Evidence Report (Version 24)

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation & Avoidance Strategy –Evidence Report (Version 24)

July 2021

The evidence base contained within this draft report will be periodically updated when new data and evidence is available. It has been prepared by Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service and draws on the unpublished and draft work of Footprint Ecology, Holbury Consultancy Services and Verdant Streets, for the Recreation Mitigation Strategy Steering Group.

The project has been overseen by a Steering Group comprising local officers of Halton Borough Council, Liverpool City Council, Metropolitan Borough of Knowsley, Metropolitan Borough of St. Helens, Metropolitan Borough of Sefton and Wirral Borough Council, Natural England and National Trust.

Issue and Revision Record

Version Date Author Approved by Description v23 12th Dr Alan February Jemmett 2021 v24 21st June Daniel Dr Alan Jemmett Steering Group 2021 Finegan comments, including revision of housing numbers and SANG sites

Itemised Document Changes

Section/Paragraph Requested by who Matter Actioned Outcome (Y/N) Front Cover to A.B., Natural England Y Version control record Acknowledgements: pgs. and detailed document 3-4 change tables introduced Various throughout A.B., Natural England Y Alteration of ‘cumulative’ Evidence Report to ‘in-combination’ terminology Section 3: 3.4- A.B., Natural England Y Amended text Conservation Packages Section 4: 4.1- A.B., Natural England Y Amended text Coastal access at Hale & Oglet Section 4: 4.10 & 4.11- A.B., Natural England Y Text amended to include English Coastal Path hyperlink and updated information Section 4: 4.15- M.E., Liverpool City Y Text amended to Removal of Festival Council promote LCC Gardens as SANG option greenspaces, inc. Sefton Park Section 7: Table 4 I.L., Sefton Council Y Table 4, column heading and remaining unconsented housing number amended Section 7: Table 5 I.L., Sefton Council Y Table 5, remaining requirement for new dwellings within inner zone total amended Section 7: 7.51- A.B., Natural England Y Para 7.51 added for Inner and Outer zones explanation of inner and outer zones Section 7: 7.20, 7.31, 7.32 J.E., Wirral Council Y Amended Text (and assoc. Plan-level HRA text box) Section 8: Table 8, 8.29 I.L., Sefton Council Y Sefton & Liverpool SANG 8.32 M.E., Liverpool City lists updated SANG list (inc. removal of Council Festival Gardens) Section 9: text box A.B., Natural England Y Viability text box preceding 9.5- amended Viability and HRA Appendix 6: 6.16, 6.17, I.L., Sefton Council Y 6.16 & 6.22 deleted. 6.17, 6.19, 6.20, 6.22 6.18, 6.19, 6.20 text amended and updated Section 3: Paragraph 3.2 N.M., West Lancashire Y Text amended to include Council West Lancashire (other insertions to follow once details finalised) Section 7: Table 5 A.J., MEAS Y Disclaimer re. Knowsley housing figures and SANGs.

3 Executive Summary

Why has this study been prepared?

The coastal sites in the Liverpool City Region, which are internationally important for nature conservation, are under increasing pressure from recreation. There is evidence that the sites are already being damaged, and the condition of different areas are deteriorating. This is acknowledged in the formal conservation advice for these European Sites (Conservation Advice Packages and Site Improvement Plans) and the Habitats Regulations Assessments of the Local Plans for each of the 6 Local Authorities.

All the Local Plans across the LCR include housing targets and policies for housing and tourism which have the potential to increase the recreation pressure on the European Sites. This raises the prospect of further damage and significant effects on the nature conservation features of the European sites including site integrity.

The Local Authorities have a legal responsibility under the Habitats Regulations to demonstrate that their housing growth aspirations and changes in the patterns of development and pressure on the coast, will not have an adverse effect on the European Sites. The statutory nature conservation advisor, Natural England, has made it clear that it expects the Local Authorities to collaborate and deliver an effective strategic solution to issues across the Liverpool City Region. Recent Examination Hearings for Local Plans have also scrutinised the local and LCR response to recreation pressure.

A clear commitment and timetable to complete and implement a strategic solution (termed Recreation Mitigation Strategy or RMS) is therefore required.

If the Local Authorities are unable to demonstrate no adverse effects on integrity of the European Sites, then planning consent cannot be legally given for such development or alternatively, the Local Authorities would need to fund the avoidance and mitigation measures themselves. Clearly, neither of these options are likely in the current and foreseeable financial position of Local Government.

This Project has therefore been commissioned by the Local Authorities and National Trust in close consultation with Natural England as the initial step in preparing a strategic response to protect the coast and comply with the requirements of the Habitats Regulations. This draft Evidence Report is an important milestone for the Project as it moves all the Liverpool City Region Local Authorities forwards to agreeing and completing the strategic response – the RMS.

This Evidence Report describes the status of knowledge on recreation pressure in the Liverpool City Region and collates available evidence on this issue. Currently, planning applications for housing and/or tourism development are considered on a case by case basis with little strategic response which is inefficient and time-consuming. Not having

4 a consistent, strategic approach to the issue is a risk for progress of Local Plans also.

It is the intention that this draft Evidence Report will be developed, once key data gaps have been filled. The intended output will be the RMS as a strategic response across the Liverpool City Region that will be used, in due course, to inform for example Local Plan and other policy, planning decisions, site management and investment in coastal visitor infrastructure. The draft Evidence Report sets out a clear timetable for this in Section 11.

Introduction

When the Steering Group appointed the consultancy team, headed by Footprint Ecology, to prepare the RMS it is was thought that the process would take 12 to 18 months to complete. The Steering Group and consultants worked on an iterative draft basis with iterative drafts being completed (28-3-18, 6-7-18 and 15-10-19). The Steering Group agreed a risk-based response that the project be paused until such time as the evidence base gaps were addressed sufficiently to meet planning tests. It was also agreed that the draft Evidence Report and a proposed integrated set of interim measures as a separate report be prepared and published to bridge the gap. The focus is housing. Tourism development has been removed from the scope of the Project for the time being.

Work to prepare the draft Evidence Report fell to MEAS as project managers for the study. It was also agreed that the existing consultancy team should be retained until such time as new evidence was collected for completion of the RMS. The study timetable has been revised further following the Covid-19 outbreak because social distancing measures meant that face to face site surveys were not possible and the data collected was likely to be heavily skewed to the local community given travel restrictions. This is explained in greater detail in Section 10.

Whilst this timescale appears lengthy at first glance, experience elsewhere across England has shown that is often takes 5 – 10 years to complete a strategy such as that envisaged for the RMS including putting in place the implementation and monitoring measures and systems.

This draft Evidence Report has collated the current evidence-base for a proposed strategic response by the 6 Local Authorities in the Liverpool City Region to meet their legal requirements to protect European wildlife sites from the implications of growth. It should be used to underpin Local Plan and development management responses in the interim to facilitate sustainable housing development, whilst securing sustainable, long term protection of the internationally important wildlife from recreation impacts.

All the Local Planning Authorities have a clear intention to develop the RMS to provide a tested, evidence based and strategic solution to meet their legal duties under the Habitats Regulations, resolving issues from the growing recreation pressure on the internationally important coast of the Liverpool City Region. The solutions proposed will not be compulsory but will provide planning services and developers with a potential solution which they may choose to use (opt-in). This is likely to be more efficient, reducing time, costs and risks during the planning process compared to completing site-based impact assessments, consulting and agreeing mitigation packages on a bespoke basis.

The emerging RMS also presents an opportunity to provide coastal site owners and managers with evidence and mechanisms to develop their own site-specific and coastal gateway-specific recreation management and visitor infrastructure plans. The RMS will adopt a strategic coast-wide approach. It is the intention to focus interventions towards areas of greatest vulnerability including key gateway and coastal access locations where recreation pressure is greatest (duration, frequency and number of visits).

The European sites (the network of these sites is now called National Sites Network following withdrawal from the E.U.) are subject to strict legal protection which conveys specific duties and stringent tests to be met before Local Plans can be adopted and projects can be permitted. A precautionary approach is embedded in the legislation, i.e. the Habitats Regulations, that include a necessity to demonstrate that impacts will not occur, rather than proof that they will.

Assessment work at Local Plan level has identified issues (for all six local planning authorities that form part of the Liverpool City Region), from growing recreation pressures that are affecting the coast and estuaries within the City Region. Increased housing growth lead to more people living or staying within easy access of the coast. It is more appropriate, both in terms of practical implementation and confidence in effectiveness, to resolve recreation issues at a strategic level, particularly as many of the European Sites span administrative boundaries. Some of the new housing allocations are at the urban edge and/or very close to the coast or functionally linked habitat which also alters the pattern of recreation use and pressure.

Simply assuming issues can be resolved on an application-by-application basis will fail to provide adequate protection in the longer term, risking non-compliance with the Regulations and delays or an inability to determine planning applications. This is because recreation pressures do not respect site or administrative boundaries and can have affects alone and in combination with other developments. There is some evidence that the LCR coast, Liverpool with Sefton and Wirral coast act as a significant draw for visitors and tourists some of whom originate from outside the city region.

European sites and interest

The legislative context and ecological context are set out in Sections 2 and 3. In total 6 there are 11 European sites/designations covering the Ribble Estuary, the Sefton Coast, the Mersey Estuary, the Dee Estuary and Liverpool Bay with interest features that encompass a range of coastal habitats, rare amphibians, fish, a rare liverwort and a range of wintering, passage and breeding waterbirds. The network of European sites are Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for birds, Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for species and habitats, and Ramsar sites that are recognised as internationally important wetlands (Ramsar sites are a global designation but for policy purposes in the UK are treated the same as European sites). Following withdrawal of from the E.U. the network of European sites are now referred to as National Site Network.

These interest features all have different sensitivities and vulnerabilities to recreation pressure. These sensitivities and vulnerability (e.g. trampling or noise disturbance) vary over the year (e.g. breeding time or severe weather). Any strategy will need to demonstrate that it is able to protect and sustain these interest features and mitigate recreation effects.

Extent of Current Access and Access Infrastructure

The current access and access infrastructure are discussed in Section 4. The accessibility of the designated coast varies significantly across the Liverpool City Region due to access restrictions in commercial areas such as operational port or due to coast defence, safety or habitats restrictions.

Avoidance and Mitigation Options

The potential avoidance and mitigation options are discussed in Section 8 and provides a menu of possible responses where recreation impacts are a threat and/or have been identified. This section will be reviewed as part of preparing the final RMS.

Status and vulnerability of European interest to recreation

Section 3 summarises the ecological context. Major declines for at least one of the species of waterbird that are an interest feature of the SPAs have been reported from all relevant sites. Declines have been particularly severe on the Mersey but this may be related to several factors including changes to bird populations (e.g. Pintail) and invertebrate communities following water quality improvements and not recreation alone. The waterbirds can be particularly vulnerable to certain disturbing recreation activities and the greatest periods of sensitivity are largely around the over-wintering period when the pattern of recreation activity is different to that in summer. Declines are some bird species can be related to food availability and wider population changes and not directly attributed to recreation pressure.

For example, wintering and passage waterbirds are present from late July through to May. Disturbance can displace birds, meaning areas otherwise suitable are not used by the birds. Repeated disturbance can expend energy, alter behaviour and reduce time available

7 for feeding which may have implications for survival and fitness of those birds. Whilst all intertidal habitat could be affected to some degree, it is the areas adjacent to shoreline paths, main gateways and access points and areas of intertidal habitat with a firmer substrate, where people often walk out considerable distances the shore, which are particularly vulnerable. A concern is the prevalence of disturbance to birds linked to dog walking in shoreline and estuarine locations. Birds are particularly vulnerable towards high tide when they are displaced off the intertidal flats and tend to accumulate in very large densities along the advancing tide line or on coast defence structures. This can provide a world-class wildlife spectacle but can increase the risk for disturbance events from recreation because the birds are closer to peoples’ recreation activities.

Areas where birds gather to roost, e.g. the groynes along the North Wirral coast, the Hilbre Island chain or natural habitats locations where birds prefer to roost in very large numbers, often out of the prevailing wind, are also vulnerable because a single event can cause large numbers of birds to take flight.

Sand dune habitats (as found predominantly on the Sefton coast) are vulnerable to damage and trampling all year round, but intense trampling during busy periods in the spring and summer (when visitor numbers peak) will coincide with the growing season and be particularly damaging. Areas close to access points, car-parks and near major routes are most vulnerable. Fires are a threat on sand dune habitats during dry weather and in the spring/summer fires are more damaging. Fires are usually more frequent during the holiday season (which can coincide with dry weather) and fires may be caused by barbeques, beach fires and arson. The National Trust recorded a total of 21 separate fire incidents on their Sefton property in a single day in April 2017 (J. Hudson pers. comm.) highlighting how frequent fires can be on busy days. The causes are linked to visitor behaviour and vary from deliberate fire setting to inconsiderate use of barbeques and discarded cigarettes. Other impacts at this time of year can include challenges to grazing management (grazing animals avoiding areas with people, sheep worrying by dogs, gates left open etc.).

There have also been ongoing declines in Natterjack Toads (for which the Sefton Coast supports 40% of the UK population) and there are concerns about Sand Lizard populations and risks of predation from domestic cats in locations where housing is close to suitable habitat for example.

Ponds close to car-parks and access points are most vulnerable to impacts from dogs (swimming in ponds creates turbidity and there is a risk of contamination from flea powders and other chemicals) and trampling (damage to fringing habitat) but this is an issue for those habitats across Ainsdale NNR. The ponds are critical for the amphibians and these are most vulnerable during the breeding season (March-July). Dog fouling is an impact all year round and is relevant to the dune systems and SAC habitats including ponds and slacks.

Petalwort is most vulnerable to direct damage (from trampling) during the autumn, winter and spring. It typically occurs in areas of short sward in dune slacks. Some

8 trampling may be beneficial but high levels of trampling will be damaging.

The pressure and vulnerability of wildlife varies between the European sites depending on which habitats and species are present and the patterns and levels of recreation use as summarised below.

Visitor Survey Data

Section 5 explores the current data and evidence on recreation use of the Liverpool City Region. Whilst some of the evidence is patchy or quite old, it does provide a baseline of use. The Steering Group has agreed to update the evidence prior to completing the RMS as set out in the timetable and proposed scope in Section 10.

Impacts of Recreation

Recreation impacts are discussed in Section 6. Recreation pressure, without avoidance measures, mitigation and management, has been identified as a pressure and threat to European sites and will increase with future housing and tourism growth.

A wide range of recreation activities take place along the Liverpool City Region coast and estuaries, including shore-based and water-based activities. There is existing infrastructure and a variety of measures in place to facilitate and manage access. The quality, recency and reliability of visitor data varies greatly, and this section explores the spatial patterns of recreation use and the frequency of recreation use. The available visitor data shows:

• Significant variation in visitor numbers through the year however, the trends and motivators are poorly understood. • High summer peak (at least for the Sefton Coast), associated with day visitors, but inadequate data on visitor origins and particularly poor data for European sites in Halton, Liverpool and Wirral. • High summer peak visitors (at least for the Sefton Coast) is strongly influenced from people originating from outside the City Region, notably Cheshire, Lancashire, Greater Manchester and elsewhere in the UK. • Data suggest a marked difference in visitor profiles with some locations clearly functioning as Gateways to the coast and drawing visitors from a greater distance such as Crosby (Gormley Iron Men), Formby (National Trust) and New Brighton (Seaside attractions). • Dog walking is the main activity at most coastal sites during winter, accounting for 61% of interviewees overall in one survey, undertaken across multiple locations during the winter • Other activities include walking, family outings, jogging, bird/wildlife watching, photography, cycling, bait digging. • Winter visitor survey results indicate virtually all visitors are coming from home on short visits and only around 2% of visitors overall are tourists (staying away from home). A very high proportion of coast users are from the immediate local authority area. • Data show that locations such as Ainsdale-on-sea and West Kirby have a high 9 proportion of regular (daily/ most days) visitors. Closeness to home, proximity to coast/water and scenery/views are major factors drawing people to the coast (winter surveys). • Typical walks (route lengths) for visitors during the winter are around 3km. • Interviewees at most sites during the winter appeared to have relatively low awareness of nature conservation issues, the Dee appeared to be the exception. • Winter visitors typically come from around 2.3km (median distance home postcode- survey point) with 75% living within 5.1km of the locations where interviewed. • A low proportion of visits to the coast in winter originate at distances beyond 5km. • Data suggest the number of visits made by 1 household at 2.5km from the coast is equivalent to 9 households at 7.5km. • There is no meaningful data on the proportion of residents in the City Region who do not visit the European Site coast at and and/or choose to visit Suitable Accessible Greenspace as an alternative. • Visitors bring economic benefits to the coast, on the Wirral alone the visitor economy has been valued at of £385 million and supports over 5000 fte jobs.

During the project significant evidence limitations were identified which posed an unacceptable risk to completing the emerging RMS. This draft Evidence Report clearly puts in place measures to address those limitations through primary data gathering and survey. The evidence base needs to be more comprehensive, based on greater sample sizes, up-to-date to more strongly establish spatial the relationship between housing growth and recreation effects on the coast to meet planning tests.

Current and future housing

Section 7 sets out the Housing Future Growth for the Liverpool City Region. There is currently around 690,000 dwellings within the Liverpool City Region. Around 107,000 (i.e. 15%) of these dwellings fall within 1km of at least one European site and around 466,000 (68%) dwellings are within 5km.

Around 48,000 new dwellings are set out within relevant local plans or anticipated by the local planning authorities. The housing targets are strongly driven by Government housing policy and the Local Authorities are required to make appropriate provision in their Local Plans or risk Government intervention.

Each authority is at a different stage in the preparation of their Local Plan and housing projections span different time periods; nonetheless this provides an approximate indication of the in-combination scale of change over the next 15 years or so. This represents roughly a 10% overall increase in housing within the Liverpool City Region. Of all the anticipated new development in the Liverpool City Region, 5% lies within 500m of European sites, 33% within 2km and 67% within 5km. Within a 1km radius of all the European sites, analysis of the data would suggest a 21% increase in dwellings.

Avoidance and Mitigation Options

Implementation Options and Approaches Elsewhere

Section 9 briefly introduces options and approaches elsewhere in England that have be found to be sound following examination hearings and effectively used for project level HRA and development management. These provide context and useful sources of evidence and practice elsewhere.

Timetable to Complete the RMS and Future Considerations

The timetable to complete the RMS is largely determined by the time it will take to commission and complete the surveys to satisfactorily fill the current evidence gaps. A full year of survey data is likely to necessary to provide the emerging RMS with a sufficiently robust evidence base. The timetable has been substantially impacted by the unprecedented changes in recreation use as a result Covid-19 such as travel restrictions. The revised timetable is set out in Section10.

Whilst opportunities are taken to dual track activities to complete the RMS and prepare for implementation, it is not expected that the RMS will be complete and ready for consultation until March 2023. The earliest proposed implementation date is June 2023.

Using the draft Evidence Report

This draft Evidence Report has been prepared as a positive response and proposed solution to the legislative requirements of the Habitats Regulations in the interim. It provides consistent evidence for developers, planning decisions and Local Plan policies to draw on. This could reduce costs to the developer, provide consistency across the City Region and increase the robustness of the planning process.

Notwithstanding this, it is accepted that viability of housing development is a significant concern for the Local Authorities within the City Region. However, meeting the requirements of the Habitats Regulations is a legal requirement and not a matter that can be weighed in the planning balance alongside other planning considerations such as open space provision, viability or affordable housing.

It will be a matter for each of the participating Local Authorities to secure the necessary approvals for this draft Evidence Report to be published.

The Evidence Report will be published on MEAS website for use as a downloadable resource on behalf of the Steering Group- http://www.meas.org.uk/1383

11 Acknowledgements

This report has been commissioned by the Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS) and Sefton Council on behalf of the six local authorities within the Liverpool City Region. Our thanks to Alan Jemmett who has overseen the commission and provided a steer throughout including editing the Evidence Report. Our thanks also to the Steering Group (and other officers who deputised at Steering Group meetings) which comprised Aurelie Bohan and Stephen Ayliffe (Natural England), Andrea O’Connor, Ingrid Berry and Ian Loughlin (Sefton Council), Jonathan Clarke, Lyndsey Darwin and Lucy O’Doherty (St. Helens Council), Mike Cryan and Gerard Woods (Knowsley Council), John Entwistle, Andrew Fraser and David Ball (Wirral Council), Alasdair Cross and Anne Moyers (Halton Council), Mike Eccles (Liverpool City Council) and Vicky Blane, Joanne Hudson, Andrew Brockbank (National Trust).

It draws on unpublished evidence and analysis completed by:

Ref: Footprint Ecology contract no: 456. The following Liley, D., Hoskin, R., French, N., Heath, J., Lake, S., Moreno-Roberts, N., Panter, C., Picksley, J., Underhill-Day, J. are cited and thanks as major contributors to that work.

Our thanks to all those who provided information directly to us or helped us source information: Stephen Ayliffe (Natural England), Aurelie Bohan (Natural England), Mark Catherall (Sefton Council), Andrew Clark (MEAS), Mike Cunningham (Lancashire Wildlife Trust), Peter Cushion (Wirral Council), Ben Deed (MEAS), Margaret Dickinson (Natural England), Mark Dickens (LCR Combined Authority), Daniel Finegan (MEAS), Brian Garner (Liverpool City Council), Olwen Groves (Knowsley Council), Andrew Hampson (ARC/Back from the Brink), Joanne Hudson (National Trust), Alice Kimpton (Natural England), Juggy Landay (Wirral Council), Yvonne Martin (ARC), Maurice Maynard (MEAS), Dave Mercer (Natural England), Catherine Morgetroyd (Cheshire West and Cheshire Council), Nick Moulton (ARC), Alex Naughton (MerseyTravel), Andrea O’Connor (Sefton Council), John Smith (MerseyTravel), Phil Smith, Kerry Smith (Sefton Council), Fiona Sunners (ARC/Back from the Brink), Steve White, and Fiona Whitfield (Lancashire Wildlife Trust).

Wirral Visitor Survey reports were provided by the Wirral Visitor Economy Team. We are grateful to Jugg Landay for permission to include the results within this report. Thompson Ecology Visitor Survey work was commissioned by Natural England. We are grateful to Natural England for providing that information and for permission to draw on the visitor survey results from the Footprint Ecology work, also commissioned by Natural England, in 2017.

We extend our thanks to all those who attended the workshop at Crosby, February 2018 and shared their knowledge of sites, area and issues. We hope that this Evidence Report provides a solid basis for onward development of an RMS to protect the European Sites.

12 Liverpool City Region Recreation Mitigation and Avoidance Strategy – Evidence Report

Contents Page

Document Management 1

Executive Summary 3

Acknowledgements 11

Contents 12

Section 1 – Introduction and Overview 14

Section 2 –Legislative Context 19

Section 3 – Ecological Context 23

Section 4 – Extent of Current Access and Access Infrastructure 34

Section 5 – Visitor Survey Data 42

Section 6 – Impacts of Recreation 53

Section 7 – Housing, Future Growth and other context 66

Section 8 – Avoidance and Mitigation Options 93

Section 9 – Overview of Implementation Options and Approaches

Used Elsewhere 126

Section 10 – Evidence Commissioning and Timescale 130

Section 11 – Next Steps and Timetable 140

Section 12 – References 142

Appendices Page

Appendix 1 – European Sites Summary 149

Appendix 2 – Condition of Component SSSIs of European Sites 153

Appendix 3 – Issues Identified in Site Improvement Plans 155

Appendix 4 – Coastal Recreation Access Assessment and Maps 164 per local authority area (Excel, Jpeg, PDF and Word documents)

Appendix 5 - Footprint Ecology Visit Data from 2016/17 169

Appendix 6 – Summary of Local Authority Housing Data 184

Appendix 7 – SAMM and SANG Measures in More Detail 195

Appendix 8 – SAMM and SANG Interventions and Costs 226

Appendix 9 – Zones of Influences for the Interim Measure 241

Map Annex (Maps 1 – 23)

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

1. Introduction and overview

Background

This draft Evidence Report is a step towards establishing a recreation mitigation and avoidance strategy that will enable local authorities across the Liverpool City Region to meet their legal duties to protect European wildlife sites (European sites) from the impacts of recreation, associated with housing and, in due course, tourism growth. As such it is a positive and evidence-based response by each local authority to proposed growth across the Liverpool City Region. It has been prepared as an interim approach by which sustainable housing growth can be delivered across the Liverpool City Region, whilst securing the protection of the City Region’s wildlife sites of international importance. It draws on a wide range of evidence and proposes interim measures for the local planning authorities to meet their legal obligations.

Growth and regeneration are a priority for the Liverpool City Region. This draft Evidence Report focusses on the growth in new homes proposed within the City Region which does not necessarily equate to population growth. It also includes information and an approach that may be helpful to assess impacts from anticipated tourism growth at the City Region’s coast.

The Liverpool City Region (Map 1 – in the map annex) has been established as a combined authority area, where a group of local planning authorities, and other public bodies as appropriate, agree to collectively form a legal public body, usually governed by a combination of the Heads of each local planning authority and a Mayor. The Mayor of a combined authority is normally given the title ‘Metro Mayor’, to distinguish a combined authority Mayor from Mayors leading individual authorities.

The Liverpool City Region combined authority includes six local planning authority areas: Halton, Liverpool, Knowsley, Sefton, St.Helens, and Wirral. Warrington and West Lancashire Councils are additional associate members. Other public bodies, including the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), MerseyTravel and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority are delivery bodies of the combined authority. The six local authorities will be using the evidence contained within this report as an interim approach to support their Local Plans and in planning decisions for housing. St.Helens Council has indicated an intention to continue to participate in the development of the Recreation Mitigation Strategy (RMS). However, St.Helens may draw on this Evidence Report as it does intend to prepare an interim measure for development management purposes.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT The need for a strategic approach for Recreation Pressure

The Liverpool City Region supports a range of coastal sites that are of international importance for nature conservation. These sites are afforded strict legal protection with particular duties applied to local authorities.

