale grey shading reflects the cell with the highest value for each row

<30 mins 30 mins - 1 1 - 2 hours 2-3 hours more than Total hour 3 hours Dog walking 72 (20) 177 (49) 102 (28) 5 (1) 3 (1) 359 (100) Walking 7 (13) 12 (23) 15 (28) 11 (21) 8 (15) 53 (100) Cycling 0 (0) 3 (12) 10 (38) 9 (35) 4 (15) 26 (100) Wildlife / bird watching 0 (0) 2 (9) 8 (36) 8 (36) 4 (18) 22 (100) Jogging / power 2 (25) 4 (50) 2 (25) (0) 0 (0) 8 (100) walking Outing with family / 2 (25) 3 (38) 3 (38) (0) 0 (0) 8 (100) picnicking Photography 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (40) 3 (60) 0 (0) 5 (100) Horse riding 1 (33) 2 (67) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (100) Geocaching 1 (50) 0 (0) 1 (50) (0) 0 (0) 2 (100) Other 3 (50) 0 (0) 2 (33) 1 (17) 0 (0) 6 (100) Total 88 (18) 203 (41) 145 (29) 37 (8) 19 (4) 492 (100)

Frequency of visit 4.15 Most (71%) interviewees visited at least weekly. Considering only dog walkers this increased to 83% visiting at least weekly. The most commonly given visit frequency was “one to three times a week”, with one third (35%) of dog walkers giving this response. This was also the most commonly given response for cyclists, joggers and geocachers too (Table 7).

4.16 There was some evidence that frequency of visits varied between sites, with significant differences during the spring surveys for dog walkers (i.e. the main user group) (Chi- square test excluding data from survey point 13 comparing the proportions of dog 2 walkers visiting daily or most days compared to other frequencies; Χ 10=19.653, p=0.033). Three locations were particularly notable. At survey point 12 (Hunger Hill, Burrow) there were a relatively high proportion of dog walkers who visited regularly (83% visited daily or most days). By contrast there was a low proportion of dog walkers visiting frequently at location 7 (Warren; 29% visiting daily or most days) and location 1 (Joney’s Cross; 33% visiting daily or most days). To some extent this would suggest that the busy, main car-parks are to some extent avoided by some of the regular dog walkers.

4.17 While there was some suggestion that daily visitors comprised a smaller proportion of interviewees in the August surveys compared to late spring surveys at the same location (9% of interviewees were daily visitors compared to 22%), differences between the two

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

2 survey periods were not significant (Χ 3=5.674, p=0.129; categories relating to 2-3 times per month and less frequent merged to provide adequate sample sizes).

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Table 7: Number (%) of interviewees by activity and visit frequency. Data from question 6. Pale grey shading reflects the cell with the highest value for each row 1 to 3 times a 2 to 3 times Once a Less than Most days Other/don't Daily week (40-180 per month month (6-15 once a month First visit Total (180+ visits) know/blank visits) (15-40 visits) visits) (2-5 visits) Dog walking 76 (21) 96 (27) 127 (35) 20 (6) 22 (6) 5 (1) 13 (4) 0 (0) 359 (100) Walking 8 (15) 4 (8) 7 (13) 8 (15) 8 (15) 8 (15) 9 (17) 1 (2) 53 (100) Cycling 0 (0) 1 (4) 13 (50) 7 (27) 1 (4) 1 (4) 3 (12) 0 (0) 26 (100) Wildlife / bird 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (9) 3 (14) 7 (32) 4 (18) 4 (18) 2 (9) 22 (100) watching Jogging / power 1 (13) 0 (0) 5 (63) 1 (13) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (13) 0 (0) 8 (100) walking Outing with 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (25) 0 (0) 2 (25) 0 (0) 4 (50) 0 (0) 8 (100) family / picnicking Photography 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (20) 1 (20) 3 (60) 0 (0) 5 (100) Horse riding 1 (33) 2 (67) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (100) Geocaching 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (50) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (50) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (100) Other 1 (17) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (17) 0 (0) 3 (50) 1 (17) 0 (0) 6 (100) Total 87 (18) 103 (21) 157 (32) 40 (8) 41 (8) 23 (5) 38 (8) 1 (0) 492 (100)

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Time of day 4.18 Question 7 asked which time of day interviewees tended to visit. Around a third (35%) of all interviewees didn’t tend to visit at a particular time (or were on their first visit). Reasonably similar proportions of all interviewees indicated they visited before 9am (23%), between 9 and 12 (24%) and after 5pm (23%) (Table 8).

4.19 Dog walking was the activity with the highest proportion of interviewees who tended to visit in the early morning, before 9am (Figure 4), while the highest proportion of interviewees who didn’t visit at a particular time or were on their first visit was among those on an outing with the family/picnicking or those wildlife watching/bird watching.

Figure 4: Proportions of interviewees who tended to visit at particular times of day, by activity.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Table 8: Number (%) of interviewees visiting by time of day. Data from question 7, note that multiple responses could be given (i.e. an interviewee might tend to visit before 9am and after 5pm), percentages are calculated for each row based on the number of interviewees rather than number of responses.

Before 9am Between 9am and 12 Between 12 and 3 Between 3 and 5pm After 5pm No/don't know/first visit Total interviews late spring 1 (Joney’s Cross) 6 (22) 8 (30) 4 (15) 3 (11) 5 (19) 12 (44) 27 (100) 2 (Uphams) 6 (21) 6 (21) 4 (14) 3 (11) 8 (29) 9 (32) 28 (100) 4 (Four Firs) 12 (25) 11 (23) 7 (15) 5 (10) 12 (25) 14 (29) 48 (100) 6 (Woodbury Castle) 17 (30) 18 (32) 14 (25) 14 (25) 13 (23) 19 (34) 56 (100) 7 (Warren) 8 (15) 8 (15) 3 (6) 6 (12) 10 (19) 23 (44) 52 (100) 8 (Lympstone) 5 (18) 12 (43) 5 (18) 9 (32) 6 (21) 7 (25) 28 (100) 10 (Wheathill) 8 (33) 5 (21) 4 (17) 3 (13) 6 (25) 8 (33) 24 (100) 11 (Squabmoor) 8 (23) 9 (26) 6 (17) 5 (14) 9 (26) 11 (31) 35 (100) 12 (Hunger Hill, Burrow) 11 (34) 8 (25) 9 (28) 4 (13) 9 (28) 7 (22) 32 (100) 13 (Venn Ottery) 1 (17) 1 (17) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (17) 3 (50) 6 (100) 15 (Road edge Hawkerland Road C) 2 (14) 5 (36) 1 (7) 1 (7) 3 (21) 4 (29) 14 (100) 21 (Stowford Woods Crook Woods) 7 (30) 8 (35) 6 (26) 6 (26) 5 (22) 4 (17) 23 (100) spring total 91 (24) 99 (27) 63 (17) 59 (16) 87 (23) 121 (32) 373 (100)

August 1 (Joney’s Cross) 5 (17) 4 (13) 1 (3) 2 (7) 4 (13) 16 (53) 30 (100) 6 (Woodbury Castle) 16 (24) 9 (13) 4 (6) 8 (12) 20 (30) 24 (36) 67 (100) 11 (Squabmoor) 3 (14) 6 (27) 2 (9) 1 (5) 2 (9) 9 (41) 22 (100) August total 24 (20) 19 (16) 7 (6) 11 (9) 26 (22) 49 (41) 119 (100) Grand Total 115 (23) 118 (24) 70 (14) 70 (14) 113 (23) 170 (35) 492 (100)

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Time of year 4.20 There was little evidence that interviewees tended to visit at a particular time of year (question 8). Across all interviewees 80% indicated they tended to visit equally all year round; a further 8% of interviewees were on their first visit or didn’t know whether they tended to visit more at a particular time of year (1%). For those that did give a particular time of year spring and summer were the most frequently cited seasons, with 8% tending to visit more in the spring and 9% in the summer7.

Mode of transport 4.21 The majority (91%) of interviewees had travelled to the interview location by car or van. Other modes of transport were foot (6% interviewees), bicycle (2% interviewees) and by horse (2 interviewees, <1%).

4.22 Visitors who had travelled on foot were interviewed at most locations, albeit in very small numbers; Four Firs and the Hawkerland road edge were the only locations with no interviewees who had arrived on foot. The one location where any notable volume of visitors arrived on foot was Hunger Hill, where 13 interviewees (41% of the interviews at the location) had travelled on foot.

4.23 Of the 26 people interviewed whose main activity was cycling, less than half (12 interviewees, 46%) had travelled to the Pebblebeds by bicycle, the rest transporting their bikes to the heath by car or van.

Reasons for site choice 4.24 Reasons for site choice are summarised in Figure 5. Interviewees could give a range of reasons which were categorised by the surveyor. Interviewees were asked for a single main reason but could give a range of ‘other’ reasons. The ‘scenery/variety of views’ was the most frequently cited main reason and was cited as a main or other reason by 51% of interviewees. Dog related reasons – ‘good for dog/dog enjoys it’ and the ‘ability to let dog off lead’ – were the next most frequently cited reasons. ‘Quick and easy travel route’ was notable in that, taking all responses together, it was ranked relatively low compared to other reasons (cited by 10% of interviewees). However it was the second most frequently cited main reason.

4.25 A total of 107 free text additional details or other reasons were recorded by the surveyor for question 12. These are summarised in Figure 6. Many (15 responses) related to dogs – such as ‘dog can play with other dogs’, ‘safe for dog’ or ‘dog enjoys the wetter areas’. A further 12 responses related to stopping off en route to somewhere else. For two interviewees the reason for site choice was ‘by chance’. Other notable comments included:

 ‘Wilder and natural compared to other areas’  ‘Tides in’ (suggesting that visitors would otherwise have been to the Exe)

7 note that the seasons were not exclusive and interviewees could indicate multiple seasons, percentages do not therefore add up to 100

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

 ‘Recommended in RSPB guide’  ‘Only facility for mountain biking’  ‘Not an organised park’  ‘I take a personal pride in looking after this area’  ‘I grew up here, it’s like my back garden’

Figure 5: Reasons for choosing to visit the site where interviewed rather than an alternative location (question 12). Responses were categorised by the surveyor into the categories shown. Interviewees were asked for a single, ‘main’ reason, and other reasons were also recorded.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Figure 6: Word cloud derived from the 107 free text responses recorded for question 12, describing other reasons for site choice or additional information recorded by the surveyor. Size of words reflects their frequency of occurrence in the responses.

Other Sites 4.26 Question 13 asked for information on other sites visited, specifically ‘the one location you would have visited today for [activity] if you could not have visited here’. A total of 32 interviewees didn’t know/weren’t sure and a further 71 interviewees indicated that they would not have visited anywhere at all. A total of 389 responses which gave site names were therefore recorded. Where individual sites were named there was varying level of detail, for example some interviewees would simply name Dartmoor whereas others would indicate specific locations such as Hay Tor. Some locations were vague, such as ‘local paths’ or ‘cliff path’.

4.27 Of these 389 responses, 148 involved other locations within the Pebblebeds. Sixty-eight responses related to the Exe Estuary (including Exmouth Seafront but not including Exmouth Maer), and other popular locations included the River Otter (38 responses) and Haldon Forest (22 responses). Five interviewees mentioned the Killerton Estate/Ashclyst and no interviewees specifically mentioned Ludwell or the Valley Parks (all locations that are possible SANGs).

4.28 Responses are summarised in Figure 7.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Figure 7: Word cloud derived from the 389 responses to question 13, describing named other sites visited. All words were input as lower case and the cloud is derived from individual words, hence “four firs” is treated as two words. Size of words reflects their frequency of occurrence in the responses.

Awareness of designations and environmental protection 4.29 Nearly half (45%) of all the people interviewed were not aware that there was any environmental protection or designations that applied to the Pebblebeds (Table 9). Comparing between those activities with sufficient sample size (dog walking, walking and cycling) there were no significant differences in the proportions of people that 2 indicated Yes as opposed to No or Unsure (Χ 2=0.837, p=0.658).

Table 9: Responses to question 14, “are you aware of any designations or environmental protection that applies to the Pebblebeds?”, table gives number of interviewees (%), by activity.

No Unsure/blank Yes Total Dog walking 159 (44) 62 (17) 138 (38) 359 (100) Walking 27 (51) 6 (11) 20 (38) 53 (100) Cycling 12 (46) 2 (8) 12 (46) 26 (100) Wildlife / bird watching 4 (18) 0 (0) 18 (82) 22 (100) Jogging / power walking 5 (63) 1 (13) 2 (25) 8 (100) Outing with family / picnicking 6 (75) 1 (13) 1 (13) 8 (100) Photography 1 (20) 0 (0) 4 (80) 5 (100) Horse riding 1 (33) 0 (0) 2 (67) 3 (100) Geocaching 1 (50) 0 (0) 1 (50) 2 (100) Other 3 (50) 0 (0) 3 (50) 6 (100) Total 219 (45) 72 (15) 201 (41) 492 (100)

4.30 Of those that answered yes to question 14 and were aware of designations or protection, 19% could not name the designation or protection (Figure 8). The

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

designation most commonly referred to was SSSI (or references to “special scientific interest” etc.) given by 96 interviewees (i.e. 48% of those that answered yes to question 14 and 20% of all interviewees).

Figure 8: Names of environmental protection/designations applying to the Pebblebeds. Data from question 15 (overall sample size is 201 – i.e. those that answered yes to question 14, are you aware….). Data labels give number of responses.

4.31 When asked about awareness of important species or habitats on the Pebblebeds, 304 interviewees (62%) were able to answer, naming a habitat, species or type of species that the pebblebed heaths are important for. The remaining 188 interviewees (38%) could not name any of the important habitats or species present. The most common response was a general comment relating to birds, given by around a third (32%) of all interviewees (Figure 9). Dartford warbler (named by 16% of all interviewees) was more frequently named than nightjar (13%). In total nearly half (47%) of interviewees mentioned birds in general or specifically mentioned Dartford warbler or Nightjar. After birds, reptiles were named by 22% of interviewees and southern damselfly was named by 3% of interviewees. While few interviewees named specific habitat types (1% specifically naming wet heath and less than 1% indicating dry heath), a general comment about heathland was made by 16% of interviewees and taking all heathland habitat type responses together, 18% of interviewees mentioned heathland.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Figure 9: Percentage of interviewees able to name important species or habitats on the Pebblebeds (from question 16). This question was asked of all interviewees and percentages therefore based on a 492 interviewees. Multiple responses were possible (i.e. people could name nightjar, Dartford warbler and southern damselfly).

Awareness of site management 4.32 Around three-quarters of interviewees (379 interviewees, 77%) indicated that they were aware who was responsible for looking after the area they were visiting (question 17). When probed further (question 18) one of these could not answer who and a total of 378 named an organisation/body. Responses are summarised in Table 10. Clinton Devon Estates was the most frequently named body, and 60% of all interviewees named the estate. Other parties named included the RSPB (8% of all interviewees), East Devon District Council (4%) and the Pebblebed Heaths Conservation Trust (2%). Survey point 8, Lympstone was notable in that nearly half (46%) were not able to name an organisation/body at all.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Table 10: Number (%) of interviewees naming a particular organisation as responsible for looking after the area where interviewed, by survey location. Columns are ordered from left to right in order of the number of responses. Abbreviations are: RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; EDDC East Devon District Council; PHCT Pebblebed Heaths Conservation Trust; DWT Devon Wildlife Trust; FC Forestry Commission; NT National Trust; EA Environment Agency. Clinton Not able Squabmoor Private Row Labels Devon RSPB EDDC PHCT DWT FC NT EA to give a Total Farm owner Estates response 1 (Joney’s Cross) 27 (47) 18 (32) 0 (0) 1 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 11 (19) 57 (100) 2 (Uphams) 23 (82) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (14) 28 (100) 4 (Four Firs) 30 (63) 0 (0) 5 (10) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2) 0 (0) 1 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 11 (23) 48 (100) 6 (Woodbury Castle) 72 (59) 0 (0) 9 (7) 7 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 35 (28) 123 (100) 7 (Warren) 30 (58) 1 (2) 2 (4) 2 (4) 0 (0) 1 (2) 0 (0) 1 (2) 0 (0) 1 (2) 14 (27) 52 (100) 8 (Lympstone) 11 (39) 1 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (11) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 13 (46) 28 (100) 10 (Wheathill) 21 (88) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (13) 24 (100) 11 (Squabmoor) 35 (61) 0 (0) 4 (7) 1 (2) 2 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2) 0 (0) 14 (25) 57 (100) 12 (Hunger Hill, Burrow) 14 (44) 13 (41) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (13) 32 (100) 13 (Venn Ottery) 1 (17) 3 (50) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (17) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (17) 6 (100) 15 (Road edge Hawkerland Road C) 10 (71) 1 (7) 1 (7) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (7) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (7) 14 (100) 21 (Stowford Woods Crook Woods) 20 (87) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (13) 23 (100) Total 294 (60) 37 (8) 21 (4) 11 (2) 4 (1) 4 (1) 3 (1) 2 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 114 (23) 492 (100)

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Awareness of access restrictions 4.33 Question 19 considered awareness of controls or access restrictions in place. For wild camping and fires there seemed a reasonably high level of awareness that the activities were restricted: 93% of interviewees believed lighting fires was restricted and 82% believed wild camping was restricted (Figure 10).

