Deben Estuary Visitor Survey Report
Prepared by No Adastral New Town July 2011 Contents
Contents...... 1 1. Introduction...... 2 Overview ...... 2 Background to the report ...... 2 Aims of this Report ...... 2 Study Area...... 3 Methodology...... 5 2. Results...... 7 Visitor Numbers ...... 7 Dogs ...... 8 Seasonal Variations ...... 9 Activities...... 10 Modes of Transport Used by Visitors ...... 11 Distances Travelled...... 12 Reasons for Visiting this Location...... 16 Comments ...... 17 3. Discussion...... 18 Comparisons with the South Sandlings Survey...... 18 Do these results undermine the Appropriate Assessment?...... 19 Parking...... 19 Distances travelled...... 19 Dogs...... 20 Mitigation...... 20 Conclusions...... 22 4. Deben Estuary Visitor Survey Form...... 23 5. Visitors’ Comments...... 24
Page 1 of 25 1. Introduction
Overview 1.1 This report presents the results of an on-site visitor survey conducted over 16 days in April and May, 2011. The visitor survey is intended to provide baseline information relating to visitor numbers and recreational use of the Deben Estuary SPA/RAMSAR Site. It aims to provide a snapshot of data on the recreational activities in the area from which can be drawn more informed and credible conclusions about the impact on the Deben Estuary of the housing development at Adastral Park, Martlesham which has been proposed in the Local Development Framework Core Strategy1.
Background to the report 1.2 It has been stated in the Appropriate Assessment (AA)2 relating to the LDF/Core Strategy that there is ‘a limited amount of data’ available on which to base an assessment3. Nonetheless despite this lack of evidence, far-reaching conclusions have been drawn.
1.3 Concerns regarding this paucity of data have been expressed by numerous bodies including the RSPB, but no up-to-date survey has been undertaken by SCDC or its agents.
1.4 In addition, the AA contains statements that are untrue. Further conclusions have been drawn which rely entirely on these false statements, for example that there are no public car parks at Waldringfield or Martlesham Creek. The AA incorrectly states that “The car park at the Deben Estuary at Waldringfield is privately operated for users of the pub and sailing club, and is not available as a starting point for estuary-side walks”4. This is then used as the basis for claiming that Waldringfield will not be affected by the proposed housing: “Given this lack of parking, it is possible to ascertain that the integrity of the Deben Estuary at Waldringfield will not be affected by the housing allocations at Martlesham alone and in combination with housing provisions elsewhere”4.
1.5 The truth is that there are 3 car parks at the river at Waldringfield. One is for the use of sailing club members, one is for the use of patrons of the Maybush Public House and the third is operated on a pay-and-display basis for the general public. At Martlesham Creek there is a car park alongside the church which is left open specifically for general visitor parking.
Aims of this Report 1.6 No Adastral New Town (NANT), the RSPB and other bodies are concerned that insufficient information is available to make a proper assessment of the impact on the Deben Estuary of the proposed allocation of 2,000 dwellings at Adastral Park, Martlesham. For example, there are no figures on visitor numbers, numbers of dog walkers, and how these vary with the seasons. Without this baseline information it is impossible to predict what the impact of the proposed
1 SCDC Local Development Framework Reviewed Core Strategy, Nov. 2010 2 Appropriate Assessment for SCDC Core Strategy and Development Management Policies, the Landscape Partnership, June 2011 3 Appropriate Assessment, June 2011, §5.1.10 4 Appropriate Assessment, June 2011, §6.2.33
Page 2 of 25 development will be on the Deben Estuary, or whether the proposed mitigation measures will be adequate.
1.7 NANT wanted to help address the lack of data and therefore decided to conduct a survey of visitors to the Deben Estuary, to obtain basic data on visitor numbers, activities undertaken, frequency of visits and distances travelled.
1.8 We based our survey questionnaire and methodology on the South Sandlings Visitor Survey5 model, in many cases asking the same questions. Our survey is not on the scale of the South Sandlings Survey, we have neither the resources nor the expertise. Our aim is to provide a snapshot of data on the recreational activities in the area from which can be drawn more informed conclusions about the potential impact on the Deben Estuary of the Martlesham development alone or in combination with housing allocations elsewhere.
1.9 No attempt has been made to survey wildlife in the Deben Estuary area or assess the impact of visitors on the wildlife, as NANT do not have the expertise to do this. However, it is accepted that excessive numbers of visitors, dogs running off-lead etc have a damaging impact on, for example, wading birds (see for example 6). We hope that the data we have collected is helpful in providing some baseline information from which further studies can be conducted or more realistic projections made regarding increased visitor numbers resulting from the Adastral Park, Martlesham development and the consequent impact on the wildlife.