Increased recreation poses a real risk to the sites, for example through disturbance, trampling, increased fire risk or contamination. The Liverpool City Region is an area of focussed development and regeneration activity in close proximity to European sites, and this will continue to be the case as the combined authority plans for and delivers growth in a co-ordinated way across the City Region. The spatial pattern of allocated sites for housing varies according to each local authority Local Plan. Overall it places more people close to the coast and aims to increase the amount of new housing across the City Region. The coast has a special appeal, where people choose to live and where they choose to visit for recreation and leisure. The Liverpool City Region is an attractive tourist destination, and tourist development will bring additional visitors to the area including from adjacent areas such as Cheshire West and Chester, Lancashire and Warrington.

At the Local Plan level, including the housing objectives and policies, each local planning authority must demonstrate that the quantum and location of housing growth proposed within each Local Plan will not lead to adverse effects on the European sites. Each housing development project must demonstrate that it will not contribute to adverse effects on the European sites before the local planning authority can give planning permission.

It is difficult for each development project to provide measures to prevent adverse effects, when the risk is as a result of the combined effect of development across a wide area. Whilst each local planning authority level may put in place mitigation measures, there is also a need for a strategic approach across the LCR for the following reasons:

• The City Region’s housing markets are interrelated and span administrative boundaries. • The recreation use of the City Region’s coast is not confined to administrative boundaries, and people will travel to other local planning authority areas to visit specific parts of the coast. • The City Region has a notable influx of tourists as well as local residents using the coast. • The European sites around the coastline are ecologically linked and cross administrative boundaries. • Measures to manage access need to be applied consistently around the coastline as uncoordinated access management activities may work in conflict or displace visitors to other sensitive parts of the coast.

The RMS that will follow on from this draft Evidence Report therefore seeks to provide solutions that integrate European sites protection, enhancement and restoration with the growth objectives of the combined authority for the whole of the Liverpool City Region. The

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT RMS must, in due course, provide both legally compliant and workable solutions that are integrated around the coast. Each local planning authority within the City Region will need to be proactive in adopting and implementing the RMS once completed and consulted upon. Implementation will need to be co-ordinated across the local planning authorities. The completion of this Evidence Report is an important milestone in progress towards a RMS.

The need for an Evidence Report This Evidence Report is a milestone in the process of preparing a strategic response to housing and tourism growth within the six local planning authority areas of the Liverpool City Region. It sets out the best available evidence on the European sites, recreation pressures that they face and the likely increases in those pressures because of housing growth. The Evidence Report sets out the timescale for completion of the RMS including addressing evidential gaps and an interim approach to support the Local Authorities as they take development management decisions and advance their Local Plans. Publication of this report will also provide a common, strategic evidence base that can be used by prospective developers to protect the European sites.

The objectives and scope of the emerging RMS

A team led by Footprint Ecology were commissioned to prepare the RMS. The commission has been overseen by a steering group consisting of the six local planning authorities within the Liverpool City Region, Natural England, the National Trust and led by Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS). Good progress has been made towards preparing the RMS with a relatively advanced draft being prepared in June 2018. However, due to evidence issues associated with the level of knowledge of coastal recreation use, the Steering Group agreed to pause work on completing the RMS until the evidence gaps are addressed. This draft Evidence Report has been taken forward by MEAS and draws substantially on the evidence and analysis undertaken by the Footprint Ecology team from their unpublished report (please refer to acknowledgements). It represents a milestone in the project because it provides opportunity for the evidence base to be published and for the tasks still to be undertaken to be set out.

The objectives of the emerging RMS have been used to inform the draft Evidence Report and are as follows:

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT • To avoid and mitigate for recreation effects arising from new residential growth and tourism development through a cross boundary and collaborative approach across the Liverpool City Region. • To provide solutions that effectively and comprehensively meet the requirements of the legislation and national planning policy. • To provide a justified and evidence-based strategy that has regard for both Liverpool City Region wide and local circumstances, and the knowledge and expertise of relevant stakeholders and organisations. • To ensure that the strategy is founded on science and evidence, that has been correctly interpreted and draws on expert opinion, established good practice elsewhere, lessons learnt and authoritative decisions/caselaw where appropriate. • To secure an approach that delivers timely implementation alongside growth, so that mitigation keeps pace with housing growth and impacts on European sites are prevented. • To provide a means by which the need for individual project level HRAs are streamlined, with an efficient strategy that prevents delays at development application determination. • To understand and dovetail with measures within the range of existing initiatives in a way that compliments and enhances existing measures, seeking to resolve potential conflicts where identified. • To recommend suitable approaches for monitoring and recording progression of the strategy to ensure that it is transparent, auditable, fairly applied in proportion with the potential risk to European sites and adaptable over time. • To identify evidence gaps, their relevance to strategy delivery and the most suitable means of filling data needs. • To identify implementation gaps, where there are risks and opportunities that should be considered alongside this strategy. However they are currently out of scope from the commission.

This draft Evidence Report focusses on recreation pressure from residential growth, as identified through the HRAs of Local Plans. It does not seek to address recreation impacts that already effect the European sites from previously consented or tourism development. Other types of growth also have the potential to affect the European sites and other wildlife sites. This will need to be dealt with separately by those with the legal responsibilities including the local planning authorities.

To bridge the gap between publication of this Evidence Report and completion of the RMS a separate Interim Approach which sets out measures to mitigate recreation issues has been prepared as a separate response. The Evidence Report also supports those interim measures and individual local authority response. The Examination of both the Halton and Liverpool Local Plans have relied both on this evidence report and LCR Interim Approach to prepare their own Interim Measures. A similar approach is anticipated for Wirral’s Local Plan.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT Overview and structure of the Evidence Report

In Section 2 we set out the legislative context, summarising the relevant legislation and the strict legal requirements set out in the Habitats Regulations. The legislation relates to European sites, and these are summarised in Section 3, which includes information on the interest features and current condition of the site. Section 4 collates the extent of current access infrastructure and then in Section 5 we summarise visitor surveys to bring together understanding of who visits the coast, what visitors do and where they go. Section 6 then draws from sections 3-5 to consider the relevant impacts of recreation. Section 7 considers levels of growth and housing data, summarising the relevant local plans, current levels of housing and future housing levels. Section 7 also considers tourism growth in the relevant plans and as such sets out the overall growth that the mitigation strategy needs to address.

Avoidance and mitigation options are presented in Section 8, which draws on other mitigation approaches in place in other parts of the country and reviews evidence for effectiveness. Section 9 provides an overview of implementation options and approaches from elsewhere in the UK.

Section 10, describes the scope of evidence gathering necessary to inform the final RMS and sets out the timescale for that. In Section 11 sets out the timetable for completing the RMS.

References are provided in Section 12 at the end of the document. A series of Appendices provide additional information.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

2. Legislative Context

The Habitat Regulations

2.1 Understanding the legal context for this strategy is important for those who are approving, adopting, implementing and adhering to it. Agreement to jointly produce a Recreation Mitigation Strategy (RMS) is founded on a legal requirement, and it therefore cannot be reduced, disregarded or down traded in response to conflicting requirements or priorities, unless an alternative approach is adopted with the benefit of similarly robust evidence.

2.2 European sites have the benefit of the highest level of legislative protection for biodiversity, stemming from European Directives. Public bodies, including local planning authorities, have specific duties in terms of avoiding deterioration of habitats and species for which sites are designated or classified, and stringent tests have to be met before plans and projects can be permitted. Importantly, the combined effects of individual plans or projects must be taken into account. For local planning authorities, this means that the combined effect of individual development proposals needs to be assessed collectively for their in- combination impact.

2.3 The designation, protection and restoration of European sites is embedded in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, which are commonly referred to as the ‘Habitats Regulations.’ These Regulations are in place to transpose European legislation set out within the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC), which affords protection to plants, animals and habitats that are rare or vulnerable in a European context, and the Birds Directive (Council Directive 2009/147/EC), which originally came into force in 1979, and which protects rare and vulnerable birds and their habitats. 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 Areas of Conservation (SACs) designated under the Habitats Directive and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) classified under the Birds Directive. The suite of European sites includes those in the marine environment as well as terrestrial, freshwater and coastal sites.

2.4 Notwithstanding the EU Withdrawal Agreement. the UK is also a contracting party to the Ramsar Convention, which is a global convention to protect wetlands of international importance, especially those wetlands utilised as waterfowl habitat. In order to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Convention, the UK Government expects all competent authorities to treat listed Ramsar sites as if they are part of the suite of designated European sites, as a matter of government policy, as set out in Section 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Most Ramsar sites are also a SPA or SAC, but the Ramsar features and boundary lines may vary from those for which the site is designated as a SPA or SAC.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT 2.5 The application of the European legislation needs to be made with regard for the way in which the protective requirements should be secured by public bodies. The legislation requires public bodies to be proactive, not reactive. The overarching objective 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. This requires public bodies to put measures in place to prevent deterioration of European sites, not to wait until there is harm occurring that needs to be rectified. Where European sites are not achieving their potential, the focus of attention by public bodies should be on restoration.

2.6 Public bodies are referred to as ‘competent authorities’ within the legislation. The duties set out within the Habitats Regulations in relation to the consideration of plans and projects are applicable in situations where the competent authority is undertaking or implementing a plan or project, or authorising others to do so. The assessment process for plans or projects is called a Habitats Regulations Assessment (‘HRA’) and it is the HRAs of local plans within the Liverpool City Region that have identified the issue of increased recreation pressure on European sites with new growth, and consequently the need for avoidance and mitigation measures to be taken forward. The European legislation is founded on the ‘precautionary principle’, i.e. it is necessary to demonstrate that impacts will not occur, rather than have proof that they will.

2.7 As Competent Authorities, the local authorities need to be satisfied that they have complied with the requirements of the Habitats Directive when granting planning consent for development and for their Local Plans. Whilst the legal duty lies with the local authorities, it is normal practice for development to address issues at the project stage and that includes delivery of avoidance and mitigation measures for recreation pressure including planning obligations.

2.8 It is within this legislative and policy context that this draft Evidence Report has been developed. The Liverpool City Region local planning authorities have undertaken, or are in the process of undertaking, Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRAs) of their local plans, in accordance with the requirements of the Habitats Regulations. These are discussed in further detail at Section 3. These assessments have identified that new growth could lead to additional visitor pressure on the coastal European sites across the City Region. As a consequence, each local planning authority has included, or is in the process of including, specific policy wording that commits to the necessary mitigation to protect the European sites from recreation pressure. HRA findings for each local planning authority are detailed in Section 3.

2.9 The draft Evidence Report follows from those local plan HRAs and builds on the plan level assessment of potential impacts. The Report provides an in-depth analysis of avoidance and mitigation options, and their suitability in light of all available evidence relating to the European sites and their recreational use. The issues relating to the cumulative, in- combination effects of recreation are complex. This Evidence Report and emerging RMS

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT recognise it is difficult to provide evidence based and effective mitigation for recreation pressure at the individual development project level, with the required certainty that the legislation demands. By resolving the mitigation needs strategically, individual development proposals can come forward without lengthy and onerous individual assessment of recreation pressure. With all the evidence gathering and development of strategic measures undertaken upfront and presented in an adopted RMS, developers, planners and other stakeholders will benefit from the positive solutions, clarity of requirements and reduced delays at the project level.

2.10 The European Court of Justice is an important source of relevant caselaw, often dealing with cases relating to the interpretation of the European Birds and Habitats Directives. Many of the rulings have defined key aspects of the assessment process, and those working as HRA and mitigation strategy practitioners need to continually check their understanding alongside new caselaw. HRAs and mitigation strategies are written with the principle of “no reasonable scientific doubt,” which was established in the ‘Waddensee’ case (C-127/02).

2.11 The Judgment in April 2018 of the European Court of Justice – People Over Wind & Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta (Case C-323/17), being referred to as the ‘People Over Wind Ruling,’ refers to the need for “a full and precise analysis of the measures capable of avoiding or reducing any significant effects” and “complete, precise and definitive findings and conclusions capable of removing all reasonable scientific doubt as to the effects.” This ruling provides robust and comprehensive consideration of the avoidance and mitigation measures that will adequately prevent adverse effects on European sites in terms of recreation pressure. This draft Evidence Report is therefore a solution to the legislative duties each of the local planning authorities must meet, and is an enabling approach, unblocking potential HRA issues at the individual development project level.

2.12 Further, this draft Evidence Report will assist the emerging local plans in the interim and is especially timely for Halton, Liverpool and Wirral who have both reached key stages in local plan preparation in 2020. It has supported achieving soundness at the Examination Hearings for Halton and Liverpool Local Plans.

2.13 Once completed, it is the intention that the RMS will be implemented over the current local plan periods and beyond. At the time of writing the legislative duties placed on the local planning authorities will remain after the UK’s departure from the European Union (EU). Since the Government commenced with the processes necessary for EU withdrawal, it has been recognised that much of our domestic law originates in European Directives. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is an important part of the exit process, as it secures all enactments currently in force under EU law that are relevant to the UK as domestic legislation. This Act now retains all such legislation until or unless specifically repealed. The Habitats Directive and Birds Directive are therefore retained and will continue to be applied after the UK leaves the EU. The RMS will also take account of the EU withdrawal bill and also the emerging Environment Bill which is currently on its passage through Parliament.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended

2.14 There are other nature conservation designations of relevance to the Liverpool City Region that are made at the national and local level, for example Sites of Special Scientific Interest (‘SSSIs’), which are notified for their habitats and species of national importance under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended. Local Wildlife Sites, priority habitats and protected species and a biodiversity duty for public bodies as set out in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 are also relevant. The emerging RMS will not explicitly cover these, but in developing a strategic approach for European sites it will be important to ensure there are no inadvertent consequences for other wildlife interest and designations.

Legislative context Strict protection is afforded to European sites, and this requires local authorities, as competent authorities, to secure measures to prevent adverse effects on the habitats and species for which the sites are designated.

The RMS when it is completed should enable legal compliance with the Habitat Regulations and allow the complex issues relating to the cumulative, in-combination effects of recreation, to be resolved strategically for housing developments. It should have the benefit of allowing individual development proposals to come forward without lengthy and onerous individual assessment of recreation pressure. In providing clarity to developers, planners and other stakeholders and enables positive solutions to be implemented together and applied across the Liverpool City Region.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

3. Ecological Context

European sites and interest

3.1 This draft Evidence Report covers European wildlife sites designated or classified under the Habitats Regulations, in accordance with the relevant European Directives, and Ramsar sites listed in response to the Ramsar Convention. For the purposes of this draft Evidence Report, these sites are collectively referred to throughout this as ‘European sites.’

3.2 The relevant European sites which are the focus for the Study are:

• Sefton Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC) • Ribble and Alt Estuaries Special Protection Area (SPA) • Ribble and Alt Estuaries Ramsar site • Martin Mere SPA • Martin Mere Ramsar site • Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore SPA • Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore Ramsar site • Dee Estuary SAC • Dee Estuary SPA • Dee Estuary Ramsar site • Mersey Estuary SPA • Mersey Estuary Ramsar site • Liverpool Bay SPA

3.3 Maps 2-4 (in the map annex) show the location and extent of these sites. The sites and their ecological interest are described below and the interest features, which are the qualifying reasons for site designation, are summarised in a single table within Appendix 1, which also includes links to the relevant site conservation objectives or (in the case of Ramsar sites) the information sheet.

3.4 The currency of baseline data upon which the European sites are based, including the conservation advice packages and site improvement plans varies considerably and much of these data would benefit from updating as there are spatial and temporal gaps. It is the responsibility of Natural England as statutory nature conservation advisor to lead this work though data currency does create some challenges for plan and project assessments; it is acknowledged the conservation advice packages are currently undergoing a period of review for Natural England’s 2021/22 programme of works.

Site descriptions

Sefton Coast SAC

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT 3.5 The Sefton Coast SAC stretches from the pier at Southport in the north to the boundary with the Port at Crosby in the south. Formby Channel forms an inlet and the River Alt flows through the site. It incorporates the Sefton Coast SSSI and includes the Birkdale Hills LNR, Ainsdale Sands and Hills LNR, Ainsdale Sand Dunes NNR, Ravenmeols LNR, Cabin Hill NNR and Freshfield Dune Heath Lancashire Wildlife Trust reserve. The landward parts of Crosby Coastal Park are outside the SAC.

3.6 The SAC includes complete successions from fore dunes to fixed dune grassland and dune slacks and is designated for its dune and dune slack vegetation (see Appendix 1). The dunes at Formby Point have been eroding for over 100 years and are steep fronted. To the north and south, the dunes are accreting, and substantial areas are fronted by active shifting sands. There are extensive areas of open dune vegetation and also dune slacks dominated by Creeping Willow Salix repens ssp. argentea.

3.7 The site also supports substantial areas of intertidal mud and sandflats, which are integral to the geomorphological functioning of the site, some dune heath and a small amount of salt marsh. There is also an area of shingle flora on the exposed rubble of sea-defences. Part of the site supports a pine plantation and there are extensive areas of invasive scrub.

3.8 The Sefton Coast SAC is notified for the small liverwort Petalwort Petalophyllum ralfsii and Great-crested Newt Triturus cristatus. Pools in the slacks of fixed dunes support Great- crested Newt while damp grassy areas around more recent slacks support Petalwort. Recent recording effort has revealed that this species is more abundant and widespread than previously thought, with five new sites found in 2017 (Fiona Sunners pers. comm.).

3.9 Other species of interest include Sand Lizard Lacerta agilis and Natterjack Toad Bufo calamita1 (both are listed under Annex IV of the Habitats Directive but are not designated features of the SAC - Natterjack Toad is however a designated feature of the Ribble and Alt Estuaries Ramsar site, which overlaps the Sefton Coast SAC). The site holds a number of priority or scarce species such as the Sandhill Rustic moth Luperina nickerlii gueneei, Dune Fescue Vulpia fasiculata, Grey Hair-grass Corynephorus canescens and the rare Long-leaved Thread Moss Bryum neodamense.

3.10 Overall, the geomorphological and successional functioning of the site is considered to be well-conserved. However, the pattern of urban development and infrastructure landward of the sand dunes along parts of Sefton’s coast mean that the natural roll back of sand dunes in response to frontal dune erosion is limited resulting in squeeze and potential fragmentation of the habitat and will limit the movement of some important habitats and species over time. The presence of plantation woodland behind Formby Point exacerbates the challenge at this location. The plantation woodland is not a designated feature but does support a population of Red Squirrel Sciurus vulgaris a Species of Principal Important and one which is of special visitor interest. Authorised parking on the beach at Ainsdale is

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT interrupting the natural development of the beach in this area. Scrub encroachment and atmospheric nitrogen deposition (leading to a loss of early successional dune communities) are also identified as issues in the Site Improvement Plan2.

The Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA/Ramsar

3.11 The Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA and Ramsar sites include part of the Lancashire Fylde coast, and continues southwards across the Sefton borough boundary, including Marshside on the southern seaward edge of the estuary and then down the coast past Birkdale, Ainsdale and Formby Point to the boundary with the Port at Crosby on the northern edge of the Mersey estuary; a distance of about 40 kilometres. The northern part of the site consists of estuarine muds and sands with extensive saltmarshes at Banks Marsh in Lancashire and the Ribble Estuary NNR and recently designated Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ). The RSPB Hesketh Outmarsh Reserve (in Lancashire) is an area of managed realignment that is currently outside but adjoining the Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA/Ramsar but is now a functional part of the estuary. At Marshside, within Sefton, the site includes the RSPB wet grassland reserve behind the coastal road. The SPA boundary follows the edge of the coast, but the Ramsar boundary also includes the dunes at Cabin Hill and Ainsdale Sand Dunes NNRs and the LNRs at Ravenmeols Hills and Ainsdale and Birkdale. The landward parts of Crosby Coastal Park are outside the SPA/Ramsar site.

3.12 The SPA and Ramsar site encompasses two SSSIs, the Ribble Estuary SSSI and the Sefton Coast SSSI. This includes all the SPA foreshore. The SPA/Ramsar site also overlaps considerably with the Sefton Coast SAC.

3.13 The Ribble and Alt Estuaries were originally classified as an SPA in February 1995 (updated December 2015) for populations of nine species of wintering wildfowl and eleven species of wintering waders, together with populations of wintering Cormorants and four species of passage waders. Important populations of a breeding wader, two species of breeding gulls and a species of tern were also listed. It was listed as a Ramsar site in February 1995 for breeding and passage Lesser Black-backed Gull, for 8 species of passage waders, and for two species of wintering swans, Pink-footed Goose, four duck species and two species of wader. The site was classified as an SPA for its breeding assemblage of 29,236 individual seabirds (5-yr mean peak 1991/92 – 1995/96) and its wintering assemblage of 323,861 individual waterfowl (5-yr mean peak 1991/92 – 1995/96) and under Ramsar for a wintering assemblage of 222,038 individual waterfowl (5-yr peak mean 1998/99-2002/03). It was also listed as a Ramsar site for its population of Natterjack Toad as it supports up to 40% of the Great Britain population.

3.14 The latest available figures for the wintering assemblage of waterfowl (5-yr mean 2011/12 – 2015/16) for both estuaries are 267,388 and for the Ribble Estuary alone is 189,019. Despite

2 http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6274126599684096

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT this decline in numbers, this still makes the Ribble Estuary the second most important site in the UK for its wintering waterfowl.

Mersey Estuary SPA/Ramsar

3.15 The Mersey Estuary is a large sheltered and curved estuary with a narrow entrance and a narrow gap to landward where the river cuts through the sandstone ridges of the Runcorn Gap. To the south it is bounded for about half its length by the Manchester Ship Canal to landward and residential, industrial and commercial uses on the seaward end. To the north, the Liverpool Docks give way to residential, commercial and industrial use with agricultural fields and areas of scrub south of Liverpool airport and the settlements of Hale and Hale Bank. Parts of the northern bank in the middle and far inner estuary include the route of the Mersey Way footpath. Adjoining the south bank in the middle estuary there are extensive saltmarshes, parts of which are included within an RSPB reserve, but with extremely limited access. To the north, there are a number of protected areas and reserves and more fragmented saltmarsh with inter-tidal mud where the river flows closer to the northern shoreline.

3.16 The Mersey Estuary was originally classified as an SPA in December 1995 for populations of five species of wintering wildfowl and seven species of wintering waders together with populations of two species of passage waders and for its wintering assemblage of 104,599 waterfowl (5-yr mean peak 1994/94-1997/98). The SPA was extended to include the New Ferry Foreshore in 2004. The site was also listed as a Ramsar site in December 1995 for two species of wintering wildfowl and one species of wintering wader, together with two species of passage wader and its wintering assemblage of 89 ,576 individual waterfowl (5-yr mean peak 1998/90 –20002/03). The Estuary is also notified as a SSSI.

3.17 The latest available figures for the wintering assemblage of waterfowl (5-yr mean 2011/12 – 2015/16 for the Mersey Estuary is 87,954 which makes this the eleventh most important site in the UK for its wintering waterfowl.

Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore SPA/Ramsar

3.18 On the Wirral (to the south), the Mersey Narrows and North Wirral foreshore extends from the Seacombe Ferry Terminal on the southern bank of the entrance to the Mersey Estuary, around the Wirral foreshore to Hilbre Point at the mouth of the Dee Estuary where it meets the Dee Estuary SPA. The site contains extensive inter-tidal sand and mudflats, with embryonic saltmarsh. In Sefton, (to the North of the Mersey Mouth) a small area of the SPA contains man-made saline and freshwater lagoons at Seaforth Nature Reserve. This is managed by Lancashire Wildlife Trust however is within the operational area of the Port of Liverpool and currently has no public access.

3.19 The Mersey Narrows and North Wirral foreshore was originally classified as an SPA in July 2013 (updated December 2015) and as a Ramsar site in July 2013. Both classifications were

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT for seven species of wintering wader, passage Little Gull and breeding and passage Common Tern. The breeding terns and foraging and roosting terns and gulls occur at Seaforth lagoons. The site was also classified for its wintering assemblage of 32,366 individual waterfowl (5-yr mean peak 2004/05 – 2008/09). The site includes the North Wirral Foreshore and Mersey Narrows SSSIs.

Dee Estuary SPA/SAC/Ramsar

3.20 The Dee Estuary is a large funnel-shaped estuary important for wintering waterfowl and (on the Welsh side only) for breeding terns. The saltmarsh is expanding and changing in accordance with movements of the river channel, and there are substantial areas of intertidal sand and mudflats. The three sandstone islands of Hilbre are an important high tide roost, and the freshwater lagoons of the RSPB reserve at the Burton Mere Wetlands reserve (outside the City Region) provide additional roosting and foraging areas for estuary birds. The north-eastern shoreline consists mainly of residential, recreational and agricultural land.

3.21 The Dee Estuary was originally classified as an SPA in July 1995 and listed as a Ramsar site in July 1985 (updates in 2009 and 2017). Both designations include populations of three species of wintering wildfowl and eight species of wintering waders, and wintering Wigeon, Sanderling, Cormorant and Great Crested Grebe (Ramsar only), together with populations of passage Redshank, Sandwich Terns, (SPA & Ramsar) and Ringed Plover (Ramsar only). Two breeding species of tern (SPA and Ramsar) and breeding Redshank (Ramsar only) were also listed. The estuary was classified for its wintering assemblage of 120,726 individual waterfowl (5-yr mean peak 1991/92 – 1995/96). The Ramsar site was also listed for breeding Natterjack Toad in Red Rocks SSSI (and also Gronant Dunes and Talacre Warren SSSI in Wales where it was reintroduced).

3.22 The latest available figures for the wintering assemblage of waterfowl (5-yr mean 2011/12 – 2015/16) is 135,888 which makes the Dee Estuary the fifth most important site in the UK for its wintering waterfowl.