4.34 It seemed very few interviewees (9%) were aware that there is a limit on the number of dogs and there was a high degree of uncertainty among interviewees (65% didn’t know or were not sure). Only 28% of interviewees believed that dogs needed to be kept on leads during the breeding season, with a further 44% of interviewees unsure and 28% believing there was no restriction. There was clearly some uncertainty about this among interviewees, reflected by the grey shading in Figure 10. There was a significant difference between dog walkers and non-dog walkers in the proportion of interviewees that thought dogs were required to be on a lead during the breeding season, with fewer 2 dog walkers aware of any restrictions (Χ 1=11.486, p=0.001). There was less uncertainty regarding dog fouling, with 72% of interviewees aware that there was a requirement to pick-up and 18% uncertain. One in ten (10%) of all interviewees believed there was no requirement to pick-up. There were significant differences between dog walkers and non-dog walkers with a lower proportion of dog-walkers believing there was a 2 requirement to pick up (Χ 1=5.398, p=0.020).

Figure 10: Awareness of controls/access restrictions (from question 19). Plot shows percentage of interviewees aware that there is a restriction in green – i.e. green bars show the proportion of interviewees that believe a restriction is in place, to pick up, to keep dogs on leads, to limit the number of dogs etc.

Views on future management of access 4.35 Views on future management measures are summarised in Figure 11. The results to these questions provide some indication of which measures are likely to be popular with visitors, but of course do not reflect how successful the measures might be. Measures that do not receive much support are of course not necessarily measures that are least likely to make a difference, they are simply unpalatable to visitors.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

4.36 Measures that had the most support among interviewees were more dog bins (85% of interviewees indicating some support), more interpretation relating to wildlife and heritage (83%) and enforcement relating to dog fouling (75%). There was very little support (5%) for compulsory parking charges, closure of some parking areas (10%) and yearly parking permits (12%).

4.37 For just five of the 13 management measures put forward to interviewees did the negative responses (classes 1 & 2, Figure 11), outweigh the positive responses (4 & 5). These were; compulsory parking charges, closure of some parking areas, yearly parking permit, enforcement of dogs on leads (March-July) and improved surfacing to car-parks. Although there was only marginally more support (differed less than 10%) for greater warden presence and voluntary parking charges.

Figure 11: Support for different management measures (from question 20). Measures were scored from 1 to 5 and are ranked in the plot with those with the most support (scores of 4 or 5) at the top.

4.38 In addition to the specific measures within question 20, interviewees were asked for suggestions of measures relating to the management of access that they would like to see, and 49 interviewees made suggestions. These were wide ranging and included:

 Two interviewees suggested a low key visitor centre/classroom/education facility

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

 At least three interviewees indicated concern about gates and fencing restricting access  Five interviewees indicated they were happy with the current management/status quo.  At least five interviewees highlighted a wish for dog fouling to be addressed, through fines, more bins etc. One other interviewee suggested fouling enforcement should only be around the car-parks.  One interviewee suggested a need to enforce motorbike use, another suggested a dedicated motorbike area  At least two interviewees highlight rubbish for example more clearing up of rubbish or a wish to see more action against fly tipping  Two interviewees raised issues relating to security in the car-parks, including one suggestion for CCTV.  Two interviewees highlighted a need for signposts on roads to direct visitors to car-parks

Routes 4.39 Routes of interviewees were recorded by surveyors as part of the face-to-face interviews. The surveyor also asked accompanying questions on the route length. These were whether any factors influenced the visitor’s route and whether the route length on this visit was shorter, longer or fairly typical.

4.40 Most (61%) of interviewees reported that the route they had undertaken was fairly typical of these usual route length. A further 28% of interviewees didn’t have a typical visit/weren’t sure/were on their first visit to the site. Six (1%) interviewees had undertaken a route much longer than normal, all of these were interviewed during the spring fieldwork and were spread across six different survey locations. A total of 50 (10%) of interviewees had undertaken a route that was much shorter than normal and these were spread across all survey locations and periods.

4.41 Previous experience was the main factor governing choice of route (Figure 12). There was some variation between activities in how people selected their route (Figure 13). No interviewees indicated that a marked trail, interpretation or leaflets had influenced their route choice. Whether these features were present at individual survey points was not systematically recorded during the surveys. Although interpretation and signage is present at most larger car parks, there is little in the way of signed routes.

4.42 Dog walkers, walkers and horse riders were the only activities where interviewees had chosen routes so as to avoid other people, and dog walkers and walkers were the only interviewees who had chosen their route so as to avoid muddy tracks/paths.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Figure 12: Factors influencing choice of route (from question 11).

Figure 13: Factors influencing choice of route, by activity. Data from question 11.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

4.43 Additional details/further information recorded by the surveyors as free text highlighted a range of factors. Two interviewees mentioned some kind of literature – with reference to a walking book and a tourist brochure. Four interviewees cited flat terrain and avoiding slopes. Dog issues were frequently cited, and were varied, for example one interviewee said “on way home, relief for dog”, another chose the route so the dog could chase squirrels. At least six interviewees had chosen their route because of an elderly or infirm dog and at least three interviewees had chosen their route to ensure water for the dog to drink/jump in.

4.44 For three interviewees choice of route had been influenced by livestock – including one interviewee who had been “chased by a bull” and another “avoiding horses”. One interviewee had been collecting cartridges left by the military.

4.45 A total of 490 different routes were mapped. Map 7 shows all routes recorded during the survey. Route lengths (clipped within the study boundary and adjacent 300m8) varied from 152m to 21.6km, with an overall median of 3,096m. There were significant differences in route lengths according to activity undertaken (Figure 14), with cyclists tending to undertake the longest routes and dog walkers the shortest (for all activities, including those with small sample sizes such as geocaching and horse riding: Kruskal- Wallis H=72.47; 9df, p<0.001; for just those activities with at least 10 interviewees H=52.69, 3df, p<0.001).

8 We clipped the routes as for some visitors - cyclists in particular – visitors routes extended beyond the study area.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

15000

12500 )

m 10000

(

t g

n 7500

e t

u 5000

o R

2500

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 6 8 2 3 8 8 5 2 2 6 2 5 ( ( ( ( ( 5 2 ( ( 3 g g g g y ( ( r g ( in in in in h g g e in g h d k k p in i n th l in c ri l ic ra k h O c k a a g l c y l c e w cn o a t C a o rs r i t W a w e e p o w g G o / h o H w y P rd o il i D p b / m / g fa e i n if g th l g i l d o w i J g n W ti u O

Figure 14: Route length (clipped to 300m radius of project boundary) by activity. Note y axis clipped at 15km (2 outliers for cycling fell beyond 15km). Numbers in brackets next to each activity is the sample size (i.e. the number of routes mapped)

4.46 Route data are plotted to show the cumulative percentage of visitors reaching a given distance from the access point (Figure 17 & Figure 18). To generate the plot, the total length walked is halved to account for the return back to the access point. These depletion curves are used in our model of the spatial distribution of visitors. The curve shown in Figure 17 uses data from all interviewees (493) arriving by any transport mode, a separate curve (Figure 16) was plotted for those arriving only on foot (29 interviewees), to be applied to foot only access points.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

100

25 Percentage Percentage of interviewees

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Route length (m) /2

Figure 15: The percentage of visitors recorded at distances from the survey point from interviews, using all interviewees.

100

25 Percentage Percentage of interviewees

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Route length (m) / 2

Figure 16: The percentage of visitors recorded at distances from the survey point from interviews, considering only interviewees arriving on foot.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 Visitor Origins (postcodes) 4.47 A total of 472 interviewees (96%) gave a full valid postcode that could be plotted within the GIS. From these postcode data it was possible to extract the distance people lived from the location where interviewed. The distances ranged from 0.92km to 392.1km, with a median distance of 5.43km. Three-quarters of postcodes were within 8.2km.

4.48 All postcodes generated by the survey are shown in Map 8. Map 9 shows postcodes by survey point, Map 10 shows postcodes by activity and Map 11 shows postcodes by frequency of visit.

4.49 There were significant differences between activities – for the four main activities with reasonable sample sizes (at least 10 interviews) dog walkers were the most local (median distance 5.1km, 345 postcodes) followed by cyclists (6.0km, 26 postcodes), those wildlife watching/bird watching (7.5km, 21 postcodes) and walking (8.0km, 50 postcodes) (Kruskal-Wallis H=18.45, 3df, p<0.001).

4.50 The number of interviewees by settlement (Devon settlements only) is shown in Table 11. The settlement with the most interviewees by far was Exmouth, followed by Woodbury and Newton Poppleford. Within Table 11 we also summarise how many residential properties are currently within each settlement boundary – and we use this figure to calculate a value for the number of interviews per residential property. This highlights a comparatively high visit rate from Woodbury, Exton Commando Centre, Newton Poppleford and East Budleigh.

4.51 Comparison with the previous Ecology solutions report (Ecology Solutions 2012) would suggest some differences in the proportions of visitors from closer distances, which may be a reflection of the different survey points used in the two surveys or the low percentage of full postcodes gathered by Ecology Solutions. Ecology Solutions reported 7.1% of visitors were from within 1km, 11.2% within 2km, 40.8% within 5km and 76.8% within 10km. Our results found 0.4% within 1km, 3.3% within 2km, 42.3% within 5km and 79.7% within 10km.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Table 11: Number of interviewees by settlement (settlement boundaries based on 2001 built up areas open source data from Ordnance Survey). Number of residential properties is extracted from postcode data (from 2015). Number of Number of residential Number of interviews settlement interviewee properties within per house postcodes settlement Exmouth 185 16,503 0.0112 Woodbury 58 738 0.0786 Newton Poppleford 25 800 0.0313 Exeter 23 49,305 0.0005 Budleigh Salterton 19 2,762 0.0069 West Hill 16 784 0.0204 East Budleigh 14 356 0.0393 Exton 5 219 0.0228 Ottery St. Mary 5 2,182 0.0023 Lympstone 4 819 0.0049 Whimple 3 470 0.0064 Topsham 3 1,932 0.0016 Clyst Honiton 2 116 0.0172 Clyst St Mary 2 328 0.0061 Feniton 2 673 0.003 Great Torrington 2 2,348 0.0009 Bovey Tracey 2 2,384 0.0008 Honiton 2 5,449 0.0004 Exton Commando Training Centre 1 17 0.0588 Otterton 1 299 0.0033 Uffculme 1 885 0.0011 Cullompton 1 3,440 0.0003 Ivybridge 1 4,855 0.0002 Newton Abbot 1 11,337 0.0001 Barnstaple 1 14,183 0.0001 Sidmouth 1 6,917 0.0001

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 Discussion and limitations 4.52 The visitor survey provides data on current visitor numbers, the draw of the Pebblebeds and information to underpin the modelling and detailed management recommendations made later within the report. The standardised nature of the surveys, with a clear and repeatable methodology provides an overall robust approach and dataset for statistical analysis. Nevertheless, with any methodology there are limitations and important considerations to be noted from the data and we recognise and discuss these in this section.

4.53 The survey approach involved surveyors standing at key access points. While the counts of people passing will reflect visitor flows past that access point, the people interviewed will not necessarily reflect a fully random sample. Surveyors selected people to be interviewed based on the next person they saw when not already interviewing. While this approach ensures varied selections of people are interviewed, there is the risk of bias that some types of visitor are more or less likely to be interviewed. For example, dog walkers may linger around the car-park/access point while they wait for the dog, while the dog has a drink and while getting the dog in the car. Other users may also linger, for example cyclists putting their bikes on a bike rack, but some cyclists and joggers are perhaps more likely to pass through at speed. Horse riders, joggers and mountain bikers may be difficult to intercept safely and in a way that is not causing an obstruction for other users. The numbers of horse riders, joggers and cyclists that were interviewed may not therefore be fully representative.

4.54 The surveys were undertaken during the breeding season with a later pulse in late August, coinciding with a possible peak in access levels during the school holidays. As such, the extent to which these survey periods are representative of access during the whole year may be doubtful. The lack of differences in the survey results between the spring and summer, including the consistent and relatively small proportion of holiday makers (<5%) between periods, may mean data are representative of other times of year. However we can be confident that the survey results do reflect access during the bird breeding season – a time of year when the bird interest is most vulnerable to disturbance impacts (Murison 2002; Murison et al. 2007).

4.55 Finally, the survey points used represent a sample of the access points across the Pebblebeds. We only selected nine of the 12 formal car parks and three of the 59 informal car parks. The exact visitor numbers, visitor profiles and their opinions will differ between survey points and therefore the individual survey points selected will influence the overall patterns presented. However, careful consideration was made in selecting survey points. The selection ensured survey points encompassed a range of access point types, included car parks of different sizes, with a good geographic spread. Furthermore the selection also ensured project funds were not wasted at locations which would yield very few interviews and therefore mean insufficient data for analysis.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 Key points from the visitor survey results 4.56 We summarise the key findings from the visitor survey results here and highlight points that have implications for management in bold.

 The majority of interviewees were on a short visit from home and holiday makers accounted for a small (<5%) proportion of access. Local residents are therefore the main visitor group.  Nearly three-quarters (73%) of all interviewees were visiting to walk their dog. Other activities included walking (11%), cycling (5%), wildlife watching (4%), jogging (2%) and family outings (2%). Dog walkers account for a large majority of users.  Many visitors had been visiting the Pebblebeds for a long time: over half of interviewees had been visiting the location where interviewed for at least 10 years. Access patterns are therefore likely to be very established and embedded, based on familiarity from years of visiting.  The median visit duration was short, between 30 minutes and an hour.  Most (71%) of interviewees visited at least weekly. There was some evidence that regular visitors tended to avoid the main honeypots such as the Warren or Joney’s Cross. This may suggest as access increases visitor use has (and will?) spread to other areas.  Reasonably similar proportions of all interviewees tended to visit before 9am (23%), between 9 and 12 (24%) and after 5pm (23%), indicating visit patterns that were evenly spread across the day. Potential visitor impacts such as disturbance will not be limited to short time periods during the day. Any visitor engagement on site will need to be spread across the day.  The majority (91%) of interviewees had travelled to the interview location by car or van. Provision of parking is therefore fundamental to how the site is used and recreation managed.  The ‘scenery/variety of views’ was the most commonly given reason for the choice of site (given by 51% of interviewees). Other common factors included ‘good for dog/dog enjoys it’ and the ‘ability to let dog off lead’. Off- site recreation provision (‘SANGs’) would need to provide attractive alternatives.  Other sites visited by interviewees were often also within the Pebblebeds. The Exe Estuary (including Topsham, Lympstone, Exmouth seafront etc.) was the most commonly named destination outside the Pebblebed Heaths. Other alternative locations included the River Otter and Haldon Forest. Visitor engagement/awareness raising measures on the Pebblebeds and the Exe may well reinforce each other.  Nearly half (45%) of all the people interviewed were not aware that there was any environmental protection or designations that applied to the Pebblebeds and few interviewees were aware of important species or habitats (for example around a third (32%) could not name a habitat or species for which the Pebblebeds are important). Few visitors are aware of the site’s conservation importance, and changing this may have implications for people’s behaviour.  Around three-quarters of interviewees (77%) indicated they were aware of who was responsible for looking after the site they were visiting, with 62% of all interviewees naming the Clinton Devon Estate or Pebblebed Heaths Conservation Trust.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

 When asked about access restrictions most interviewees were aware that lighting fires and wild camping were restricted (93% and 82% of interviewees respectively). Relatively few were aware of restrictions relating to the number of dogs walked or the need to keep dogs on leads during the breeding season (9% and 28% of interviewees respectively). For dog fouling around three quarters (72%) were aware of a requirement to pick up. Visitors are not aware of current restrictions relating to dogs on leads, the number of dogs and to some extent the need to pick-up.  A range of future management measures were scored by interviewees and parking measures (compulsory charging, closure of parking, permits) and the enforcement of dogs on leads during the breeding season were the most unpopular measures. More dog bins, more interpretation and more routes for particular activities were the most popular measures. Major changes to parking and enforcing dogs on leads is likely to be unpopular with visitors and would need careful thought, communication and implementation if undertaken.  Routes were mapped for most interviewees and showed a median distance (all activities, all locations) of just over 3km. There were significant differences between activities, with cyclists doing the longest routes and family outings and dog walking being the shortest. Provision of marked routes etc. will need to encompass these kind of distances.  Three-quarters of all interviewees who gave valid postcodes lived within an 8.2km radius of the survey point and the median distance (home postcode to survey point) was 5.4km. The settlement with the most interviewees by far was Exmouth, followed by Woodbury and Newton Poppleford. These data help to highlight where new development will relate to increases in access to the Pebblebeds and highlight where any off-site work with local residents should be focused.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 5. Visitor Model

5.1 Modelling the total number of daily visitors at access points predicts a total of 1,272 visitors to the 99 access points. The predicted levels of daily visitors at each access point are shown in map 12, with values shown for access points in Appendix 2.

5.2 The data values of the estimated number of daily visitors at each access point were based on a number of assumptions and relatively small sampling. As a check, as the visitor totals in the model were derived primarily from car-park counts we can compare our estimated visitor numbers with the numbers actually counted in the tallies conducted during the visitor surveys. Such a comparison shows our estimated values were usually reflective of the visitor totals as observed from our interviews, with a significant, strong correlation between values (Pearsons correlation = 0.911, n=12, P <0.001). Further checks can be made using sensors located at four main car parks. The average number of cars per day reported from sensors in May were: Woodbury Castle, 105.4 cars per day; Estuary, 57.7; Four Firs, 89.2; and Warren, 87.1. Our estimated numbers of visitors per day at these locations were: Woodbury Castle, 116.2 visitors per day; Estuary, 48.0; Four Firs, 70.1, and Warren, 79.0. These values are roughly similar. Car sensors will count cars that just pull-in for breaks/people staying in their car and the data have not been calibrated or rigorously checked (as indicated by on average 3.75 cars recorded a night between 22:00 and 05:00 hours). Our estimates reflect visitor numbers and so are expected to be higher.