Study Area 1.10 Surveys were carried out at 5 locations on the River Deben close to the proposed development site at Adastral Park. All 5 locations are within the Deben Estuary SPA, SSSI and RAMSAR International wetland site, and all are within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB. There is no car park at Manor House, Waldringfield, it is the one of the access points for circular walks along the river. The other 4 survey sites are the main locations in the area where the public can park close to the river (there is no car park at Hemley, but a number of cars can, and do park on the grass verge). They are shown in Fig. 1.
5 South Sandlings Living Landscape Project, Visitor Survey Report, Footprint Ecology, Feb. 2011 6 Disturbance to waterbirds wintering in the Stour-Orwell Estuaries SPA, A report from Wildside Ecology to the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Unit, Dec. 2007.
Page 3 of 25 Martlesham Church car park Manor House, Waldringfield Waldringfield beach Waldringfield car park Hemley Church (mapcourtesy of Maps)Bing Figure 1 – survey locations 1.11 NB: The Waldringfield Sailing Club car park is for the members only and so no interviews were conducted here.
1.12 The area has a dense network of footpaths (Fig. 2), making access by foot from the proposed development site at Adastral Park to the Deben Estuary very easy, especially around Martlesham Creek and Waldringfield.
Page 4 of 25 (mapcourtesy of Maps)Bing
Figure 2 - footpath network
Methodology 1.13 Volunteers located at the sites shown in §1.10 interviewed groups of visitors, using the survey form shown in §4. They followed the “script” on the form and did not mention NANT or draw visitors into conversation regarding Adastral Park. If asked, they described themselves as a local group interested in collecting data on visitors to the River Deben.
1.14 Overall, 510 interviews were conducted during 66 hours, spread over 16 days, including weekends, bank holidays and ordinary weekdays, as shown in Table 1.
Numbers of interviews Date Day Bank times duration All Martlesham Waldringfield Waldringfield Manor Hemley Holiday? (hrs) locations Church car car park beach House, Church park Waldringfield
23/04/11 Sat 17:00-17:48 2 3 3 25/04/11 Mon Y 09:10-19:24 10.5 228 165 63 26/04/11 Tues 09:15-19:15 10 66 37 29 30/04/11 Sat 14:51-16:41 2 11 11 01/05/11 Sun 14:51-16:31 1.5 12 12 02/05/11 Mon Y 11:45-16:15 4.5 22 19 3 03/05/11 Tues 13:14 0 1 1 04/05/11 Wed 09:01-11:55 3 5 5 12/05/11 Thurs 12:45-14:05 1.5 2 2
Page 5 of 25 14/05/11 Sat 09:20-11:15 2 14 10 4 20/05/11 Fri 09:10-16:15 7 32 15 13 4 23/05/11 Mon 09:17-14:30 5 24 5 11 8 29/05/11 Sun 09:30-11:30 2 17 12 5 30/05/11 Mon Y 05:45-17:00 11 44 33 11 01/06/11 Wed 16:00-17:10 1 8 8 04/06/11 Sat 14:45-18:25 3.5 21 21 Total 510 87 253 122 15 33 Table 1 - Number of interviews by date
Page 6 of 25 2. Results
Visitor Numbers 2.1 510 groups were interviewed, the total number of visitors being 1,284, giving an average group size of 2.52. The actual number of visitors was much larger than this, as many people were missed, particularly in the busy periods. Two of the groups were very large (39 and 45). These were adults (no children) arriving by coach to go on boat trips. The distribution of group sizes (excluding these two very large groups) is shown in Fig. 3.
250
200
150 No.of groups
100
50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Group size
Figure 3 – group sizes
2.2 105 groups included children. The number of children varied between 1 and 5, as shown in Fig. 4. The overall average number of children was 0.4 per group, but if we only include groups with children it was 1.8 children per group.
50
45
40
35
30
No. of groups 25
20
15
10
5
0 1 2 3 4 5 No. of children per group Figure 4 – children in groups
Page 7 of 25 Dogs 2.3 Out of the 510 groups interviewed, 96 (18.8%) had at least one dog with them. The number of dogs per group ranged from 1 to 7, with an average of 1.3. There was some variation between survey locations, as shown in Fig. 5
35%
30%
25%
Percentage of 20% groups with dog(s) 15% 10%
5%
0%
Hemley Church
Waldringfield beach Waldringfield car park
Martlesham Church car park Manor House, Waldringfield Survey location
Figure 5 – dogs at survey locations
2.4 The average distance travelled (from home, excluding the 6 groups referred to in §2.17) by groups with dog(s) was 15.4km. 23.3% of these travelled on foot, and 74.4% travelled by car. Of those who travelled on foot, the average distance travelled was 1.8km, the maximum was 8.2km and 40% of those on foot with dog(s) travelled more than 1km.