3.23 The Dee Estuary SAC is designated because of its size and biological interest. Features include extensive saltmarshes, intertidal mudflats and sandflats, also a small stretch of sea cliffs and sand dunes (drift line vegetation and Petalwort are features of the site in Wales). The site is also designated for Sea Lamprey Petromyzon marinus and River Lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis, which migrate through the area.

3.24 The saltmarsh shows a range of stages of development from accreting mud and sand with Salicornia to old, well established communities. It is unusual in the north-west in that it is ungrazed and so supports species susceptible to grazing such as Sea Purslane Atriplex portulacoides. The sandstone cliffs of Hilbre Island, Little (Middle) Island and Little Eye are the only examples of vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts along the Wirral coast.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT Liverpool Bay SPA

3.25 The Liverpool Bay SPA was classified in August 2010 and extended in November 2017. It now extends to some 252,757ha, stretching from just south of Fleetwood on the Lancashire coast to Anglesey in Wales. The site abuts the Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA, the Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore SPA and the Dee Estuary SPA on the landward side and also extends into the narrow neck of the Mersey Estuary where it abuts the Mersey Estuary SPA. Some 96% of the SPA is open sea, with some sand flats exposed at low tide.

3.26 The Liverpool Bay SPA has been classified for its wintering populations of Red-throated Diver, Common Scoter and passage Little Gull together with foraging Little Tern from the colony at Gronant in North Wales and foraging Common Tern from the colony at Seaforth. It has also been classified for a wintering assemblage of 69,687 waterfowl (5-yr mean peak 2004.05-2010/11) consisting largely (>80%) of Common Scoter.

European sites and interest features This Evidence Report and emerging RMS is focused on the Ribble Estuary, the Sefton Coast, the Mersey Estuary, the Dee Estuary, Mersey Narrows and North Wirral foreshore and Liverpool Bay. In total there are 11 European sites/designations with interest features that encompass a range of coastal habitats, amphibians, reptiles, fish, Petalwort and a range of wintering, passage and breeding waterbirds.

Distribution of European site interest features, key locations and current issues

3.27 Here the condition of the interest features of the European sites and current issues at the sites are considered, drawing on a range of available data. These data have also been used in relevant local plan HRAs that have triggered the need for this Evidence Report and emerging RMS.

3.28 The status of winter birds is based on data from the British Trust for Ornithology3 (‘BTO’). An assessment of the condition of Natterjack Toad, Great-crested Newt and Petalwort is based on consultation with Yvette Martin (ARC) and Fiona Sunners (ARC/Back from the Brink). Maps 5-12 (in the map annex) show the distribution of features.

SSSI condition

3.29 Current SSSI condition data are summarised in Appendix 2. The condition of the component SSSIs is variable, ranging from 100% favourable (Dee Estuary) to 100% unfavourable (North Wirral Foreshore). Issues that have been identified included

3 Extracted on a site by site basis from the BTO website,

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT inappropriate agricultural management, encroachment by scrub, non-natives and reeds, the presence of woodland on dunes, declining bird populations and loss of habitat. Recreation is noted to have truncated dune zonation at Ainsdale, and disturbance is thought to have possibly caused the displacement of high tide Black-tailed Godwit roosts on the North Wirral Foreshore.

European site pressures and threats

3.30 Site Improvement Plans are published by Natural England and provide an overview of issues at each European site, listing pressures identified by Natural England as already affecting the European site interest features and potential threats, as well as some key actions for improvement. In Appendix 3 we summarise all pressures and threats from these plans.

3.31 These plans highlight a wide range of issues and highlight how recreation is one of a range of current pressures and threats on the sites. Many of the issues are complex and likely to interact. Common themes include:

• Public Access and Disturbance • Coastal Squeeze • Climate Change • Water Pollution • Coastal Management • Physical Modification

European site pressures and threats Recreation is one of a range of current pressures and threats on the European sites. In reviewing the Site Improvement Plans and Conservation Advice Packages, Natural England is encouraged to provide further evidence and information on site recreation pressures, threats and effects.

Status of wintering waterbird populations and Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) alerts data

3.32 Wintering and passage waterbirds utilise both the open coast and estuaries in internationally important numbers. Foraging birds disperse widely on intertidal habitats. Roost sites represent locations where large number of birds gather around high tide. Birds tend to roost on groynes (e.g. on the Wirral), intertidal banks and offshore islands (such as Hilbre). Map 12 shows roost locations, which can hold gatherings of birds from August through until May although numbers of birds are highest in winter.

3.33 The changes in wintering bird populations is shown on a site basis in Table 1, which is drawn from the WeBS alerts (Cook et al. 2013). Causes of the declines potentially relate to a

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT range of factors, some of which are site specific and others more general. In general the distribution of waterbirds in Europe during the winter has shifted pole-wards and east- wards as a response to climate change (e.g. Maclean et al. 2008; Godet, Jaffré & Devictor 2011), a process referred to as ‘short-stopping’. Declines have been recorded at all sites for one or more species and have been particularly high on the Mersey, where nine species have been affected. Site-specific issues are suggested as underpinning the declines for:

• Bewick’s Swan and Oystercatcher on the Alt and Ribble Estuaries and for Bewick’s Swan at Martin Mere also • Shelduck, Wigeon, Teal, Pintail, Golden Plover, Lapwing and Redshank on the Mersey Estuary • Pintail, Oystercatcher, Grey Plover, Knot and Dunlin on the Dee Estuary • Bar-tailed Godwit on the North Wirral foreshore is particularly high (90%) and has been attributed to disturbance (see Appendix 2)

3.34 Compared with the Dee and the Ribble, the declines in species populations wintering on the Mersey appear more serious, and affect a greater number of species, triggering a high alert for the Mersey. Of the nine species affected, there are seven; Shelduck, Wigeon, Teal, Pintail, Golden Plover, Lapwing and Redshank, which are all showing declines that are not linked to, or are more severe than, national and regional trends and could be due to site specific factors. The SSSI Condition Assessment for the Mersey attributes the decline in Teal and Pintail to an improvement in the water quality in the estuary resulting in a reduction in food. For Wigeon the decline is believed to be due to changes in the management of saltmarsh (presumably grazing) and for Golden Plover due to an unexplained redistribution of numbers to other sites.

Table 1: Summary of percentage changes of wintering bird species by site. Data from BTO WeBS alerts website (see Cook et al. 2013 for details) and in most cases from 1984/85. . A red background indicates a decline of >50% (high alert) and a yellow background indicates a decline of 25-50% (medium alert). NWF = North Wirral foreshore, data here for the SSSI rather than the SPA. Blank cells indicate where no assessment made

Short term Medium term Long term Since Classification Site Species 5 years 5-10 years Up to 25 years (1995-2002)

Bewick’s Swan -93 -95 -95 -97 Whooper Swan -53 5 59 5 Pink-footed Goose

Shelduck -31 -27 -1 -41 Wigeon 7 -4 289 -11 Teal -6 -3 84 16 Pintail -9 69 368 -6 Ribble& Alt Common Scoter -14 305 31500 187 Cormorant 17 94 264 168 Oystercatcher -23 -44 41 -19 Golden Plover 0 -26 51 -18

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Grey Plover -29 -59 19 -60 Lapwing -45 -19 83 -46 Knot -4 6 -5 -35 Sanderling 35 52 122 44 Dunlin -13 -20 39 -51 Black-tailed Godwit 83 50 244 354 Bar-tailed Godwit -5 -20 -36 -25 Curlew -16 -27 196 -3 Redshank 2 -6 54 -18 Shelduck -37 -54 -33 -57 Wigeon -63 -92 -92 -95 Teal -53 -78 -73 -81 Pintail -70 -94 -100 -97

Great-Crested Grebe -54 -84 -94 -96 Golden Plover -90 -92 -76 -96 Grey Plover 12 -21 25 -52 Mersey Lapwing -55 -60 109 -70 Dunlin -10 -24 50 -23 Black-tailed Godwit 150 -7 2400 44 Curlew -11 -17 56 -10 Redshank -54 -66 25 -66 Knot -33 08 102 Dunlin -25 -27 44 NWF Bar-tailed Godwit -62 -71 -72 Turnstone -72 -90 -90

Short term Medium term Long term Since Classification Site Species 5 years 5-10 years Up to 25 years (1995-2002)

Shelduck -10 -2 20 20 Wigeon -44 -31 82 56 Teal 2 -31 -9 -10 Mallard -16 -37 -76 -76 Pintail -46 -40 -69 -65

Cormorant 45 109 309 - Oystercatcher -8 23 -29 -28 Grey Plover -19 -10 -56 -61 The Dee The Lapwing -43 -34 0 -4 Knot -43 11 -48 -43 Sanderling 35 66 29 41 Dunlin -43 -62 -35 -26 Black-tailed Godwit -30 100 540 611 Bar-tailed Godwit -32 -59 40 75

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Curlew -14 -26 12 -1 Redshank -8 -16 29 -7

Status of breeding birds

3.35 The key sites for breeding birds are on the Ribble, and at Seaforth and Birkenhead (see Map 12 in the map annex). Breeding gull and tern populations on the Ribble have changed markedly since the nineties, when peak numbers of breeding pairs were Black-headed Gull (14,300 pairs in 1999), Lesser Black-backed Gull (4,150 pairs in 1998) and Common Tern (475 pairs in 1993). At the last count there were no Black-headed Gulls in 2015, only two pairs of Common Terns in the same year and 7,022 pairs of Lesser Black-backed Gulls in 2016 (down from a peak of 9041 in 2014). Despite these declines, the Ribble remains among the top three sites for breeding Lesser Black-backed Gulls in the UK.

Bird declines Major declines for at least one species of wintering waterbird have been reported from all relevant sites. Declines have been particularly severe on the Mersey. Some of the declines appear to be specific to particular estuaries and recreational disturbance has been implicated for Bar-tailed Godwits on the North Wirral foreshore (where there has been a 90% decline).

There have also been marked declines in the breeding bird interest.

Status of herptiles: Natterjack Toad and Great-crested Newt

3.36 The Sefton Coast supports up to 40% of the UK population of Natterjack Toad. Key areas are the slacks within Birkdale Sandhills and Ainsdale Sandhills LNRs and the Ainsdale NNR. There are also a few breeding sites at Lifeboat Road, Ravenmeols LNR, Cabin Hills NNR and the Altcar Ranges (although competition from Common Toad is an issue here). There are occasional records of adults from the West Lancashire golf course (at Blundellsands), Hillside golf course (Southport) and Formby golf courses (but no evidence of breeding). In general, the number of spawn strings recorded has declined significantly over the last 10 years (Yvette Martin, pers. comm.). Natterjack Toad populations tend to peak and trough, but this decline is set in the context of ongoing declines since the 1970s (Yvette Martin, pers. comm.). There are four records of Natterjack Toads at Red Rocks (Wirral) in the Dee Estuary SAC – three recorded in 2003 and one juvenile 2014 within a fenced scrape. Recent monitoring of Natterjack Toad at Red Rocks has indicated that there is a relatively healthy population present with breeding success noted in 2017, 2018 and 2019. The management of habitat (ponds/slacks/scrapes) was identified as particularly important (Red Rocks Natterjack Toad Report, 2019, S. Bennett, Cheshire Wildlife Trust).

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT 3.37 Great-crested Newts are present in deeper slacks, mainly within with Ainsdale NNR and Ainsdale Sandhills LNR. Surveys in 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2006 found signs of Great-crested Newt breeding between Freshfield and Birkdale, including within 31 ponds in the NNR4. More recently, newts have been found in the shallower ponds to the seaward side of the dunes where there is some conflict with Natterjack Toads (Fiona Sunners, pers. comm.). The Biodiversity Information System for Cheshire, Halton, Warrington and Wirral hold eight records between 2001 and 2014 along the Dee Estuary SAC.

Petalwort

3.38 Petalwort is found in the Ainsdale and Birkdale Hills LNR in two main areas, one just north of Shore Road, Ainsdale, and the other just south of Weld Road to the north. Previous surveys suggested that the species had become restricted to four locations with counts in the 100s, but recent increased survey effort through the Back from the Brink project has found at least 12 sites and 1000s of plants (Andrew Hampson, pers. comm.).

SAC species status The Sefton Coast supports up to 40% of the UK population of Natterjack Toad. There have been ongoing declines for this species since the 1970s on the Sefton Coast and a breeding population is present at Red Rocks on the Dee. Great-crested Newts occur in a range of dune slacks at Sefton and along the Dee and may be increasing in the dune slacks. Petalwort is currently known from at least 12 sites along the Sefton Coast involving 1000s of plants. Increased recording effort is likely to be a factor in apparent increases in the population.

4 http://www.merseysidebiodiversity.org.uk/pdfs/saps2008/Great%20Crested%20Newt%202008.pdf

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

4. Extent of current access and access infrastructure

4.1 Public access to the coast and European Sites varies substantially across the LCR. Access tends to be focussed towards key gateway locations where visitor management infrastructure tends to be located as well as some linear multi-use paths especially along much of the Sefton e.g. coastal path from Crosby to Hightown, Wirral e.g. Wirral Way and circular cycle route; and Liverpool to Halton e.g. Mersey Way from Speke to Widnes. Large parts of the LCR coast are also publicly inaccessible due to access restrictions for public safety and because of commercial and defence restrictions. Several sections of the LCR coast are also quite wild and isolated with little public access (beyond the more intrepid walkers) including the Sefton dunes system around the NNR, Hesketh marshes and Marshside, the southern Mersey shoreline that is isolated by the Manchester Ship canal and with the north Mersey shoreline around Hale and Oglet also having reduced accessibility. Map 13 (in the map annex) summarises open access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CRoW) 2000 and land managed by landowners such as the National Trust and the RSPB. Areas with access restricted, such as Ministry of Defence (MoD) areas are also shown.

Car-parks and shoreline access

4.2 The location of car-parks giving access to the designated sites are shown on Map 14 see map annex. Car-parks have been mapped based on those shown on Ordnance Survey Explorer Maps (1:25,000) and therefore the points are not a comprehensive audit of all parking locations, but rather indicative locations of the main, formal car-parks around the coast. Roadside/promenade parking, such as at Hoylake and Meols are not shown and provide additional parking. Map 14 also shows the path network around shorelines. These maps are based on OpenStreet Map data1, which is a crowd-sourced geospatial dataset that includes roads, pathways, tracks etc. These map data are those used by Ross et al. (2014). Given that the data includes informal tracks, paths etc. these data are a good indication of where it is physically possible to access the shore. The density of routes is likely to be indicative of use. It should be noted that OpenStreet Map data does show paths around the Manchester Ship Canal, on the south side of the Mersey in Halton, however the Canal does provide an effective barrier and there is no access along the SPA shoreline here. It should also be noted that Ross et al. did not include Liverpool Bay in their work. As map 14 includes the site boundaries/areas covered by Ross et al.; where no paths are shown

1 OpenStreetMap website

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

outside the green areas, this does not indicate a lack of paths, rather that the data were not extracted.

Recreation opportunities and activities

4.3 Some of the most accessible sites where there is good visitor and recreation access provision is concentrated on the more open coastal areas especially in Sefton and Wirral. Recreation at the coast takes many forms including walking (with and without dogs), jogging, horse riding particularly on the Wirral foreshore between Meols and West Kirby and around Formby in Sefton, off-road vehicles, watersports, boating, golf, angling, shell fishing, bait collection and ‘bucket and spade’ visitors. The Sefton coast due to the vast expanses of flat, firm sand has also seen land-speed record attempts, car races, motocross events, hovercraft trips and aircraft. The marine lake at West Kirby has previously been the location for windsurfing speed records also.

4.4 There are a number of promoted and informal walks in addition to long distance paths which are focussed along the Sefton and Wirral coast. These include:

• Four walks between about 1 and 4 miles at Formby (National Trust), Sefton. • Marked and informal paths of different lengths throughout Ainsdale and Birkdale Sandhills LNR and Ainsdale Sand Dunes NNR, Sefton. • A number of shoreline walks of varying lengths between West Kirby on the Dee Estuary and the Wirral shore as far as Seacombe on the Mersey. • A walk which runs along the shoreline between West Kirby and Heswall on Wirral. • A walk which includes a short frontage to the Dee Estuary between Cubbins Green and the Jetty by the Marine Lake at West Kirby on Wirral. • Sefton Coast Path. • Trans Pennine Trail (Ainsdale, Birkdale and Southport).

4.5 A wide range of cycling routes are promoted across the region, for example through the online cycle maps produced by MerseyTravel. These include:

• National Cycling Route 810 providing off-road access between Ainsdale and Formby (including access to the NNR). • Off-road cycling route between Crosby and Hightown. • National Cycling Route 56 providing off-road access from New Brighton along the King’s Parade and west to Leasowe. • National Cycling Route 56 (Trans Pennine Trail) providing off-road access along the Mersey shoreline at Otterspool. • Off-road cycling route along the Mersey shore near Speke Hall, through the Speke Garston Nature Reserve. • The Wirral Circular Trail (35km) that includes an off-road route between West Kirby and Parkgate and also includes sections of the Mersey shore around Eastham, Birkenhead and New Brighton. • Sefton Coast Path.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

• Trans Pennine Trail (Ainsdale, Birkdale and Southport).

4.6 On the Sefton coast, Formby, Ainsdale and Southport are designated bathing beaches. Wirral has four designated bathing waters: West Kirby, Meols, Moreton and Wallasey.

4.7 Bike hire is available at all railways stations through the MerseyTravel Bike & Go scheme/CityBike and there are a range of other cycle hire opportunities including in Sefton (e.g. Crosby Lakeside and Southport) and the Wirral (West Kirby, Thurstaston)

4.8 Horse riding is popular on the open coast. There are liveries/riding stables located near Freshfields on the Sefton coast and near Hoylake on the Wirral. Riding takes place on the sandflats at West Kirby and along the Sefton shore.

4.9 Map 15 (in the map annex) shows facilities for watersports, including slipways, boatyards, sailing clubs and watersports centres; these are compiled from a range of sources2. The marine lakes (Crosby) provide a venue away from the open coast and are used for water skiing, windsurfing, paddle-boarding and kayaking. Kitesurfing is concentrated at Ainsdale and on the north Wirral foreshore (towards New Brighton) and to a lesser extent at Hoylake, and is focussed on the open coast. Sand yachting and use of sand buggies takes place at some locations at low water, when users make use of the extensive open sand flats. Key locations are at Hoylake (near the Lifeboat Station) and at Ainsdale. Different water sports require different weather conditions, for example kite surfers tend to require strong winds; and can take place all year-round.

4.10 Shore angling takes place at New Brighton (Mersey). Commercial fishing includes shell fishing and netting and occurs along the North Wirral shore round to West Kirby. Fishermen access the intertidal areas at Hoylake by quadbike but there is no vehicular access allowed onto the intertidal areas at West Kirby.

English Coastal Path

4.11 Work is progressing on the English Coast Path project and the route is known for large sections of the LCR coast under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Consultation took place early in 2020 and two sections of the path, 124km stretch from Cleveleys to Pier Head, Liverpool and the 41km Birkenhead to Cheshire West and Chester boundary on the Welsh border remain under development. The Natural England team is liaising with local authorities, landowners and undertaking site visits. Much of the proposed Coastal Path will utilise existing footpaths and access ways and avoid many of the commercial areas though precise details currently remain uncertain. More information is available from the Natural England team and via www.gov.uk/government/publications/england-coast-path-in-the-

2 Including map based internet searches (for sailing clubs); relevant ordnance survey maps (for slipways) and the boatlaunch website.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

north-west-of-england, however it is understood that the target to complete the trail may be subject to review because of progress and other external factors. The proposed English Coast Path section covering LCR was subject to a public consultation, which closed 10 February 2021 from which representations will be considered before the secretary of State in due course. The HRA has concluded no likely significant effects.

4.12 It will be important that the emerging RMS recognises that the implementation of the England Coastal Path by Natural England may open up limited new access and therefore change or create additional patterns of recreation pressures. It may also provide an opportunity to invest in recreation and visitor management facilities and manage access more sustainably. However, it may also cause a threat to some of the European site designation features which historically have had little public access and are relatively undisturbed.

Areas with no or restricted access

4.13 Quite significant sections of the LCR shoreline currently have limited or no public access. For example, large parts of Halton’s coast are inaccessible to the public due to private commercial areas and separated from communities by rail and ship canal infrastructure. Large parts of Liverpool’s coast, the coast in south Sefton and Wirral’s east coast are also inaccessible due to the Port zones.

4.14 Shoreline sections currently without access include:

• South-western shore of the Mersey where the Manchester Ship Canal creates a physical barrier to the shoreline. This covers a large extent of Halton Borough and a small area of Wirral near Eastham • Sections of the Wirral and Liverpool Mersey coastline are dock wall and wharfage which provide an effective barrier to direct access onto the European sites • The area north of Hightown where the Altcar MoD Ranges are restricted • Commercial and port areas such as at Eastham Docks and in the vicinity of Stanlow refinery, Cammel Laird, Port of Liverpool (including the Seaforth Nature Reserve) and Garston Docks • Land associated with Liverpool airport • Intertidal habitat this is effectively inaccessible due to other infrastructure such as Sankey Canal, railway line and little or no provision has been made for public access • Inaccessible natural habitat especially salt marshes, which are dynamic habitats often criss-crossed by deep inaccessible drainage creeks and channels, provide an effective barrier to recreation use and associated disturbance impact.

LCR Coast Access Maps

4.15 MEAS has completed an assessment of accessibility of the coast based on a range of consistent and objective parameters. This clearly identifies those areas of coast which have

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

good access provision and therefore act as significant recreation draws and gateway destinations. It also identifies areas with no or restricted access. Appendix 4 provides the maps and assessment for each local authority area.

Current visitor management and engagement work

Visitor centres

4.16 There are a number of different visitor centres along the coast that act as destinations in their own right and provide information and other resources for visitors. These are located both within and outside but close to the European site designations, and include:

• Marshside RSPB reserve in Sefton has a glazed bird hide that doubles as a small scale visitor centre, providing information for visitors. • Southport Eco-Centre https://www.southportecocentre.com/ Sefton hosts the award- winning environmental education facility and provides a practical demonstration of sustainability in building design. The Eco-Centre acts as a hub for education and visitor information and promotes cycling as a sustainable way to explore Southport and the nearby Sefton coast. • Ainsdale Discovery Centre is situated adjacent to the beach and Ainsdale & Birkdale Sandhills Local Nature Reserve, Sefton. The Centre is the base for the Sefton Coast and Countryside Ranger Service and provides local information, a classroom facility and a venue for events. The Ranger service coordinates a range of education activities but the centre itself is unstaffed and at the time of writing open to casual visitors only on weekdays. • At Formby, Sefton the National Trust has a staffed information trailer, situated in the picnic area adjacent to the woodland car-park. The trailer has specific opening times, when it provides information and a shop. There is a cart that provides hot drinks and snacks. • Crosby Lakeside Adventure Centre, Sefton is set back from the beach on the lake shore within the Crosby Coastal Park. The centre includes a gym, café and is a watersports centre. • Leasowe Lighthouse, Wirral is a prominent landmark along the North Wirral shore. It is occasionally open to visitors on pre-advertised dates when tours of the lighthouse are run. There is also a small shop. • Wirral Country Park Visitor Centre at Thurstaston, Wirral was Britain’s first Country Park and the centre includes a shop, exhibition areas and space for events. There is a snack bar adjacent to the centre. • Both Pickerings Pasture LNR and Wigg Island LNR, Halton have visitor centres which provide visitor amenities e.g. toilets, information, refreshment. • The Ferry Terminals at Seacombe and Woodside, Wirral and Pier Head, Liverpool provide very important visitor and commuter access and facilities and are an obvious additional location for awareness raising and information. • There are also points where staff are located on the ground such as at Eastham Country Park, Wirral where there is a ranger office.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Parking charges

4.17 Car-park charges apply to car-parks along the Sefton Coast, including Burbo Bank at Crosby, Lifeboat Road, Formby (Non-National Trust members only) and Ainsdale Beach. Wirral undertook a review of car park charging on the coast and introduced charges to many of their car parks including formal beach car parks and inland sites such as Royden Park and Arrowe Park. However, substantial roadside car parking is available across large parts of Wirral including for example, the promenade at West Kirby, Hoylake and Meols Parade, Leasowe and between Derby Pool and the western side of New Brighton. There are no parking charges at Pickerings Pasture in Halton or alongside Sefton Park in Liverpool.

Education/work with children

4.18 Several visitor centres and other community locations provide education facilities with environmental themes. For example, the education centre at Thurstaston Common and the Sefton Eco-Centre at Southport. Formby is one of the Learning Destinations for the Children’s University, a national scheme which encourages children to continue learning outside of school. The National Trust provide a range of resources and packs for children to take part. The Sefton coast and Countryside Team run Beach & Forest School sessions for children. Some direct work with schools is undertaken, for example by the National Trust at Formby.

Wardening/Ranger presence (away from visitor centres, see above)

4.19 The Steering Group has advised that local authority budget cuts resulting from austerity measures have meant there is a much-reduced ranger presence compared to previous years. Therefore, ranger and/or warden services at coastal sites, green spaces and Parks have had to adjust their asset management and maintenance regimes as well as substantially decrease officer site presence. Sefton Council is increasing summer ranger capacity for the coast in summer 2020 reflecting their commitment to ranger-led management measures on the coast given the continuing popularity of the Sefton coast as a visitor destination. Natural England’s staff and volunteers warden the NNRs at Ainsdale Sand Dunes, Cabin Hill and Ribble Estuary. This includes limited wardening on the foreshore. National Trust staff warden their estate at Ainsdale including Lifeboat Road.