5.3 The visitor model estimates the distribution of the visitor totals per access point across the entire path network. The results of the visitor model are shown in map 13. The visitor model predicts highest levels of access around Woodbury Common and Four Firs, and Warren. Here, most main paths have predicted footfall in excess of 25 people per day. Areas with moderate access are East Budleigh and Squabmoor, although here the many paths disperse any high concentrations. Other areas are Hawkerland, Burrow and Benchams and Stowford. In the centre of large, core blocks such as Colaton Raleigh, Uphams Plantation and Harpford Common the model predicted reasonably low levels, less than 10 people per day. Dalditch Plantation and the edges of Hawkerland away from the road also have this level of predicted access. The lowest number of visitors, less than 3 people per day, are predicted across almost all paths on the Aylesbeare and Venn Ottery.

5.4 Results of the model show the effect of access points which are close together. For example at Lympstone Common and Fryingpans there are several minor parking areas, which combined give a large value. Furthermore the effect of path complexity is illustrated in the model output for example around Tuckers Plantation and Hawkerland Valley where the multiple splits result in predicted low level diffuse access.

5.5 The visitor model has some limitations which are discussed. Comparison of the model (map 13) to map 7, of the actual recorded routes, is also advised. These maps show some large differences between observed routes and the model. Particular areas which show differences are in long distance paths which are all following the same route.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

These ‘highways’ which are clearly being used by lots of people are noted particularly out of Woodbury Castle car park. Some main tracks running across Colaton Raleigh common and from east to west across the Pebblebeds (e.g. from Woodbury Castle) are also lacking. Map 7 also shows some clear circular routes, such as at Aylesbeare, and Hawkerland which are not accounted for in the model.

5.6 The main reason for the differences is the effect of path choice. An individual’s actual path choice is informed by a wide range of factors such as path width, signage, path suitability, terrain, circular route options, routine and so on. In contrast, the model assumes even distributions along paths and all path splits are given equal weighting. The reality is likely to be quite different, as within observed interviewees’ routes, there are clear ‘highways’ which are much more frequently used. Although this model is used later on for comparison to environmental data this is done so with caution given this limitation.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 6. Impacts of Recreation

6.1 Many human activities on heathland will result in impacts, whether it is from localised trampling and nitrogen impacts from dog waste, or major impacts such as large fires. The range of impacts from visitors to heathland is summarised in Figure 17. The issues are considered for the Pebblebeds in detail within Liley et al. (2014b) and a more general review is provided by Underhill-Day (2005).

Figure 17: Summary graphic showing potential pathways for recreation impacts on the Pebblebeds

6.2 In Table 12 we provide further detail on the impacts shown in Figure 17. There are a wide range of relevant studies from heathland sites in the UK and other types of sites and these are cross-referenced where relevant in the table.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Table 12 Summary of key negative impacts from visitors to heathland sites (taken from Liley et al. 2014b) Typ Examples of species / species Description and Impact Key references e group affected Plant communities and species, Soil compaction Liddle (1997) especially invertebrates

Plant communities and species, White et al. (2006); Soil erosion from walkers, cyclists and some invertebrates benefit. Weaver & Dale horse riders May have implications for

Damage (1978); Liddle (1997) hydrology in mires. Damage to breeding and wintering sites, Invertebrates and reptiles Edgar (2002) crushed eggs etc. Reduced nest success through higher Murison (2002); predation levels, later nesting , smaller Nightjar and Dartford warbler Murison (2007); broods and higher nest failure levels. . Avoidance of otherwise suitable habitat or Liley & Clarke (2003); Nightjar and Dartford warbler lower densities in disturbed areas Liley et al. (2006) Langston et al. (2007) Direct mortality resulting from accidental ; Langston, Drewitt & Birds, invertebrates, reptiles

Disturbance trampling, vehicles, predation by pet dogs Liley (2007); and amphibians etc. Worthington-Hill (2015); Edgar (2002) Increase in crows and magpies on sites Birds, invertebrates, reptiles Marzluff & Neatherlin with greater human activity and amphibians (2006) Bonner & Agnew Plant communities and species, Enrichment of soils from dog excreta. (1983); Taylor et al. invertebrates (2005) Enrichment along road corridors, effects Plant communities and species, Angold (1997) of dust, salt, run-off invertebrates

Plant communities, small Fly tipping of rubbish and litter mammals, invertebrates Ground and surface water pollution from Vegetation communities, roads and hard surfaces, spills and Armitage et al. (1994) invertebrates in waterbodies dumping Contamination Bobbink et al. (1998); Air pollution from vehicles Vegetation communities Angold (1997); Bignal et al. (2007) Edgar (2002); Spread and distribution of non-native All groups Wichmann et al. species (2009) Higher fire incidence on more heavily used heaths. Direct mortality of fauna. Birds, invertebrates, reptiles Kirby & Tantrum Temporary removal of breeding and and amphibians (1999)

Fires foraging habitat Long term vegetation change from Bullock & Webb Vegetation communities repeated fires (1994) Vandalism: damage to signs, fences, gates All groups may suffer from lead to increased costs and drain on reduced warden input to

wardens’ time management Disruption of management e.g. Stock issues grazing: gates left open, dogs

Management chasing/injuring animals, inappropriate feeding or theft of stock

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Typ Examples of species / species Description and Impact Key references e group affected Public objections to management makes correct management harder to achieve All groups Woods (2002) e.g. public resistance to tree felling

Current impacts on the Pebblebeds: visitor model in relation to species data 6.3 Using the visitor model it is possible to consider in detail the current distribution of key bird species in relation to access. Habitat data are shown in Map 14. From these habitat data we can approximately identify suitable habitat for birds and consider the distribution of birds in suitable habitat in relation to access levels (Map 15).

6.4 Visual examination of the distribution of bird data shows clusters of territories in particular areas. There are clearly areas with high bird densities and also distinct areas of apparently suitable habitat not used by both species, such as Colaton Raleigh and East Budleigh Commons for nightjar and Aylesbeare and Venn Ottery Commons for Dartford warbler (Map 15).

6.5 Both the recent (2004/6) and current (2015) distributions of these two bird species were considered in relation to the predicted number of daily visitors within each 25m grid cell. Both metrics of territory presence and density were calculated for each 25m grid cell. Cells which were not located in suitable habitat for nightjar and Dartford warbler territories, respectively, were excluded. Furthermore, cells which were not wholly within the study boundary were also excluded.

6.6 The modelled data for predicted daily visitor values for each 25m cells is heavily influenced by the large number of zeros within values (c. 65% of values). Data values for the 25m grid cells with the 50m buffer around each cell lacked the dominance of zero values, and had a sufficient range of visit pressures that these can be grouped into quartiles. This metric is referred to hereafter as “modelled visitor pressure”, shown in map 15, and used in further analysis. This modelled visitor pressure value summarises the amount of ‘footfall’ within the given cell and out to a 50m radius. The measure makes ecological sense as birds may be disturbed by people passing within their sight/hearing and people may stray from paths etc. Furthermore our model relates to where people walked and not their dogs, and dogs may roam further than the specific route taken by the owner.

6.7 The presence of nightjars or Dartford warblers, in 2004/6 and 2015, in each modelled visitor pressure quartile can be expressed as a proportion of all cells with birds within the four equal classes (Figure 18 and Figure 19). The proportion of 25m grid cells (of suitable habitat) within a territory at the four modelled visitor pressure levels was different with both species and both years. However, these differences were not statistically significant from hypothetical equal expected proportions for both species and years (nightjar: 2015; n=213.5, χ2 = 12.5, p =0.006. 2004; n=125.0, χ2 = 6.5, p =0.089. Dartford warbler: 2015; n=46.5, χ2 = 2.3, p=0.504. 2006; n=50.0, χ2 = 3.2, p=0.360).

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

6.8 Territory areas occasionally overlapped within a 25m cell, and therefore modelled visitor pressure could be examined in relation to the density of bird territories. The number of 25m cells with more than one territory for each species was: nightjar 1,278 cells in 2015 and 1,101 cells in 2004, and for Dartford warbler, 120 cells in 2015 and 77 cells in 2006. Boxplots of the range of modelled visitor pressures recorded at different bird densities are shown only for 2015 data in Figure 20 and Figure 21. There were significant differences between the median modelled visitor pressure values in the different territory density group/s (nightjar; H=482.2, df= 4, p<0.001. Dartford warbler; H= 74.8, df= 4, p<0.001). The median modelled visitor pressure values and results of Kruskal-Wallis tests with z-values are shown in Table 13. The boxplots show overall modelled visitor pressure is lower in areas without territories present for both nightjar and Dartford warbler. For cells with bird data, the data suggest a pattern whereby higher densities of birds occur in areas with lower modelled visitor pressure. Furthermore, the distribution of outliers indicates that the areas of extremely high visitor number never support high numbers of territories.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

2015 30 present 2004 20

0 Percentage Percentage of cells inquartile with Nightjars 1 (low) 2 3 4 (high) Visitor pressure quartiles

Figure 18: Percentage of 25 m cells with nightjars present in each of the four equal quartiles of visitor pressure for data used in 2015 and 2004. Note: 150m radius around territory centres. 2015 data based on 56 territories and using 4,623 cells per visitor pressure quartile, 2004 data based on 71 territories and using 1,921 cells per visitor pressure quartile.

2015 8

2006 warblers warblers present

Percentage Percentage of cells inquartile with Dartford 0 1 (low) 2 3 4 (high) Visitor pressure quartiles

Figure 19: Percentage of 25 m cells with Dartford warblers present in each of the four equal quartiles of visitor pressure for 2015 and 2006 data. Note: 50m radius around territory centres. 2015 data based on 77 territories and using 2,921 cells per visitor pressure quartile. 2006 data based on 72 territories with 3,216 cells per quartile.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

2500

2000

e r

u 1500

r o

t 1000

i V

500

0 1 2 3 4 nightjar density (territories per 25 m cell)

Figure 20: Boxplot of visit pressure in each 25m cell at different densities of nightjar territories. Visitor pressure was calculated as the summed number of daily visitors per 25m cell and the 50m buffer around each cell.

3500

3000

2500

r u

s 2000

r 1500

s i v 1000

500

0 1 2 3 4 Dartford warbler density (territories per 25 m cell)

Figure 21: Boxplot of visit pressure in each 25m cell at different densities of Dartford warbler territories. Visitor pressure was calculated as the summed number of daily visitors per 25m cell and the 50m buffer around each cell.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Table 13: Modelled visitor pressure across the study area with cells grouped by bird territory density. Median modelled visitor pressure is shown for each bird territory density. Z-values are from the results of a Kruskal-Wallis test of differences between territory density groupings. Bird territory Number of cells Median visitor pressure Z-value* density Nightjar 0 14461 164.9 -10.72 1 3266 220.3 10.35 2 1124 196.0 3.66 3 262 170.8 -0.69 4 20 121.5 -2.13 Dartford warbler 0 12040 173.7 -12.25 1 1352 299.5 12.15 2 109 312.5 2.57 3 10 8.6 -1.71 4 1 0.0 -1.47 *Z-value indicates the difference in mean rank for density group compared to the mean rank for all values. Positive values are greater than the mean rank for all cells, negative values are lower.

Southern Damselflies and Mires 6.9 We show the distribution of southern damselflies and mire habitat in relation to our predicted current access levels in Map 16. Given the very limited distribution of the damselfly and its reintroduction from Dorset there is no merit in any analysis or statistical testing whether there are effects of recreation on the damselfly distribution. Instead the map provides important context for later stages of the report.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 Key Points: Impacts of Recreation 6.10 There is a range of different ways in which recreation levels could impact the designated interest features of the SPA/SAC. These are summarised and include contamination, damage, disturbance, increased fire risk and management issues. Relatively little work has been undertaken on any of these particular impacts on the Pebblebed Heaths in particular, but there is a wide range of studies from other heathland sites.

6.11 We use the visitor model, generated in section 5 of this report, in conjunction with recent bird data to consider the distribution of nightjars and Dartford warblers in relation to visitor levels. Bird distributions appear to be strongly clustered into particular areas. We can find no significant differences in the presence of nightjar or Dartford warbler territories in areas with high and low visitor pressure. Our analysis therefore suggests there is no evidence that current recreation levels are having an impact on the distribution of bird territories, except that higher densities of birds appear to coincide with lower modelled visitor pressure.

6.12 There are a number of caveats with the analysis and we urge caution in over-reliance in the results. The visitor model assumes all potential paths and routes are equally attractive to visitors. The model is therefore, in some ways, crude and fails to capture that some paths/tracks may be differentially selected. Furthermore, we only plot recreational activity, and cannot consider the levels of disturbance caused by military training. Collating bird data to give complete coverage of the SPA has proven a real challenge and the bird data does not match the timing of the visitor data (i.e. different years). There appears to be large gaps in bird distribution in areas of otherwise suitable habitat and this requires explanation which is beyond the scope of this analysis/report. In our analysis we have considered all habitat of a given type (such as dry heathland) to be equally suitable. There does however appear to be some other factor that may account for the bird distributions and we cannot account for habitat quality – for example in terms of vegetation structure, height etc. Both the bird data and the habitat data are to some extents patchy and coverage is not necessarily consistent across the whole site. Given the undulating terrain of the Pebblebeds, it is quite possible that the best areas for birds and people will overlap as the key areas of open dry heathland area (i.e. best for birds) are also perhaps the most attractive areas for people, certainly easier to access and with the best views. If this is the case then our approach in terms of analysis is not necessarily sufficient to pick up any impact: detailed ornithological fieldwork and habitat recording would be necessary to assess habitat suitability for the birds. An important future step here is to collate bird data in a systematic way across the whole SPA so that the distribution of birds can easily be reviewed.

6.13 Furthermore we only consider distributions of birds and do not assess breeding success, therefore it is not possible to be confident that disturbance is not currently having an impact or may do in the future with increased levels of access.

6.14 The visitor model and bird data, presented for the whole area together provide useful evidence to inform visitor management recommendations made later within this

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 report. Our analyses are based on current levels of recreation and we do not try to predict impacts of future visitor levels.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 7. Potential Mitigation Measures

Overview 7.1 In this section we consider the range of mitigation measures that could be established and the relative merits of each. The previous sections highlight the need for mitigation and provide context. Our starting point is to draw together a list of possible mitigation measures, based on recommendations in the overarching mitigation strategy (Liley et al. 2014b) and measures implemented in other parts of the country.

7.2 From such a list there are a range of ways measures might be prioritised. These could include:

 Cost  Ease of implementation  Support/popularity with visitors/user groups  Likelihood of success  Overlap with other measures (which might achieve similar outcomes)  Effectiveness over time  Geographic scale (i.e. whether relevant to whole of Pebblebeds or a specific location)  Likely opportunity (linked to existing management, on-going projects, new projects etc.)  Views of site managers, land owners etc.

7.3 Our approach has been to initially undertake a SWOT analysis, identifying Strengths (i.e. advantages), Weaknesses (i.e. disadvantages), Opportunities (other benefits) and Threats (risks etc.). Along with the SWOT analysis we highlight measures that are particularly costly and those that require one-off capital funding (e.g. infrastructure) as opposed to continuous implementation (e.g. salaries etc.). Such measures (that are expensive and/or require one-off capital funding), are unlikely to be priorities for the plan, particularly in the short-term, if equally effective alternatives are possible.

7.4 These initial outputs were then used to inform discussion with representatives from the relevant organisations and the project steering group. The aim of the discussions was to seek some consensus as to which measures were most appropriate and would fit with existing management and with the aspirations of the relevant organisations. Following these discussions plan elements were identified and these were then developed in more detail and costed.

Focus for Mitigation 7.5 From the previous sections we can identify the following:

 Impacts of recreation pressure relate to a range of factors including disturbance to birds, damage (trampling, soil compaction, erosion including possible impacts to mires from erosion up-slope), nutrient enrichment from dog fouling, increased fire risk and disruption or opposition to land management.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

 Visitor data shows visitors are primarily local residents, tending to visit primarily for dog walking, visiting frequently for relatively short visits and that many visitors have been visiting the site for many years.  Visitor data also shows that there is relatively little awareness of the conservation importance of the Pebblebeds, a poor understanding of some of the restrictions on access that are in place (dogs on leads during breeding season in particular) and that some changes in management may be unpopular with visitors.  In mapping visitor distribution, car-parks and access points data are presented which provide a basis for considering the management of access on-site. Currently infrastructure (interpretation, signage etc.) is relatively low key and relatively little infrastructure is in place.

7.6 From the above there would appear to be scope to enhance the visitor infrastructure and focus on awareness-raising with the expectation of knock-on changes in visitor behaviours (particularly relating to dogs on leads, dog fouling). Vulnerable features could be protected and the ability of the site to absorb ever greater numbers of visitors (linked to increased development) increased. Options for how these might be achieved are considered below.

SWOT analysis of mitigation measures 7.7 All potential mitigation measures that could be undertaken are listed in Table 14, which includes the SWOT analysis and simple categories for cost and implementation.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Table 14: SWOT analysis considering potential measures to mitigate for impacts of visitors. Cost column scores measures on a three point, comparative scale (1 pale shading=low cost, 3 darker shading=high cost). Implementation categorises measures that are mainly one-off (O) or ones that mostly require continuous

implementation (C).