2.5 52.8% of dogs were seen off-lead by the interviewers. The variation between survey locations is shown in Fig. 6
80%
70%
60%
50% Percentage of dogs seen off- 40% lead 30% 20% 10%
0%
Hemley Church
Waldringfield beach Waldringfield car park
Martlesham Church car park Manor House,Survey Waldringfield location Figure 6 – dogs off-lead at survey locations 2.6 The low percentage of dogs seen off-lead at Waldringfield car park may be because the car park was often very busy and potentially dangerous for dogs without a lead.
Page 8 of 25 Seasonal Variations 2.7 45% of those surveyed stated that they visited the area with the same frequency all year round. The best way of illustrating the seasonal variations is therefore to add the number who stated that they visited all year round to each of the different seasons, as shown in Table 2.
raw ‘same all year’ redistributed Spring 98 98+230=328 Summer 204 204+230=434 Autumn 45 45+230=275 Winter 9 9+230=239 Don’t know/1st visit 50 50 Same all year 230
Table 2 – Seasonal variations
2.8 The redistributed numbers of groups are shown in Fig. 7, with and without dogs. Note that care should be taken when interpreting this chart – although a person may say they visit in winter, the group size or frequency of visits may differ, and whether they bring a dog may also differ. However, the data shows that 239 groups (46.8%) also visit in the winter.
450 400 350 300 without dogs 250 with dog(s) 200 150 100 50 0 Spring Summer Autumn Winter Season Figure 7 – seasonal variation of groups 2.9 The redistributed numbers of groups were converted into visitor numbers by multiplying by the group size (adults + children). The results are shown in Fig. 8(the same caveats as in §2.9 apply to the interpretation of this chart). 578 of the visitors (45.0%) also visit in the winter.
1200
1000
800 Projected number 600 of visitors 400
200
0 Spring Summer Autumn Winter Season Figure 8 – seasonal variation of visitors
Page 9 of 25 Activities 2.10 Visitors were asked what their main activities were in question 8. The basic results are shown in Fig. 9
250
200
150 No. of groups 100
50
0
Other Walking Cycling Dog walking
Exercise (inc jogging)
Outing with children/family
Birdwatching/wildlife watching Activity Figure 9 – visitors’ activities
2.11 Analysis of the ‘other’ answers required the varied responses to be categorised more meaningfully. For example, ‘eating’, ‘drinking’, ‘pub’, ‘pub/lunch’, ‘pub and gardens’, ‘pub and river view’ and several others were all combined into ‘eating/drinking (at pub)’. The resulting combined responses for the 234 groups that answered ‘other’ in question 8 are shown in Fig. 10. 140 120 100
No. of 80 groups 60 40 20 0
fishinghorses campingcrabbing kayaking picnicing sketching swimminig windsurfing photography beach activities sailing/boating boatyard activities eating/drinking (pub) visiting church/cemetry Activity Figure 10- more visitors’ activities
2.12 Out of the 253 groups that were interviewed at the Waldringfield car park, 46 (18.1%) said they were engaged in river-based activities (such as sailing, fishing, kayaking, crabbing, etc.) 126 groups (49.8%) were either walking or dog walking.
Page 10 of 25 2.13 Out of the 119 groups that said they were visiting the pub, 86 (i.e. 72.3%) were also doing other activities on the same visit, as shown in Fig. 11 (10 groups were doing more than one other activity).
50 45 40 35 30 No. of 25 groups 20 15 10 5 0
Walking Cycling Dog walking
Exercise (inc jogging) Outing with children/family Birdwatching/wildlife watching
Activity (in addition to visiting the pub) Figure 11 – pub visitors’ other activities
Modes of Transport Used by Visitors 2.14 79.1% of groups travelled by car, 8.1% by bicycle and 11.2% on foot. This is perhaps a reflection of the distances travelled (see §2.17). The results are shown in fig.12
450
400
350
300
250 No. of groups 200
150
100
50
0
car boat on foot bicycle coach motorbike horsebackmotor home
horse and carriage Transport method Figure 12 – modes of transport
Page 11 of 25 2.15 There was some variation between the survey locations (Fig.13). The largest percentage of visitors arriving by car was at the largest public car park, Waldringfield car park (90.9%), which isn’t surprising. The largest percentage of walkers was at Manor House (46.7%), where there isn’t a car park, and Martlesham Church (30.2%), which is also on a recognised circular walk.
300
250
200
car 150 on foot other 100 50
0
Hemley Church
Waldringfield beach Waldringfield car park
Martlesham Church car park Manor House, Waldringfield Survey location
Figure 13 – modes of transport, by survey locations
Distances Travelled 2.16 The postcodes supplied by visitors in question 10 were used to determine the distance they had travelled. If no postcode was supplied the town/village was used. 5 respondents gave neither, so the distances they travelled could not be calculated. Google Maps was used to ‘get directions’ from the visitor’s postcode to the postcode of the survey location. The route was checked to see if it looked sensible, and the distance was recorded. This gave distances that were likely to have been actually travelled, using the most appropriate route, rather than ‘as the crow flies’ distances.