4.20 There is a long running voluntary warden scheme on the West Kirby shore of the Dee. This involves a team of wardens who prevent disturbance to birds at high tide, monitor the birds present at high tide and show birds to visitors. Two to five wardens are scheduled to be on the beach for about three hours each time the height of the tide is above 8.6 metres at high water during daylight hours between September and March. There is a dedicated website for the wardening project which provides details of how the project has reduced disturbance levels and the changes in bird numbers.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

4.21 Any investment in warden/ranger capacity and site maintenance through implementation of the proposed interim measures for housing growth and the emerging RMS (when it is in the implementation stage) will need to clearly demonstrate that investment is additional to existing capacity, and for the specific purpose of mitigating recreation impacts from housing (and potentially tourism) development. This is a legislative requirement of the Habitats Regulations and any resources secured through the planning process must not simply replace lost resources following austerity.

Dog walking related

4.22 The National Trust has now taken over ownership and management of Formby Point from Sefton Council, and provides information for visitors to Formby and this includes a dedicated page on their website for dog walkers. This explains that dogs are expected to be under control at all times when off lead and includes requests not to let dogs chase birds. There are a number of other small scale voluntary wardening schemes that often run specific activities such as litter picking.

4.23 Sefton Council promotes a good dog code and the Sefton Council Rangers have delegated powers to issue fixed penalty notices for those who do not pick up after their dog. Other authorities have or are considering similar Public Space Protection Orders relating to dog fouling. Wirral has a ‘do the right thing’ campaign to encourage dog walkers to bag and bin dog waste. The approach includes posters which are prominently displayed at many beach sites and videos. There is an annual event to promote responsible dog ownership in Liverpool, held at the Clubmoor Recreation Ground.

4.24 There are two dog exclusion zones on the Sefton Coast, which are in place from 1 May to 30 September:

• Southport beach is free of dogs starting from the Pier south towards Pleasureland (for 555m) and to the tide line. • Ainsdale Beach is free of dogs 200m either side of the main beach entrance and to the tide line.

4.25 Wirral Council recognises some of the issue associated with dog ownership and coast use. It examined the potential to introduce a Public Space Protection Order including parts of Wirral’s coast in 2018 to include a range of dog control measures to address the level of dog related incidents and make the open space environment safer. Proposals included dog- free beach zones, exclusions from certain areas including children’s playgrounds and marked sports pitches; and requirements to carry a supply of poo bags. It is understood that following consultation in 2019 that the Council is reviewing its proposals including those relevant to the coast.

Other activities

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

4.26 There are marked zones and a permit system for kitesurfing and traction surfing at Ainsdale

4.27 A permit is required for the use of kite buggying / landboarding or kitesurfing at the Kite Zone on Ainsdale Beach. Permits are free of charge but only valid when held in conjunction with current relevant insurance. In order to get a permit, users sign that they have read and comply with a set code of conduct including a requirement to comply with particular zones marked on the beach. There are existing codes of conduct and warning signs for kitesurfing on the North Wirral shore. There is also zones for windsurfing, kite surfing, and sand yachting/sand buggies on the West Wirral shore, for example at West Kirby where zones are marked with yellow buoys.

4.28 A range of byelaws, restrictions and legislation relate to fisheries. On the Dee, fishing rights and management are the responsibility of Natural Resources Wales while other areas fall under the remit of the Environment Agency. Permits are required in some areas to take vehicles onto the beach for shell fishing.

Extent of current access and access infrastructure A wide range of recreation activities take place across the City Region, including shore- based and water-based activities. There is existing infrastructure and a variety of measures in place to facilitate and manage access especially around key access gateways.

Accessibility varies across the City Region as presented in the maps in Appendix 4. Quite large sections of the City Region coast are inaccessible due to commercial and safety- related restrictions and this has the effect of concentrating recreation and visitor pressure on a relatively small number of gateways and coastal stretches.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

5. Visitor Survey Data

5.1 Collecting visitor survey information across the Liverpool City Region (LCR) coast is an expensive and time-consuming undertaking. The usefulness of these data to better understand the patterns of coast, park and open space use is determined by the objectives and scope of survey. This section of the draft Evidence Report reviews the available survey data and helps determine the pattern of visitor and recreation use of the LCR coast.

5.2 Several different visitor surveys and visitor survey information are available for the Liverpool City Region coast. These include:

• STEAM data, which are available for Sefton for the period 2009-2016 (Global Tourism Solutions (UK) Ltd. 2017). STEAM is a tourism economic impact modelling process, and rather than involving face-face interviews, uses data on visitor attraction numbers, tourist accommodation bedstock, events attendance, occupancy levels, accommodation tariffs etc. to estimate visitor spend and visitor volumes. These data cover Sefton as a whole, including Southport and the various visitor attractions outside the European sites. As such STEAM data provide a useful, if limited, insight into visitor trends and tourism use. • Footprint Ecology surveys (Liley et al. 2017), commissioned by Natural England. Surveys included face-face interviews with a random sample of visitors during the winter (November-February) across a wide stretch of the North-west coast; eight locations (Map 16 see map annex) fell within the LCR and a further two were on the northern side of the Ribble Estuary (and therefore potentially relevant as they are on one of the European sites that this strategy is focussed on and potentially within travel distance of Sefton). To inform the emerging RMS, new analyses of the data (focussing on survey points relevant to the strategy) have been undertaken and are presented in Appendix 5. Key figures from these analyses are quoted below. • Wirral Council’s visitor economy team commissioned a Wirral visitor and stakeholder research study in 2016 which included interviews with 518 visitors at a range of locations including tourist attractions. In addition, conducted work with stakeholder groups and an online survey. The work was used to inform the Wirral Visitor Economy Strategy (2017-2020). • Thompson Ecology surveys (Watola & Heard 2015). The surveys, commissioned by Natural England, consisted of nine locations where face-face interviews were conducted with visitors during January-February 2015. The survey locations were mostly located on the north Wirral coast as shown in Map 17 (see map annex). The results are limited to the winter period only and no postcode data were collected. • Sefton’s Natural Coast surveys (England’s Northwest Research Service 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011). These surveys, commissioned by Sefton Council, took place across the Sefton Coast in four different years between 2005 and 2011. Paper questionnaires were handed out to coast visitors by land managers in 2005; for the other years face- face interviews were conducted. The surveys covered the late spring, summer and early autumn. • Visitor surveys also took place on the Merseyside Coast in 2000 as part of the Quality of Coastal Towns Interreg IIc Project. The Project was focussed promoting a

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT greater understanding of the importance of natural processes in the conservation of the coast. The survey involved self-completion questionnaires and face-face interviews, as well as visitor counts, transport survey and a postal survey; results are archived on the Sands of Time website. • Sefton Coast Tourism Surveys 2018 (North West Research, 2019 unpublished). Between spring and winter 2018, Sefton Council commissioned a visitor survey at two locations on the Sefton Coast – Crosby and Ainsdale-on-Sea. These studies follow a method largely based on tourism surveys and not specifically for the purpose of assessing recreation use and impacts of that use on the coast and European sites. The research was undertaken by North West Research (part of the Liverpool City Region Local Enterprise Partnership).

5.3 The above surveys provide a range of information, covering different years, different seasons, different coast locations and different survey approaches. The surveys were not necessarily designed or targeted to understand links between housing and access or to explore impacts of access, and not all surveys involve random samples of interviewees or standardised approaches that allow comparison between locations. Some locations are included in multiple different surveys while others are less consistently covered, and much of the data are focussed on the Sefton coast.

5.4 The surveys also vary in how up-to-date they are. As the data ages it is generally considered less reliable as a basis for a strategic approach and for planning purposes. Furthermore, not all surveys collect the same core information which adds a further limitation to comparability.

5.5 Nonetheless, together the survey results do provide information on visitor use and access patterns and key findings are summarised below.

Visitor numbers

5.6 Busy sites, where high numbers of interviews were conducted or those with high counts of people include Formby (Footprint Ecology, Sefton’s Natural Coast and Quality of Coastal Town surveys), Crosby (Thompson Ecology, Sefton’s Natural Coast and Quality of Coastal Towns surveys), though these surveys are now quite old.

5.7 Comparatively quiet locations where relatively few people were counted or interviewed included Marshside, Sefton and Hale Head, Halton (Footprint Ecology surveys).

5.8 The ‘Quality of Coastal Towns’ survey undertook a one-off count of people on Sunday 20th August 2000, counting all people recorded visiting at a number of key locations between Ravenmeols and Crosby, Sefton. Across all sites over 15,000 people were counted.

5.9 None of the reports provide an overall estimate of the numbers of visits to the Liverpool City Region coast.

Monthly Variation in visitor numbers and trends over time

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT 5.10 Some indication of seasonal variation in use is shown in STEAM data. In 2016 monthly visitor totals on the Sefton coast ranged from 269,000 (in December) to a very marked summer peak, with 2,078,000 (in August). This high summer peak is primarily associated with day visitors. The same work also provides information on visitor trends over the period 2009-2016 and there appears to be little consistent year on year pattern, with annual totals highest in 2016 with 2009 the second highest and the lowest total were in 2012. These data are focussed on tourism use so are potentially difficult to relate to housing change.

5.11 Data on trends in visitor use over time and monthly variation in use are gaps in our current understanding.

Visitor Activities

5.12 Dog walking is the main activity in all surveys but has a strong diurnal element influenced by owner working patterns. Dog walking is described as the main motivation for local residents in the Sefton’s Natural Coast surveys whereas it was ranked as the 6th most common motivation for those undertaking day visits and it was not a main motivation for tourists.

5.13 In the two winter surveys covering multiple survey locations the percentage of interviewees whose main activity was dog walking was very similar: 65% (Footprint Ecology surveys) and 63% (Thompson Ecology surveys). In both surveys dog walking was the most common activity at all but one of the survey points, indicating it is widespread.

5.14 The Wirral visitor and stakeholder research study results highlight the importance of particular events, through a question asking which events the interviewees would consider visiting, these included Air Show (34%); Farm Feast (33%); Hoylake RNLI Open Day (31%) and Sandcastle Festival (24%).

Tourist vs Residential use

5.15 The surveys indicate that local residents on short visits account for the majority of recreational use around the coast. The Sefton’s Natural Coast survey in 2011 recorded 83% of interviewees as day visitors, as opposed to those staying in the local area (10%) and those staying outside the local area (2%). The Footprint Ecology survey (conducted during the winter) recorded 2.5% of interviewees as on holiday or staying with friends/family, as opposed to on a short visit, having travelled directly from home. The Wirral visitor and stakeholder research study estimated 79% of visitors were day visitors.

5.16 The Wirral visitor and stakeholder research study results recorded quite different frequencies, reflecting the different types of survey location included in the study; day visitors were estimated to make 10 visits per year.

5.17 The Sefton’s Natural Coast surveys provide some information on the holiday accommodation used by visitors, for example in the 2011 survey there was a relatively even

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT proportion of tourists in different types of accommodation including hotels, self-catering and camping.

5.18 The Sefton 2018 visitor surveys focussed on interviews with non-Sefton residents. The data did reveal that of the non-Sefton residents, 25-30% of users at Crosby originated outside the LCR whilst at Ainsdale-on-Sea this was 54-63%.

Transport use

5.19 Around three-quarters of interviewees arrive by car. Percentages of interviewees arriving by car in the different surveys included:

• 79% (Wirral Visitor and Stakeholder Research Study) • 75% (Footprint Ecology survey) • 73% (Quality of Coastal Towns survey) • 65% (Thompson Ecology survey) • 64% (Sefton’s Natural Coast survey, 2011)

5.20 Locations with high proportions of foot visitors included Hoylake Trinity Road (Footprint Ecology surveys) and locations with notable proportions of cyclists included at Hale Head likely following the Trans Pennie Trail (Footprint Ecology surveys).

Visit frequency and visit duration

5.21 Interviewees tend to visit regularly and there is evidence of variation through the year. For, for example the Footprint Ecology survey results (winter) found 31% of interviewees were daily visitors and a further 19% visited most days. The results indicated that on average each interviewee typically made 183 visits per year. By contrast the Sefton Natural Coast Survey (2011 data, summer focus) estimated a typical visit frequency of 11.3 trips per annum across all interviewees and over a third of visitors had visited the interview location at least 20 times in the past year.

5.22 There were differences in the Sefton Natural Coast Survey results across visitors from different areas: Sefton residents were the most frequent visitors to the Sefton Coast, typically visiting 17.1 times per year, while those from the rest of the Liverpool City Region typically visited 9.7 times per year. Those from outside the Liverpool City Region from the North-west of England typically visited 3.3 times per year.

5.23 The data suggest relatively short visits during the winter, for example interviewees in the Footprint Ecology survey were typically visiting for around an hour to an hour and a half, with typical visit durations ranging from 95 minutes (Formby) to 51 minutes (Ainsdale-on- sea). Around 70% of the Thompson Ecology interviewees were visiting for an hour or less. By contrast the Sefton Natural Coast interviewees (in 2011) were typically visiting for over 2 hours, and some 22% were visiting for more than 3 hours. Interestingly visit times were

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT suggested to have increased over time, with typical visit durations being 1 hour and 35 minutes in 2008.

5.24 The visit frequency is an important consideration for the emerging RMS because it is not just the type of recreation activity undertaken but the seasonality, frequency and duration of recreation activity. This is included within the method for the emerging strategy including the spatial distribution of new housing allocations as set out in the Local Plans.

Awareness of nature conservation issues

5.25 There is some evidence that visitors have a relatively low awareness of nature conservation issues, for example in the Footprint Ecology survey 26% of interviewees said they were not? aware of any designation or environmental protection, there were marked variation between points with higher levels of awareness at the two Dee survey points.

5.26 Interviewees were also asked for their awareness of any habitats or species which are vulnerable to the impacts of recreation occurring at the site they were visiting. Overall, 77% of interviewees (376) were unable to name any habitats or species. For those who could name some species or habitats, most related to breeding terns/waders on the beaches or wintering waterbirds (e.g. wildfowl, waders, geese). However, this differed greatly between different parts of the coast.

5.27 In the Sefton Natural Coast survey (2011), 26% of interviewees stated they were members of conservation organisations.

Reasons underpinning site choice

5.28 Being near to the coast/water was the most common reason given for visiting a site in the Footprint Ecology surveys, however close to home was the most commonly given single, ‘main’ reason.

5.29 In the Sands of Time study (2000) for Quality of Coastal Towns, visitors particularly liked peacefulness / landscape / environment / wildlife and walking and disliked included cleanliness and pollution, dogs and dog fouling, user conflicts and site management and safety issues.

5.30 The Sefton Natural Coast survey (2011) categorised visitor motivations, with motivations including recreation activities as well as a range of other factors. Walking the dog was the most common motivation across all interviewees (17% of interviewees), however there were differences comparing between types of visitor. For local residents, the most common motivation was walk the dog (26%) followed by walking (17%). For day visitors the beach/coast (18%) and squirrels (14%) were the main motivations.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT Visitor routes

5.31 The Footprint Ecology surveys involved mapping visitor routes as part of the interview. Overall, across all interviewees at the eight survey locations, the median route length was 3.5km. The median route length for a dog walk, the most common activity, was 2.81km. Long routes (median over 3.5 km) were conducted by those walking, cycling/mountain biking, jogging/power walking or meeting up with friends.

5.32 For 88% of interviewees at least part of the route had been within a European site boundary and 11% of all routes were entirely within the European sites, highlighting that access does take place within the areas important for nature conservation.

Visitor Origins

5.33 The Footprint Ecology survey was the only survey where detailed postcode data were available. These postcode data show that residents from each of the six Liverpool City Region authorities visit the coast. Pooling the data from the 8 Liverpool City Region survey points and considering only those interviewees on a short trip from their home, most interviewees were however from Sefton (30%) or the Wirral (54%). A total of 4% of interviewees were from Halton, 4% from Liverpool, 2% from Knowsley and 1% from St. Helens.

5.34 For interviewees from home only and arriving by car, the average distance was around 2.8km (median) or 5.5km (mean), with a minimum distance of just 340m. For those arriving on foot, the average was around 0.77km (median) or 1.73 km (mean), with a maximum of 16km (for an interviewee who was long distance running, at survey point 18).

5.35 Using the Footprint Ecology survey data from the relevant 8 survey points, we have extracted data on the number of interviewees at different distance bands away from the coast, in relation to the volume of housing in the same distance band. This allows us to show the extent to which visits per household to the coast decline with distance. These data are shown in Appendix 5 and show that visit rates decrease sharply with distance between 0-3km and then level out to a low and consistent level between 4 and 5km from the European sites.

5.36 In the 2011 Sefton Natural Coast survey, 51% of interviewees were from Sefton and a further 17% from elsewhere in the Liverpool City Region. Comparison of these results with the Footprint Ecology surveys1 indicates a much higher proportion of visitors to Sefton sites from other parts of the Liverpool City Region in the Natural Coast Survey. This could

1 See Appendix 4, Table 20 for a breakdown of origins by survey point for the Footprint Ecology survey locations

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT indicate that during the summer the open coast has a wider draw and attracts visitors from further afield.

5.37 The Thompson Ecology survey did not record visitor postcodes, however most interviewees said they lived within 5 miles (75%).

5.38 The Wirral visitor and stakeholder research study estimated found that 35% of all visitors came from within the Liverpool City Region. The study found that day visitors will travel up to 2hrs and 10 minutes from home (i.e. 79% use car and 13% use the train or ferry) while for staying visitors the figure was 2hrs & 20 minutes from home (i.e. 70% use car and 12% use the train or ferry).

Economic benefits

5.39 The Quality of Coastal Towns Interreg IIc Project estimated that by 2008 there would be 4.8 million visits annually to the Merseyside coast generating a total of £71.4 million.

5.40 The Wirral visitor and stakeholder research study found that the visitor economy within the Wirral was valued at over £385 million; employing over 5,000 FTE jobs and with over 8 million day & short break visitors each year.

5.41 The Sefton Local Plan (2017) recognises the economic value of the tourism economy for the Borough but particularly Southport is the main focus for tourism in Sefton and provides a tourism offer of coast, hospitality, shopping, seafront, Southport Pier and events. Over the last decade it is estimated that over £200m has been invested in the infrastructure of Sefton’s visitor economy, which supports over 4000 fte jobs.

5.42 Liverpool’s UNESCO World Heritage Site waterfront is internationally renowned and provides a focus for the City and visitors to the City Region. The visit motivators are for business, architecture, heritage and culture and quite different to much of the rest of the coast. The waterfront area is well provided for with the three Graces, Albert Dock, Museum of Liverpool, Merseyside Maritime Museum, International Slavery Museum, Tate Liverpool, and at least 4 hotels as well as a wide range of hospitality, eating and retail opportunities. The economic value of the tourism economy is vast and the Pier Head, with its iconic Mersey Ferries is the focus of many events for the City (e.g. Three Queens contributed £33m to the City Region economy in 2015 and the Giants return in 2019 generated £60m for the economy).

Sefton 2018 Visitor Survey Evidence

5.43 To support Sefton’s visitor economy aspirations and implementation of the Local Plan a coastal survey was commissioned. Between spring and winter 2018, Sefton Council commissioned a visitor survey at two locations on the Sefton Coast – Crosby and Ainsdale- on-Sea. These studies follow a method largely based on tourism surveys and not specifically for the purpose of assessing recreation use and impacts of that use on the coast

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT and European sites. The research was undertaken by North West Research (part of the Liverpool City Region Local Enterprise Partnership) and the reports at the time of writing (May 2021) remain draft.

5.44 The data provide post-code (visitor origin) information for non-Sefton resident use of the Sefton Coast. The data collected has been analysed as it provides limited new data to fill an identified gap in post-code evidence for recreation use of the Sefton coast outside of the winter period. This data is of very limited benefit to the emerging RMS because it did not survey or count Sefton residents using the coast at the two locations surveyed. It is understood that Sefton residents were not classified as visitors to Sefton and were therefore excluded from the sample. Therefore, the proportion of the users of the sites on Sefton’s coast who were Sefton residents is not known.

5.45 Nonetheless the surveys did suggest quite different visitor origins depending on the survey location for the two locations in Sefton. In general terms some broad conclusions can be drawn for spring and summer visitor origins as follows:

• Crosby - a relatively high proportion of visitors to Crosby come from the Liverpool City Region ranging between 36.8 – 56.9% of visitors with the largest proportion coming from Liverpool (between 18.4% and 38.7%). This is not surprising given the proximity to Liverpool and good accessibility by both car and rail. The relative proportion of visitors from the other Districts is much lower as follows Halton 3.9- 4.2%, Knowsley 5.3 to 7.7%, St. Helens 3.9% - 4.2% and Wirral 2.1 – 5.3%. • Crosby – visitors form adjacent City Regions account for between 25 – 30% of visitors as follows Cheshire (5.3 - 7.7%), Lancashire (17.1 – 17.6%) and Greater Manchester 0.7 – 15.8%) • Ainsdale-on-Sea – a much lower proportion of visitors to Ainsdale come from the Liverpool City Region ranging between 17.6 – 24.1%. Liverpool remains the highest LCR authority with between 10.1 – 11.3 %. The relative proportion of visitors from the other Districts is similar to Crosby as follows Halton <1.0% due to relative distance, Knowsley 1.3 – 3.2%, St. Helens 2.5 – 5.1% and Wirral 0.6 – 2.5%. • Ainsdale-on-Sea – visitors from adjacent City Regions account for a much greater proportion of visitors between 54 – 63% of visitors as follows Cheshire (8.8 – 15.2%), Lancashire (15.0 – 44.3%) and Greater Manchester (3.2 – 30.0%). This provides some evidence that this location may be more attractive to out of City Region visitors perhaps associated with the wider tourism offer associated with Southport and also due to proximity to West Lancashire also.

5.46 When compared to the wintering Footprint Ecology dataset, the Sefton 2018 spring/summer data suggest that for the Sefton sites only:

• A significant proportion of the visitors (non-Sefton residents) to the Sefton coast were from outside the Liverpool City Region. Adjacent counties and city regions contributed significantly and this appears to be at a higher proportion than that identified in the earlier Footprint Ecology work. Seasonal influences cannot be discounted and more survey is clearly justified;

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT • Evidence of visitors to the Sefton coast from the other Liverpool City Region Local Authority areas is weaker and percentages are lower than the previous Footprint Ecology work. These data suggest that the Sefton coast has a much wider draw as a destination than from the Liverpool City Region alone although this assumption can only be tested with additional survey.

5.47 As surveys have not been undertaken for the other coastal authorities to date, it is not possible to draw any conclusions on whether the Sefton 2018 survey results are at all representative of changes in visitor use elsewhere.

5.48 A small Green Sefton Ranger recreation user survey was also completed between October and November 2018 mainly in the Crosby area. The sample sizes were too small to draw any robust conclusions to be useful as evidence for this study. Additional primary recreation user survey is therefore recommended so that the emerging RMS is based on sufficiently robust evidence and the scope and timetable for this is set out in Section 10.

Survey Limitations

5.49 The geographic and temporal coverage of visitor surveys is quite variable with Sefton having the greatest coverage. Several survey limitations have been identified which need to be resolved for the emerging RMS to be sufficiently evidence-based to meet planning requirements. Comprehensive, up-to-date survey data set is required as evidence for the emerging RMS which:

• Consistently collects the same core data, including origination postcode of all users and frequency of visit.

• Addresses seasonal data on summer use (data on home postcodes of summer visitors across the coast).

• Surveys a larger range of coastal sites, such as the east side of the Wirral and the southern part of the Mersey Estuary.

• Surveys of accessible non-coastal locations e.g. large parks and potential locations for Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces.

COVID-19 (C-19) Pandemic

5.50 One of the impacts of C-19 is that movement and travel has been significantly restricted for a prolonged period including most of 2020 and is anticipated to still have impacts until summer 2021. Restrictions to international travel, national lockdowns and tiered movement restrictions have had an unpredictable and significant impact on the patterns of recreation use.

5.51 Whilst is make take several years to assess the impacts, evaluate the trends and identify any fundamental changes to the patterns of recreation use, key observations are as follows:

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT • Local use of blue, green and open spaces has increased beyond peak levels for protracted periods of time.

• Walking for families and older people has increased sharply.

• Pressure points and Gateways have been under substantial pressure particularly from local use and adjacent residential areas.

• Local people have explored and discovered their local environment.

• People have been creative at identifying alternative activities to provide fresh air and exercise.

• Out of area visits are expected to have decreased substantially due to travel restrictions.

• Active recreation has increased substantially with a 20’s to middle aged increase due to cessation of team sports and closure of indoor facilities including gyms.

5.52 The impact on sensitive coastal receptors is not clear but it is a reasonable conclusion that many of the indoor exercise segment more poorly understand issues of sensitivity of wildlife to recreation activity as evidenced by increased recreation / land owner conflict, littering and increased emergency services call outs.

5.53 If C-19 has taught us one thing it is that people use and hugely value their local green, blue and open spaces and consider it a right for free access. This has potentially major long- term impacts for recreation provisions.-

5.54 The timescale for collection of new survey data has been revised as there is no benefit in committing the limited public funds on survey until such time as the prospect of lockdowns and tiered restrictions have receded. This will be strongly influenced by vaccination programmes. Therefore, the timetable has been revised as follows:

• Earlies deployment of survey – June 2021.

• Earliest completion of survey – June 2022.

• Earliest consultation on RMS – November 2022.