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

Cost Implementation

1 On-site habitat management Only relevant to nightjars. Management of felling to Low key and low cost as simply Limited opportunities as only Create more varied As mitigation this would ensure clearfell with low public carefully scheduling work that small areas of forestry forest/heathland edge for require continued (yr on yr) 1a 1 C access levels always available would otherwise be taking plantation adjoining heath, breeding/feeding and singing clearance of forestry areas or for breeding nightjars place and main habitat for nightjars nightjars taking areas out of forestry is on the heath. Close liaison and working with Additional ponds, dams etc. stakeholders and emergency Careful siting will be required Provision of water for fire- will require consent from NE services. Ponds etc. could Unlikely to generate to minimise damage from 1b fighting (could include on SSSI. Mitigation is limited to provide additional wildlife 2 O opposition from users vehicles using facility in the hydrants, ponds, dams etc.) minimising impact of wildfire. features on heath and could event of fire. May attract dog walkers. also form visitor attractions in their own right Gorse alongside some footpaths is discontinuous and would require additional Maintain gorse barriers along Gorse management (for plantings to form effective some footpaths to Wildfires will destroy gorse Part of regular management so 1c Dartford warbler and as a barrier. There is already discourage/screen access. May cover and allow creation of 1 C low cost and low key barrier/screen for access) widespread dwarf gorse across be more applicable if desire lines and paths the heaths and dogs/people vegetation changes. straying off the paths may not be a major concern. Management of heather by Low cost and low key, Difficult to plan to ensure both Carefully select mown areas Any cut or mown area can 1d mowing or creation of undertaken as routine fire resilience and access away from paths to discourage 1 C become a new access route firebreaks management outcomes. new path creation by the

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

Cost Implementation public or to encourage the use of new routes 2 On-site access management Limited opportunities, possibly Links well to other measures Provision of features expensive. Needs careful such as interpretation, marked Positive measures, creating Risk of drawing more visitors to (viewpoints, water for dogs consideration of landscape routes, visitor centre so can be 2a dedicated focal points for area. Can be points from which 2 O etc.) to act as destinations and issues, can develop as points used to manipulate visitor visitors. fires start draw access for littering and dog mess. routes away from sensitive May attract visitors. areas. Boardwalks unsuitable for Positive measure. Can be Can become a feature. Can be horse riders can result in by- Need careful siting to avoid Boardwalks/surfacing to focused to particular areas used to divert horse riders pass routes developing for shading out sensitive plant 2b direct access along particular where issues from from wetter areas where 2 O horses resulting in greater communities and removes routes trampling/erosion or where trampling can be damaging via damage to wet areas. May bare ground for invertebrates desirable to focus access diversion routes attract visitors. Little evidence that likely to be successful as mitigation, may Can rationalise access and draw more users overall. Hard potentially focus users in a way Changes to car-parks (spaces, Positive measures to draw Will require repeated 2c surfacing will require public that ensures dog bins, 2 O surfacing etc.) users to particular locations maintenance in the long term consultation and an interpretation etc. are more application to the Planning visible and accessible Inspectorate on common land Can focus parking or particular As majority of visitors arrive by Roadside parking and informal Closing parking locations, or Unpopular with visitors. Or activities into fewer locations, car, likely to result in less parking locations may become 2d limiting some car parks for with user groups which are reducing cost of maintenance 2 O footfall in areas where car- used instead - difficult to particular users, e.g. cars only excluded e.g. horse boxes and other measures. Users are parks closed. limit/control more focussed Generates message to visitors Unpopular, particularly with Generates revenue that could that they are visiting locals for whom special potentially fund other somewhere that is owned, arrangements need to be measures. Regular users could Machines open to vandalism 2e Introducing parking charges 2 O looked after and managed. made. Requires input to get have a yearly permit, allowing especially in remote areas. Most people expect to pay for machines installed and name gathering, email list of parking now. maintained. Requires regular regular visitors etc.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

Cost Implementation checks to see that people are paying and measures in place to punish non-payers. Expensive to empty. Create sense of more urban Reinforces message that Generates waste (non- environment. If not regularly important to pick-up and biodegradable bags) with 2f More dog bins emptied become unsightly and 2 C ensures visitors have no excuse wider environmental noisome. Limited evidence not to implications that presence increases picking-up Expensive to empty. Create sense of more urban environment. Litter not a key Helps enhance the sense of issue in terms of impacts from Could be used for dog waste 2g More litter bins area being looked after and recreation to SAC/SPA interest. May not be used. 2 C too actively managed. If not regularly emptied encourage litter drop around bins instead of visitors taking litter home May draw visitors from wide Could be used for area and draw visitors with events/training etc. too. If sites unruly dogs. Potentially on adjoining open (grassed) difficult to find large enough area can persuade dog walkers Positive measure that provides locations that are outside 2h Fenced areas for dogs off SAC/SPA for throwing balls 2 O new facility for dog walkers SPA/SAC. Will need etc. Allows dog walkers with construction and maintenance unruly dogs to be directed to of fencing and gates. May offer alternative site not just asked safer areas for dogs fenced off to control their dogs from traffic and grazing stock Creates more space for access Expensive. Requires right Locations aren’t used because New parking outside SPA/SAC Positive measure providing outside SPA/SAC. Locations 2i locations. May result in more they are away from locations 3 O but still in Pebblebeds additional access facilities. outside the SPA/SAC could parking and more visitors. where people want to visit. provide a focus for events etc.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

Cost Implementation Positive measure providing Costly and potentially involves Dedicated routes that can be Routes aren’t used because additional access facilities. different landowners/ New routes around edge/off publicised, promoted and they are away from locations 2j Could include longer routes stakeholders. Routes around 2 O the SPA/SAC linked to other access where people want to visit. catering for horse riders and or outside unlikely to be as infrastructure. Routes aren’t found by users mountain bikers attractive. Likely to be used most by Would provide a destination occasional visitors/first time Part funding from other and draw users (assuming not Could be vulnerable to fire, visitors rather than sources; could provide a base Visitor centre/reception in a sensitive location). theft, vandalism etc. Would 2k regulars/locals. May draw for education/awareness 3 O facilities Provides permanently staffed require planning permission, visitors and increase access. work, events, volunteers, work location – greater engagement HRA etc. Expensive to provide and parties etc. potential. operate. Close liaison with emergency Fire precautions, signs and Other factors such as distance services leading to rapid access points help impress Likely to be undertaken to nearest fire station, road Fire-plan up to date and good response in event of fire and public on threats of fire and 2l anyway and therefore not widths etc. may play a more 1 O access for fire fighting understanding of the comprehensive measures to likely to function as mitigation. major role in limiting response importance of SAC/SPA deal with outbreaks by times. heathland habitats responsible site owners 3 Education/information

provision/awareness raising Opportunities to dedicate routes for different users who Positive measure providing for Relies on suitable routes being may otherwise come into Limited take up due to routes Dedicated routes for particular particular users (e.g. horse available and new routes may conflict e.g. horse riders and not being in the right 3a 2 O activities promoted riders, mountain bikers, dog not necessarily take people mountain bikers. Particular locations/visitors prefer to visit walkers, family groups) where they want to go. users can be channelled into core areas. less sensitive areas to reduce trampling, disturbance etc. Signs directing people, Ensures visitors do not get lost Changes the feel of area - more Potential for consistent Signs vulnerable to vandalism. 3b including highlighting sensitive and focuses access along managed. Signs expensive to signs/brands across whole area 1 O May be ignored. areas and routes particular routes supply and maintain and longer routes

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

Cost Implementation Can make visitors aware of Signs can target particular Multiplicity of signs can be important site features of Signs asking visitors to behave Signs vulnerable to vandalism. 3c groups, e.g. dog walkers to pick unsightly and give urban feel to which they may be unaware, 1 O differently May be ignored. up site e.g. gorse for Dartford warblers, danger of fire Potential to streamline discussion/links with events and other projects (e.g. dog Clearly sets out how particular Difficult to promote to casual project) Best promoted on web Potential to be ignored without 3d Codes of conduct user groups are expected to visitors. Leaflets can become sites for visitors to read before face-face presence, incentives 2 O behave litter problem arriving on site. Can easily be and promotion. promoted to clubs and societies and via local outlets e.g. bike shops Single map that can be used on a range of interpretation, signs, Printed material can create a Ensures single message and May work to show visitors Maps highlighting routes and internet, printed material and litter problem. Routes helps people find their way as other areas within SPA/SAC to 3e 1 O sensitive areas codes of conduct ensures potentially need marking on well as avoid areas that are visit and encourage visitors to clarity and consistency. Simple the ground too. sensitive. sensitive areas. and low cost. Long term awareness raising. Potentially little evidence that Excellent way of establishing Clinton Devon Estates and effective as mitigation as few and maintaining contact with Requires long term input and 3f Educational work with schools others already do this to some of visitors are school children. 2 C local communities. Establishes dedicated work with schools. degree Most likely to have long term indirect contact with many benefits parents Interpretation ignored or Welcoming and informative Need regular maintenance ineffective at changing Opportunity to inform first 3g Interpretation boards on-site but probably not useful for otherwise rapidly deteriorate behaviour. Creates more of a 2 O time or occasional visitors regular local visitors and give site a neglected look destination and risk of increasing access. A good way of informing Needs regular updating. Local Opportunities to advertise 3h Detailed material on the web Not read by locals. 1 O people who do not know the visitors may not use/see as events, volunteer activities,

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

Cost Implementation site before they arrive. Easy to unlikely to look up sites they health and safety issues such keep live and update (e.g. already know well. as occasional felling. Cross- seasonally) over with dog project, codes of conduct etc. Dependent on press releases Reach a wide audience and Difficult to maintain in the Awareness raising through Reaches wide audience 3i being picked up - difficult to potential to communicate a longer term and requires new 1 C local/national media including sporadic visitors find suitable stories and pitch range of messages stories/material. Eyes and ears on the ground, ensures issues are picked up Likely to work with range of Expensive. Could divert staff early. Potential for monitoring Face-face wardening with users and across locations. from more important habitat and other tasks while Depends on character and 3j 3 C engagement role Contact with visitors management or monitoring deployed. The only way to ability of warden personalised and targeted. roles enforce charges, restrictions etc. Links to other measures such as dog project Risk of providing hearing for Potential to reach a range of Little evidence that likely to be Potential to reach wide Liaison with local groups (i.e. specific disaffections about local residents and audiences, successful as mitigation. audience with a range of 3k talks with community groups which no action is possible, e.g 2 C including those who only visit Requires considerable staff messages. Link to other etc.) general complaints about sporadically. input. measures such as dog project other users Will only work with organised Offers good opportunities to Could lead to requests for Direct contact with local groups and not with general address specific issues with Already happens to some greater involvement and 3l clubs/users (e.g. local visitors such as dog walkers or particular groups, e.g. 1 C extent inputs. Requires on-going mountain bike clubs) with users who are not mountain bikers or model contact. member of group aircraft flyers Little evidence that likely to be Potential to reach a range of Potential to reach wide Raises profile of the site, successful as mitigation. Off-site events (village fetes local residents and audiences, audience with a range of encouraging more visitors 3m Requires considerable staff 1 C etc.) including those who only visit messages. Link to other without any impacts on visitor input and possible outlays on sporadically measures such as dog project. behaviour. displays etc. Links to other measures Spraying/flags to highlight dog Relatively dramatic way of To some extent risk of 3n Requires staff time relating to fouling; media 1 O fouling issue to users highlighting a particular issue generating message that potential

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

Cost Implementation everyone else does it so why not my dog? 4 Legal

measures/enforcement Expensive. Could divert staff from more important habitat management/monitoring Issues dealt with as they Fits with other measures such roles. Negative and likely to Alienates visitors so much that Face-face warden with happen and direct means of as codes of conduct etc. Could 4a alienate some users. Tackles results in hostility and creates 3 C enforcement role ensuring visitors who cause be used only if other measures only those who disregard more problems. problems are targeted. fail. regulations rather than tackling overall volume of footfall etc. Many events etc. already only take place after contact with site owners/managers. Some events may not require Potential to engage with wide Events do not apply for Permission for/management Ensuring such dialogue and 4b permission. This already on- range of users through single permission and simply go- 2 C of events formal granting of permission going to some extent. event. ahead. ensues likely to lead to more responsible and well organised events

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 Recommended measures 7.8 Based on the SWOT analysis and discussion with the steering group and site managers, mitigation measures were prioritised and they are listed in approximate ranked order of priority in Table 15. We have assigned them within the table into three groups:

Priority measures for the plan (relatively easy to implement, cost effective and scored highly in discussion with the steering group and site managers), these are developed in detail in Section 7.9 Secondary measures for the plan (longer term, more costly, potentially difficult to implement, but still with some merit), these are considered in Section 9 Measures not worth further consideration because they are too costly, unlikely to be effective, too complex or inappropriate.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Table 15: Summary of measures from the SWOT analysis, grouped according to priority. Measures are grouped into three tiers: those in dark green/brown colour are high priority, relatively easy to establish and scored relatively high by the steering group; those in mid green are secondary measures potentially longer term and ones that are harder to implement.

More dog bins   Face-face wardening with engagement role  Codes for dog walking, horse riding, mountain Codes of conduct  biking, others (geocaching, orienteering, etc.) Already taking place but could expand, e.g. Educational work with schools schools connected to new development. Interpretation boards on-site  Potential to improve and increase Detailed material on the web  Standardised and cross-organisation Liaison with local groups  Happens already but could be increased Happens already but could be increased - Direct contact with local clubs/users  mountain bikers in particular Gorse management (for Dartford warbler and as This would include dead hedging; relevant  a barrier/screen for access) around car-parks etc. Signs directing people, including highlighting  Most likely to benefit first time visitors sensitive areas and routes Could be seasonal - e.g. dogs on leads. Potential Signs asking visitors to behave differently  for fixed structures in car-parks to which signs are attached as relevant Off-site events (village fetes etc.)  Already happens, could expand Boardwalks/surfacing to direct access along Some limited opportunities, e.g. North of  particular routes Woodbury Castle

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Measure Measure only Quick Longer term already in justified if win/relatively measure / Dependent on place and Intervention other Notes easy to harder to get opportunities limited measures establish right opportunities unsuccessful to expand Expensive. Estuary car-park has view and could Changes to car-parks (spaces, surfacing etc.)  be made more attractive; model airfield car-park could be allowed to deteriorate Enforcement relevant once other measures have Face-face warden with enforcement role   failed; potential to target particular groups such as professional dog walkers etc. first. Dedicated routes for particular activities Mountain bikes, horse riding. Some walks  promoted leaflets already Path network/rides network is confusing & Maps highlighting routes and sensitive areas  difficult. Maps necessary in car-parks and linked to waymarkers Spraying/flags to highlight dog fouling issue to  users This was scored very highly by the steering group Parking controls on road verges, e.g. clearways but is ranked as an intermediate measure due to   or double yellow lines etc. it being complex to establish and potentially a longer term measure Provision of features (viewpoints, water for dogs The risk is such features make the area ever  etc.) to act as destinations and draw access more attractive and therefore need to be low key Closing formal parking locations, or limiting   Warranted if other measures fail some car parks for particular users, e.g. cars only Long term, impractical given current number of Introducing parking charges  small car-parks Management of felling to ensure clearfell with Most plantation is outside SPA and therefore low public access levels always available for  measure would not be mitigation. Felling already breeding nightjars planned and plan in place

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Management of heather by mowing or creation  of firebreaks Expensive. Blackhill only location. If opportunity arises from others then contribution by Trust could be an option. Visitor centre role both for visitor centre/reception   education (schools etc.) and as a draw, pulling people from other parts of site. Perhaps latter most relevant to first time visitors? Awareness raising through local/national media  Already in place, for commercial or charitable Permission for/management of events  events - they are asked to donate 10% to charitable trust and liaise with estate. New parking outside SPA/SAC but still in Feasibility issues, but dependent on   Pebblebeds opportunities; Blackhill Quarry? Would act as a draw and potentially increase New routes around edge/off the SPA/SAC   access Provision of water for fire-fighting (could  include hydrants, ponds, dams etc.) Already plenty of water Fenced areas for dogs Better placed on SANGs/away from SPA More litter bins Litter an issue and bins would encourage more Fire-plan up to date and good access for fire  Very important but already in place fighting Newsletter for Pebblebeds  Already in place, not scope to expand

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

7.9 In subsequent sections we consider these measures in more detail, making specific recommendations for how the mitigation might be implemented. We focus on the priority measures (Section 8) and the secondary measures (Section 9). We anticipate that many of the various measures would be incorporated into existing, on-going management of the sites by the relevant parties and as such incorporated into relevant management plans etc. As such measures will need to fit alongside, and complement, existing management.

7.10 For each measure we have also worked out a cost. These costs are approximate and indicative, and while potentially suitable for calculating an overall budget, are not based on quotations or detailed discussions with suppliers. For each measure that we have costed we have worked out capital costs (one-off purchases relating to equipment, infrastructure etc.) and running costs (costs that are on-going and run over multiple years). The overall cost of each measure is then calculated as the capital cost plus the running cost extrapolated to cover a given period of time. In most cases the given period of time we have used is 80 years (i.e. in perpetuity, see para 1.19). We have not included any adjustments for inflation, nor any discounting, and the cost estimates are intended for guide purposes only.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 8. Priority measures for the plan

8.1 These are the key components of the plan, prioritised above all others. They are measures that are relatively easy to implement, cost effective and scored highly in discussion with the steering group and site managers. They are considered to be the most effective and, based on the assessment outlined above, are the priorities for mitigation. Measures are listed in order of priority (see above). These measures should form the main approaches to mitigation and would be the measures to be implemented first.

More dog bins 8.2 Dog bins as mitigation relate to impacts from dog fouling and are particularly relevant to the SAC interest. The provision of more dog bins would provide an indication to visitors that visitors are expected to pick-up and helps to generate a sense that the site is being looked after (assuming bins are emptied regularly). It is important that the bins are well maintained and carefully sited, ideally at locations where they are passed by dog walkers. There are currently eight dog bins, fairly recently installed and these are at six locations (there are two at Woodbury Castle, Figure 22a). Current locations and potential new locations are summarised in Table 16, which shows level of use (parked cars). An additional dog bin at Hunger Hill, Burrow is not shown in Table 16, as this location had just 13 cars counted in 20 visits during the 2012 surveys (Ecology Solutions 2012), but the location is also used by visitors on-foot.