2.17 The average distance travelled was 37.0km. However, since this includes people on holiday, it was decided that a more useful figure would be the average distance travelled by people who had said they had come from home in question 1 (i.e. day visitors). This gave an average distance of 24.8km. On examining the map (Fig. 14), we noted that 6 of the groups who had said that they had travelled from home had travelled from places such as the NW of England, the Midlands and Devon. As they had travelled so far we have assumed that it is unlikely that they were day visitors and have removed them from this calculation. This gives an average distance travelled by day visitors of 20.8km.
Page 12 of 25 Included in average distance calculation
Assumed not on a day visit (map (map courtesy GoogleofMaps) Figure 14 – where visitors came from 2.18 Maps were produced using the BatchGeo7 mapping website. The maps below (Figs 15 and 16) give an idea of where visitors came from. The full interactive map can be seen at http://tinyurl.com/NANTSurveyVisitors . (map (map courtesy GoogleofMaps) Figure 15 – where people came from (local)
7 http://batchgeo.com/
Page 13 of 25 (mapcourtesy of Google Maps) Figure 16 - where people came from (very local)
Fig. 16 shows that a large number of people came from the East of Ipswich, Woodbridge and Felixstowe and Trimley areas. The latter of course has its own allocation of 1,440 dwellings so it is especially significant that so many groups visited the Deben Estuary from there.
2.19 The distances travelled by groups who came from home, excluding the 6 groups referred to above, were broken down into the 3 main modes of transport: car, bicycle and on foot. (Table 3). The significance of 1km is that this is the distance that is used in the AA to test the impact of a development on Natura 2000 sites8 (see §3.8-§3.12 for a discussion of this). 2.5km is the distance by road from the proposed development site to the River Deben at Waldringfield, and 3.0km is the distance by road to Martlesham Church car park.
by car by bicycle9 on foot all modes Maximum distance travelled (km) 138.2 17.9 15.4 138.2 Average distance travelled (km) 22.4 9.4 3.8 20.8 % who travelled > 1km 97.5% 100% 57.1% 93.2% % who travelled > 2.5km to Waldringfield 97.2% 89.7% 43.5% 92.8% % who travelled > 3.0km to Martlesham 82.7% 100% 31.8% 68.4% Church car park Table 3 – Distances travelled
8 Appropriate Assessment, June 2011, §5.6.2 9 Three groups came by ‘bike/train’ – these have been excluded from the distance calculations. Also, one group said they had come by bicycle, but had travelled 127.8km (from Hackney). It was thought likely that they too had come by bike/train, so they were also excluded.
Page 14 of 25 The maps below (Figs 17 and 18) show where visitors who travelled by bicycle or on foot came from. (map (map courtesy GoogleofMaps) Figure 17 - where visitors came from by bicycle (map (map courtesy GoogleofMaps) Figure 18 – where visitors came from on foot 2.20 The distribution of the distances travelled (by all modes of transport) by groups who came from home, excluding the 6 groups referred to above, are shown in Figs. 19 and 20.
Page 15 of 25 35
30
25
20 No. of groups 15
10
5
0
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 5-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 Distance travelled (km)
Figure 19 – distribution of distances travelled (0-10km)
120
100
80
No. of groups 60
40
20
0
0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-9595-100 Distance travelled (km)
Figure 20 – distribution of distances travelled (0-100km)
Reasons for Visiting this Location 2.21 Question asked “What made you come here, specifically, rather than other local sites?” The answers are shown in Fig. 21 (note that multiple answers were allowed, and that the last 3 reasons (‘other …’) were free text comments rather than tick boxes).
Page 16 of 25 350
300
250
200 No. of groups 150
100
50
0
Close to home Good/easy parking other - pubother related - river related other - wildlife related AttractiveParticular scenery/views wildlife interest Presence of water (river) Safe for dog to runParticular off lead facilities at site Short travel time from home Good for dog/dog enjoys it Feel safe here/ safety issues
Don’t know/ others in party chose Familiarity (with footpaths/site etc) Reason for coming Habitat (e.g. mudflats/ open habitat) Figure 21 – Reasons for visiting this location
2.22 Attractive scenery/views and ‘presence of water (river)’ were easily the main reasons with 56.7% and 62.7% of groups citing them respectively.
Comments 2.23 311 respondents (61.0%) made comments in question 9. Almost all were positive such as ‘very beautiful’ and ‘lovely place’. 16 expressed concern about the proposed housing development, although they weren’t prompted. The full set of comments in shown in §5.
Page 17 of 25 3. Discussion
Comparisons with the South Sandlings Survey 3.1 Some of the main results from the South Sandlings Survey are compared with the equivalent results from the Deben Estuary Survey in Table 4. Where possible the figures for spring/summer from the South Sandlings Survey were used, as this was the season when the Deben Estuary Survey was conducted.