• Earliest implementation date for RMS – June 2023.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Visitor survey data Visitor surveys provide important information on recreational use. We draw on a range of survey results above and are used to inform the draft Evidence Report. Data show:

• Survey geographical coverage varies with more data available for Sefton than other coastal authorities. • There is limited data on variation in visitor numbers through the year, but data for Sefton at least indicate a high summer peak, associated with day visitors. It is not known if there is a similar seasonal pattern on Wirral. • Dog walking is the main activity at most sites, accounting for just under two-thirds of interviewees in some surveys. • Other activities include walking, family outings, jogging, bird/wildlife watching, photography, cycling, bait digging. • Surveys indicate around 12% of interviewees were tourists during the late spring, summer and early autumn period while surveys reflect few (2%) tourist interviewees in the winter. • Data show variation in frequency of visits across sites, with high proportions of regular (i.e. daily/most days) visitors during the winter at locations such as West Kirby and Ainsdale-on-sea while at Formby data suggest a low proportion of regular visitors. • Close to home, proximity to coast/water and scenery/views are major factors drawing people to the coast (winter surveys). Beach/Coast was the main motivation in summer interviews with day visitors. • Typical walks (route lengths) for visitors during the winter are around 3km. • Interviewees at most sites during the winter appeared to have relatively low awareness of nature conservation issues, the Dee appeared to be the exception. • Winter visitors typically come from around 2.3km (median distance home postcode- survey point) with 75% living within 5.1km of the locations where interviewed. A low proportion of residents visit the coast at distances beyond 5km; data suggest the number of visits made by 1 household at 2.5km from the coast is equivalent to 9 dwellings at 7.5km. • Visitors bring economic benefits to the coast, on the Wirral alone the visitor economy has been valued at of £385 million and supports over 5000 fte jobs. • The LCR coast, especially on Wirral and in Sefton act as a significant draw for visitors outside of the City Region. • C-19 has had unprecedented impacts of recreation use and the consequences of the pandemic will take time to assess. • There is no benefit for the RMS in undertaking survey until C-19 pandemic is under control and the vaccination programme is substantially complete.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

6. Impacts of recreation

6.1 In this section we bring together ecological and visitor elements summarised in previous sections to highlight relevant nature conservation impacts relating to recreation on the European sites.

6.2 The vulnerability of interest features to recreational pressure is summarised in Table 2 (at the end of the section), according to the various impact pathways. An impact pathway is a route by which an impact could lead to an effect on a European site interest feature. Table 2 essentially summarises the key ways in which recreation has or could have an impact on relevant features of the European sites. This information is based on previous national reviews of impacts relating to public access and recreational pressure (e.g. Liley et al. 2010, Lowen et al. 2008, Edgar 2002). This table does not cover aspects of disturbance that are outside the scope of the emerging RMS, such as noise from infrastructure projects. These matters must still be dealt with by the competent authority at the plan and project level of HRA.

Winter and passage waterbirds

6.3 Disturbance has been identified by Natural England as a generic issue across many European sites (see Coyle & Wiggins 2010; Natural England 2015), and can be an issue for a range of species. Disturbance during the winter/passage period can result in:

• A reduction in the time spent feeding due to repeated flushing/increased vigilance (Fitzpatrick & Bouchez 1998; Stillman & Goss-Custard 2002; Bright et al. 2003; Thomas, Kvitek & Bretz 2003; Yasué 2005) • Increased energetic costs (Stock & Hofeditz 1997; Nolet et al. 2002) • Avoidance of areas of otherwise suitable habitat, birds potentially using poorer quality feeding/roosting sites instead (Cryer et al. 1987; Gill 1996; Burton et al. 2002; Burton, Rehfisch & Clark 2002) • Increased stress (Regel & Putz 1997; Weimerskirch et al. 2002; Walker, Dee Boersma & Wingfield 2006; Thiel et al. 2011)

6.4 The extent to which the above impact on the population or ability of a site to support a given population of birds will depend on other factors, such as weather conditions, prey distribution and prey abundance (Stillman et al. 2001; Goss-Custard et al. 2006; Stillman et al. 2007), which may all vary over time. When prey abundance is low, even relatively low levels of disturbance can directly affect survival rates (Goss-Custard et al. 2006).

6.5 Disturbance can be result from a range of different activities or events taking place on or around the shore. Activities on the intertidal or the water are more likely to result in a behavioural response from birds present, as are those involving dogs, particularly dogs off-

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT lead (e.g. Liley, Stillman & Fearnley 2010; Liley & Fearnley 2012). In the work across North- west estuary sites undertaken by Liley et al. (2017), dog walking was the cause of 77% of major flight events1 observed and 89% of the birds flushed. At roost sites, the large number of birds present means that single recreation events can affect a large number of birds (e.g. image shown in Figure 1).

6.6 Map 18 (see map annex) shows the extent of mudflat, the key habitat for waterbirds to feed at low tide. The map is drawn from the data in Ross et al. (2014) and also shows the mudflat that is within 60m of shoreline access. As part of the process of completing the RMS, more up-to-date data will be accessed e.g. Natural England MasterMap. The extent of mudflat will be reviewed prior to completing the RMS should more recent data be available. The distance of 60m reflects the area typically ‘disturbable’ by shoreline access. This is drawn from a range of studies and represents the distances within which birds will typically respond when people are present (see Ross et al. 2014 for details). While birds can respond at distances much greater than this – depending on activity type and a range of other factors – 60m represents a useful measure of the mudflat that is likely to be particularly affected from access along the edge of the estuary. It is useful to be able to visualise the proportion of the total intertidal areas that are affected by shore-based access. In general, these maps show that there are large areas of intertidal habitat well away from the shore and in general access along seawalls or similar will only be an issue where the routes bring people into close proximity to roost sites or areas where birds aggregate on rising/falling tides when little other habitat is exposed. Large sections of the European site coast in the LCR is however inaccessible due to the location of access points. It should be noted that Ross et al. used OpenStreetMap to identify where there were paths, tracks or other infrastructure close to the SPA boundary, to identify where shoreline access was possible. This approach included the south-east part of the Mersey where the Manchester Ship Canal creates a barrier. Mudflats here are therefore not ‘disturbable’.

6.7 Map 19 (shown in the map annex) is also drawn from Ross et al. 2014 and highlights the sections of shoreline that have the highest amount of existing housing nearby. The housing variable is weighted, based on typical travel distances to estuary sites (i.e. people who live nearby are more likely to visit and therefore houses nearby are weighted more than those further away). The map highlights areas of shoreline where we might expect the most recreational pressure from local residents, i.e. where there is more current housing within travel distance of the coast. Map 19 does not however take into account coastal accessibility in these locations as discussed in section 4 and 6.6. Areas with high accessibility values include the southern end of Sefton (Seaforth), the north and eastern sides of Wirral and the Liverpool and Halton shore of the Mersey. However, this mapped output does not take account of physical access to the shore which is known to be severely limited in some places due to location of low water channel (e.g. Eastham, Wirral), tall embankments and

1 A major flight event was defined as one where the birds took flight and were displaced more than 50m

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT seawalls (Pier Head to Festival Gardens, Liverpool), commercial areas (Port of Liverpool, Garston Dock) and for military purposes.

6.8 Access on intertidal habitats is of particular concern in terms of bird disturbance when birds are feeding. Recreational activities will include walkers, horse riders, dog walkers, runners, bait diggers, shell fishing, sand buggies/yachting and where visitors are drawn to coastal interest features such as the Gormley Art installation, rocky outcrops such as Red Rocks and Middle Eye, ship wrecks and coast defence and navigation structures. Within these activities, dogs off-leads are a particular issue, both because of the disturbance threat to the birds and greater area dogs can run. Very soft sediment areas (which can provide particularly rich feeding) and saltmarshes with deep creeks and channels will be largely inaccessible to all but the most intrepid. On some of the more open coastal areas of Sefton from around Hightown, Formby, Ainsdale to south of the pier at Southport and on the Wirral coast particularly at New Brighton, Leasowe Bay, Hoylake, Red Rocks and West Kirby north of the Marine Lake are firm enough for people to walk and visitors will range widely across the intertidal area, often kilometres from the shore. Such access opportunities do not exist for the estuarine coast in Halton and Liverpool.

6.9 Water-based activities will also bring people into close proximity to birds. Disturbance from watersports and boating activities may be most relevant around high tide and around roost sites/locations where birds congregate, however canoeists can access very shallow water in creeks and inlets, even at low tide. Further, kite surfers and windsurfers may walk across intertidal habitats and ‘set-up’ or ‘pack-up’ their equipment on rising/falling tides. The growth in wild swimming may also potentially disturb wildlife when swimming in high and low water channels on North Wirral, although the nature of the activity and seasonal variations means that the disturbance potential of sea swimmers is lower than other water- based activities. The attractiveness of the areas for water-based activities depends on complex local conditions including availability and control of access points (e.g. Wirral Council operate a boat launch permit scheme), availability of water of sufficient depth and for some orientation and prevailing winds. Sailing clubs for example tend to be located around accessible water and slipways as can be seen at Hoylake, West Kirby, New Brighton and Rock Ferry on Wirral, Liverpool Sailing Club in Speke in Liverpool and at Hightown in Sefton.

6.10 Passage and wintering birds are present on the coast from late July through to May, and it is therefore important to recognise that disturbance to waterbirds is not solely restricted to the winter. During late summer, early autumn visitor numbers can be particularly high, and birds have the added stress of migration. Numbers of birds do tend to be lower in the shoulder periods and it is in the period November to March that bird numbers peak. During the winter issues can be exacerbated by weather conditions, as prolonged cold temperatures can make feeding more difficult, limit feeding options and bring particular energetic requirements in terms of keeping warm. Some shorebirds are particularly vulnerable during severe winter weather (e.g. Clark et al. 1993).

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT 6.11 It is important to recognise functionally-linked land, which is used by the European site interest features but lies outside the European site boundaries. Functionally-linked land is particularly important for birds, which can be highly mobile. Low-lying, seasonally flooded land and agricultural land close to the coast can be important for roosting and feeding waterbirds. Sites may only be used in some years or under particular conditions but may be fundamental in terms of the European sites ability to support a given number of birds over a winter. Such sites may be vulnerable to recreation impacts and threatened by nearby development, new allocated housing sites, or changes in land-use and as such are highly relevant to the emerging RMS. In Map 5 (see map annex) we have included priority habitats that lie within a 1km radius of each European site and Map 12, while indicative, shows some of the areas outside the SPA sites that are used by birds; these were predominantly locations highlighted during the stakeholder workshop at Crosby Lakeside Adventure Centre as part of the evidence gathering process for this study (15 February 2018). The map is not comprehensive, but serves to highlight areas outside the European sites where disturbance could still have implications for the SPA bird populations.

6.12 The disturbance impact potential to wintering and passage birds from above ground activities including kites, kite surfing, powered hang gliders, motorised paragliders and drones are relatively new phenonium and may warrant further investigation if the popularity of these activities continues to increase. For example, drone operators are being urged to follow protocols in the Civil Aviation Drone Code to avoid disturbing concentrations of roosting, feeding and nesting birds. The disturbance effects seem to relate to visual and noise disturbance and potentially mimicking of predators and is an area of active research.

Breeding bird interest

6.13 Issues for disturbance to birds during the breeding season are slightly different to wintering/passage periods. During the breeding season, birds are particularly tied to breeding sites and disturbance can result in impacts to eggs or chicks as well as adult birds. Furthermore, the breeding season places energetic demands on birds (e.g. Thomson, Monaghan & Furness 1998) that may mean they can be particularly vulnerable to disturbance (Beale & Monaghan 2004). In addition to the impacts listed above for wintering/passage birds, during the breeding season disturbance can result in:

• Otherwise suitable habitat not being used for breeding (Liley & Sutherland 2007) • Poor breeding success compared to undisturbed areas (e.g. Watson, Bolton & Monaghan 2014); mechanisms for this include: direct loss of eggs or chicks through trampling (Liley & Sutherland 2007); increased predation from natural predators (Murison 2002; Brambilla, Rubolini & Guidali 2004) and increased levels of desertion (Beale & Monaghan 2004).

6.14 The breeding bird interest is mostly in areas where access is restricted and sites carefully managed (such as tern rafts). Ground nesting breeding birds are particularly vulnerable to recreation disturbance including for example Skylarks in the dunes at Crosby and Ainsdale

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT and Ringed Plover that tend to nest at the top of the beach often amongst the highest strand line detritus / shingle areas. Natterjack Toad

6.15 The habitat requirements and life history traits of the Natterjack Toad suggest that this species may be relatively unaffected by recreation pressure. Adults emerge after dark and so direct encounters with people and dogs are limited. They may benefit from the creation of bare ground through trampling. However, not enough is known about the impacts of potential changes in water quality. Direct damage to spawn strings can occur when dogs enter pools, resulting in failure to develop. It is not known how this may be affecting populations on the Sefton Coast but changes in hydrology and loss of wet slacks mean the population is already vulnerable. Ponds that lie on or close to routes used regularly by visitors, particularly those with dogs will be the most vulnerable.

Great-crested newt

6.16 Great-crested newts are vulnerable to disturbance during the breeding season but are unlikely to be affected by direct disturbance when on land. Larvae may be affected by the introduction of carnivorous fish (sometime deliberately introduced by visitors) while invasive non-native plants (deliberately or unintentionally introduced) can render ponds unsuitable for this species, as can heavy trampling of nearby vegetation. Great-crested newt has been observed to be absent from the most disturbed ponds (Edgar, 2002).

Petalwort

6.17 Petalwort is found in very open, low swards on compacted, moist ground often associated with dune slacks. Trampling is considered to play a key role in creating suitable habitat (e.g. Lake 2010) and Petalwort has been lost from sites where lack of grazing (rabbits or livestock) and trampling has allowed a taller grassy sward to develop (Fiona Sunners, pers. comm.). However, infrequently-used paths or less-trampled edges are preferred2 and excessive trampling/use by vehicles could lead to damage and the loss of individual plants/populations.

6.18 Petalwort is most vulnerable to direct damage during the autumn, winter and spring, as it may remain dormant underground during the summer. This period of dormancy is likely to coincide with the period of greatest visitor pressure, suggesting that it is relatively protected from direct damage.

6.19 Given that petalwort is typically located along the less trampled margins of paths, it may be vulnerable to an increase in recreation pressure at existing locations during autumn, winter and spring – although it may also benefit where additional suitable habitat in the form of new paths or trampled areas is created by trampling. If an increase in visitor pressure results in path widening, suitable habitat may still be found along the new path edge. However,

2 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/species.asp?FeatureIntCode=S1395

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT this may be an issue in narrow slacks, as the plant will not be able to colonise unsuitable habitat on the drier dune slopes. It is difficult to predict the population consequence of increased visitor pressure, and detailed monitoring will be the best way to determine changes.

Sand dune habitats

6.20 Sand dune systems are naturally dynamic and so the impacts of trampling may be beneficial where this increases the amount of mobile sand in over-stabilised systems. Light trampling has been shown to increase species-richness. However, excessive trampling will result in habitat deterioration due to a loss of species-richness, significant loss of vegetation cover and can lead to erosion in the most heavily used dune areas. Embryo dune communities are most vulnerable, as a small amount of trampling can have a disproportionately large effect. This is a particular issue where accretion is limited. Loss of embryo dunes will damage the ecological functioning of the sand dune system. The point at which the beneficial effects of increasing the dynamism of the dunes tips into irreversible damage is not known.

6.21 Sand dune communities are particularly affected by recreational pressure where they are traversed by visitors on the way to the beach (for example between car-parks and the sea, notably at Formby). In these high-pressure zones, recreational activity is likely to have a negative impact on the vegetation, and any increase in pressure will be detrimental. Impacts can occur year-round, but dunes are likely to recover most rapidly during the growing season.

6.22 On the Sefton Coast, visitor pressure is considered to be particularly high on about 40 days of the year (Joanne Hudson pers. comm.), which coincides with bank holidays, school holidays and sunny weather (e.g. Easter, Whitsun and summer holidays). This seasonality suggests that recovery of sand dune vegetation affected by trampling will be slowed, as it may not be able to take place during the growing season given that trampling levels are highest at this time.

6.23 Fire has an adverse effect on sand dune communities and can result in widespread loss of vegetation. Fires during the growing season may lead to seed bank loss that may affect the long-term dynamics of the dunes. Fires can accidentally start in a range of ways, including from barbeques, camp-fires, discarded cigarettes, sparks from engines (such as motorbikes) and from Chinese lanterns. Some studies have attributed a proportion of wildfires to arson, particularly young people (Kirby & Tantram 1999). Fires are likely to be more frequent in holiday periods and there have been multiple incidents along relatively short stretches of the Sefton coast in a single day (Joanne Hudson, pers. comm).

6.24 Eutrophication arising from dog (and human) faeces can result in localised vegetation change including the loss of species diversity and colonisation by non-dune species (Taylor et al. 2005). Contamination of water features can occur from dogs swimming in them, this

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT results in increased turbidity and potentially pollution (for example from flea powders or other chemicals in the dogs’ fur). Litter is a potential additional source of contamination, but in most cases is likely to be unsightly rather than having a real impact. Plastic is of particular concern and dog poo bags and plastic in the marine or aquatic environment can have impacts.

6.25 Sand dune system are often of importance for their invertebrate assemblages. While trampling may have a negative impact on some species, it can also create open habitat for others such as some aculeate Hymenoptera and beetles (including tiger beetles). It is difficult to generalise or to untangle impacts of direct trampling and disturbance from habitat modification. A population of a species that is already in decline or affected by another issue (e.g. invasive species, hydrological changes, climate change etc.) is likely to be more vulnerable to other factors including recreational pressure than if the population were otherwise unaffected. Sand dune invertebrates are most likely to be affected during the summer months, when nest burrows are vulnerable.

6.26 Livestock grazing is likely to be important to offset increased growth due to atmospheric nitrogen deposition (e.g. Plassmann, Jones & Edwards-Jones 2010). However, recreational pressure adds to the difficulty in grazing sites (e.g. through dog worrying, visitors’ anxiety around livestock, vandalism). Feedback from site managers indicates this is an issue at Sefton and it is an issue that has been widely addressed on other sites (e.g. Swanson 2005). Livestock grazing can also be important in reducing the rate of scrub encroachment (e.g. Lake, Bullock & Hartley, S. 2001). Grazing takes place in the summer and sheep worrying and impacts to grazing infrastructure will be relevant at this time of year.

6.27 Increased visitor numbers may make sensitive issues such as the appropriate management of the scrub and woodland more difficult. Previous work on the Sefton Coast (Edmondson & Velmans 2001) highlighted the considerable controversy caused by scrub clearance and tree felling, which was widely criticised in the local press and consumed a significant amount of staff time in conflict resolution. Edmonson & Velmans link some of the issues to public perception and a low understanding of the ecological issues. Such impacts on management will be year round although scrub clearance is undertaken during the winter.

6.28 Hydrological changes within the dune leading to the drying out of slacks (e.g. Clarke & Sanitwong Na Ayutthaya 2010) will compound any issues surrounding the loss of suitable habitat for amphibians through contamination or disturbance from dogs. There are challenges in fencing out areas in dynamic habitats and features will change location over time.

6.29 The dynamic nature of the habitat will also mean that recreation use is likely to shift over time. Habitat change (e.g. scrub encroachment) may result in increased visitor pressure in key areas for qualifying species of the Sefton Coast SAC.

6.30 A further risk from increased recreational use is an increased desire for beach cleaning activities detrimental to the formation of drift line and embryo dune communities. Such

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT issues highlight the increasing challenges to relevant organisations to balance demands from visitors and nature conservation issues (e.g. Gilburn 2012).

6.31 Key threats and pressures directly related to recreation and identified with the combined Site Improvement Plan for the Sefton Coast SAC and Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA are:

• Authorised parking on Ainsdale Beach is interrupting the development of the Green Beach (pressure/threat) • Dune, foreshore species and habitat may be disturbed through recreational activities (threat) • Localised nutrient enrichment of dune flora by dog fouling and disturbance of dune slacks by dogs (threat)

6.32 Figure 1 provides some visual illustrations of the trampling impacts seen at the Sefton Coast, and includes an aerial image of the area around Lifeboat Road. Map 11 provides a summary of the distribution of vulnerable dune features on the Sefton Coast.

Saltmarsh, mudflat and sandflat habitats

6.33 Recreational impacts on saltmarsh vegetation are generally not problematic as access is limited by the nature of the habitat, which is also more resilient than sand dune. However, trampling (and off-road vehicle use) can cause loss of vegetation cover and carries the risk of erosion at a much wider level (e.g. Lowen et al. 2008). Marshes with poorly drained soils made up of fine sediment and pioneer communities are the most vulnerable. Within the Liverpool City Region, saltmarsh is mainly found north of Ainsdale, within the Dee Estuary and on the Mersey (see Map 5 in the map annex). Access is limited in some areas and overall recreation impacts are not considered to be an issue to the vegetation. Disturbance to birds is a particular issue on saltmarsh.

6.34 Disturbance to birds is also an issue on sandflat and mudflat. Some areas within the intertidal zone may be vulnerable to trampling, particularly biogenic reefs3 that can be accessible from shore at low tides e.g. from West Kirby to Hilbre.

COVID-19 Pandemic

6.35 The impacts of C-19 have yet to be assessed. Greater coast use by those less familiar with disturbance issues is highly likely to have increased the disturbance, conflict and activity displacement including social distancing. It is also too early to draw firm conclusions on whether the increases including “off-holiday season” use is transient or permanent change. Clearly, this has a significant impact on recreation and access provision and capacity.

3 http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/2986296

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT Table 1: Impact pathways on interest features potentially vulnerable to recreational pressure. Relevant months describe when the impact can occur

Pathway Interest feature Relevant months Source/evidence Notes Impacts will vary according to Many, e.g. Ross et weather, prey availability and prey al. (2012); Stillman Wintering and passage waterbirds July-May distribution. Activities on the et al. (Stillman et al. intertidal or around roost sites most 2012) relevant. Disturbance Medeiros et al. Disturbance may result in otherwise Breeding terns April-July (2007); (Ratcliffe et suitable habitat being unused or al. 2008) reduced breeding success. Great-crested newt during breeding March-July Edgar 2002 Dogs or people entering the water season All year (can be dormant E.g. through abrasion from heavy Petalwort underground during trampling/vehicles dry summers) Direct damage The characteristic plants found in the Sand dune and salt marsh habitats All year Lowen et al 2008 unstable substrate of early successional stages are vulnerable Spawn and toadlets can be damaged Natterjack Toad April-July Edgar 2002 by dogs in slacks. All year, but particularly growing Vulnerable to fire e.g. caused by Fire Sand dune habitats Lowen et al 2008 season (around April- barbeques August) May be outcompeted by more All year, particularly Petalwort coarse vegetation if the substrate autumn- spring Eutrophication becomes nutrient-enriched through dog Excessive eutrophication leading to faeces/urine coarse species locally outcompeting Sand dune habitats All year Lowen et al 2008 characteristic dune species is likely to be a particular issue on fixed

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Pathway Interest feature Relevant months Source/evidence Notes dunes and dune grassland (where fresh sand is no longer deposited). All year, but Trampling can create short swards Natterjack Toad particularly breeding Edgar 2002 and bare ground (a preferred season April-July microhabitat for adults) Trampling may alter habitat around All year, but slacks and interfere with directional Great-crested newt particularly breeding Edgar 2002 cues left by adults for neomorphs season (April-May) leaving the water Found where light trampling creates All year (particularly short turf around slacks but may be Petalwort autumn- spring lost from areas where trampling is excessive Trampling can lead to a decrease in Trampling – loss of species richness, vegetation cover vegetation, creation and irreversible damage may occur. of bare ground However, trampling will increase the amount of mobile sand, which may Liley et al 2010, Sand dune habitats All year be beneficial in system that have Lowen et al 2008 become overly stabilised, although causing erosion in others. Embryo dunes are particularly vulnerable – loss of embryo dunes will affect wider dune system Trampling can result in a loss of vegetation cover, but the vegetation Liley et al 2010, Salt marsh habitats All year is more resilient than that of sand Lowen et al 2008 dunes and recreational pressure tends to be much less Contamination e.g. All year, particularly Denton & Groome Adverse impacts of insecticides and Natterjack Toad through dog spot- April-July 2017 anthelmintics possible

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Pathway Interest feature Relevant months Source/evidence Notes on treatments and cleaning products Introduction of Direct impact on eggs/tadpoles, carnivorous Natterjack Toad; All year Edgar 2002 indirect impacts through habitat fish/non-native Great-crested newt change (loss of open water) plants Increased water turbidity as a result Natterjack Toad; May have detrimental effects on April-July Edgar 2002 of dogs/people Great-crested newt adults, eggs and larvae entering ponds Public opposition to habitat management (e.g. scrub clearance, Natterjack Toad All year Edgar 2002 grazing) leading to unsuitable habitat and increased competition (e.g. increase in Common Toad). As above - lack of grazing could lead to loss of suitable habitat; grazing Petalwort All year management hindered by high visitor numbers and risk of sheep Indirect effects worrying. Public opposition to management (grazing, scrub clearance); vandalism; staff time diverted from conservation management; difficulty in Sand dune habitats All year establishing/maintaining grazing management (deterring graziers and staff time) and risks to livestock from dogs. None identified Sea and River Lampreys

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Impacts of recreation Ways in which recreation can impact on the European site interest features are:

• Disturbance (impacts to birds from the presence of people, dogs etc. and impacts to other vulnerable species such as reptiles and amphibians) • Direct damage (e.g. direct harm to vulnerable features from erosion or collection of shellfish) • Fire (e.g. from barbeques or arson) • Eutrophication (through dog faeces/urine) • Trampling/loss of vegetation • Contamination (e.g. pollution and nutrient enrichment of ponds, plastic pollution – directly discarded by recreation users) • Indirect effects (public opposition to management, difficulty in grazing etc.)

These impacts, at least in certain parts of the coast, will be exacerbated by climate change and coastal change which may result in a diminishing capacity to cope with recreational pressure.

Areas where birds gather to roost, e.g. the groynes along the North Wirral or Hilbre Island are locations where single events can flush large numbers of birds, such disturbance may displace birds and will have energetic costs which might have an impact on breeding success or migration / cold weather survival. Either side of high tide terrestrial activities, including dog walking, can cause such disturbance, at high tide watersports and water-based activities may have impacts.