Table 16: Busiest car park locations, all with more than 30 cars counted in the 2012 survey (Ecology Solutions 2012), when 20 visits were made to each car-park. Ranking reflects number of cars counted. Location Type of parking Total cars counted (20 visits in Existing dog bins? 2012) Woodbury Castle Formal parking 119  Model Airfield Formal parking 103 Warren Formal parking 80  Joney’s Cross Formal parking 79  Four Firs Formal parking 71  Wheathill Formal parking 54 Estuary Formal parking 48 Lympstone Formal parking 47 Uphams Formal parking 45  Bystock Pools South Informal parking 37 Squabmoor Formal parking 35 Bystock Formal parking 34

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Dog Bins

Capital Cost: £3,500

Running Cost (per annum): £3,370

Number of years to budget for: 80

Notes on cost calculation: Indicative costs on the East Devon Council website1 are £150 to supply and install and £200 per annum to empty. Current costs on the Pebblebeds are around £500 per bin installation, and £410 per bin to empty per year (6 bins currently in place). Cost estimates based on the latter figures and assuming 7 new bins. Running cost includes cost of 1 new bin per year replacement.

Key locations: Wheathill, Estuary, Lympstone, Model Airfield, Bystock Pools South, Squabmoor, Bystock

Face-face wardening with engagement role 8.3 Face-face wardening was one of the recommendations in the South-east Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy (Liley et al. 2014b) with the suggestion being that two mobile wardens could potentially cover the three European sites, with one predominantly focussing on the Pebblebeds and one predominantly on the Exe and Dawlish Warren. The post holders would be flexible and able to focus time and effort in areas with particular issues. For example during hot, dry spells they may both focus on the Pebblebed Heaths, watching for fires. The advantage of two mobile posts would provide cover at weekends and over holiday periods as necessary.

8.4 The posts would involve an on-site presence, communicating the nature conservation interest of the sites (for example showing people birds), talking to visitors directly and approaching users causing disturbance or other issues. Wardens would have codes of conduct/information to share with visitors if required and be able to greet visitors, help them and ensure that their visit has little impact on the site. There would be potential to direct visitors to try other locations (SANGs). The posts could also involve some monitoring (maintaining details of people approached, activities observed etc.). Wardens would need to be good at talking to people, dog-friendly and ideally dog lovers/owners themselves.

8.5 We have costed wardening coverage to last over the full 80 years, however it may be possible to reduce coverage over time. Should visitor patters and behaviour change over time and become established such that little intervention was required, it may be that the wardening coverage is not justified for the long term.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Face-face wardening

Capital Cost: none

Running Cost (per annum): £23,333.33

Number of years to budget for: 80 (may be scope to reduce this)

Notes on cost calculation: Costs are based on the S-E Devon Mitigation Strategy. Costs per warden would be: £20,000 annual salary, plus national insurance (£2,500 per annum), vehicle costs (£4,500 per annum) and overheads (£8,000 per annum) giving a total per warden per year of £35,000. There would be 2 wardens and the cost would be split between the three European sites. Cost may need revising depending on where based.

Key locations: Mobile coverage across the Pebblebeds, focusing on the main car-parks.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Figure 22: Selected images from the Pebblebed Heaths. a) Dog bin at Woodbury Castle; b) waymarking; c) gorse management, Venn Ottery; d) dogs on Colaton Raleigh Common; e) track wear at Colaton Raleigh

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 Codes of conduct 8.6 Codes of conduct set out clearly how visitors are expected to behave. We would envisage that codes of conduct would be developed for horse riding, mountain biking (and other cycling), dog walking and events. The codes would be applicable across the Pebblebeds and should have a consistent theme and branding, matching that used elsewhere around the Pebblebeds (i.e. on signs, wardens’ vehicles etc.). This ensures clear links for visitors and a consistency across all measures. Ideally the codes of conduct would be designed so that they work on both printed material and the internet and the four codes of conduct should fit together (potentially so they can be given out as a pack or individually).

8.7 Codes of conduct would need developing carefully with local stakeholders and site managers, and good graphic design work would be needed to ensure the key messages are clearly communicated. Ideally the reasons why particular behaviours are necessary should be made clear.

8.8 Codes of conduct would be distributed by the wardens while they are out, providing the wardens with something they can physically pass across to visitors that gives clear guidance on how they should behave. The codes of conduct to be given out at events, and posted on the web. Wider circulation (e.g. at vets, suppliers such as cycle shops etc.) would also be relevant.

8.9 Examples of such codes at other European sites include the Thanet coast9. At Poole Harbour leaflets10 include a map of sensitive areas that provides clear guidance on which areas are important for birds.

Codes of Conduct

Capital Cost: £6,000

Running Cost (per annum): none

Number of years to budget for: not relevant

Notes on cost calculation: Cost assumes around £4,000 to produce and print 4 codes of conduct suitable for printing and on-line viewing. An additional £2,000 for further revision and further print-runs.

Key locations: no specific locations

9 http://thanetcoast.org.uk/media/1955283/ThanetCoastalCodes.pdf 10 http://www.phc.co.uk/downloads/environment/Bird-Sensitive-Areas-leaflet.pdf

100

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 Educational work with schools 8.10 Educational work with schools would involve visits to local schools, site visits with groups from local schools and educational resources made available to local schools, potentially on the web. Such work would raise awareness with children as to the importance of the Pebblebeds, and how to behave on the heaths. It should aim to reach the wider community (parents and grandparents) as well as the children themselves. There is already a countryside learning officer employed by the Pebblebed Heaths Conservation Trust. There is scope to complement her work and ensure long-term funding which would allow schools linked to new development (e.g. Cranbrook) to be targeted.

8.11 It would be possible to provide/support such educational work by providing money directly to schools (e.g. to pay for coach hire or similar), engaging a consultant on an annual basis, having a part-time post hosted within the Clinton Devon Estates/RSPB or by the warden team undertaking some education work. We consider the latter option would risk deflecting the wardens from other duties and a part-time post would be the best option (at least initially). This post would not necessarily be required to run in perpetuity. We have costed a part time post for 10 years. A 10 year period would be sufficient to establish an annual programme with a range of schools and interact with a range of school children. After ten years the post should be reviewed and it may be possible that the educational work could be scaled back such that any material is available to teachers and the warden team are available to assist teachers in guided walks or events on/around the heaths. This would ensure that the warden team are not deflected from duties in the first 10 years and potentially after 10 years access patterns on the Pebbblebeds may have changed such that the wardening is less time consuming.

Educational work with schools

Capital Cost: £4,000

Running Cost (per annum): £8,916

Number of years to budget for: 10

Notes on cost calculation: £4,000 is an indicative cost to develop resources and would provide some budget for design and printing. Some purchasing of equipment for field visits with children may also be necessary. We assume a part-time post (equivalent to 0.2 of a full-time post) running for ten years would be sufficient. Costs would be: £4,400 annual salary (assuming £22,000 pro rata), plus national insurance (£616 per annum), vehicle costs (£900 per annum) and overheads (£3,000 per annum) giving a total per year of £8,916. Costs may need revising depending on where based and potential to share resources (e.g. vehicle) with wardens or others.

Key locations: targeting schools within 10km radius and potentially slightly further

101

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Interpretation boards 8.12 Interpretation provides information about the place being visited. Interpretation would inform visitors about the wildlife interest and other features of the Pebblebeds, raising awareness with visitors about the nature conservation importance. The boards would ensure visitors recognised they were visiting somewhere special, that is important for wildlife and there should be clear, justified messages as to how visitors should behave. It may be necessary to incorporate a map highlighting routes and sensitive areas.

8.13 Interpretation should not be overly detailed as many people will often not want to stand still for long periods. Readers can easily be directed to sources of additional information, for example through the use of QR codes.

8.14 Signs and interpretation need to be eye-catching, carefully sited so as to be in the right locations (e.g. perpendicular rather than parallel to pathways) and the right number so that visitors do not feel bombarded with information. Panels should not be intrusive or create too formal a feel. Ideal locations will not necessarily be inside the car-park but at points where people will naturally pause and where the interpretation can fit with a sense of place, such as when people first emerge from woodland/scrub around a car- park onto more open heath.

8.15 Interpretation should use colour, structure, illustrations and potentially flaps, sliding panels etc. to capture people’s interest. Interpretation should convey consistent messages relating to the importance for wildlife and why it is sensitive to people. They should refrain from too much technical jargon about designation.

8.16 There are some existing interpretation boards, but these would benefit from an update and new design. The visitor survey results show that current interpretation had not influenced where interviewees had gone on-site (see Figure 12). Using our visitor model (e.g. Map 11) it is possible to work out where interpretation might best be positioned to maximise the number of people that would see it – based on current distributions. Locations should also be selected based on where it is intended to focus access in the longer term, where there may be sensitive features and where material will be seen. Twelve suggested locations are shown in Map 17, which includes the same visitor pressure data shown in Map 11. Locations are primarily towards the south and west, reflecting the locations whence visitors will originate in the future.

102

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Interpretation Boards

Capital Cost: £97,200

Running Cost (per annum): none

Number of years to budget for: not relevant

Notes on cost calculation: £2,700 per board1; capital cost based on boards at 12 locations and allowing for two replacements.

Key locations: See map 17.

1drawn from HLF guidance from 2013 (Heritage Lottery Fund 2013)

103

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

104

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 Detailed material on the web

8.17 Detailed material on the internet would include the codes of conduct (see above), maps showing where to park and go, details about wildlife interest, educational packs/material linked to the schools work and links to the interpretation provided on site. There would be scope to link to other measures such as the dog project.

8.18 There is scope for people to find information to supplement their visits and find out more about the site by referring to the internet. QR codes displayed on panels, waymarkers or signs in car-parks can help direct visitors to particular website locations and such direct reference to the internet on-site will ensure first time visitors and regular visitors are more likely to follow-up any visit to the site by also visiting the website.

8.19 The aim of material should be to highlight the sense of place, importance of the Pebblebeds and the nature conservation interest of the site. The internet should provide resources for people to follow up their visit and ensure key messages relating to the importance of the Pebblebeds, responsible access etc. are promoted. We envisage that web-based material would therefore supplement on-site information and provide a comprehensive resource/information source for visitors. We do not envisage the need for web based material that would serve to openly promote or encourage access. Web- based material should not direct visitors to ‘discover’ the Pebblebeds, but instead allow existing visitors to be better informed and access information relevant to their use of the site.

8.20 Regular updates, new material and news boxes help keep content fresh and interesting, meaning people are more likely to return to the website. There could be the potential to include audio-visual material or live feeds (such as web-cams) on-line. Some locations have developed augmented reality approaches that utilise smart-phones and display information on the phone, based on the view from the location where the person is standing (e.g. the Madrid example in Navarro, Saez & Estrada 2013). Such approaches are relatively novel and have not been set-up for many locations in the UK11. A disadvantage is the need for good mobile coverage and we do not recommend the need for such approaches on the Pebblebeds.

8.21 There are existing websites that provide visitor information and background information on the Pebblebeds, and these could be developed much further and relevant links created. Rather than create an additional, entirely new site, developing these locations further would be the most cost effective (and least confusing approach for visitors). The key site is that of the Pebblebed Heaths Conservation Trust12. Other

11 How Hill in the Norfolk Broads is one example 12 http://www.pebblebedheaths.org.uk/

105

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

relevant sites include the RSPB Aylesbeare Reserve pages13 and the Devon Wildlife Trust reserve pages14. These websites do not all currently link to each other.

Detailed material on the web

Capital Cost: £5,000

Running Cost (per annum): we assume website hosting might be covered through existing Pebblebed Trust site and other running costs (updates, news, maintaining links etc.) might be covered through the educational officer and warden posts.

Number of years to budget for: not relevant

Notes on cost calculation: not relevant

Key locations: not relevant

Liaison with local groups 8.22 Liaison with local groups would involve direct contact with local communities through work with local groups. Liaison would be in the form of guided walks, talks, work parties, social media and similar, and groups that would be targeted could include Youth Clubs, Women’s Institute, Art Clubs, Gardening/Horticultural Groups etc. As far as possible it would be good to create opportunities for the groups to become involved with the heaths.

8.23 This already takes place to some degree, for example one of the local art groups has held a heathland exhibition and been involved with the East Devon Heaths week in 2015, but there is the potential to increase the amount of resources allocated to such contact. Rather than specify a particular budget we suggest that working with such groups could be encompassed in the wardening role (see paras 8.3 - 8.5) or even undertaken by volunteers.

13 https://www.rspb.org.uk/discoverandenjoynature/seenature/reserves/guide/a/aylesbearecommon/about.asp x 14 http://www.devonwildlifetrust.org/reserve/Venn+Ottery/overview/

106

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Liaison with local groups

Capital Cost: none

Running Cost (per annum): none

Number of years to budget for: none

Notes on cost calculation: Funding for this could be through a dedicated part-time role (e.g. hosted by the Clinton Devon Estates, RSPB or Devon Wildlife Trust); or part of the work of the educational officer (see above) or through the work of the wardens. We have assumed it could be incorporated into the work of the educational officer/wardens and have therefore suggested no additional costs.

Key locations: not relevant

Direct contact with local clubs/users 8.24 Direct contact with local clubs/users would involve working with the clubs or groups that actually use the common for their interest, as opposed to the above (which relates to more general groups in the local community). Here we therefore focus on mountain biking, horse riding, model aircraft users, orienteering etc.

8.25 There are national bodies (which may have regional representatives) associated with some of these activities and there are a range of local groups. While not comprehensive we have identified the following local groups or specialists which may be relevant:

 Bicton Arena http://www.bicton-arena.co.uk/  Trail Adventures http://www.trailadventures.uk/about-trail-adventures/  Exeter Mountain Bike Club http://embc.primitivemedia.co.uk/  Mud and Sweat http://www.mudandsweat.com/  Knobblies bike shop http://www.knobbliesbikes.co.uk/  Bike Shed http://www.bikesheduk.com/  South-west cycling adventure http://www.1sw.org.uk/experience/your- adventure/  More dirt: http://www.moredirt.com/region/United-Kingdom_South-West/  Woodbury cycling http://www.woodburycycling.co.uk/  Devonish Pitt Riding School http://www.devenishpitt.com/index.html  Budleigh Salterton Riding School http://www.countrysportssouthwest.co.uk/budleigh-salterton-riding-school- cottages/  Devon Orienteering: http://www.devonorienteering.co.uk/  East Devon Radio Control Club http://www.edrcc.co.uk/index.htm

107

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

8.26 We are aware that some direct contact is already made with these groups, for example the Pebblebed Heaths Conservation Trust has been meeting with mountain bike users and representatives this year. We are also aware that a range of organisations including bike hire and mountain bike groups were involved in the Heath Week events in 2015.

8.27 In the long term it is important that there is clear provision of resources and staff time to work with these groups, establishing and maintaining contacts. New activities and groups may emerge as local housing increases (and some fade) and so actively checking the internet and talking to visitors on site will be important. However the level of work in terms of time is perhaps not too considerable (there are 13 clubs listed in the bullets above).

8.28 Direct contact would involve potentially meeting with representatives or the group as a whole and ensuring they are aware of the issues with recreation pressure and the wildlife interest. Offering talks, visiting group meetings or hosting meetings (for example a particular user forum) may work well. Social media may well provide a means of also reaching a wide audience within particular groups. Contact would provide the opportunity to circulate the relevant codes of conduct and any particular messages relating to use of the Pebblebeds.

Direct contact with local clubs/groups

Capital Cost:

Running Cost (per annum):

Number of years to budget for:

Key locations: not relevant

Gorse management (as a barrier/screen for access) 8.29 Through the careful planning of scrub management within the Pebblebeds it should be possible to allow natural barriers to access to develop in key areas. Research on Dartford warblers (Murison et al. 2007) has shown that impacts of disturbance for this species are much less in gorse dominated territories, presumably because people/dogs do not stray off the paths so much and because there is also more cover for the birds.

108

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

8.30 Scrub management and grazing are a key component of the current ongoing management for the heaths and are also key elements within the site improvement plan (‘IPENS’) for the Pebblebed Heaths15. Both Western Gorse Ulex gallii and European Gorse U. europaeus occur on the Pebblebeds. Western Gorse is low and typically forms a mixed sward with other low shrubs such as Heather Calluna vulgaris. European gorse is taller and tends to occur in more disturbed ground, for example along roadsides and trackways. European gorse becomes ‘leggy’ over time and regular cutting (e.g. every 15 years) prevents this. Recent gorse management, retaining some clumps of European Gorse, are shown in Figure 22c);in Figure 22d) it can be seen how the gorse in the background acts as a natural barrier, in this case keeping the dogs around the track.

8.31 To some extent the Western Gorse prevents people and dogs roaming too much off paths and therefore already works well to reduce impacts from recreation. Ensuring dense European Gorse along certain tracks, paths and roadsides will help to screen and contain access. The recommendation is not to plant gorse but rather to ensure long term management of taller European gorse along busier paths and trackways. The challenge is to retain a thick enough band that some can be coppiced in a given year without compromising its effectiveness as a screen/barrier. Dead hedging may be appropriate where growth is not adequate. Such management results in a cutting regime that is more complex than would otherwise be necessary. Additional funds should be therefore be made available to assist with the annual gorse cutting planning and management to ensure effectiveness.

Gorse management

Capital Cost: none

Running Cost (per annum): £1,000

Number of years to budget for: 80 years

Notes on cost calculation: Gorse and scrub management is part of the ongoing management and maintenance of the site. The small budget indicated is simply to cover any additional costs generated from a more complex cutting regime and more complicated planning. Additional costs may be incurred annually or in some years only.