South Sandlings Deben Estuary Visitor Survey Visitor Survey No. of groups interviewed 596 510 No. of people in the groups 1301 1284 interviewed Ave group size 2.46 (spring/summer) 2.52 % group size of 1 39% 27.1% % group size of 2 40% 40.9% % groups with dogs 55% (spring/summer) 18.8% (33.3% at Martlesham Church and Manor House) % dogs seen off-lead 74% (spring/summer) 52.8% (78.3% at Waldringfield beach) no of people per dog 3.1 (spring/summer) 10.1 8.1 (excluding pub & boat trip visitors) % dog walkers living within 10km 75% 43% % dog walking 52.8% 19% % walking 22% 49.9% % holidaymakers 19% (summer) 8.7% % visiting all year 70% 45.1% % staying less than 2hrs 80% 52.4% % travelled by car 78.9% 79.1% % travelled on foot 17% 11.2% % travelled by bicycle 2.2% 8.1% Ave* distance travelled (not on 6.2km 20.8km holiday) Ave* distance travelled by car (not 7.5km 22.4km on holiday) Ave* distance travelled by bike 3.2km 9.4km (not on holiday) Ave* distance travelled on foot 0.4km 3.8km (not on holiday) * the South Sandlings Survey uses the median, and distances are ‘as the crow-flies’. The Deben Estuary Survey uses the average, and distances are by road. Table 4 – surveys comparison
3.2 The sizes of the visiting groups were very similar. However, they were accompanied by a significantly larger percentage of dogs in the South Sandlings. This is partly because of the large number of groups visiting the Maybush and engaged in river-based activities, such as sailing (there are no equivalent attractions in the South Sandlings study area.) But even removing these groups from the figures does not eliminate this difference entirely.
3.3 The percentages of dogs seen off-lead were less in the Deben Estuary, but this is largely due to the fact that the Waldringfield car park was very busy, so dogs tended to be kept on their leads for their own safety. At Waldringfield beach and Martlesham Church the figures were very similar to the South Sandliings area (78.3% and 71.1% compared to 74%).
Page 18 of 25 3.4 The percentage of groups arriving by car were very similar (78.9% and 79.1%). More groups went to the South Sandlings area on foot, but less by bicycle.
3.5 On average people travelled further to the Deben Estuary than the South Sandlings area. This was the case for people travelling by car, bicycle and on foot.
3.6 The results from this survey are sufficiently similar to those from the South Sandlings Survey to suggest the conclusion that the impact of visitors and the detrimental effect they (and their dogs) have on wildlife are likely to be similar for the two sites.
Do these results undermine the Appropriate Assessment?
Parking 3.7 It has already been pointed out (§1.4) that the AA incorrectly states that there is no public car park at Waldringfield available as a starting point for estuary-side walks, and that this ‘lack of parking’ leads to the conclusion that “the integrity of the Deben Estuary at Waldringfield will not be affected by the housing allocations at Martlesham”10. This is factually incorrect – there is a public car park at Waldringfield. Moreover, this survey shows that far from being “not available as a starting point for estuary-side walks” as the AA claims, Waldringfield car park is indeed the starting point for large numbers of walks and visits to the river for other activities (out of the 253 groups that were interviewed at the Waldringfield car park, 126 (49.8%) were either walking or dog walking – see §2.12). As the statement in the AA regarding lack of parking is incorrect, it follows that the conclusion drawn from that is invalid.
Distances travelled 3.8 The AA relies on an arbitrary 1km figure to argue that visitors from the proposed housing site at Adastral Park will not visit the River Deben SPA11. The figure of 1km came originally from a 2006 study in Dorset12 which showed that 89% of visitors on foot had walked less than 1km.
3.9 The Deben Estuary is a completely different habitat from the areas studied in Dorset, which are lowland heathland. Also, the pattern of housing in the surrounding areas is different. The reason such a large percentage of visitors to the Dorset sites walked less than 1km is that there are many houses very close to these sites, so there was no need to walk further. Indeed some of the sites are completely surrounded by urban or suburban housing. Another difference is the lack of any features in the Dorset heathland sites comparable to the River Deben, with it sailing opportunities, river walks, beach and popular riverside pub.
3.10 The AA contains no critical assessment of whether it is appropriate to use the 1km figure in the completely different context of the Deben Estuary. If it did, we believe the only logical conclusion would be that the two situations are so different that it makes no sense to apply the 1km figure to the Deben Estuary area. This is not just pedantic nit-picking over one figure, the whole of the argument presented in the AA leading to the conclusion that there will be no
10 Appropriate Assessment, June 2011, §6.2.33 and §6.2.40 11 Appropriate Assessment, June 2011, §6.2.31, §6.2.42 and §7.2.4 12 Clarke, R., Liley, D., Underhill-Day, J. & Rose, R. Visitor Access patterns on the Dorset heathlands. English Nature Research Reports, No. 683, 2006
Page 19 of 25 adverse effects depends on it: “Provided that strategic housing proposals for development at Martlesham and Felixstowe Peninsula are greater than 1km from the Deben Estuary and Orwell Estuary respectively, together with improvements in accessibility to greenspace provision, it is unlikely that visitor recreation activity would substantially increase on the foreshore of those estuaries. It is therefore concluded that there would be no adverse affect upon the integrity of the respective European sites.“13
3.11 The inappropriateness of the 1km figure is borne out by this survey, which shows that 57.1% (far more than the 11% in Dorset) of visitors to the River Deben who arrived on foot walked more than 1km (see §2.19). The average distance travelled by people on foot easily puts the sensitive sites within the orbit of the proposed LDF site, and demonstrates clearly that the arbitrary 1km figures is not a sound assumption.