Key breeding bird locations are mostly protected from disturbance or inaccessible.

Sand dune habitats will be vulnerable to trampling all year round, but intense trampling during busy periods in the spring and summer (when visitor numbers peak) will coincide with the growing season and be particularly damaging. Areas close to access points, car-parks and near major routes are most vulnerable.

Petalwort is most vulnerable to direct damage (from trampling) during the autumn, winter and spring. It typically occurs in areas of short sward in dune slacks. Some trampling may be beneficial but high levels of trampling will be damaging.

Dog fouling is an impact all year round and may be especially important on nutrient poor sand dune and dune heath habitats.

Fires are a particular threat on sand dune habitats during dry weather and in the spring/summer fires are more damaging. Fires are thought to be more frequent during the holiday season and fires may be caused by barbeques, beach fires and also arson.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Figure 1: Selected images showing examples of some current recreation issues. Aerial image shows the path network at Lifeboat Road, Sefton (image reproduced under open government licence and downloaded from the Channel Coast Observatory). Middle image shows trampling of dune habitats on a main route at Formby Point; lower image disturbance to Oystercatchers and Sanderling along the North Wirral foreshore.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

7. Housing, future growth & other context

This section provides the context for growth within the Liverpool City Region in terms of its growth as key part of the Government’s northern powerhouse agenda, and an analysis of the current and future situations in relation to residential development within the six Liverpool City Region local planning authorities. Quoted housing numbers are likely to change over time as housing applications are consented.

City Region planning context

The six local planning authorities are each at different stages of production of their local plans. Each local planning authority has locally specific issues and circumstances to manage whilst delivering the required growth for their local area. Development viability is of concern to each of the authorities.

The Combined Authority is working strategically across the six local planning authorities to take forward a City Region wide growth programme. There is an agreed Statement of Co-operation between the 6 local authorities and the Combined Authority which largely reflects the division of responsibility between the two tiers of public authority. Through the Devolution Deal the Liverpool City Region Mayor is responsible for the preparation of a Liverpool City Region Spatial Development Strategy (SDS). The policy coverage of the SDS has not yet been established because the evidence collection process was only recently completed late 2019 as part of the LCR Listens initiative. Work is currently (May 2021) underway in defining the scope of SDS policies and consulting on initial policy proposals.

The Liverpool City Region is an area of significant and focussed growth. Large infrastructure projects are planned for, and in development, in the Liverpool City Region which are championed by various agencies. For example, the Atlantic Gateway, which has a private sector led Board, aims to maximise investment into the Atlantic Gateway area and support the delivery of major projects by Local Enterprise Partnerships (Cheshire and Warrington, Liverpool City Region and Greater Manchester) and other key partners.

Large-scale projects are of relevance to the emerging RMS because of the scale and location of housing provision, for example. The draft Evidence Report including the Interim Measures will assist the Local Authorities in meeting their responsibilities under the Habitats Regulations because it will provide a consistent evidence base upon which to draw as well as an “opt in” interim method and financial contribution approach.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT Large scale projects include the Liverpool Airport Expansion masterplan, Liverpool 2: the trebling of the container port capacity and the Mersey Gateway 6 lane bridge. The airport is within Liverpool, but it is in close proximity to Knowsley and Halton districts. The expansion plans include a Coastal Reserve Footpath Project. This Evidence Report will also assist the Local Plan process because it will provide a consistent evidence base and timetable for completion of the RMS.

The Mersey Gateway 6 lane bridge opened on Saturday 14th October 2017. It is a new six lane toll bridge over the Mersey between the towns of Runcorn and Widnes. It will relieve the congested and ageing Silver Jubilee Bridge.

There are some considerable environmental constraints in the Liverpool City Region. It is vulnerable to flooding (coastal, fluvial and pluvial) and there is a risk from blocked damaged and overloaded drainage infrastructure.

The Liverpool City Region Growth Strategy and Local Industrial Strategy recognises tourism as one of the key sectors for the growth of the Liverpool City Region. Tourism growth is also an objective explicitly stated in the local plans for the Wirral, Liverpool and Sefton.

Several environmental initiatives are taking place alongside the SDS which are of relevant to mitigating recreation pressure. Nature Connected as the local nature partnership and the recently established Climate Partnership are both strategic partnerships that seek to co-operate across the City Region on environmental issues. Strategic initiatives that may provide evidence for the emerging SDS include the Green Infrastructure Framework, LCR Ecological Network, emerging Natural Capital Baseline and emerging Carbon baseline.

The Combined Authority approved joint working to prepare the RMS and is part of the project steering arrangements. However, the relationship between the emerging SDS and the strategic approach to avoid and mitigate recreation pressure from housing has yet to be defined. As a formal public body, the Combined Authority is also a competent authority and the preparation of the LCR SDS will require an HRA to support it. This draft Evidence Report does have potential to assist the SDS process but is subject to agreement by the Combined Authority.

This draft Evidence Report focusses on residential growth where that might impact on the European sites. However, there is a rapid progression of a wide range of large economic and tourism projects that have the potential to have notable implications for the European sites which might also have implications for the European sites. Whilst it is reasonable to assume that these projects will be assessed as part of consented processes or as part of strategy preparation it is imperative that the potential impacts and mitigation requirements are considered at a strategic and City Region level, as multiple piecemeal mitigation schemes could fail to achieve the

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT potential of a more strategic approach and could act in conflict with each other. For example, loss of functionally linked land, outside but with an important function for European sites, is an important consideration because it is difficult for individual habitat creation projects for any specific loss of functionally linked land to fully account for habitat connectivity and combined functionality across the City Region. This work is outside the scope of the current project and its funding but given the urgent need to progress this strategic consideration, and the implications for the European sites, it is flagged here.

Local plan HRAs for each local planning authority

Each of the six local planning authorities is undertaking, or has undertaken a HRA of their local plan, the progression of which will relate to the current stage of plan making. The HRAs assess the proposed growth within the local plans, and the HRA work to date for each of the six local planning authorities highlights recreation pressure as a risk as a result of the proposed new residential growth in the emerging or adopted local plans. These conclusions are the reason for the commissioning of the RMS. The local planning authorities, as competent authorities need to demonstrate compliance with the Habitats Regulations in both their local plan and planning application process. For some of the more recent HRAs, specific reference to the emerging RMS or the need for an additional mitigation strategy is made.

At the time of preparing this draft Evidence Report the following progress had been made on individual local plans, their HRAs and supporting evidence. For those plans yet to be adopted, the final stages of plan making will now be informed by the progression of this strategy. Earlier HRAs have a less explicit reference given the development of the concept of an RMS over time as a solution to recreation pressure.

Halton Borough Council

The Spatial Vision in the 2012 Submission Draft Core Strategy Local Plan states that: “A growth in sustainable tourism will be focused on the quality of the Borough’s natural environment; built heritage; country parks; and coastline, with appropriate visitor facilities at Birkenhead, New Brighton, Leasowe, Hoylake, West Kirby, Thurstaston and along the Mersey coast, managed to avoid harm to European Sites and their supporting habitats”. This is then reflected in the Broad Spatial Strategy and policies for individual settlement areas. The emerging local plan for the Halton Borough is at First Draft stage of plan making. A HRA report to support the public consultation has been produced and is available as a supporting document for the emerging local plan on the Halton Borough Council website. The HRA identifies a number of potential impacts on the coastal European sites of the Liverpool City Region as a result of growth within Halton. Recreation pressure is identified as a risk

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT within the HRA in terms of disturbance to SPA birds, and trampling of habitat features, and habitat used by species features of the Sefton Coast SAC. For both these matters, the HRA acknowledges that preparation of an RMS for managing the impacts of visitors has been committed to by the six Liverpool City Region local planning authorities. It recommends that the local plan incorporates wording to commit Halton Borough Council to the strategy. It is therefore anticipated that as the Halton Local Plan progresses further, this strategy will be described more explicitly in later iterations of the plan.

Halton commissioned in 2019 additional evidence collection including non-breeding bird survey to inform potential site allocations as part of their Local Plan. Avian Ecology undertook the non-breeding bird survey of fields within 600m of the Mersey Estuary SPA during 2018/18 (Avian Ecology, Report REF-Halto-536-1098, 26/7/2019). These data were also used to inform the HRA report of the Local Plan and proposed allocations.

Halton submitted the Delivery and Allocations Local Plan 2 March 2020. Publication of Matters, Issues and Questions September 2020, followed by Hearing Statements October 2020 and projected Initial Hearings Open 2020. The Examination process is currently on-going and a statement of common ground with Natural England with respect to recreation pressure was agreed late 2020.

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

The Knowsley Local Plan Core Strategy has been adopted since January 2016. The HRA supporting the local plan for Knowsley assesses recreation pressure on the coastal European sites and highlights the need for Knowsley Borough Council to work to resolve this potential impact with the other Merseyside authorities, MEAS, Natural England and Countryside Council for Wales (note this statutory nature conservation body is now referred to as Natural Resources Wales). The HRA recommends provision of suitably located green infrastructure and enhanced access management at the European sites, to be informed by survey data. Tourism has not generally been a key factor for Knowsley, although Knowsley Safari Park attracts around 500,000 visitors every year. However, the Knowsley Local Plan Core Strategy (January 2016) supports the development of tourism facilities in Policy CS4 (Economy and Employment), and Policy CS14 specifically supports the growth of cultural and leisure facilities in Prescot town centre, drawing on the potential of Knowsley Safari Park and the town’s historic assets. Since the Local Plan Core Strategy was adopted, Shakespeare North’s proposals for a new Playhouse theatre in Prescot have been supported and approved by the Borough Council to help meet its growth and diversification ambitions.

Guided by the Knowsley Local Plan, sustainable urban extension projects are advanced through the master planning and planning application process. Recreation 69

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT pressure is taken into accounted through updates to the Local Plan HRA via the joint HRA contract and through project level HRAs to support planning applications.

Liverpool City Council

The new local plan for Liverpool is currently being prepared by Liverpool City Council. The Liverpool Local Plan local plan went through public consultation at the end of 2016 and again in early 2018 on the pre-submission draft of the plan.

The HRA report accompanying the emerging local plan was most recently updated in August 2019. It provides recommendations for mitigating for the effects of recreation pressure in light of an understanding that this strategy will be taken forward. It advises that the strategy should be prepared in a timely manner, early in the plan period, and should be undertaken in conjunction with the other Merseyside authorities.

Liverpool City Council submitted the Submission Draft Liverpool Local Plan for independent examination in May 2018. In December 2018 the independent Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State sent a list of initial detailed comments and questions to the City Council. Recreation pressure has been identified by the Planning Inspector as one of the matters that may be examined. Liverpool City Council is in the process of responding to the issues raised by the Inspector through a five-fold approach as follows: (i) seeking a main modification to the Local Plan policy EC7 (ii) updating the HRA Report for the Local Plan via AECOM (from April 2019 version) (iii) advancing this Evidence Report with an aim to publish the available evidence (iv) Developing an Interim Guidance and Information Note and (v) seeking to agree a Statement of Common Ground with Natural England on the issues and matter raised.

The Examination timetable is set out below with the Hearings due to open 18 August 2020 and it is apparent that recreation pressure issues need to be advanced prior to commencement of the Examination. The Examination hearings commenced in October 2020 and a more detailed timetable is included below. The examination process is on-going with Liverpool City Council responding to the Post Hearings Advice and preparing main modifications to the Local Plan.

Date Examination stage

Inspector’s response to the Council’s 21 February 2020 comments

The Council to prepare appropriate 6 March 2020 modifications at the Inspector’s request

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT 5 May 2020 Matters and issues to be published

5 May 2020 Inspector’s Guidance Notes to be issued

6 July 2020 Submission date for hearing statements

Hearings open (these are likely to last for 13 October 2020 approximately 2 weeks 18-21 August; 25-28 August

11 November 2020 Inspector issues Port Hearings Advice letter.

Sefton Council

The Sefton Local Plan was adopted in April 2017. The HRA supporting the local plan provides a detailed assessment of the impact of recreation pressure, particularly on the Sefton Coast SAC, but also the SPAs. The HRA recognises that there are a number of measures in place to manage recreation pressure, but that these are unlikely to be enough to prevent adverse effects on European sites as a result of increased residential growth and further tourism. The HRA states that Sefton Borough Council will need to work with the other Merseyside authorities, MEAS, Natural England and Natural Resources Wales to develop a strategy for the delivery of enhanced access management, informed by visitor survey data.

Since the production of the HRA and adoption of the Sefton Local Plan, Sefton Borough Council has recognised the need for an interim approach to mitigating for the impact of increased recreation pressure, in light of the volume of housing currently coming forward, which will gain approval prior to the adoption of the emerging RMS. This interim approach applies to proposals for 85 or more dwellings (net additional units). Applicants must consider and include measures that will mitigate recreation pressure, with examples for both on and off-site mitigation set out in the Nature Conservation SPD. Where financial contributions are sought, these initially involved a payment of £2,050 per dwelling as the starting point for project- specific assessment. The payment is amended annually according to Sefton’s published fees and charges.

In February 2020 Sefton Council has indicated that they would be amenable to reviewing their approach to bring into closer alignment with any agreed LCR strategic approach. Sefton would also consider accepting the >10 home threshold and lower payment amount as an interim measure provided that it is sufficiently evidenced and awareness raising delivered. Sefton Local Plans team confirmed that the Local Plan will be reviewed before April 2022, in line with the requirements of NPPF, but in any case, policy NH2 applies. 71

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT St. Helens District Council

St. Helens Borough Council is currently preparing a new Local Plan. The Local Plan 2020-2035 Submission Draft was the subject of consultation between January and May 2019. In relation to the issue of recreational pressure the Local Plan Submission Draft’s supporting HRA report indicates that the Council has made a commitment to work with the other LCR local authorities and partners to devise a framework for the delivery of enhanced access management to the Mersey Estuary SPA and Mersey Estuary Ramsar site, to be informed by the collation of visitor survey data. The HRA concludes that the Local Plan should commit the Council to participating in the delivery of an access management plan, commensurate with the scale of its contribution to visitor pressure in the SPA/Ramsar site.

Local Plan Submission Draft Policy LPC06: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, states that the Council has made a commitment to work with other authorities and partner organisations in the City Region to quantify the cumulative impact of increased recreational pressure and to identify a strategic and consistent approach to any mitigation that is required. The Council is also in the process of updating its 2011 Biodiversity SPD to take account of recreation pressure effects.

The Council submitted the Local Plan for Examination in October 2020, and the Examination of the Plan is currently underway.

Wirral Borough Council

Wirral Borough Council had previously made progress with its local plan, and for several reasons including Government advice has recommenced earlier stages of plan making. The Council has now decided to prepare a single Local Plan and consulted under Regulation 18 on an Issues and Options Consultation document between January and April 2020. This document set out a Locally Assessed housing need (using the standard method) of 12,000 dwellings over the 15-year plan period or 800 per annum. The Council’s preferred Option 1A aimed to meet development needs without the need for Green Belt Release. Option 1B was the same as 1A but proposed adoption of a stepped housing trajectory. Due to a potential shortfall of 2,500 dwellings, two Green Belt options were also included for consultation.

The Council is currently preparing the full submission draft Local Plan. The revised Local Plan period is 2020 – 2037. The submission draft Local Plan will meet housing needs for the plan period to 2037 within the existing urban area, to promote urban regeneration and the reuse of brownfield sites. It is not the Council’s intention to release land from the Green Belt. The Council aims to publish the Submission Draft Local Plan under Regulation 19 in the second half of 2021.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT Work proceeds with further evidence gathering to inform future stages of the Local Plan. AECOM prepared a HRA Report to inform the Regulation 18 consultation stage and recreation pressure was clearly identified as one of the issues requiring a policy and strategic response.

Plan-level Habitats Regulations Assessments (HRAs)

The six local planning authorities are each at different stages of production of their Local Plans. Wirral Borough Council is aiming to publish its submission draft Local plan in the second half of 2021. Previous and emerging HRA work recognises recreational disturbance as an issue and identified a need for cross-authority collaboration and this is integrated into the plan timetable moving forward.

For the other five local authorities, recent HRA work at a local plan level has identified impacts from recreation to European sites and identified the need for a cross-authority mitigation approach.

Sefton’s Local Plan was adopted in 2017 and Sefton have since established an interim mitigation approach for recreation impacts. This has involved a tariff (>£2,000), updated annually for all developments of 85 or more dwellings and has been applied to some residential development projects since then.

Whilst outside the scope of this strategy and its funding, in light of the large size and number of economic development projects coming forward, the urgent need to progress a strategic consideration of loss and replacement of functionally linked land as part of economic growth is flagged here.

Current housing distribution

The HRAs discussed above have identified issues relating to additional housing being associated with additional recreational use. It is important to understand the links between housing and recreation use. There is evidence that sites with more housing around them have higher levels of recreation (Liley, Jackson & Underhill-Day 2006; Stillman et al. 2012) and it would seem intuitive that the level of local housing is related to the amount of people and therefore recreational use. However, it is not necessarily the case that there is a direct linear relationship between housing and visitor use. Average occupancy levels may change over time and increases in housing may change the types of housing in an area which may also influence the type of

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT people living there. Such changes are difficult to predict and have confidence about in-perpetuity, and this means it would be difficult to rule out adverse effects on integrity on this basis. Furthermore, provision of housing closer to the coast has the potential to re-distribute where people live, such that even in the absence of any change in population, impacts are still possible.

In order to assess the implications of new growth and interpret visitor data, an understanding of the current distribution of housing across the Liverpool City Region is required. Postcode data1 of housing within each district of the Liverpool City Region is shown in Table 3. The density of this housing is shown using a 500m hexagonal grid in Map 20 (see map annex).

Table 1: Summary of the current level of housing within each Liverpool City Region district (base date April 2019)

Approximate Total number of Residences per LCR District area (ha) residential properties ha

Halton 8,452 56,316 6.66 Knowsley District 8,623 66,620 7.73 St. Helens District 11,183 82,101 7.34 Sefton District 14,758 124,726 8.45 Wirral District 13,593 147,393 10.84 Liverpool District 15,727 212,308 13.5 Total 72,336 689,464 54.52

Using the combined extent covered by all the European designations (SPA, SAC, Ramsar) in the area we examined the volume of housing surrounding the sites as a whole. This is shown in Figure 2 to show the level of housing within each distance band away from the European sites. Housing outside of the Liverpool City Region districts is not included, as the full extent of all European site areas would cover an extremely large area (for example the Liverpool Bay SPA extends as far as Anglesey).

Figure 2 shows the current level of housing within the Liverpool City Region districts which falls within 1km of the European sites is approximately 107,000 houses, rising to 283,000 dwellings within 2.5km and 466,000 houses within 5km.

1 Postzon data with number of residential properties, as of February 2017 74

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Figure 1: The current volume of housing within 500m buffers away from the combined area of European sites. Note housing outside of the Liverpool City Region districts is not shown.

The volume of current housing around separate European sites is shown in Figure 3, and the shading highlights the relative contribution from each authority. Housing axis scales differ for each site, but show the highest levels of housing around the Mersey at around 3 km and 8 km, the Ribble and Alt at around 10 km and the North Wirral and Mersey Narrows SPA at around 4 km. For the Sefton Coast, current housing numbers peak at around 11km. For the Dee there is a marked step in housing at around 7km, much of which is on the Welsh side. The high volumes of housing and location of Liverpool and Wirral districts around the coast mean these districts feature highly in almost all figures.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Figure 2: The current volume of housing around each European site (Mersey Ramsar, Dee SPA, Sefton Coast SAC, North Wirral and Narrows SPA, Ribble Alt Ramsar), in 500 m bands extending up to 15 km away (note a variable housing sale is used). Housing is categorised each LCR district with additional housing outside of the LCR districts also shown. Inset maps show the area of the protected feature and extent of the bands within the context of the LCR districts.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Current housing around European sites There are currently around 690,000 dwellings within the LCR.

Around 107,000 (i.e. 15%) of these dwellings fall within 1km of at least one European site and around 466,000 (68%) dwellings are within 5km.

The Mersey is the only European site where all six authorities have current housing within a 15km radius. There is no housing within Halton and St.Helens that is within 15km of the other European sites relevant to the emerging RMS.

The Mersey stands out as the European site with the highest volume of adjacent housing, with the most development nearby.

Future housing distribution and local plans

Within the Liverpool City Region

Housing growth for the six local planning authorities in the Liverpool City Region is summarised in Table 4. The figures take account of housing delivery early in the Local Plan periods to April 2019 and housing delivery has been subtracted from overall Local Plan requirement. The table sets out the policy requirements for strategic mitigation, whether or not the local planning authorities have put the Community Infrastructure Levy in place for gathering developer contributions towards infrastructure, and also includes any additional information that is relevant to this Evidence Report and emerging strategy.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Table 2: Summary of relevant local plans. *Figures taken from adopted policy and adjusted for housing delivery up to and including April 2019.

Remaining Housing unconsented dwelling

housing per Authority and requirement annum Policy requirement for strategic mitigation CIL status? Comments Document (ha) 2019 onwards from Plan period Plan (on large May Employment land land Employment Adoption (Reg 26) (Reg Adoption sites) 2019

HALTON The Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan, Policy HE3: Halton’s Waterways and Waterfronts, states that "Proposals within or adjacent to Coastal Change Management Areas Delivery and (as shown on the Policies Map) will be supported where the This has been Allocations Local proposal requires a coastal location and: a. The proposal scoped, but not Updated housing Plan 2014- 200 relates to the recreational use of the area and is of a scale implemented. A requirement set out in Summer 19 2,388 133 (incorporating 2037 (gross) and nature which will not adversely affect the landscape whole plan viability Halton Interim Approach, revised Core quality, nature conservation, and archaeological value of assessment is to December 2020. Strategy policies) the coast; or b. The proposal is necessary for reasons of commence shortly. human health or public safety or for beneficial consequences of primary importance for nature conservation." KNOWSLEY No steps yet taken Policy CS8 Green Infrastructure to implement CIL. Viability is an issue. The Maintenance and Enhancement of Knowsley's Existing Policy CS27 refers Borough has high levels of Green Infrastructure Clause 2g: "Work in partnership with to set charges, deprivation, the housing other districts and relevant bodies at a landscape scale to infrastructure tariffs market is depressed and 2010- Core Strategy Jan 16 5,284 587 164 minimise the impact of development upon Knowsley's and CIL. Clause 7 of there are some areas of 2028 existing biodiversity and geological assets, and sustain the this policy outlines contamination. protection afforded to internationally important sites, the impact of The development of including supporting habitat, for biodiversity outside of the viability and how Shakespeare North may borough." negotiations would increase visitor pressure. take place. LIVERPOOL 78

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Remaining Housing unconsented dwelling

Housing target already met as explained in Liverpool Interim Approach, October 2020. Discussions are on-going regarding the Coastal Reserve Footpath Project and Reference to Visitor Management Strategy in Policy GI 5 England Coast Path. Protection of Biodiversity and Geodiversity, paragraph Cannot identify a 12.28: The Council will work with the Sefton Coast Tourism development is an need for CIL. There Landscape Partnership to commence delivery of the Sefton important element of the is no viability Coast Plan Visitor Management Strategy within 12 months local economy. This is likely assessment yet. of Liverpool Local Plan adoption, thus ensuring that no to be city focused tourism Liverpool has many 2013- adverse effects on the integrity of Sefton Coast SAC or with an emphasis on culture Local Plan Late 2021 0 0 marginal sites, the 2033 Ribble & Alt Estuaries SPA and Ramsar site arise from (music and football in poor economy, housing growth through recreational pressure. The Council particular). housing market and will also work with partners including Halton Council to ground conditions devise a similar Visitor Management Strategy to protect the CIL is of limited benefit when all impact upon Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar site from increased taking since the majority of viability. recreational pressure within the first five years of the plan housing and employment period, as needed. growth with the Local Plan period to 2033, is already identified through extant planning permissions. The City Council is working in liaison with Natural England to develop an interim policy approach to address 79

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Remaining Housing unconsented dwelling

recreational disturbance and it will seek to promote a Main Modification to its submitted Local Plan policy to support and align with that approach and in the emerging LCR strategic approach.

SEFTON The European site mitigation SPD commenced implementation before the RMS is completed. Developer Site specific HRAs are required for some planning On hold. Draft 123 contributions need to be 369 applications. Schedule produced directed to implement 2012- Local Plan Apr-17 4,151 (2019- There is an SPD and information note setting out an interim in 2017, but no mitigation measures through 2030 2030) approach for European site mitigation that has been in decision to be planning agreements until he place since 8 March 2018. taken. RMS is in place.

The opening of Liverpool2, the new deep-water container terminal in Sefton, 80

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Remaining Housing unconsented dwelling

will enable larger vessels to access the port.