Key locations: not relevant

15 http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6234004760035328

109

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 Signs directing people, including highlighting sensitive areas and routes 8.32 There is some existing waymarking around the Pebblebed Heaths (e.g. Figure 22b), however it is relatively low key, marks footpaths rather than particular routes and is not always easy to find. There are two marked nature trails at Aylesbeare RSPB reserve.

8.33 There are five existing routes that are promoted through a series of leaflets (see section 8.54 onwards for discussion of these routes), but no signage on the ground. The leaflets contain a map and can be downloaded from the Pebblebeds Heaths Conservation Trust website16. Each route is promoted as being suitable for walking, cycling or horse riding. The routes are shown on Map 19 (see section on dedicated routes) in relation to existing (modelled) access levels. It can be seen that the routes are mainly focussed on busier areas but include some quieter parts, particularly to the north. We recommend some adjustments to these routes such that they provide a range of routes but focus access away from key areas.

8.34 The visitor survey results show that marked trails or leaflets had not influenced where interviewees had gone on-site (see Figure 12). It is clear from various social media pages on the internet and discussion with stakeholders that some visitors do struggle finding their way around and that, in particular, some cyclists get lost. At least one interviewee in the visitor survey made an anecdotal comment relating to ‘always getting lost’.

8.35 Improving waymarking around the Pebblebeds would help to concentrate access and limit the extent to which diffuse access spreads over the site. In particular new visitors (linked to new development) will be likely to follow waymarked routes and there is therefore the potential to establish access patterns. The long term aim should be to retain quiet areas of the site with access concentrated in busy areas and with the routes sensitive to the exiting features (bird interest, mires etc.).

8.36 A series of routes (see section on dedicated routes and Map 19), avoiding some of the currently relatively quiet and under-visited areas, should be promoted more widely and marked with route markers on the heaths so that visitors can easily follow the circuits. The routes and waymarking would coincide with the car parks that are resurfaced (see paras 8.46-8.50) and with signage/awareness raising/wardening to ensure dogs on leads etc.

16 http://www.pebblebedheaths.org.uk/access-use-of-commons/access-use-of-commons.ashx

110

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Signs directing people

Capital Cost: £6,500

Running Cost (per annum): none

Number of years to budget for: not relevant

Notes on cost calculation: cost based on 25 posts at £80 per post; replaced three times during their lifetime (i.e. 75 posts in total). Treated softwood marker posts, 1.6m high with slanting top and coloured band or marking incorporated. Additional £500 for 75 waymarking discs made of glass reinforced plastic for longevity.

Key locations: promoted routes, main car-parks etc

Signs asking visitors to behave differently 8.37 Specific signage could be established at key locations in order to reinforce messages such as dogs on leads, dog fouling, parking on road verges or avoiding particular areas due to erosion damage/trampling. Some signs could be temporary/movable and used at particular times of year or in response to particular damage, for example put in the middle of a path that is becoming heavily eroded. Others may need to be more permanent.

8.38 Literature (e.g. Winter et al. 2014) indicates that encouraging, prescriptive signage is likely to work best (e.g. “please keep our environment litter free” as opposed to “please don’t litter our environment”). Tests of different signage designs and locations (Rimmer, Maguire & Weston 2013) suggest that signs at the start of the path are the most effective and that signs should contain colourful images, clear definitions of the issue and clear definitions of appropriate behaviour. Signs that featured emotion or authority were regarded as the least effective (but interestingly dog walkers who visited the test sites most frequently indicated a preference for signs with emotional content).

8.39 We suggest that a standard design be adopted for signage, preferably with agreed colours, logos, typeface and appropriate wording. The purpose here will be to make the signs recognisable, clear and consistent so that in time they become familiar to the public, recognisable and authoritative. Similar signs can then be used across the areas managed by different parties. Design and branding would cross-over with the interpretation, waymarking and other material to ensure consistency and help create a sense of place (i.e. ‘the Pebblebeds’). There will be cost-savings to signs produced to a standard design. Discs or similar that can be placed on existing finger posts, bollards or existing infrastructure may work well.

8.40 A further measure with respect to signage would be the potential to place large road signs at key points where drivers enter the Pebblebeds. Such signage could work to help create a sense of place and to highlight the conservation importance of the Pebblebeds. The signage would need to fit/match the branding used on other signs and

111

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

interpretation and could be established as part of any approach to establish clearways (see paragraphs 9.2-9.5).

8.41 There are clear links with other measures, in particular the design could match that of waymarking signs (i.e. similar posts). Signs relating to dog fouling could be deployed following the flag/spraying exercise (see para 8.62).

Signs asking visitors to behave differently

Capital Cost: £6,600

Running Cost (per annum): none

Number of years to budget for: not relevant

Notes on cost calculation: cost based on 15 posts at £80 per post; replaced three times during their lifetime (i.e. budget for 45 posts in total). Treated softwood marker posts, 1.6m high with slanting top. Additional £3,000 for discs/signs, allowing some different designs (dog fouling, dogs on lead, diversion etc.), potentially different sizes and enough produced that they can be used on existing infrastructure too, as appropriate.

Key locations: Associated with all the formal car-parks.

Off-site events (village fetes etc.) 8.42 Attendance at off-site events such as village fetes, school fairs and similar was rated relatively highly by the steering group as a way to raise awareness about the Pebblebeds and reach a wide audience of local residents. Such attendance should work not to draw new users but to reinforce the idea that the Pebblebeds are important for nature conservation, protected and suitable for responsible recreational use. There should be the scope with such community work to highlight alternative sites (i.e. SANGs for dog walking etc.).

112

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Off-site events

Capital Cost: none

Running Cost (per annum): none

Number of years to budget for: none

Notes on cost calculation: We have assumed attendance at off-site events could be incorporated into the work of the educational officer/wardens (see above) and have therefore suggested no additional costs.

Key locations: not relevant

Boardwalks/surfacing to direct access along particular routes 8.43 Bare ground is an important feature of heathland and is used by invertebrates, herptiles and some rare plants (e.g. Key 2000). Wear from feet, bicycles and horses hooves can create and maintain bare ground features, but if too heavy there is the risk of damaging any interest (Symes & Day 2003). Furthermore, once vegetation is lost there is the risk of substrate being washed into mires and damaging wetland habitats and interest features and the paths themselves becoming shallow trenches.

8.44 There is therefore a difficult balancing act in terms of the management of paths and bare ground. Preventing footfall or concentrating footfall to very limited areas results in a loss of bare ground habitat. Path surfacing often damages the habitat and renders it useless for many species. Providing a boardwalk or similar raised walkway in wet areas or where run-off is a particular problem may resolve issues, but needs careful assessment on the ground. Such raised walkways reduce erosion risk but may be difficult for certain users such as horse riders (as such the presence of such features might deter horse riders and discourage further damage). The ideal bare ground habitats are those that are created and then left undisturbed, and as such are perhaps best achieved mechanically on a regular basis and then left. With increasing access, bare ground components of the Pebblebed Heaths will need to be monitored and consideration given to creation in areas away from heavy trampling.

8.45 We have identified some areas that are adjacent to mires and where there appears – from aerial photographs – to be issues with paths currently spreading and erosion occurring. These areas are shown in Map 18 alongside our modelled predictions of current access. All the areas highlighted have moderate footfall or are adjacent to areas with moderate footfall. They might therefore be considered vulnerable in the future. Careful assessment of these areas by site managers is required and it may be that some areas would not benefit from intervention now or would be best monitored and

113

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

interventions undertaken as necessary in the future. On-the-ground assessment will need to decide on optimum design and materials to be used. The total length of areas marked in yellow on Map 17 is 600m.

Boardwalks/path surfacing

Capital Cost: £95,000

Running Cost (per annum): none

Number of years to budget for: none

Notes on cost calculation: We assume up to 500m of boardwalk at a cost of £190 per m. This cost is based on the cost of a low level boardwalk constructed from recycled plastic (see Paths for all 2014). Detailed assessment and careful monitoring will be required to assess the areas where works are required and when such works are warranted. Potentially needs consent from PINS but this should be investigated first to check.

Key locations: Colaton Raleigh Common and Woodbury Common (see Map 18)

114

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

115

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Changes to car-parks (spaces, surfacing etc.) 8.46 Improving particular car-parks is a positive step and potentially may encourage visitors to use particular car-parks. Improvements could include better surfacing, clear marking of bays, ease of access onto/from roads and signage. Improvements should be targeted at formal car-parks and in particular at a select few in order to focus access a little more. Over time these would become the main areas used by visitors and by limiting roadside parking and allowing other car-parks to deteriorate (see para 9.8) it would be hoped that the selected car-parks would become the main entry points used by visitors. In the long-term the risk of diffuse access growing gradually and spreading over a wide area is therefore limited. The selected car-parks should match those where interpretation, dog bins and wardening time are focused, ensuring greater engagement with a higher proportion of visitors. Such an approach in the long-term essentially allows a shift from widespread diffuse access (multiple locations with ample parking) to access more concentrated at fewer points (less access points with similar number of parking spaces), ensuring access is easier to manage, engagement is easier and recreation impacts can be better managed.

8.47 Car-parks that might warrant no improvements (and therefore ones where access might be targeted to reduce over time) could potentially include:

 The Warren (which has few nearby car-parks and as such reductions in use here would affect a large area)  Venn Ottery RSPB (which is small, low key and has few spaces)  Upper Thorntree (Upper Thorntree is already relatively rutted and low key; Wheathill is nearby and provides ample parking)  Squabmoor (Upper Thorntree is already relatively rutted and low key; Wheathill is nearby and provides ample parking)

8.48 Improvements would provide the potential to also set the number of parking places at particular locations, giving a means of setting a limit on the number of visitors that may visit at a particular time (given the high proportion of visitors that arrive by car). Changes can therefore ensure no overall net increase in the number of parking spaces at the site.

8.49 Good/easy parking was identified in the visitor survey work as a factor influencing site choice for 17% of interviewees (see Figure 5), providing some confidence that this measure may influence where people choose to park. However, perhaps surprisingly, there was little support for re-surfacing car-parks from interviewees within the survey – nearly half of those interviewed were not supportive of car-parks being resurfaced (Figure 11). It is however unlikely that measures would be opposed or generate negative feeling among users.

8.50 Using the data from the visitor interviews we can identify particular locations where there was strongest support for resurfacing, these are shown in Figure 23. It can be seen that there was the strongest support for resurfacing at Four Firs, Lympstone,

116

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Wheathill and Uphams. There was little support for resurfacing among those interviewed at informal/smaller parking areas such as Hunger Hill and Venn Ottery.

117

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Figure 23: Support for resurfacing car-parks, by survey point. Data from question 20 of the visitor survey. Figures in brackets are the approximate number of car-parking spaces at each location, i.e. the size of the car-park. Sites are ranked by the support (length of green bars). Four interviewees did not answer the question and these have been included in the “no opinion” category.

Changes to car-parks

Capital Cost: none

Running Cost (per annum): £13,500

Number of years to budget for: 80

Notes on cost calculation: Some management of car-parks would fit within the routine maintenance undertaken anyway by the relevant organisations/managers and as such would not be appropriate for this plan. Major car-park improvements would be very expensive, costing tens of thousands per car-park, but such improvements are perhaps not necessary as there would be the risk of over-managing and creating a destination that draws visitors. A budget of £15,000 per car-park would therefore seem appropriate and such works might be required every ten years or so to maintain the car-parks. This equates to £1,500 per year per car-park, and would be adequate to cover annual grading and some other works. We suggest nine car-parks should be the focus for improvements, giving a total budget (over 80 years) of £1,080,000.

Key locations: 9 formal car-parks: Joney’s Cross, Four Firs, Estuary, Woodbury Castle, Model Airfield, Uphams, Wheathill, Bystock and Lympstone

118

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Face-face warden with enforcement role 8.51 Face-face wardening is discussed in more detail above. Wardens that can show people wildlife and have engagement role were ranked higher by the steering group, however it was recognised that some enforcement may be necessary in the longer term, potentially targeting particular activities such as professional dog walkers. Direct enforcement would mean that wardens would run the risk of alienating some visitors and be viewed negatively by visitors. As such, this approach would be relevant only if monitoring results indicated that other methods (including codes of conduct) were not successful. Even if not necessarily used, having legal powers of enforcement does provide the wardens with more ‘clout’ or back-up, enabling them to at least indicate that enforcement is a possibility in the future if an individual persists in an activity when asked to change their behaviour.

8.52 The Pebblebed Trust website has details of legal duties relating to access and highlights a legal obligation for dogs to be on leads between 1st March and 31st July; a specific legal maximum of six dogs that can be taken into a public place and an offence for those in charge of a dog not to remove the faeces from the heaths. The extent to which wardens might be able to enforce these obligations in the future is open to question, and it may be that additional legislation is necessary. Relatively new legislation – Public Open Space Protection Orders – can cover dog fouling, dogs off leads, restrictions on the number of dogs and a range of other enforcements and fall within the Anti-social behaviour, crime and policing act (2014). The legislation replaces that relating to dog control orders.

8.53 There may be opportunities for East Devon District Council to ensure the Pebblebed Heaths are covered in any reviews of existing legislation (dog control orders will be replaced by 2017) or that there is the potential to include the Heaths if necessary at some point in the future. This would provide wardens with the ability to fine visitors who do not follow rules. As the Pebblebeds are Commons there are particular legal steps required to establish Public Open Space Protection Orders and consent is required from the Planning Inspectorate/Secretary of State.

119

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Face-face wardening with enforcement role

Capital Cost: none

Running Cost (per annum): none

Number of years to budget for: none

Notes on cost calculation: We assume staff time (wardens) would be covered as part of their existing role. There may be cost implications for advertising, creating signs, training wardens and setting up a means to collect fines etc. Wardens may also need to work in pairs (safety protocols, witness statements etc.). These costs may be (at least in part) be offset by any fines imposed.

Key locations: Would be targeted to wherever particular issues arise.

Dedicated routes for particular activities promoted 8.54 The promotion of dedicated routes would see particular routes created for activities such as mountain biking or horse riding. Creating such routes (which would be clearly marked and mapped) is a positive step, enhancing access. Users can be directed to the route and access becomes established and focused in particular areas. Marked routes lead users and it is likely that users follow the markers (e.g. colour coded or particular symbol) and by default assume that other paths are not recommended or necessarily allowed for the given activity. Dedicated routes can also separate particular activities, for example focusing mountain bike riders in one car-park and dog walkers in a different car-park. This can then lead to wardening effort, signage etc. being targeted as appropriate.

8.55 There are five existing routes that are promoted through a series of leaflets, but no signage on the ground. The leaflets contain a map and can be downloaded from the Pebblebeds Heaths Conservation Trust website17. Each route is promoted as being suitable for walking, cycling or horse riding. The routes are shown on Map 19 in relation to existing (modelled) access levels. It can be seen that the routes are mainly focussed on busier areas but include some quieter parts, particularly to the north.

8.56 These routes could form the basis for dedicated routes for particular activities, given that they have already been promoted by the Pebblebed Heaths Conservation Trust. The aim would be for the routes to work well to provide visitors with a good choice and range of locations to visit, while helping to focus access along particular rides and tracks. All the routes start from car-parks that have been identified as ones for improvements, interpretation boards etc. We have summarised the routes in Table 17

17 http://www.pebblebedheaths.org.uk/access-use-of-commons/access-use-of-commons.ashx

120

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

and suggest some modifications as to their route. These modifications would help to ensure some parts of the Pebblebeds with good bird numbers have relatively low levels of access. We recommend some dialogue with users and site managers to review these routes and lengths (and hence our modifications are suggestions only) and as appropriate it would be ideal for certain routes to be promoted for cycling and others for horse riding.

Table 17: Summary of current proposed promoted routes (each promoted for cycling, horse riding and walking), with suggested modifications. Route Length of route as promoted (km) Modifications/Notes Route modified so either short- cut dropped or section out to east and edge of common dropped, as far as possible limiting access to one route across Colaton Raleigh 1 Woodbury Castle – Colaton Common (which is otherwise 8 Raleigh relatively undisturbed). The longer route is along the edge so may be better as provides option for longer route. Also should link to 2 and 3 to provide even longer routes for biking and horse riding. Promote to focus access at 2 Joney’s Cross Circuit Walk 4 Joney’s Cross to the south 3 Woodbury Castle Car-Park 3-4 Circuit Focus use along the short-cut, 4 Four Firs Cross Circuit Walk 4 rather than the fulll 4km, focusing access closer to the car-park Focus use along the short-cut, rather than the full 4km, focusing 5 Wheathill Circuit 5 access away from south-west corner

8.57 A series of routes such as these – potentially avoiding some of the currently relatively quiet and under-visited areas – could be promoted more widely and marked with route markers on the heaths so that visitors can easily follow the circuits.

8.58 Dedicated routes may need particular infrastructure (see paras 8.43-8.45), need to be waymarked (see paras 8.32-8.36) and should be clearly mapped (see paras 8.61). Ideally the dedicated routes would also be set out in the codes of conduct (see paras 8.6-8.9). Wardens, when talking to visitors can direct them to particular routes – for example if a visitor arrives with a mountain bike they can be directed to the appropriate mountain bike route.

121

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Dedicated routes

Capital Cost: none

Running Cost (per annum): none

Number of years to budget for: none

Notes on cost calculation: The costs to create and promote dedicated routes is covered in the other measures listed above – including warden time (when talking to visitors on site, users e.g. mountain bike riders, horse riders etc.) can be directed to particular routes; the routes can be mapped and the maps included within the codes of conduct, boardwalks will provide some of the infrastructure, signage will direct visitors and liaison with local groups will also help promote.

Key locations: See Map 19.