3.12 At its closest point, the proposed housing site is 2.0km as the crow flies (2.5km by road) from the River Deben at Waldringfield, and 1.6km as the crow flies (3.0km by road) from the Martlesham Church car park. The Deben Estuary survey shows that 43.5% of walkers and 89.7% of cyclist travelled further than 2.5km to the river at Waldringfield, and that 31.8% of walkers and 100% of cyclist travelled further than 3.0km to Martlesham Church car park. Clearly people are prepared to travel far greater distances to attractive locations in this area than they are in Dorset! It is irrational to use data from Dorset when actual local data is available and presents a completely different picture.
3.13 The plans to provide enhanced cycle access to and through the proposed housing development at Adastral Park, Martlesham would make cycle access to the Deben Estuary much easier from existing populations in both Martlesham Heath and Grange Farm, both of which would then be well within the 9.4 km average cycling distance as shown in Table 3.
Dogs 3.14 The AA does acknowledge that dogs running off-lead are a problem “Dogs in particular were reported as the biggest source of disturbance, especially dogs off leads which were rarely under control”14 This is also confirmed elsewhere15,16 . In this survey, 78.3% of dogs seen at Waldringfield Beach and 71.1% of dogs at Martlesham Church were seen off-lead – this is similar to the South Sandlings Survey figure of 74% and could produce similar risks to wildlife at the protected Deben Estuary sites.
Mitigation 3.15 The AA places great reliance on the creation of a new country park, which it is claimed will provide mitigation by diverting visitors (and particularly dog walkers) away from the Deben Estuary17. No specific site is suggested, although a location vaguely described as “to the north or north-east of Ipswich” is proposed. However, the answers visitors gave to the survey question 6 - What made you come here, specifically, rather than other local sites? (§2.21) and
13 Appropriate Assessment, June 2011, §6.2.4.2 14 Appropriate Assessment, June 2011, §5.7.6 15 Disturbance to waterbirds wintering in the Stour-Orwell Estuaries SPA, A report from Wildside Ecology to the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Unit, Dec. 2007 16 South Sandlings Living Landscape Project, Visitor Survey Report, Footprint Ecology, Feb. 2011, §3.53 17 Appropriate Assessment, June 2011, §7.2.8
Page 20 of 25 visitors comments (§2.23) show clearly that the River Deben is attracting people for reasons that cannot possibly be reproduced in a country park. Apart from sailing, birdwatching, the presence of the river, etc., many people visited are attracted by the Maybush pub, the majority of whom (72.3%) were also engaged in other activities on the same visit (§2.13).
3.16 If a country park is created to the north or north-east of Ipswich, and people drive to it (for whatever recreation it may offer) is it not likely that they will then decide to go down to Waldringfield for a drink or a meal, and maybe walk along the river bank? So instead of diverting visitors, it may actually act as an attraction to more visitors to the area. This possible effect of greenspace is suggested by East Dorset District Council (see §3.18).
3.17 As well as the three country parks mentioned in the AA18, there are numerous other parks and wildlife sites in and around Ipswich which, according to the AA should already be diverting people away from the Deben Estuary. Maybe they are, but it is clear from this survey that large numbers of people are choosing to come to the Deben Estuary in preference to these other attractions, and that is unlikely to change with the creation of another park.
3.18 The author of the AA has been highly selective in choosing which study to quote in the AA. The AA places enormous reliance on the results of a 5 year old study from Dorset, but fails to mention a larger and more recent (2008) study on the same area19. Reporting on this study, East Dorset District Council says: “Almost all responding households had some ‘Other’ greenspace within 1.5km. The presence of this ‘Other’ greenspace had no apparent effect on reducing either the likelihood or frequency of visiting heaths. Some of the results suggest that people with more greenspace surrounding their homes may actually visit heaths more. The amount of ‘Other’ greenspace within 3km seemed to make no clear differences in the number of annual heath visits per household The most critical conclusion is that there appears to be only a slender relationship between the amount of (existing) alternative greenspace nearby and the amount of heathland visits.”20
3.19 There is a surprisingly large number of visitors from the Felixstowe/Trimley areas (Fig. 16). This demonstrates several things:
• the attraction of the Deben Estuary is strong even to people who have easier access to alternative waterside facilities
• the building of more houses in Felixstowe will increase visitor numbers to the Deben Estuary, since there is an absence of any major new green space mitigation in the Felixstowe area. The plans for green space north or north- east of Ipswich will not divert visitors from this area.