ST HELENS Viability is an issue, owing to the housing market and ground conditions (industrial contamination). There is a No. Draft viability hierarchy of developer assessment, which contributions set out in St. Helens Local Policy LPC06: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation in is currently being Policy LPA08: Infrastructure Plan (replacing the preferred options discusses mitigation, but not updated. Previously Delivery and Funding in the Core Strategy, 2021- specifically in regard to recreational pressures. The 4 viability zones, 2016 Local Plan Preferred 2021 4,218 301 300* including 2037 Biodiversity SPD (2011) does not refer to recreational with CIL charging Options report. Allocations and impacts. AECOM is currently undertaking a revised HRA and possible on DM policies) SA. greenfield sites, and Bold Forest Action Area limited potential on covers a network of brownfield sites. greenspaces formed partly on former colliery land. This area could be further enhanced and promoted as alternative GI. WIRRAL

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Remaining Housing unconsented dwelling

The Council has now decided The council has not to prepare a single Local Plan yet made a decision and commenced on whether to consultation under introduce a levy in Regulation 19 stage Wirral. However, a consultation ended March baseline Local Plan 2020 (Submission Draft Local and Community Plan) is expected February Infrastructure Levy 2021. Publication draft Economic Viability Local Plan is expected Study was produced February 2021 with final in 2014. An update adoption mid-2022. of the baseline Core Strategy 2020 - The visitor economy is Dec-21 6,493 406 80 viability report was Local Plan 2035 heavily promoted in Wirral. completed in Wirral Waters is an 18 million November 2018, to sq. ft scheme, a 30-year inform the mixed use development preparation of the which will develop housing new Local Plan for and economic growth in east Wirral. Detailed Wirral. The Council’s viability testing of preferred option also policies and sites is envisages significant to follow alongside development in and around preparation of the Birkenhead town centre and Submission Draft on the Mersey Waterfront at Local Plan. Woodside.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT Housing levels in the plans of nearby authorities

Whilst the Liverpool City Region comprises the six local planning authorities, it is important to note that Warrington and West Lancashire are associate members of the Liverpool City Region and that development which takes place in Cheshire West and Cheshire has the potential to impact upon the European Sites in the Liverpool City Region. The growth in these areas is therefore relevant to the interim measures in this Evidence Report and the emerging strategy, as the large-scale growth within the Liverpool City Region is within the context of wider significant growth in the area. However, these authorities are not formally part of the strategy and as competent authorities must therefore ensure that they have adequately met the requirements of the Habitats Regulations.

The adopted West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 set a housing requirement of 4,860 dwellings for the 15-year Plan period. As of 31 March 2017:

• 1,248 (net) completions had been recorded in West Lancashire • 3,248 dwellings remained to be developed on allocated Local Plan sites • 792 dwellings had Extant Permissions (not including allocated sites)

As such, even without considering SHLAA sites, windfall sites and pending applications, it is anticipated that the Local Plan housing requirement will be exceeded by 2027 even though the level of completions in the first five years of the Plan period was disappointing.

The key locations for new development in West Lancashire are Skelmersdale (which is proposed to deliver half of the Local Plan's development requirements, and includes major town centre developments for retail, leisure, business and residential uses), Burscough (which includes the mixed-use Yew Tree Farm Strategic Development Site) and Ormskirk (with large housing allocations and an expanded Edge Hill University campus).

The Council are currently preparing a Local Plan Review which will update the housing and employment land requirements for West Lancashire and, where necessary, allocate further land for that development. It is anticipated a new Local Plan for West Lancashire will therefore be adopted by the end of 2023.

The adopted Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part One) 2010-2030 sets out a housing requirement of 22,000 dwellings (net) for the 20-year Plan period. As at 1 April 2017:

• 8,450 (net) completions have been recorded in the borough; • 665 sites benefit from outline, full or a resolution to grant planning permission, and have a capacity of 13,138 self-contained dwellings (includes any Local Plan (Part One) housing allocations with planning permission);

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT • Strategic site at Wrexham Road, Chester (1,300 dwellings) is awaiting submission of a planning application; • Winsford housing requirement will be met through land allocations set out in the Winsford Neighbourhood Plan – 1,408 units do not have planning permission.

As such, it is anticipated that the Local Plan housing requirement will be met and exceeded by 2030 through the delivery of the supply identified above, and no additional large-scale development is anticipated within the context of this Local Plan.

The Local Plan (Part One) sets out the strategy for the borough between 2010 and 2030 with Chester, Ellesmere Port, Northwich and Winsford (policies STRAT 3 to STRAT 6) being the focus of development. In the rural area, the approach taken is to locate development in the most sustainable settlements (ten key service centres as set out in policy STRAT 8). The housing requirements in each of the identified settlements will be met through existing planning permissions, housing allocations (where applicable) and small windfall sites.

The Cheshire West and Cheshire Council Local Plan (Part Two) - Land Allocations and Detailed Polices, was adopted on 18 July 2019.

Scale of change in new housing (set in context with current housing)

Spatial data providing a snapshot of potential future housing change were provided by the six local authorities and are shown in Map 21 (see map annex). Detail as to how the data shown in Map 21 are derived and the information provided by the local authorities is summarised in Appendix 6. It is important to note that each authority is at a different stage in its plan and combining data across authorities is not straightforward. For some authorities the GIS data reflects potential sites or potential supply and, while the best available evidence at the time of writing, the data do not necessarily reflect locations or volumes of housing with any certainty. The data allow us to gain an overview of the in-combination scale of development and challenge in terms of mitigation package, but this will change over time.

The same housing data are also shown in Map 22, which shows the data against a series of 1km buffers drawn around the European sites.

Based on the GIS data provided, new housing over the current plan period (i.e. for most authorities to around 2033) is anticipated to be around 68,300 dwellings (Table 5). Some of this already has planning permission or has been built. Overall the housing as mapped represents an approximate increase of around 10% compared to

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT current housing levels (approximately 690,000 across the Liverpool City Region in 2017). These figures provide a guide only.

A spatial approach to recreation pressure avoidance and mitigation is a well- established approach. Two zones are commonly identified and justified by the evidence of frequency of coastal visits in other RMSs. For the LCR IA, two zones have also been identified:

• An inner core zone of up to 5km to the European site boundaries, adjusted for local accessibility factors and is based on the best available visitor post code data. These data indicate that 75% of LCR coastal visitors originate from the zone <5km from the accessible European site boundaries with visitors originating >5km from the coast equating to 25% of coastal visitors. The 5 km has been adjusted according to local factors such as accessibility of the European site coast e.g. in Halton the south bank of the Mersey Estuary is excluded because there is no public access to the designated sites;

• An outer zone >5km from the European site boundaries where the frequency of coastal visit is less (e.g. recreation pressure from 1 dwelling at 2.5km of European coast is the equivalent to 9 dwellings at 7.5km Liley et al., 2017) and the impact of recreation pressure is one quarter of that within 5km.

Table 3: Summary of housing data giving the approximate requirement for new dwellings in inner and outer zone. It should be noted that the following table does not fully reflect the 2020 position of the emerging Local Plans as some changes have taken place following Local Plan consultation stages including slight amendments to the spatial distributions. The following table is taken as a baseline position for this draft Evidence Report with a base date of April 2019.

Within Outside Authority Plan Period Total Core Zone Core Zone Halton - 2018 2014-2031 4,464 8,469 – note 12,933 1 Halton - 2019 2014-2037 836 1,564 2,388 Knowsley – 2018 2010-2028 1,395 6,808 8,203 Knowsley – 2019 2010-2028 898 4,386 5,284 Liverpool – 2018 2013-2033 2,320 16,542 18,832 Liverpool – 2019 – 2013 – 2033 0 0 0 Note: 2 Sefton – 2018 2012-2030 7,435 2,693 10,128 Sefton – 2019 2012 – 2030 2,119 2,032 4,151 St. Helens 2018-2033 0 8,717 8,717 St. Helens – 2019 2018 – 2033 0 4,218 4,218 Note 4 Wirral – 2018 2034 10,502 900 11,402

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT Wirral – 2019 2019 - 2034 6,493 0 – note 3 6,493

Totals – 2018 26,116 44,129 70,245 Total – 2019 10,421 12,036 22,445 Change (units 15,695 32,093 47,800 delivered) Note 1 – 5km zone excludes south bank of Mersey in Halton as it is inaccessible and housing numbers adjusted accordingly. Note 2 – In Liverpool housing consents and housing delivery already exceeds Local Plan allocations so a net zero position has been used. Note 3 – Wirral, only a small parcel of land in mid Wirral is >5k m from the coast and as this does not coincide with any proposed allocations and is rural. 100% of Wirral is within the core zone. Note 4 – St. Helens has indicated they do not wish to participate in the interim measure as the entire Borough is >5km from any European sites, in favour of project-level assessment following the principles established in the LCR IA. Note 5 – At the time of writing, Knowsley has not been forthcoming in providing updated housing figures to April 2019. Once provided, Table 5 will be updated.

Figure 4 shows the volume of proposed new housing for each local authority within the Liverpool City Region in 500m bands away from the European site boundaries. This approach allows us to identify to what extent change is likely to be relatively close to the European sites or distributed further away. The 500m bands are drawn using the European site boundaries and do not take into account travel constraints or parts of the shoreline with or without access. Increases in close proximity are influenced by large developments in Liverpool and Wirral districts (in particular large dockland re-developments). Of all the anticipated new development in the Liverpool City Region, 5% lies within 500m of European sites, 33% within 2km and 67% within 5km.

Figure 5 shows the future increases with reference to the current volume of existing housing. There is a total of 23,332 potential new dwellings within 0-1km of the European sites (21% increase on current), 33,633 from 0-2km (12% increase on current) and 44,009 from 0-5km (9% increase on current) – note, numbers with distance have not been updated on the basis of the revised numbers in table 5 above.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Figure 3: Summary of the total volume of future housing within the 6 LCR districts at different distance bands from the merged European sites.

Figure 4: Summary of current and future additional housing within the 6 LCR districts in 500 m bands extending up to 20 km away from the merged European sites.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT The anticipated future increases in housing are shown by local authority in Figure 6. For most local authorities the increases are reasonably evenly spread. However, for Liverpool there is an anticipated >155% increase within 500m of the Mersey Estuary and Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore European sites, for Halton there is an anticipated 33% increase within 1.5km and for Wirral, a 15% increase within 1km of the European sites.

Figure 7 shows the future increases around individual European sites. Of these notable levels of change are anticipated around the North Wirral and Mersey Narrows SPA in the 1.5km band (1000-1500m) where the projected increase in housing is 63%.

It is not envisaged that the Liverpool City Region SDS will require any change to the number of dwellings being planned for in the City Region as a whole in the relevant Local Plan periods. This is because the housing targets in the City Region are already ambitious and the SDS will not allocate sites for housing. Whilst the Metro Mayor has a manifesto pledge to deliver 25,000 within 5 years progress it remains unclear how this will be presented in the emerging SDS and whether it will materially affect Local Plan housing numbers, site allocations and/or the spatial distribution of development pressure. This may become an important consideration for the relationship between the emerging RMS, its supporting evidence and the SDS in due course. For example, there may be some benefits of an SDS policy relating to recreation pressure to encourage a strategic approach by each of the local authorities within the City Region particularly as the SDS may be completed in advance of several Local Plan reviews.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Figure 5: The volume of current and future additional housing within each LCR district in 500 m bands extending up to 20 km away (note a variable housing scale is used) away from the merged European sites.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Figure 6: The current and anticipated future additional volume of housing around each European site (Mersey Ramsar, Dee SPA, Sefton Coast SAC, North Wirral and Narrows SPA, Ribble Alt Ramsar), in 500m bands extending up to 15km away (note a variable y axis scale is used). Inset maps show the area of the European site and extent of the bands within the context of the LCR districts.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Housing change Around 48,000 new dwellings are set out within relevant local plans or anticipated by the Local Planning Authorities from May 2019 to the end of the Local Plan periods. Each authority is at a different stage in their plan and housing projections span different time periods; nonetheless this provides an approximate indication of the in-combination scale of change over the next 15 years or so.

This represents roughly a 10% overall increase in housing within the Liverpool City Region. Of all the anticipated new development in the Liverpool City Region, 5% lies within 500m of European sites, 33% within 2km and 67% within 5km.

Within a 1km radius of all the European sites the data would suggest at least a 21% increase in housing. The most notable levels of change in close proximity to a European site are anticipated around the Mersey Estuary SPA and North Wirral and Mersey Narrows SPA.

Tourism and employment development with relevant plans

Some of the emerging or adopted local plans for the local planning authorities within the Liverpool City Region include promotion of tourism and support new growth in tourist accommodation. This is particularly the case for Wirral, Sefton and Liverpool. The Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), in its Visitor Economy – Strategy and Destination Management Plan 2015-2025 (2009), has identified a number of gaps in the current tourist offering for the Liverpool City Region, including a 5 star city centre hotel, backpacker/youth group accommodation, a touring camping and caravan site close to Liverpool, city centre townhouse and B&B accommodation, and more animated water spaces.

The LEP’s Liverpool City Region Tourism Data Summary 2017 states that the City Region attracts over 62 million visitors, of which approximately 32 million visit Liverpool. Over 5 million visitors are staying visitors (as opposed to day visitors).

As the scope of this draft Evidence Report relates to housing growth only, tourism is not discussed further at this time.

Other plans, strategies, initiatives and relevant context

A range of other current or emerging strategies and initiatives provide important context, background and are potentially important for the emerging RMS to link to. These are discussed in more detail in Section 10 and include:

• The Sefton Coast Landscape Partnership Board.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT • The Sefton Coast Plan. • The Sefton Coast Nature Conservation Strategy. • Liverpool City Region GI Framework, Nature Improvement Area and Ecological Network. • England Coast Path. • Wirral Landscape Character Assessment (2009). • Emerging Green and Blue Infrastructure Strategy for Wirral (in prep 2020).

7.59 The Sefton Coast Plan is a particularly important document because it set the expectation for a LCR strategic response to coastal recreation pressure and seeks to ensure that other daughter strategies such as the emerging Nature Conservation Strategy and Coastal Change Adaptation Plan are aligned and integrated with the emerging RMS. For example, when site-specific or gateway-specific management plans are prepared and updated for landowners such as Natural England, National Trust, RSPB, Altcar Ranges and Sefton Council good alignment of management approaches will be needed. Financial payments secured through the interim measures of the draft Evidence Report and secured through the planning process, could potentially be utilised by those site managers for the purpose of European site access and management measures. This is a good example of the power of a strategic approach and co-operation.

7.60 Neighbourhood Plans are less strategic in nature and tend to have quite tightly defined plan areas. They may have an implication for recreation pressure where they result, for example, in changes to recreation opportunity or provision. However, because these plans will be in conformity with the Local Plan and accompanied by their own plan-level HRA to assess impacts on the European sites, the matter of recreational pressure is accommodated for at the Local Plan or Neighbourhood Plan assessment level. Therefore, this does not been to be addressed further by this report or the emerging RMS.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

8. Avoidance and mitigation options

Overview of options

8.1 Current research on access to the countryside and coast is increasingly recognising that accommodating multi-use underpins long-term success of nature conservation projects and has wider benefits such as increasing public awareness of the natural world, well-being and health benefits (Alessa, Bennett & Kliskey 2003; Pretty et al. 2005; Moss 2012; Freeman et al. 2017) or economic benefits (e.g. Bennett, Tranter & Blaney 2003; Downward & Lumsdon 2004). Our natural assets are also tourism assets. Nature conservation bodies are trying to encourage people to spend more time outside and government policy (for example through enhanced coastal access) is promoting access to the coast. Furthermore, access to many sites is a legal right, with an extensive Public Rights of Way network and open access to many sites through the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000). There is therefore a difficult balancing act and a challenging message to communicate in order to resolve impacts associated with recreation without compromising the ability of people to be outside and enjoying the green spaces near their homes.

8.2 An overview of potential mitigation measures is provided in Table 6, this is drawn from work on estuaries and impacts to wintering waterbirds. But, as the measures relate to access management, many are also applicable to other times of year and other sensitive receptors e.g. sand dunes. The table indicates where a measure is suitable for general application to all sites at a strategic level, and where it would need to be designed to suit a local and specific situation. The ranking of measures reflects expert scoring as part of work undertaken nationally for Natural England (see Ross et al. 2014). The scoring reflects opinion as to effectiveness, with the measures scored as the most effective appearing at the top of the table. The table essentially highlights the range of options for measures within a mitigation strategy.

8.3 A suite of mitigation measures should function together to have confidence that adverse effects arising from recreation have been prevented. In most instances when developing a strategy to mitigate the impacts of housing and tourism growth, each measure taken alone is unlikely to give that certainty. A combination of measures, developed and targeted after analysis of available information, gives greater certainty. This is because the combination of measures working together reduces risk and builds in contingency for amending the strategy if some measures do not perform as well once implemented. Other measures can still be functioning in the short term whilst some are revised. An integrated suite of measures delivered together also improves efficiency, which in turn adds to effectiveness with improved value for money. 93

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Table 1: Potential mitigation measures relevant to coastal sites, adapted from Ross et al. (2014). The order measures are listed in reflects their perceived effectiveness, based on expert scores, with the more effective measures at the top (see Ross et al. 2014 for details). Relevant activities and spatial scale columns are indicative and measures will vary markedly between sites. More localised measures, relevant Complex measures potentially difficult to deliver; Measures most relevant to within estuary wide schemes or for Key: Estuary-wide strategic schemes only/careful estuary wide approaches localised mitigation and interim consideration necessary approach

Type of activity Spatial Temporal scale relevant to scale

Very

Can be Short term

Measure Site Major long- off-site measures: can be Medium based based

- term projects/ - Specific established quickly term Local Dogs large

Strategic and likely to be measures infrastructure Shore Water effective quickly

Lagoon and wetland creation     ()   Hides     On-site visitor engagement     () ()  Screening      Development exclusion zones       Artificial roosts        Closing car-parks     ()   Re-siting/relocating of car-parks     ()   Path improvements, boardwalks etc.     Permits / licences       94

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Type of activity Spatial Temporal scale relevant to scale

Very

Can be Short term

Measure Site Major long- off-site measures: can be Medium based based

- term projects/ - Specific established quickly term Local Dogs large

Strategic and likely to be measures infrastructure Shore Water effective quickly

Path closure     Path diversion     Vehicle restrictions/barriers      Direct contact with local clubs/user groups   ()      Alternative routes     Temporary exclusion fencing     Managed retreat       Watersports zones    Alternative sites       DCOs to ban dogs entirely    Dedicated routes      Limiting/reducing parking provision       Dog-fenced areas   ()  Planning conditions         Other byelaws (e.g. fishing, kitesurfing, etc.)        DCOs/byelaws to keep dogs on a lead    Signs      Information materials (leaflets,       interpretation)

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Type of activity Spatial Temporal scale relevant to scale

Very

Can be Short term

Measure Site Major long- off-site measures: can be Medium based based

- term projects/ - Specific established quickly term Local Dogs large

Strategic and likely to be measures infrastructure Shore Water effective quickly

Codes of conduct       General off-site information provision       PSPO to put dogs on a lead when asked    Changing parking charges        PSPO to limit the number of dogs per    walker PSPO to pick up dog fouling   

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT Approaches used in other strategic mitigation schemes

8.4 There are a range of existing strategic mitigation schemes which have been established to facilitate development while ensuring adequate protection for European sites. These schemes focus on recreation impacts and provide useful context and precedents for this strategy. In Table 7, we summarise the focus of the schemes, choosing as examples those schemes that are well established and have been running for some time (there are also other schemes close to starting in a range of other areas, for example strategies have been written and are in the process of being finalised in South Tyneside, along the Suffolk Coast and around Epping Forest SAC).

8.5 We use Table 7 to show the broad mitigation approaches that are often common threads and highlight some of the other more unusual or specific mitigation measures some schemes have included. A key point to note is that all the schemes rely on rangers / wardens (sometimes assisted by volunteers) to deliver an increased on-site presence and they also all include alternative greenspace (Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace: ‘SANGs’) to divert access away from the European sites. These two approaches seem to be fundamental and widely accepted as a key component of the mitigation packages.

8.6 How these different schemes work will be considered in the emerging RMS. However, it is important to note that there is often flexibility whereby funds are allocated by an executive group that can receive funding applications/requests from stakeholders allowing more opportunistic approaches. As such each mitigation scheme has developed its own momentum, character and measures tailored to local circumstances and opportunities. This Evidence Report proposes interim measures, which will be likely to be governed differently from the RMS, because any financial payments in the interim will be retained within the administrative area to which they relate.

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT Table 2: European site mitigation schemes and broad approaches for mitigation in-place. Ticks indicate where a particular approach is included within the mitigation approach. ZOI refers to zone of influence (e.g. for collection of developer contributions). Hyperlinks relate to project specific websites or equivalent (where established).

Broad mitigation approaches

Relevant

Issues & sites Further details/unusual or unique references for Area ZoI addressed by measures mitigation mitigation strategy measures SANGs Refuges Wardens Dog Project Engagement Codes of Conduct

Range of measures includes BMX park, fire Recreation and South-east Dorset hydrants on heaths. Monitoring includes car- Dorset Heaths 5km    urbanisation; 2 local planning park counts, sensors, visitor surveys and bird heathland SACs/SPA authorities (2016) monitoring. Burley (2007); Joint  8ha per Recreation and Thames Basin Monitoring includes car-park counts, sensors, Strategic 5km 1000   urbanisation; Heaths visitor surveys and bird monitoring. Partnership Board residents heathland SPA (2008). Recreation and urbanisation; sand South-east Devon 10km       Other measures include patrol boat on estuary dune SAC, heathland Liley et al. (2014); SPA/SAC and estuary SPA. Bird Aware Project established with strong branding. More site-specific projects and Bird Aware Solent awareness raising work still being developed. Recreation impacts for Solent 5.6km    (2017); Liley & Monitoring includes car-park counts, visitor 3 coastal SPA sites Tyldesley (2013) surveys, tests for ranger effectiveness and sensors. 98

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Broad mitigation approaches

Relevant

Issues & sites Further details/unusual or unique references for Area ZoI addressed by measures mitigation mitigation strategy measures SANGs Refuges Wardens Dog Project Engagement Codes of Conduct

Measures relating to car-parking and on-site Recreation impacts to Underhill-Day & Cannock Chase 15km    access infrastructure being developed heathland SAC Liley (2012) Recreation impacts for Liley & Underhill- North Kent 6km     3 coastal SPA sites Day (2013)

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT Evidence for effectiveness

8.7 Expert opinion on the effectiveness of different mitigation measures to reduce bird disturbance was collected by Ross et al. (2014). Measures are ranked on these scores in Table 6 (above). One key finding from the scoring exercise was that scores for individual measures ranged widely, indicating that measures are potentially site-specific in terms of their effectiveness and that it cannot always be assumed that a particular measure will always be successful (or unsuccessful). Staff, resources, local geography and other site- specific issues are likely to be important factors influencing effectiveness.

8.8 Many of the measures, such as path surfacing, fencing, screening, hides etc., are routinely used around the country to manage and influence access. While there is a general acceptance that such approaches can influence behaviour, there is relatively little experimental or similarly robust evidence for the effectiveness for different mitigation measures (see Batey 2013; Ross et al. 2014 for overview). It is difficult to test individual measures because they rarely occur in isolation, for example signage will usually accompany interpretation, face-face engagement etc. A general rule is that it appears that few visitors to European sites are aware of their importance for nature conservation (Booth, Gaston & Armsworth 2009) and this lack of awareness may influence behaviour. Raising awareness of nature conservation issues is therefore potentially an important component of mitigation approaches.

8.9 The presence of rangers/wardens along with signage has been shown to be effective for breeding terns, with Little Terns breeding more successfully when measures were in place (Medeiros et al. 2007). Work on the Solent (Liley & Panter 2017) has compared visitor behaviour and bird disturbance with and without the presence of the mitigation wardens. The results showed slight positive effects of ranger presence, particularly in terms of the overall number of birds disturbed (i.e. measurable change in behaviour). This was only the second year of the ranger team and the Bird Aware branding (including the new website and leaflet) and key messages for the project had only just been developed over the winter. Monitoring of the ranger presence and bird disturbance will continue (see Liley et al. 2015 for context and background).

8.10 The voluntary wardening scheme in existence on the Dee at West Kirby is long running and data has shown1 a large number of potential disturbance events have been successfully intercepted and bird numbers have increased. This highlights that wardening does work in a local context within the Liverpool City Region.

1 See website for details 100

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT 8.11 Signs and access restrictions have been tested in a few locations: a meta review of six studies concludes they are likely to be significant in reducing disturbance at bird nest sites (Williams et al. 2017).

8.12 A trial in the USA compared the reproductive success of Common Terns before and after the introduction of a series of educational programmes aimed at recreational boat users (Burger & Leonard 2000). The study showed rates of disturbance decreased and breeding success increased following the education programmes.

8.13 Irrespective of whether it’s the final RMS or a set of integrated interim measures, assessing the deployment and effectives is fundamental to meeting the requirements of the Habitats Regulations. This is because certainty is needed that adverse effects and integrity effects have been avoided.

Habitat measures

8.14 Measures to prevent contamination of ponds by dogs are reviewed and by Denton & Groome (2017) who compared data from a small sample of ponds on a single heathland site where different options had been tried. Their results suggest partial temporary fencing (hurdles in the water) and permanent fencing can be successful in reducing turbidity. They also advocate good signage, use of scrub to deter dogs and the provision of dedicated watercourses to deflect dogs away from more sensitive locations.

8.15 Santoro et al. (2012) experimentally tested the effectiveness of fencing to limit trampling damage on a dune system in Italy. Their results indicate positive measurable changes in dune vegetation within two years of fencing and the approach is advocated as an effective method for safeguarding and improving the diversity of dune plant communities.

Education programmes

8.16 A review of the effectiveness of education programmes about amphibians concluded they are likely to be beneficial (Smith, Meredith & Sutherland 2018). Such programmes can be a valuable way to raise awareness about the threats to species and the habitats that they live in and about what can be done to help. They can also help to change perceptions and may therefore indirectly help towards conserving species. Examples cited in the review included one where a population of rare frogs doubled following an education programme and another found that students who were taught using live amphibians and had previous direct experience, or who participated in outdoor amphibian conservation work, gained greater knowledge, had improved attitudes towards species and retained knowledge better than those than those taught indoors with pictures.

Monitoring

8.17 Looking across the different existing strategic mitigation schemes, the Dorset Heaths is the longest running and has the most comprehensive annual monitoring. Monitoring involves 101

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT car-park counts, use of automated counters, bird monitoring, incident recording and visitor interviews. These data are collated annually (e.g. Panter 2017) but to date no systematic analysis has been undertaken relating changes in housing to the patterns in the data. Analysis of bird trends for the key breeding species on the Dorset Heathlands SPA suggest that Nightjar numbers have increased in more rural areas while remaining constant in the more urban sites, at least with no significant declines since the mitigation approach was established (Liley & Fearnley 2014). Monitoring, evaluating and reporting effectiveness of measures is a fundamental part of any strategy. As finance is being required through legal processes for statutory compliance purposes, there should be a clear audit trail of the effectiveness of measures and any remedial action.