122

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

123

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 Maps highlighting routes and sensitive areas 8.59 Visitor survey results and discussion with stakeholders and site managers indicates that some visitors do get lost and have difficulty finding their way around. Dedicated routes and waymarking are discussed in previous sections. Alongside the creation of dedicated routes and waymarking, maps are necessary. Such maps would be of a standard that allows new visitors to find their way around and locate key features. The maps could show sensitive areas (i.e. key areas of dry heath for breeding birds) and the recommended routes. Sensitive areas could be simply highlighted as areas to avoid rather than to draw visitors (who might otherwise be attracted their because of the wildlife interest).

8.60 The design should be such that the maps work within codes of conduct, on interpretation and on the internet, and ideally work at different scales, such that it is possible to view the Pebblebeds as a whole and also work as maps for individual commons.

8.61 There are some existing maps for the walks that are currently promoted on the Pebblebed Heaths Trust website18. These have been produced by a graphic designer and show detail of the routes.

Maps highlighting routes and sensitive areas

Capital Cost: £1,500

Running Cost (per annum): none

Number of years to budget for: none

Notes on cost calculation: HLF guidance suggests £500 as a suitable budget for a basic computer generated map. £1,500 would therefore potentially provide a suitable budget for a more complex overview map and a series of ‘sub’ maps.

Key locations: Whole of the Pebblebeds

18 http://www.pebblebedheaths.org.uk/access-use-of-commons/access-use-of-commons.ashx

124

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 Spraying/flags to highlight dog fouling issue to users 8.62 Spraying dog faeces with spray paint or using flags on canes provides a means of showing visitors the extent of the problem and is a powerful way of getting a particular message across. Different colours can be used on successive days and the approach can be repeated over time as a monitoring exercise. It is likely to work best when combined with warden presence to explain what is happening and discuss the problem with dog walkers. If wardens are not present then temporary signage would be necessary to explain the rationale. We envisage such an approach could be part of a targeted ‘campaign’ addressing dog fouling.

Spraying/flags to highlight dog fouling

Capital Cost: none

Running Cost (per annum): none

Number of years to budget for: none

Notes on cost calculation: We assume staff time (wardens) would be covered as part of their existing role.

Key locations: Busy locations where flags/spraying will be visible and where issue occurring. Targeted as appropriate.

125

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 9. Secondary measures for the plan

9.1 These measures form a secondary tier and are measures which are more expensive or ones with particular challenges to deliver. They include measures that are warranted only if other measures fail and also measures that are perhaps dependent on other opportunities (for example expensive measures that are not justified in being funded in their entirety through developer contributions).

Parking controls on road verges 9.2 Reducing roadside parking has the benefits of concentrating access at points where it is easier to engage/interact with visitors and implement management measures when required; it focuses access at key points (as opposed to diffuse access over a wide area) and means there is a physical limit to the number of visitors determined by the car-park capacities. Damage to roadsides/verges is minimised.

9.3 There is a range of possible ways parking could be restricted. If a road is classified as a clearway it is illegal to stop on the main carriageway for any reason except in an emergency. Clearways apply to the highway only (i.e. if a car is on the verge it is off the highway) and require entrance/exit and repeater signage. Double yellow lines do not require upright signage and apply to the verge as well as the highway, so would be more appropriate. Both clearways (with the signs) and double yellow lines would change the appearance/character of the road and therefore need careful consideration.

9.4 Other options would include creation of banks and ditches at key points or barriers such as small wooden posts or rocks that would deter people parking.

9.5 Discussion with the steering group indicated that this was potentially a longer term measure that needed some thought and liaison with relevant parties (police/highways) regarding how it might be established and enforced. Measures are best put in place after formal car-parks have been resurfaced or improved, and we see the potential to then try to shift parking to the formal parking locations, ensuring visitors are more likely to then pass the dog bins, interpretation etc. Potentially barriers such as dragons teeth may need PINS consent

Provision of features (viewpoints, water for dogs etc.) 9.6 Features such as viewpoints, shelters, dog bathing areas etc. can act as destinations within sites, drawing visitors and helping to focus access in particular areas. Features could include elaborate structures, sculptures, artwork or very basic elements such as a rustic bench. Viewpoints, viewing screens or similar infrastructure can allow visitors to experience a site from a distance and gain a sense of place without necessarily accessing areas that are sensitive.

9.7 The downside of these features is they can create a more formal experience, can attract visitors (i.e. a net increase in access) and can be expensive to establish and maintain. As provision of such features does not form a key component within this plan but as they are secondary measures there may be opportunities or merit in exploring such

126

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

approaches in the future. At some point access levels may increase such that more infrastructure and a more formal approach is required.

Closing formal parking locations, or limiting some car parks for particular users, e.g. cars only 9.8 Car-park closures could reduce access levels and would provide a simple means of capping access, as visitors predominantly arrive by car. Isolated car-parks (i.e. little other parking nearby) would be the ideal candidates for closure as visitor use would then be increasingly focussed in certain parts of the site while other areas remain relatively un-visited. Such a distribution is easier to manage in the long-term as wardening effort, infrastructure etc. can be focused in a limited number of areas.

9.9 Closing car-parks is however likely to be highly unpopular. There would be considerable risk of reputational damage and a risk that access could just be pushed elsewhere on the site, including informal parking locations, lay-bys etc. Closing car-parks would then result in access being spread over a wide area and no net change in access levels.

9.10 As such we suggest that closing car-parks should only be undertaken after measures to control parking along road verges and that closing formal car-parks is retained as a secondary measure warranted if other measures fail. By focusing improvements and infrastructure on a key selection of car-parks – as recommended in previous sections – it would be hoped that other parking areas would become less used and less welcoming to visitors. Overtime use of these locations may decrease to the point where closure would not cause undue concern or be difficult to implement.

Introducing parking charges 9.11 Regular visitors are likely to be deterred by parking charges and would potentially go elsewhere or visit less frequently, resulting in a net reduction in visitor numbers. Introducing parking charges may also help to convey to visitors that a given location is owned and cared-for by a particular organisation. The installation of ticket machines etc. will have cost implications at the outset and there will be running costs (checking and emptying the machines, enforcement, vandalism).

9.12 Parking charges are unlikely to be welcomed by visitors and would be unpopular. If introduced without measures to control roadside parking then there is the risk of visitors simply parking along roadsides. As such we suggest that introducing parking charges should only be considered after measures to control parking along road verges and at present charging for parking is unlikely to be implemented. In the long term the measure may be warranted if other approaches fail. If adopted, careful thought should be given to how the fees and timing of charges is introduced.

Management of felling to ensure clearfell with low public access levels always available for breeding nightjars 9.13 Recently felled plantation and young plantation are important habitat for nightjars and the amount of clearfell is a key component influencing the number of birds present in an area (e.g. Dolman & Morrison 2012). Carefully planning rotations so that in any

127

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

given year there are always suitable areas to nest with low levels of access is potentially a means of manipulating habitat availability for the species in relation to access. As mitigation the approach is however difficult as creating temporary habitat outside the SPA boundary (newly felled plantation) is clearly not a solution to gradual degradation of habitat within the SPA boundary. Furthermore, the areas of plantation are relatively small in comparison with the SPA and a programme over a 40 year period (40 years being a typical felling cycle) would be necessary to ensure habitat provision in the long term. As such this approach is not warranted as mitigation, but consideration of felling regimes in relation to ensuring continued, relatively constant habitat for nightjar surrounding the Pebblebeds would enhance the SPA in the long-term.

Management of heather by mowing or creation of firebreaks/short swards 9.14 Firebreaks prevent fire spreading and therefore provide protection to limit the extent of damage from fires. Mowing is also a valuable technique in creating bare ground and early-successional habitat within heathland areas. Firebreaks and mown areas can also act as desire lines and provide easy walking routes. By ensuring firebreaks do not link to existing tracks or work as circular routes there is perhaps potential to minimise disturbance impacts associated with the mowing.

9.15 We have included this as a secondary option as firebreaks and regular mowing are already undertaken across the Pebblebeds as part of the routine annual management. The potential for mowing to work as mitigation is minimised because the mowing already takes place and there is an existing programme already established. Many of the mown areas and firebreaks do not necessarily connect to main tracks. In the future there may be opportunities to ensure new desire lines are further limited, and these could probably take place without any changes to existing management or resources for management.

Visitor centre/reception 9.16 There is currently no visitor centre on the Pebblebed Heaths. Visitor centres can fulfil a range of functions. They tend to provide a focal point or destination, and as such tend to focus access. New visitors are likely to be drawn to the centre as a focal point, for information, maps and directions. Existing visitors may use the centre as a meeting point, to report particular issues or for information (e.g. news or information on management). Visitors that pass through a centre will be likely to pick up information, look at display boards or talk to reception staff, ensuring key messages can be communicated.

9.17 A visitor centre is not included as a primary mitigation measure due to the high costs and challenge of finding a suitable location. As mitigation, a centre is less likely to influence regular visitors, and more likely to influence first time visitors. There is the risk of a centre drawing new visitors and being an attraction in itself. Even unmanned reception areas/shelters may cost tens of thousands of pounds to build and maintenance costs are likely to be high (particularly if electricity and heating are required). Planning permission would be necessary and potentially difficult to secure. Such costs are difficult to justify.

128

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

9.18 We have included a centre/reception area as a secondary measure as opportunities may arise in the future. Were part-funding to be available or a means be found to deliver a centre at low cost in a suitable location then it may be worth considering. If located in an area where access could be focused outside the SPA (Blackhill Quarry for example) then there may be a real opportunity to draw visitors from other parts of the Pebblebeds and an opportunity to reduce overall visitor pressure (visitors would still spread out from Blackhill Quarry onto the SPA, but such a location would potentially absorb a high proportion of footfall). A centre could combine education resources (such as a classroom for visiting school groups) or office space for conservation staff and as such there may be scope for funding from other sources. Alternatively a centre could be very low key without the requirement for a staffing presence, for example an open- sided shelter with interpretation, that still functions as a destination/information point.

Awareness raising through local/national media 9.19 Opportunities for publicity in the local and national media are already taken by the relevant organisations. Work with the media should continue to be a key element and it will be important that it accompanies particular initiatives – such as the on-site wardens starting, changes to car-parks or the spraying of dog fouling. Social media also provides an opportunity to reach a wide audience. There is a Joint Communications Strategy devised to deliver co-ordinated public relations for measures in the mitigation strategy and some awareness raising would fall under this. As such contact already takes place and is opportunistic in nature, it is included within the secondary measures.

Permission for/management of events 9.20 The Pebblebed Conservation Trust’s website19 states that organised group activities (including events involving horses, cycling, running and orienteering) may be allowed on the heaths, but a license and full insurance for the activity is legally required. Such activities are strictly controlled to ensure that wildlife and other users of the Commons are not adversely impacted. Any group considering an event is asked to contact the Trust to discuss the event and options for when, where and how it might be held. Such an approach is important in ensuring impacts from one off events and large groups are minimised. We have included the permission as a secondary measure in the plan because a system is already in place and events are required to obtain a licence. Such requests and events may become more common in the future and if so additional funding or resources may be necessary.

19 http://www.pebblebedheaths.org.uk/access-use-of-commons/commercial-and-organised-activities.ashx

129

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 10. Summary of Recommendations, Discussion and Monitoring

10.1 In sections 10 and 11 we have made recommendations for a visitor management plan that would help to ensure no adverse effects from increased recreation associated with new development in South-east Devon. In this section we conclude the report with an overview/summary of the different recommendations, discussion and recommendations for monitoring.

Summary of recommendations 10.2 Recommendations are summarised in Table 18 and Map 20. As can be seen from the map, together the recommendations work to enhance access through the provision of marked routes, improved parking, interpretation, boardwalks and signs. In addition the recommendations will achieve access that is more focussed and easier to manage, through the surfacing/improvements to selected car-parks, vegetation management, promotion of routes etc. Measures relating to awareness raising, including wardening, interpretation and education work will help to ensure visitors are better informed, while the wardening, codes of conduct, direct contact with local groups and signs will change visitor behaviour. The measures will help to ensure, in the long-term, low levels of access over extensive parts of the SPA – as shown by the diagonal hatching in Map 20. This is not achieved by allowing some parts of the SPA to be ‘sacrificial’, as the recommendations will ensure that the areas where access is currently focused will continue to support the interest features.

130

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Table 18: Primary recommendations, summary table with estimated costs Number Running Capita of years Total Cost Measure cost per Notes Timing/Cross-reference l Cost to budget (80 years) annum for May be scope Enforcement powers (O) to reduce costs potentially established A Dog Bins £3,500 £3,370 80 £273,100 number of simultaneously even if not years required necessarily used Produced for mountain biking/cycling, Should be undertaken B Face-face wardening £23,333.33 80 £2,916,666 horse riding, simultaneously with P and Q. dog walking Linked also to dog project and other activities. Including targeting schools C Codes of Conduct £6,000 £6,000 associated with new development Educational work with D £4,000 £8,916 10 £93,160 schools Ten boards, costs allow for replacement so £64,80 capital costs Potentially coordinated with E Interpretation Boards £64,800 0 could N to ensure in right location essentially be spread over time Outputs from C, P and Q Detailed material on F £5,000 £5,000 placed on website as the web available Liaison with local G Costs incorporated into other measures, e.g. wardening groups Direct contact with H Costs incorporated into other measures, e.g. wardening local clubs/groups Linked to Established in conjunction P I Gorse management £1,000 80 £80,000 promoted and Q routes Linked to codes of conduct J Signs directing people £6,500 £6,500 (C) Signs asking visitors to K £6,600 £6,600 behave differently L Off-site events Costs incorporated into other measures, e.g. wardening Boardwalks/path £95,00 M £95,000 surfacing 0 N Changes to car-parks £13,500 80 £1,080,000 See B Enforcement by O Costs incorporated into other measures, e.g. wardening wardens Dedicated routes P Costs incorporated into other measures, e.g. wardening promoted Maps highlighting Q routes and sensitive £1,500 £1,500 areas Spraying/flags to R highlight dog fouling Costs incorporated into other measures, e.g. wardening issue

131

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

132

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

133

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 Implementation and consent for works on common land 10.3 An implementation plan would be the next step and this would need careful consideration in relation to available resources and how each element is best undertaken.

10.4 A number of the options for future management outlined above could require a period of public consultation and a formal application to PINS for consent for works on a common. As such, it is recommended that if any such works are contemplated, they are assessed as to whether each will need to go through an application process (there are statutory and other exclusions and precedents)and that all options that fall within this category are processed together. The alternative is a piecemeal approach with multiple consultations and applications which will be time consuming and expensive and lead to greater public opposition due to repetitive consultations.

Discussion 10.5 The focus of this report is visitor management/engagement on the Pebblebed Heaths. The recommendations provide additional detail and fit within the wider package of measures set out in the South-east Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy. It should be noted that the South-east Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy also includes some wider measures, such as a dog project, that would cover a much wider area and engage with visitors to the Pebblebeds, the Exe Estuary and wider. As such this report should be considered as part of a wider package of measures set out in wider Strategy. Many of the visitor survey results (such as those relating to dog walkers and dog use) will be useful in informing and helping to develop those wider measures (such as the dog project).

10.6 It is important to recognise the wider context. Access patterns on the Pebblebeds will be influenced by changes in the surrounding countryside. For example the visitor survey results clearly show that many visitors to the Pebblebeds also visit the Exe Estuary and other nearby sites. Measures that change access on nearby sites will have implications for the Pebblebeds, for example some dog walkers interviewed in this survey commented that they visited the Exe Estuary when it was low tide and they could walk on the sand-flats. Restrictions such as limiting dogs off leads in such areas are likely to push additional access towards the Pebblebeds. Similarly restrictions relating to dogs on beaches around Exmouth are likely to influence use of the Pebblebeds. It is important that the wider context to access management and visitor flows are understood and carefully considered.

10.7 The data suggest that holiday-makers make up a relatively small proportion of users to the Pebblebed Heaths. Tourist use may still be relevant in terms of mitigation and local tourist developments may result in changes in this proportion. Further work on tourist use of the Pebblebed Heaths and the need for mitigation for tourist development is perhaps necessary, but this would suggest tourist development is of less concern that local residential development.

134

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

10.8 A final key point is that the measures recommended need to work on the ground. They must not be set in stone but adaptable and flexible. In a recent review of mitigation measures relating to disturbance to birds on estuaries (Ross et al. 2014), undertaken using questionnaires with a range of experts (including site managers, access officers and ornithologists), mitigation measures were scored. For each measure considered the scores ranged widely, with some experts indicating they had experience of it working well and others indicating they had experience of it not working well. Such results would suggest that the success of mitigation will depend on local circumstances, including the people involved, resources and variations in implementation. There is already a team of highly experienced site-based staff working on the Pebblebeds and covering education, habitat management and access management in their day to day work. These people have been involved in the development of this report and will clearly have an important role in implementing the measures recommended here.

Monitoring 10.9 Monitoring is essential to ensure the successful delivery of the mitigation work, acting as an early warning system and providing the feedback to hone mitigation. Monitoring will be necessary to ensure approaches are working as anticipated and whether further refinements or adjustments are necessary. Monitoring will also inform whether resources can be better allocated, and will pick up changes in access patterns (for example in response to changes in climate, new activities or in response to changes on the sites themselves). Monitoring is therefore important to ensure mitigation measures are focused, responsive to changes in access and that money is well-spent and correctly allocated. Monitoring should therefore be integral to the mitigation ‘package’.