18 Appropriate Assessment, June 2011, §7.2.11 19 Liley, D., Sharp, J. & Clarke, R. T. (2008). Access Patterns in South-east Dorset. Dorset Household Survey and Predictions of Visitor Use of Potential Greenspace Sites, Footprint-Ecology 20 East Dorset District Council Public Report – Household Survey, Footprint Ecology, May 2009
Page 21 of 25 Conclusions 3.20 Many conclusions can be drawn from this survey, these are the main ones:
• A lot of people visit the Deben Estuary, not just in summer but throughout the whole year. • Many of them (18.8%) bring their dogs, and many of these (52.8%) are al- lowed to run freely off-lead • Most visitors travel by car (79.1%), although a significant number travel by bi- cycle (8.9%) and on foot (11.2%) • The majority of cyclist (89.7%) cycle a greater distance than that from the proposed site at Adastral Park to the River Deben at Waldringfield, and a sig- nificant number of walkers (43.5%) do so too. • The 1km cut-off used in the AA seems to be meaningless in this context, as it is far less than the average distance walked (3.8km) • The Maybush is a major draw for visitors, many of whom (72.3%) engage in other activities as well as visiting the pub. The river is of course another attrac- tion. None of the other proposed green sites are likely to have any compar- able attractions, and are therefore unlikely to divert visitors, indeed they might actually increase the numbers because of the attraction of the May- bush. • The AA admits there is an absence of visitor data for the Deben Estuary, but nevertheless considers that the SCDC proposed mitigation measures will not result in an unacceptable increase in visitors. This dubious argument appears to have been made completely implausible by the results of this survey. • The Dorset study used to support the AA's view appears not to be analogous to the situation in the Deben Estuary area. Furthermore, a later 2008 study in Dorset concluded that greenspace was ineffective in diverting visitors from heathland sites. • The authors of the AA appear to have made a significant and fundamental mistake in stating that there were no public carparks at Waldringfield, and consequently to have drawn erroneous conclusions about the impact of the proposed housing allocation at Adastral Park, Martlesham. • In the absence of visitor data the AA study ignores the number of visitors from the Felixstowe peninsula and hence the possible impact of the further hous- ing proposed in that area.
Page 22 of 25 4. Deben Estuary Visitor Survey Form
Page 23 of 25 5. Visitors’ Comments
Will be visiting often using local walks map Very supportive about village being swamped Beautiful fantastic and beautiful Lovely area by development Lovely a very pretty area Lovely area regular visitors Usually walk very pretty Lovely area Always clean and tidy Lovely love the river and the area lovely peaceful area away from town Like it Beautiful throwing stones and leisure Beautiful area. Companion brought Nice area, shame about parking Very pretty nicely preserved area - love the river Deben photography gear and binoculars pretty place it's lovely quiet & peaceful - one of our wonderful unspoilt Beautiful area. lovely crowded car park treasures rare viewings of avocets and slovenian grebes Beautiful and peaceful. Safe walkng family in area Very nice very special Beautiful open area very beautiful Nice very nice Lovely area for many visitors lovely strongly recommended by family and Nice very unhappy about proposals to develop area Enjoy regular dog walking route friends Lovely eg Adastral Park Beautiful area lack of car park lovely location Far too busy - too many people Beautiful area too popular Nice area, quiet, unspoilt scenic peaceful (no tourists) Visiting boatyards. Lovely area too many cars Love it peaceful and quiet Beautiful area beautiful place Outstanding area spoilt by new town - from London - enjoy Wonderful area any time of year like houses, beach huts, beautiful and unspoilt Fabulous - don't spoil it staying at moom and sixpence Lovely part of our home lovely, little impact of visitors Lovely area - don't want it spoilt weather fantastic, very pleasant unspoilt, good Nice hope it does not get spoilt by housing Beautiful pub Traffic (Cliff Road). Peaceful pub prices too high unspoilt tranquility of the area beautiful, idyllic Lovely beautiful Attractive, peaceful not enough parking Eating lovely place Such a beautiful spot, relaxing beautiful, love it here would come more often Beautiful waterside pub pretty, good pub, good food Absolutely beautiful - peaceful beautiful, restful, interesting Beautiful walk by the river lovely Oasis - peaceful beautiful beautiful place to be, very calming Love it unspoilt nice Beautiful, peaceful beautiful spot don't want to spoil it Lovely picturesque river like it here, parking price fair Beautiful, peaceful Outstanding area Estuary is lovely spot busier than remembered Beautiful, peaceful, unspoilt, unchanging lovely Beautiful - as we remember from our youth canoeist Beautiful, unspoilt beautiful Beautiful area picturesque Beautiful, unspoilt peaceful, beautiful Have been here before. Enjoy the walk and lovely Exquisite, magic, Narnia We just love it - unspoilt like the area very nice, picturesque Relaxing, nice views, river just love it. Love the water clean and friendly good pub so pretty and peaceful pretty - love estuary - peaceful really nice. Lovely place to be beautiful area idyllic, very pretty Really nice - amazing to be able to be here attractive, not developed, very natural like it love being near river, peaceful and lovely -scenery, great location so quickly from a really nice. Lovely place to be Lovely area It's great, really like it. Getting busier, including rough location Relaxing, picturesque clean back road. beautiful Beautiful; not usually many people on the Love it. Long term resident. Like less tourists Very nice area beautiful footpaths but lots today Doesn't like road humps Nice picturesque area - very pretty peaceful like it because it's really quiet Needs a loo. Love it Very beautiful & picturesque very pretty - lovely beautiful area, full of wildlife,not too much We like it very much We love it don't like car park charge traffic,delightful backwater Shame about car park free Pretty - summer + winter delightful riverside location, pretty, lovely Lovely area blooming marvellous Beautiful village Love it. Need more bike parking attractive pub Love it we like it Lack of toilets. Council removed them - large very nice Favourite area in all the world wonderful problem Pub lunch Very nice chairman of ater ski club Love it v beautiful. Martlesham housing would Where's old Hitler? - car park attendant less Lovely very nice be a disaster than helpful and frequently rude. Lovely beautiful Lovely area Adore area, married here. Really concerned Nice area very nice don't build the houses at BT about council development plans. Very nice very nice Nice getaway Only been in evening before Lovely beautiful
Page 24 of 25 Very nice area. Too many people from It's great do not want it spoilt beautiful Germany It's beautiful peaceful away from pub beautiful as it is Lovely area. Too many people Nice, beautiful keep it the way it is maintain natural beauty of the area Love it. Not in favour of BT development Pretty but don't really know this area so much here, river so lovely maintain natural beauty of the area Don't want BT housing. Too many visitors to Dogs allowed in pub. Lovely. Positive it is a lovely area to be in it is lovely pub busy. Very nice. Attractive we hope there will not be any housing roads narrow , shame if any further love Woodbridge. Attractive countryside. Beautiful area a fantastic area, very beautiful development; countryside to be affected Nature. Peaceful Really pretty area. Like to see more We support the protest against the proposed beautiful Clean, tidy, nice place well looked after. Not hilly building expansion at Martlesham I love it Friendly people Lovely pub, beach, trails. Run around in pub unspoilt countryside it is home Lovely garden as an AONB it has special qualities that lovely like to live here Live here if they could should be protected for all look around/gor everything Beautiful Picturesque, classy very beautiful and unspoilt wouldn't like ? Especially ? peaceful Old fashioned, pretty, quaint village good for getting out in the country hate to see built up lovely community, picturesque beautiful, idyllic, unspoilt lovely Nice Concerned about BT development (2) - pro (1) keep it rural beautiful/public footpath. Got everything always good Walks around nice beautiful, natural lovely, unspoilt, unhilly Very special place Better signage to get here beautiful, peaceful and important for wildlife The tranquility Don't change it Near ? used to live here outstandingviews of the river, unspoilt - most enjoyable lovely Atmosphere peaceful, seen birds not normally seen ie picturesque and accessible lovelt area lovely place skylarks trqanquility beautiful lovely houses beautiful, want to live here how lovely this is, already heavily used lovely nice area nice pub, good stop off points, healthy. wonderful, peaceful place, beautiful river Intensive agriculture is distructive - drove often come to walk along river Felixstowe walking group leader. beautiful area paths need nettles removed, too through dust storm lovely area - do not spoil nice and quiet overgrown, pit yriver path to Wald is breached lovely place friendly nice area. Good pub quiet, beautiful lovely, peaceful, dogs should be on leads beautiful area beautiful views love it here, always bring U S visitors here people let dogs foul and do not clear up after shopping in Newbourne lovely area quiet, nature, walking them nice place to come lovely area get out of Ipswich favourite place, quiet, unspoilt, few houses beautiful church and area quiet and peaceful extremely beautiful area nice area would not live anywhere else but womderful area - want to keep it that way Don't have this is Birminham. Nice to get out beautiful Suffolk very nice Nice as it is. Clean, not too touristy. Pretty very pretty lovely unspoilt, every habitat very nice popular lovely we love it as it is mix of habitats It's very pretty just nice its pretty, quiet not much litter - very peaceful Chav-free do not want view to change, a lot more people more off road riding needed in this area love it It's beautiful using the area, river banks worse keep as is lovely spot it's beautiful beautiful, wish there were more footpaths
Page 25 of 25