10.10 We recommend the following monitoring.

 Birds: While some bird data (territory distribution for key species) are collected annually, there is not always coverage across all the Pebblebed Heaths and the data are not necessarily combined into a single GIS layer covering the SPA. Monitoring at regular intervals (say every three years) should ensure such data are collected and systematically mapped, ideally with territories plotted as polygons rather than point data. This would potentially cost around £3,000 per survey.  Visitor numbers: Car-park counts are important. We suggest that car-park counts are undertaken regularly covering all the parking locations across the Pebblebeds. Counts are best done on a transect where a set route is followed and all parked cars counted and mapped. Counts should encompass a range of times of day, types of day (weekend, weekdays and bank holidays) and different times of year. Such an approach is undertaken at other sites – for example across the Dorset Heaths and the Thames Basin Heaths – as part of the routine monitoring linked to the mitigation work. On the Pebblebed Heaths bi-annual counts would probably be sufficient, and around 20 transects would be adequate. Timings should be set up (potentially following those in the report by Ecology Solutions in 2012) so that comparable data can be collected each year (e.g. transect 1 undertaken on a weekday morning in first week of June starting at 1000 hours). The advantage of the transect methodology is that it provides data on all parking

135

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

locations, including lay-bys and informal parking areas. Annual counts could potentially be achieved within a budget of £2,000 per annum. Automated counters may provide some additional data and are useful in that they provide detailed information over months, but it is impossible to get counters to cover all parking locations. The Pebblebed Heaths Trust do have counters on some main car-parks and as far as possible these should be kept running and additional counters installed as appropriate.  Erosion and path width: the European Site Improvement Plan for the Pebblebed Heaths20 includes an action to investigate the potential impacts from recreation pressure on the hydrology. The details are yet to be determined and any specific, detailed work on erosion and impacts on mires would provide a basis for a monitoring programme. In the absence of such work we recommend fixed point photography and measurement of path width (bare ground) at set locations. These should be around the edges of mires (slopes) and across the mires themselves. Photographs may work from a distance but should also include close-ups showing extent of gullying on the path. Such monitoring would help inform where (and when) path surfacing might be required. Such work could be achieved with a budget of around £1,500 and would ideally be repeated every five years or so.  Warden time and effort: A log should be maintained of how much time wardens spend at which locations and it should record details of the number of people spoken to/engaged with and details of the interaction. These data could always be collected whenever the wardens are out. The information recorded does not need to be overly complex and should include basic information such as how long was spent at each location, how many people (and groups) were spoken to, type of engagement (this could be categorised, for example as: shown birds, leaflet given out, alternative site suggested etc.). It may be necessary to have slightly different forms or recording protocols depending on whether the wardens are just doing day-day site visits or attending particular events etc.  Visitor interviews: further visitor survey work would provide the opportunity to check on how well different measures are working. While the questionnaire and approach used here could provide the basis for repeat surveys in the future, we recommend that more detailed questions relating to whether the interviewee has encountered a warden, seen particular signs etc. should be included. Rather than repeat at set intervals we suggest that such work should be undertaken as needs dictate – potentially in response to the need to establish some of the secondary measures or once elements such as the wardening have become established. Otherwise an interval of around every five years should be sufficient and a budget of £8,000 be adequate.

20 http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6234004760035328

136

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 11. References

Alessa, L., Bennett, S.M. & Kliskey, A.D. (2003) Effects of knowledge, personal attribution and perception of ecosystem health on depreciative behaviors in the intertidal zone of Pacific Rim National Park and Reserve. Journal of Environmental Management, 68, 207–218.

Beeco, J.A. & Brown, G. (2013) Integrating space, spatial tools, and spatial analysis into the human dimensions of parks and outdoor recreation. Applied Geography, 38, 76–85.

Bennett, R.M., Tranter, R.B. & Blaney, R.J.P. (2003) The Value of Countryside Access: A Contingent Valuation Survey of Visitors to the Ridgeway National Trail in the United Kingdom. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46, 659–671.

Clarke, R.T., Liley, D., Underhill-Day, J.C. & Rose, R.J. (2006) Visitor Access Patterns on the Dorset Heaths. English Nature.

Clarke, R., Sharp, J. & Liley, D. (2010) Ashdown Forest Visitor Survey Data Analysis. Natural England Commissioned Report, Natural England.

Conway, G., Wotton, S., Henderson, I., Eaton, M., Drewitt, A. & Spencer, J. (2009) The status of breeding Woodlarks Lullula arborea in Britain in 2006. Bird Study, 56, 310.

Conway, G., Wotton, S., Henderson, I., Langston, R., Drewitt, A. & Currie, F. (2007) The status and distribution of breeding European Nightjars Caprimulgus europaeus in the UK in 2004. Bird Study, 54, 98–111.

Cruickshanks, K., Liley, D. & Hoskin, R. (2010) Suffolk Sandlings Visitor Survey Report. Footprint Ecology / Suffolk Wildlife Trust.

Dolman, P. & Morrison, C. (2012) Temporal Change in Territory Density and Habitat Quality for Breckland Forest SSSI Woodlark and Nightjar Populations. Unpublished report for Forestry Commission and Natural England.

Downward, P. & Lumsdon, L. (2004) Tourism Transport and Visitor Spending: A Study in the North York Moors National Park, UK. Journal of Travel Research, 42, 415–420.

Ecology Solutions. (2012) East Devon Heaths SPA/East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC Visitor Survey Report. Ecology Solutions.

Edgar, P. (2002) The Effects of Public Access on Amphibians and Reptiles. an Assessment of the Potential Effects of Increased Public Access due to the Introduction of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. CCW Contract Science, Bangor.

Fearnley, H., Clarke, R.T. & Liley, D. (2010) The Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project. Phase II. On-Site Visitor Survey Results from the Solent Region. Footprint Ecology/Solent Forum.

Fearnley, H., Hoskin, R., Liley, D., White, J. & Lake, S. (2012) Urban Development and the New Forest SPA. Footprint Ecology/ New Forest National Park Authority.

Fearnley, H. & Liley, D. (2012) Visitor Access Patterns on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area 2012. Natural England Commissioned Report, Footprint Ecology / Natural England.

137

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Fearnley, H., Liley, D. & Cruickshanks, K. (2011) Visitor Survey from Results Breckland SPA. Footprint Ecology Unpublished Report.

Fearnley, H., Liley, D. & Cruickshanks, K. (2012) Results of the Recreational Visitor Surveys across the Humber Estuary. Footprint Ecology.

Heritage Lottery Fund. (2013) Interpretation: Good-Practice Guidance.

Kerry, L. & Lagdon, E. (2015) East Devon Pebblebed Heaths: Species Monitoring Report 2015. Unpublished Report.

Key, R. (2000) Bare ground and the conservation of invertebrates. British Wildlife, 11, 183–192.

King, M., Liley, D. & Cruickshanks, K. (2014) Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Exeter Development Delivery Plan Document.

Langston, R., Drewitt, A. & Liley, D. (2007) Bird conservation and access: coexistence or compromise? British Wildlife, 19, 1–9.

Langston, R.H.W., Liley, D., Murison, G., Woodfield, E. & Clarke, R.T. (2007) What effects do walkers and dogs have on the distribution and productivity of breeding European Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus? Ibis, 149, 27–36.

Liddle, M.J. (1997) Recreation Ecology. Chapman & Hall, London.

Liley, D. & Clarke, R.T. (2003) The impact of urban development and human disturbance on the numbers of nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus on heathlands in Dorset, England. Biological Conservation, 114, 219–230.

Liley, D., Clarke, R.T., Mallord, J.W. & Bullock, J.M. (2006) The Effect of Urban Development and Human Disturbance on the Distribution and Abundance of Nightjars on the Thames Basin and Dorset Heaths. Natural England / Footprint Ecology.

Liley, D., Fearnley, H. & Cruickshanks, K. (2010) Exe Visitor Survey, 2010. Footprint Ecology / Teignbridge District Council.

Liley, D., Floyd, L., Cruickshanks, K. & Fearnley, H. (2014a) Visitor Access Study of the Upper Nene Valley SPA. Footprint Ecology / Nene Valley NIA.

Liley, D., Hoskin, R., Lake, S., Underhill-Day, J. & Cruickshanks, K. (2014b) South-East Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy. Footprint Ecology.

Liley, D., Jackson, D. & Underhill-Day, J. (2006) Visitor Access Patterns on the Thames Basin Heaths. English Nature Research Reports, N682, Peterborough.

Liley, D. & Underhill-Day, J. (2012) Habitat Regulations Assessment of the East Devon Local Plan Submission for Examination. Footprint Ecology.

McCarthy, A. (2006) NVC Survey of East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SSSI: Units 8, 9 and 11. Report to English Nature. Andrew McCarthy Associates, Exeter.

Moss, S. (2012) Natural Childhood. National Trust.

138

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Murison, G. (2002) The Impact of Human Disturbance on the Breeding Success of Nightjar Caprimulgus Europaeus on Heathlands in South Dorset, England. English Nature, Peterborough.

Murison, G., Bullock, J.M., Underhill-Day, J., Langston, R., Brown, A.F. & Sutherland, W.J. (2007) Habitat type determines the effects of disturbance on the breeding productivity of the Dartford Warbler Sylvia undata. Ibis, 149, 16–26.

Navarro, M., Saez, A. & Estrada, J. (2013) INSPIRE and Social Empowerment for Environmental Sustainability. Results from the HABITATS Project. European Commission, Madrid.

Oxford, M., Liley, D. & Jenkins, J. (2013) Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 Proposed Submission.

Pouwels, R., Opdam, P. & Jochem, R. (2011) Reconsidering the effectiveness of scientific tools for negotiating local solutions to conflicts between recreation and conservation with stakeholders. Ecology & Society, 16.

Pretty, J., Griffin, M., Peacock, J., Hine, R., Selens, M. & South, N. (2005) A countryside for health and well-being: the physical and mental health benefits of green exercise. Countryside Recreation, 13, 2–7.

Prosser, M. & Wallace, H. (2005) National Vegetation Classification: East Devon Pebblebed Heaths (in Part). Report to English Nature. Ecological Surveys, Bangor.

Rimmer, J.M., Maguire, G.S. & Weston, M.A. (2013) Perceptions of effectiveness and preferences for design and position of signage on Victorian beaches for the management of hooded plovers ‘thinornis rubricollis’. Victorian Naturalist, The, 130, 75.

Ross, K., Liley, D., Austin, G., Clarke, R.T., Burton, N.H., Stillman, R.A., Cruickshanks, K. & Underhill- Day, J. (2014) Housing Development and Estuaries in England: Developing Methodologies for Assessing the Impacts of Disturbance to Non-Breeding Waterfowl. Footprint Ecology, unpublished report for Natural England.

Sharp, J., Lowen, J. & Liley, D. (2008) Changing Patterns of Visitor Numbers within the New Forest National Park, with Particular Reference to the New Forest SPA. Footprint Ecology / New Forest National Park Authority.

Symes, N. & Day, J. (2003) A Practical Guide to the Restoration and Management of Lowland Heathland. RSPB, Sandy, Beds.

Taylor, K., Anderson, P., Taylor, R.P., Longden, K. & Fisher, P. (2005) Dogs, Access and Nature Conservation. English Nature, Peterborough.

TNS Research International. (2011) NECR083 - Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment: The national survey on people and the natural environment - Annual Report from the 2010-11 survey, http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/NECR083

Underhill-Day, J.C. (2005) A Literature Review of Urban Effects on Lowland Heaths and Their Wildlife. English Nature, Peterborough.

139

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016

Weaver, T. & Dale, D. (1978) Trampling Effects of Hikers, Motorcycles and Horses in Meadows and Forests. The Journal of Applied Ecology, 15, 451–457.

White, D.D., Waskey, M.T., Brodehl, G.P. & Foti, P.E. (2006) A comparative study of the impacts to mountain bike trails in five common ecological regions of the southwestern U.S. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 24, 21–41.

Wichmann, M.C., Alexander, M.J., Soons, M.B., Galsworthy, S., Dunne, L., Gould, R., Fairfax, C., Niggemann, M., Hails, R.S. & Bullock, J.M. (2009) Human-mediated dispersal of seeds over long distances. , 276, 523–532.

Winter, P.L., Sagarin, B.J., Rhoads, K., Barrett, D.W. & Cialdini, R.B. (2014) Choosing to Encourage or Discourage: Perceived Effectiveness of Prescriptive Versus Proscriptive Messages. Environmental Management, 26, 589–594.

Worthington-Hill, J. (2015) Ecological Effects of Heathland Management on the Adder Vipera Berus. Masters, UEA, Norwich.

140

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 Appendix 1: Questionnaire

141

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor Management Plan, October 2016 Appendix 2 Table summarises the modelled number of visitors per day (based on spring/summer) for each

access point and used as input values for the visitor path modelling.

n n

paces

Status Name of location (as used in ES report) withi

1000m

Modelled

numberof

(ESreport)

Numberof

houses

Numberofcar

parkings visitorsper day Venn Ottery Foot 40 2.7 Foot 21 2.3 Foot 111 4.1 Foot 50 2.9 Foot 24 2.4 Formal parking Venn Ottery 3 36 6.5 Informal parking Venn Ottery lay-by downs field 2 53 4.9 Informal parking Manor common 4 17 2.4 Informal parking Scotts pollard track manor common 4 60 3.3 Informal parking Venn Ottery dwt access 4 165 6.2 Aylesbeare Foot 133 4.6 Foot 53 3.0 Foot 12 2.2 Foot 220 6.3 Informal parking Heather down 2 15 2.4 Informal parking Lynch gate 2 18 3.2 Informal parking Aylesbeare 3 12 2.3 Informal parking A3052 lay-by 4 33 3.5 Informal parking Halfway inn 4 52 4.9 Informal parking Hunger hill burrow 6 530 25.0 Informal parking Benchams track 6 33 27.5 Hawkerland Foot 22 2.4 Foot 24 2.4 Formal parking Joney’s cross 40 4 77.8 Informal parking B3180 Canterbury green 1 18 4.2 Informal parking Hawkerland barrier lower morish 2 15 6.1 Informal parking Entrance to Aylesbeare common 2 4 2.1 Informal parking Hill side lay-by parking 3 20 2.5 Informal parking Road edge Hawkerland road E 8 15 6.1 Informal parking Road edge Hawkerland road D 8 15 6.1 Informal parking Road edge Hawkerland road C 8 15 10.9 Informal parking Road edge Hawkerland road B 8 15 10.9 Informal parking Road edge Hawkerland road A 8 8 5.9

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor

Management Plan, October 2016

n n

paces

Status Name of location (as used in ES report) withi

1000m

Modelled

numberof

(ESreport)

Numberof

houses

Numberofcar

parkings visitorsper day Colaton Raleigh Foot 15 2.2 Foot 13 2.2 Foot 8 2.1 Formal parking Warren 20 12 79.0 Informal parking Beacon lay-by 1 4 2.1 Informal parking Valley barn Hawkerland valley 2 15 7.0 Informal parking Stowford ford pull in 3 6 20.3 Informal parking Stowford ford and track edge 3 6 5.9 Informal parking Golf course entrance area 4 4 2.1 Informal parking The wilderness Hawkerland 4 15 8.9 Informal parking Stowford woods crook woods 10 27 31.3 Woodbury Foot 0 1.9 Formal parking Model airfield 20 0 100.8 Formal parking Woodbury castle 25 0 116.2 Formal parking Uphams 30 1 45.1 Formal parking Estuary 30 0 48.0 Formal parking Four firs 40 0 70.1 Informal parking Bridleway off B3179 1 0 2.1 Informal parking Bounderidge tunnel 1 0 2.9 Informal parking Castle north lay-by 1 0 2.1 Informal parking East Devon way track 2 0 3.8 Informal parking Exeter hill south 2 8 5.9 Informal parking Islands north permissive path entrance 2 32 5.4 Informal parking Banana field bottom of Exeter hill 3 45 9.5 East Budleigh Foot 2 2.0 Foot 6 2.0 Foot 2 2.0 Foot 2 2.0 Formal parking Squabmoor 15 8 35.7 Formal parking Upper thorntree 20 4 22.2 Formal parking Wheathill 30 1 53.8 Informal parking Lay-by Yettington pines ridge road S 1 4 4.9 Informal parking Wheathill car park lay-bys 1 3 5.8 Informal parking East Budleigh common south of road 2 4 3.9 Informal parking East Budleigh common south of Joney’s barrier 2 8 7.8 Informal parking Sandy gallop 2 8 4.0

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Visitor

Management Plan, October 2016

n n

paces

Status Name of location (as used in ES report) withi

1000m

Modelled

numberof

(ESreport)

Numberof

houses

Numberofcar

parkings visitorsper day

Informal parking Hayes triangle 2 3 2.1 Informal parking Lay-by yettington pines ridge road N 3 4 8.7 Informal parking Entrance course lay-by 4 1 24.0 Informal parking Boarder barn island plantations 4 8 8.8 Informal parking Rv9 tuckets plant lay-by B 6 3 11.6 Informal parking Rv6 tuckets plant lay-by A 6 3 2.1 Lympstone Foot 2 2.0 Foot 163 5.2 Formal parking Bystock 8 10 34.8 Formal parking Lympstone 15 114 49.3 Informal parking Lympstone common east bridleways A 1 9 3.1 Informal parking Lympstone common east bridleways A 1 9 3.1 Informal parking Dwt access wrights lane 1 41 6.6 Informal parking Lympstone squabmoor house 2 38 3.6 Informal parking Lympstone lay-by 3 65 3.4 Informal parking Quarry entrance bridleway 3 1 2.1 Informal parking Lympstone common bridleway b3180 5 11 3.1 Informal parking Quarry car park 12 1 4.8 Dalditch Foot 54 3.0 Foot 59 3.1 Foot 106 4.0 Foot 25 2.4 Foot 51 2.9 Foot 77 3.5 Informal parking Ting tong lay-by permissive south 0 107 6.0 Informal parking Ting tong lay-by wallys north 0 114 4.3 Informal parking Dalditch north barrier 1 14 6.0 Informal parking The wedge lay-by 1 136 23.8 Informal parking Bystock pools south 4 11 37.7 Informal parking Squabmoor south fisherman’s car park 8 25 14.9