8.18 Each local authority will need to put in place a monitoring framework to record the mitigation applied, how it relates to development pressure and whether it is effective. Adjustments in mitigation are required should measures deployed not provide the mitigation solution required.

Green Infrastructure/SANGs

8.19 Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANGs) is the term given to greenspaces that are created or enhanced with the specific purpose of absorbing recreation pressure that would otherwise occur at sites designated as European sites. SANGs are created, or existing greenspaces enhanced to create a SANG, in order to mitigate for the effects of new housing development, absorbing the level of additional recreation pressure associated with the new development.

8.20 SANGs have particularly been a feature of mitigation delivery in the Thames Basin Heaths, where delivery of greenspace is at a rate of 8ha for every 1000 new residents. This per ha standard is subject to detailed consideration by Burley (Burley 2007).

8.21 While SANGs are often closely linked and targeted to particular new development, it is optimistic to assume a SANG will absorb all visits by new residents to the European site, particularly if the European site is attractive and a recognised destination. For coastal sites in particular, there is a specific experience, relating to the visual seascape, sounds and smells etc. that is impossible to recreate. As such other mitigation measures are necessary and SANGs may also need to draw visits from existing residents. Whilst the use of SANGs in strategic mitigation provision for European sites has now been in place for some years, SANGs still remain a relatively new approach to mitigation and importantly they remain relatively untested. Some authors have been critical of SANGs as mitigation (e.g. Chapman 2014), arguing that SANGs are costly and in some locations may not be justified, particularly if mitigation can be delivered through cheaper, on-site measures.

102

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT 8.22 It is the Thames Basin Heaths area where the most SANGs have been created2 and where there are the most data on SANG use. Viewed as a whole, the SANGs network in the Thames Basin Heaths is clearly drawing visitors from the same areas as the SPA and drawing similar kinds of access (e.g. dog walkers); the level of use of some SANGs is impressive and monitoring results from some sites are very positive (see Liley, Panter & Rawlings 2015 for a review). It is recognised that therefore recognised that there is the potential for SANGs to contribute the interim approach and emerging RMS, but there is a need for a focus on measures to be delivered on site, given the coastal location.

Wider benefits

8.23 It is important to recognise that many of the measures bring wider benefits besides simply providing mitigation for new development. These are difficult to quantify and are not a justification for the strategy itself, but enhancing access, providing better connections between local people and their environment, providing education resources and providing new green infrastructure all have the potential for wide benefits for society and the local economy. For example, the economic benefit of greenspaces within the Liverpool City Region has been shown in terms of uplift in house prices and increased footfall through local businesses (The Land Trust 2018).

2 Forty-four sites are currently listed and mapped on the Thames Basin Heaths partnership website 103

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Strategic mitigation schemes elsewhere A range of strategic mitigation schemes provide useful precedents and evidence of effectiveness for the proposed interim measures in the draft Evidence Report. Rangers and SANGs are common themes and all schemes also include monitoring to target and hone interventions. Other measures within these schemes have included dog projects, interpretation, changes to infrastructure, codes of conduct and various engagement approaches.

Many of these interventions are widespread, commonly used and there are a range of studies that support their effectiveness, however there is little experimental work or similar to explicitly test or compare how well different interventions work.

Many of the measures bring wider benefits besides simply providing mitigation such as enhancing access, providing better connections between local people and their environment, providing education resources and providing new green infrastructure all have wide benefits for society and potential economic benefits.

Existing green infrastructure and scope for enhancement

8.24 A network of greenspaces extend across all districts within the study area and fall into municipal, charitable and private ownerships. The cost of managing existing green spaces within the districts is substantial and this category of space is considered the most likely to offer opportunities for the provision of SANG (see rationale set out under filter 1, below). A study by Liverpool City Council highlighted a deficit of over £2m for maintaining parks and public green space in 2016/17 in the Green and Open Spaces Review of the Mayor. Knowsley Council has recently reviewed options for the management of its 161 public parks and greenspaces following the decision to save the circa £1.3million annual cost of maintenance (see Knowsley Parks and Greenspaces Review Board 2017 for background). Many of the green spaces within the five districts are maintained to very high standards, achieving Green Flag status. There may be areas of green space under council control where existing management could be amended to provide more semi-natural habitats, essentially re-wilding areas currently receiving high levels of amenity management and/or enhancing multi-functionality of space.

8.25 Although many sites within the Liverpool City Region are maintained to high standards, site visits identified a number of sites where a lack of investment was apparent. Poor quality green spaces may be less attractive destinations for people resulting in visitors avoiding certain sites in favour of other, better-maintained areas. There may be opportunities to identify sites that could act as SANG if suitable investment in managing and maintaining sites was available. This investment would seek to address the existing displacement effect 104

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT and also seek to further increase their attractiveness to attract additional users. This would require increased investment in existing areas of municipally owned green space.

8.26 Existing green infrastructure is shown in Map 23 (see map annex). This has been drawn using Ordnance Survey Open Greenspace data3 and Liverpool City Region Ecological Network data4.

8.27 A review of existing green spaces used a method based on ‘stage filters’ is suggested as a means of identifying potential SANG sites with the Liverpool City Region districts. The filters set out in paragraph 8.28 are a set of criteria which can be used to asses suitability of sites to potentially operate as SANGS. The filters listed are not exhaustive and additional filters can be added to refine the search. These could include proximity to housing allocations, ecological networks (priority habitat and Nature Improvement Area) or land in other ownership (such as Forestry Commission, the Land Trust and the Canal and River Trust).

8.28 The risk of applying high level filters to assess site suitability is that it may lead to suitable sites being excluded erroneously e.g. whilst the filters exclude Green Flag sites as already well funded, certain Green Flag sites may have opportunities for further investment to increase their attractiveness. A sense check of the filtered outputs is therefore recommended.

8.29 An example of an initial sieve of green spaces is presented below. This exercise was undertaken using a combination of OS greenspaces GIS data and OpenStreetMap to identify all suitable areas of green space within the Liverpool City Region districts. Sites greater than 10ha were selected from this layer for further analysis, with the exception of green space not considered suitable for use as SANG e.g. cemeteries or bowling greens. All sites greater than 10ha were then assessed to evaluate their potential suitability to function as SANG using the following filters.

• Filter 1: Land ownership. Sites under the control of local authorities were considered to be the most viable sites for delivering SANG as they enable local authorities to utilise an existing resource precluding the need to procure land. Whilst sites owned by third parties have not been excluded by the initial filter, it is likely that the costs associated with land acquisition and the potential complexities of engaging with existing stakeholders on accessible third-party land present a more challenging proposition for SANG delivery. Taking the example of sites in Liverpool, it is considered that the Council owned public parks and other green spaces, such as Southern Grasslands (Festival Gardens site), are more viable options for SANG than the Speke Hall Estate which is owned by the National Trust. • Filter 2: Type of green space. During the initial sieve sites identified as playing fields or other sporting facilities have been excluded from consideration. It is anticipated that the conversion of public accessible sports facilities to SANG is unlikely to be

3 See Ordnance Survey website for details 4 See MEAS website for details 105

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT feasible due to existing levels of demand for these facilities. Should there be an excess in provision of playing field and sports facilities within a local authority area then these areas could be reviewed. • Filter 3: Green Flag status. The Green Flag award scheme recognises and rewards well managed parks and green spaces, setting the benchmark for the management for recreational outdoor space. Applicants are judged against 27 different criteria. To be eligible to apply the sites must be freely accessible to the public and have a site- specific management plan. Criteria sites are judged against which are relevant to SANG include good and safe access, signage, control of dogs/dog fouling, personal security, litter and waste management and management of natural features, wild fauna and flora. The nature of Green Flag award means that sites that currently hold or have recently held (within the last three years) are likely to well-managed and maintained with adequate funding. It is therefore considered that Green Flag sites are well invested and are unlikely to offer significant scope for further improvement. The use of Green Flag awards screens out a large number of sites in certain local authority areas. All parks over 10ha, excluding sports fields, managed by Halton Borough Council currently hold Green Flag awards suggesting opportunities for improvements will be limited in this Borough. • Filter 4: Funding. Green spaces that have recently benefitted from, or are currently undergoing works that are funded by successful bids to the Heritage Lottery Fund ‘Parks and People’ initiative were considered unlikely to provide opportunities for significant SANG enhancement. For instance, sites such as Bowring Park and Golf Course in Knowsley are currently undergoing a £1.8m restoration funded by the HLF and this discounts them from further consideration. • Filter 5: Nature Conservation designations. Existing green spaces covered by international (SAC, SPA or Ramsar) or national (SSSI) nature conservation designations have been excluded from further analysis during the initial filtering. This filter largely affects sites along the Sefton coast. Sites immediately adjacent to protected sites are given further consideration. • Filter 6: Listed landscapes. Sites designated as historically important landscapes (refer to Historic Environment Records e.g. registered parks and gardens) are considered likely to be maintained in reasonable condition and therefore opportunities for further enhancement are likely to be limited.

8.30 The above analysis identified 2 main categories of site: municipal golf courses and on-going landscape scale projects.

8.31 Based on well-established practice elsewhere in the UK, key components of any strategic approach comprise two elements to provide for mitigation:

• 'Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace’ (SANGs), which include the elements described in paragraphs 8 and 9 above; and • On-European Site Access Management and Monitoring measures (SAMMs).

8.32 SANG measures must be appropriately located, of sufficient scale and accessible to residents of existing and new development for them to be effective alternatives to visiting the coast. Potential SANG examples three broad categories of sites; Municipal golf course, landscape scale restoration projects and increased functionality of existing green/open 106

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT spaces including Sefton Park in Liverpool, Bold Forest Park in St. Helens and Arrowe Park in Wirral. Similar opportunities exist across the LCR in all six Local Plan areas and these are set out in Table 8.

SANG locations for targeting of Local authority area Mitigation Halton • Town Park (Runcorn); • Widnes Waterfront Park; • Wigg Island; • Widnes Wharf / Spike Island and St. Helens canal Trans Pennine trail links. Knowsley • Court Hey Park; • Stadt Moers Park. Note: Knowsley Safari Park is excluded as it is largely a drive-through Safari Park with strict access controls for public safety. Liverpool • Croxteth Hall and Country Park; • Southern Grasslands (Festival Gardens), Otterspool Promenade and Park; • Leeds Liverpool Canal as linear park; • Sefton Park; • Everton Park; • Calderstones Park. St. Helens • The Bold Forest Park area; • Sankey Valley Park; • Sherdley Park; • Sutton Manor; • Taylor Park. Sefton • Main parks as identified in the Open Space SPD (e.g. Derby Park in Bootle, Hesketh Park in Southport and Victoria Park in Crosby); • Leeds and Liverpool Canal; • Marine Lake and Pier, Southport; • Countryside areas away from European sites including Rimrose Valley, Lunt Meadows, Trans Pennine Trail (including Cheshire Lines Path); • Public rights of way which help link the above sites. Wirral • Arrowe Park; • Ashton Park; • Birkenhead Park (though this may already have high levels of management as a Grade II listed historic park and garden, so opportunities might be more limited); • Eastham Country Park; 107

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

SANG locations for targeting of Local authority area Mitigation • Vale Park, Wallasey; • Wirral Way targeted at coastal access locations.

Table 8: Examples of potential SANG locations in the LCR, per authority.

Note 1 – At time of writing, Knowsley has not confirmed all possible SANG locations. Once confirmed, Table 8 will be updated.

8.33 Across the LCR area and in the short to medium terms (approximately 5 years) there is no reasonable likelihood that the provision of significant additional new greenspaces can be provided as SANG measures through the creation of entirely new parks, greenspaces or open spaces. This is largely due to such space not being readily available within local authority boundaries and the timescales needed to assemble and fund such large-scale projects.

Municipal golf courses

8.34 In other parts of the UK, little used golf courses or those that are not economically viable have been converted to SANGs5. There is also the potential to manage golf courses such that they work as a golf course while providing open space for a range of other activities, i.e. working more as multi-functional open spaces. However, the scope for conflict with increasing public access on operational golf courses is clear. Increased access may interrupt and disrupt play, risking a drop in the playing membership and further pressure on the financial viability of municipal courses.

8.35 Halton owns a municipal golf course, St Michael’s golf course, which is currently undergoing an extensive upgrade, with works scheduled to be completed in 2021. St.Helens do not own or operate any municipal golf courses. Knowsley includes one municipal golf course along with the Bowring Golf Course which appears to be leased to a private operator. In 2019 Knowsley Council was awarded a £1.8m HLF grant to restore the historic gardens and stables of the golf course along with community and visitor facilities and may become a model for how multi-use green spaces can be accommodated within a functioning golf course6. The municipal golf course Allerton Golf Course is operated by a trading company on behalf of Liverpool Borough Council.

5 For example Southwood Golf Course, Rushmoor 6 See Restore Bowring Park website 108

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT 8.36 Sefton Council operate two municipal golf courses. This is notable given the extensive areas of protected coastline in this district and the limited amount of other suitable Council owned green spaces.

8.37 Wirral Council operates four golf courses, three Footgolf and two pitch and putt courses across the Borough. None of these courses are currently deemed surplus to requirements although the disposal of municipal golf courses has previously been considered by Wirral Council.

8.38 Although Wirral Council do not currently consider their municipal golf courses as an option for SANG, some sites are located close to the coast and adjacent to other existing areas of green space and may present opportunities to relocate coastal car-parks, or provide designated areas for activities that may disturb wintering birds such as kite-flying or exercising dogs off-leads. These sites are close enough to the coast to provide views of the coast and users of the coast could be easily redirected to these sites.

8.39 Existing golf courses could also be used to extend existing areas of green space to both increase the carrying capacity of existing sites and enhance the range of habitats within the areas of green space. The HLF project covering Bowring Golf Course in Knowsley o include elements of improved access to the golf course. The golf course within Arrowe Country Park (Wirral) is incorporated within the existing country park but could potentially be used to provide additional walks.

Landscape scale projects

8.40 Three on-going landscape scale projects have been identified which seek to establish strategic biodiversity gains: the Mersey Gateway Project, Mersey Forest Projects (of which there are 3 distinct areas of interest) and Bold Forest Park, St. Helens.

8.41 The Mersey Gateway Project provided a new six-lane toll bridge linking Widnes and Runcorn. The new bridge will reduce congestion on the Silver Jubilee Bridge. As part of the project, the Mersey Gateway Environmental Trust was formed in 2010 to promote the conservation, protection and improvement of the environment across 1600ha of the Upper Mersey Estuary between the Silver Jubilee Bridge and Warrington. This area includes existing areas of green space such as Wigg Island Community Park and could link to other areas of green space such as Sankey Valley Park. There is the potential that developer contributions could fund land acquisition or other enhancement projects such as improved green links within this area and through habitat management, enhanced ecological functionality of the existing non-designated habitat.

8.42 The Mersey Forest Partnership is a partnership made up of seven local authorities, Natural England, Forestry Commission, Environment Agency, landowners, businesses and local communities. The partnership area covers 1370km2. There are four main areas of interest within existing project areas covering Liverpool, Sefton, Warrington and St Helens. All these

109

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT areas have identified areas where enhancement works could be undertaken. In Liverpool the most relevant of these are in the Speke and Garston, Fazakerley and Calderstones/Woolton areas. Along the Sefton coast project areas cover Southport and Hesketh golf course, Rimrose Valley Country Park and Sefton Meadows Forest Park. In Warrington project areas include woodland planting in part of the Lower Mersey Valley (which also lies within the Mersey Gateway Project area). In St Helens the Bold Forest area seeks to link existing areas of extant woodland.

8.43 St. Helens Council in partnership with The Mersey Forest is prioritising investment in their Bold Forest Area for environmental improvement, recreation and leisure. The 130-hectare area includes several brownfield sites associated with the mining and industrial heritage of St. Helens and the park includes several linked sites including Brickfields, Clockface Country Park, Colliers Moss, Griffin Wood and Sutton Manor. With on-going investment in visitor and local community infrastructure this location has potential to provide a strategy destination and function as a potential SANG.

Potential for new SANG

8.44 Coastal sites have a very particular draw that is difficult to replicate inland. People visit the coast for a special experience and much of the Liverpool City Region coast is very attractive. Sand dunes, wide open vistas, open sandflats and the particular feel of being by the sea mean it is likely to be difficult to deflect visitors to alternative destinations. Furthermore, some recreation activities (such as kitesurfing and building sand castles) are specific to the coastal zone. Given the high costs of new green infrastructure compared to other measures, new additional green infrastructure provision needs to be very carefully considered in terms of its design and location. SANGs should be in close proximity or easily accessible to high volumes of housing, both existing and new.

8.45 Intrinsic greenspace incorporated into new developments as small patches (e.g. footpath links, small parcels of open space adjacent to houses), while potentially positive measures for new residents, are unlikely to work in drawing recreation away from the coast and will have little benefit as mitigation. If its design, size and/or location are such that it is not likely to be effective, development project specific greenspace provision should not be counted as European site mitigation.

8.46 Larger and strategic housing allocations have greater potential to provide a quantum of suitable green space within the development that can accommodate a good level of on-site recreational activity and this is included in the method proposed as part of the interim measures. Many of the Local Authorities including Halton, Knowsley, St.Helens and Sefton include large land allocations in the green belt which do have significant potential to avoid and mitigate recreation pressure e.g. Land East of Maghull, Sefton, Halsnead Park Garden Village, Knowsley. The opportunity may be more limited in Liverpool where several of the

110

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT housing allocations are for high density and/or high rise development where there is very limited potential to provide on-site green space.

8.47 Whilst large, strategic SANGs have the potential to offer an alternative destination to the coast, the opportunities are limited in the City Region due to the land area and pattern of development. Nonetheless opportunities do exist to join and connect green spaces and increase the functionality of larger areas to divert some of the regular recreation use that might otherwise be undertaken on European Sites. Locations such as the Bold Forest Park area offer greatest potential due to their size and current stage of development. Such spaces should be designed with the needs of specific user groups in mind, such as dog- walkers. Opportunities to provide enhanced links to existing areas of green space off-site should also be considered for all developments.

8.48 At this stage it is not recommended that thresholds relating to the level of on-site green space provision as mitigation for impacts on the European sites is included as part of the emerging RMS or this Evidence Report. It is recognised that individual development projects could develop bespoke mitigation proposals that may be partly, or entirely, dependant on the provision of on-site green space. Given the variation in housing and accessibility of the coast within different parts of the Liverpool City Region and the variation in opportunities for greenspace to provide effective mitigation, greenspace is likely to be best planned for and delivered on an authority by authority level. It is therefore recommended that it should be up to the individual local planning authorities, in their role as the competent authority to assess the SANGs options for their administrative area and assess the merits of any individual schemes that propose on-site SANGs provision.

8.49 Guidelines, detailing the factors that should be considered when assessing the suitability of on-site SANG provision is provided in Appendix 7 and supports the method for interim measures in Section 10 including size, accessibility, network and linkage of sites. Character, infrastructure, dog facilities and monitoring. To provide sufficient draw, SANG sites must have to of a sufficient scale to provide space for people to undertake walks of 2.5 to 3km in length, let dogs run free and pursue other recreational activities.

8.50 Crucially, these requirements can only be met at a single site of 40-50ha or more, unless accessible linkages are made between nearby green spaces. In reality, provision of a SANG of this size will be limited to the larger housing allocations or may potentially be deliverable by a cluster of housing allocations in very close proximity e.g. Halsnead Park Garden Village, Knowsley. It is recommended that improved signage and safe, accessible routes that join nearby greenspaces / SANGs is promoted as part of the integrated solution.

8.51 Such sites will need to provide sufficient interest to attract visitors, providing services and recreational activities above and beyond those normally associated with local SANG provision, potentially functioning more as a country park. Strategic SANG sites should provide a destination for visitors with facilities such as cafes, play areas, adventure trails etc

111

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT and should perhaps look at diversifying into other areas such as activity play trails, bike hire etc.

Green infrastructure and scope for enhancement/new SANG A network of green spaces extends across the LCR and falls into municipal, charitable and private ownerships. The cost of managing existing green spaces within the districts may present a financial challenge. Enhancing existing sites/utilising local authority owned land may be the most cost-effective approach as mitigation provided it can be demonstrated that the enhancement is in addition to existing management and is for the purpose of mitigating recreation effects on the European sites. Given the particular draw of the coast, such works are likely to be most effective:

• if directed to large sites or a nearby coherent network of green spaces, • have scope for improvement, • are semi-natural in feel or provide comparable wilderness experiences to the coast, • have scope to be linked through access and wildlife corridors and “stepping stone” green spaces, • are not important or designated for nature conservation.

Financial payments and investment would need to be directed to such locations to enable sites to demonstrably enhance functionality and become more attractive destinations that draw people from the coast.

112

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT Options for avoidance and mitigation measures : SAMM Overview

8.52 Options for avoidance and mitigation measures based on the information collated in previous sections and from the outputs of a workshop involving a range of stakeholders including follow-up discussions with several individuals are set out in this section. Greater detail is provided in Appendix 7.

8.53 Any one measure alone is unlikely to be effective. However, a combination of measures will work together to reduce risk and build in contingency. These measures should function together to provide confidence that adverse effects arising from recreation have been prevented. Implementing the avoidance and mitigation measures will fall to or require input and co-operation from a range of stakeholders – with Competent Authorities and land owners arguably having the greatest role and responsibilities. Avoidance and mitigation measures will need to be implemented in an integrated way, allow close working between key stakeholders to further develop options and to tailor the measures so as to meet stakeholders’ requirements.

8.54 An overview of what a complete package of avoidance and mitigation measures might include is shown visually in Figure 8. The colours in Figure 8 reflect the potential timing of delivery of different elements of a strategic approach, with the darker colour reflecting the initial priorities within the strategy. We have grouped the measures under the following broad headings (bold text in Figure 8):

• SAMM o Staff o Signage and Interpretation o General awareness raising o Liverpool City Region Dogs in Nature Project o Travel o Infrastructure on-site (on or near the coast) o Monitoring • SANG • GI investment away from the coast including improvement to linkages between sites, SANGs and main housing areas.

8.55 SAMM measures are summarised in Table 10 including why each measure is necessary and what it will achieve. The subsequent section focusses on SANG. SAMM and SANG need to work together to provide the integrated strategic solution within any resulting RMS.

Summary of potential avoidance and mitigation measures

8.56 Measures that could be included in a strategic approach are summarised in Table 9.

113

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT Figure 1: Figure 8: Overview of avoidance and mitigation measures that could be included within the emerging RMS

114

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT Table 10: Summary of measures proposed – different measures may be implemented at different times. Dark grey shading reflects measures that are initial priorities and can be delivered in the short term to coincide with project development timescales and implement interim measures. Paler grey those elements that should be phased for the mid-term, once other measures are up and running and sufficient budget available. Pale green measures are more aspirational/opportunistic and longer term. Measures underlined are those that are ‘scalable’, in that the level of funding or implementation can be varied in response to levels of housing or funding.

Location/part of LCR Theme Measure Relevant project detail Why necessary What will be achieved relevant All, based within an LPA For all additional staff investment in the interim measures it is recommended that existing local authority ranger and warden services Staff team or other suitable and those of existing local authority partners and not a third party delivery organisations. body Full time post with duties covering community liaison, funding, implementation of projects, Pivotal to oversee and manage coordination of measures, Single point of contact across All, based within an LPA package of measures. Dedicated Delivery manager reporting to executive group etc authorities with overall team or other suitable role with oversight and able to hosted by one of the Local responsibility for delivery. body drive project forwards. Authorities. Will liaise and work closely with wide range of stakeholders. 2.5 (fte) posts embedded within Visitors will be more aware of Local Authority services with Directly targeted to where issues issues; particular damaging duties covering community liaison, occur and able to respond to activities will be intercepted and All areas – working working with volunteers, patrolling Ranger team issues on the ground. Flexible and quicker response time when issues within local authority beach areas, intercepting visitors able to respond to emerging (e.g. fires); greater presence on site services where particular issues/impacts issues. will mean issues are picked up (e.g. drones, dogs chasing birds, early. fires etc.), policing zones. Dog project and other work Adequate resources to ensure Project delivery All – but based within Part-time post streams require staff input to get projects are carefully planned and officer coastal local authority up and running. running efficiently.

115

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Location/part of LCR Theme Measure Relevant project detail Why necessary What will be achieved relevant Volunteer involvement will help ensure links to community and will Residents from across LCR with Volunteer Part-time post also provide greater pool of time more involvement in coastal issues All coordinator and skills to draw on, e.g. and better informed expanding ranger presence. Clear audit trail and key decisions made by carefully selected group, Executive Group Staff time Overall governance All, based within an LPA smoothing any political or cross- boundary tensions/issues Executive group and delivery Essential that accurate and up to Administration and manager kept informed and up to Staff time date records are maintained of All, based within an LPA accountancy date of financial matters, ensuring finances and work undertaken rapid implementation Provides strategic overview of gaps Consistent messaging and Delivery officer/rangers with some and potentials; there is already a information across the LCR for Signage & Audit of current external support, identifying wide range of existing signs and coastal visitors; high quality All Interpretation provision existing locations, condition, key interpretation already in place and interpretation providing sense of messages no point adding more without well-looked after and important clarity of which are priorities. assets. Consistent messaging and information across the LCR for Graphic design for coastal visitors; high quality new interpretation Commissioned external provider Essential to ensure quality. All interpretation providing sense of and signs well-looked after and important assets. Visitor are better informed, Information for new and existing understand issues and recognise New interpretation visitors; conveys sense of place and Production and installation that the coast and estuaries are All boards clear message that area well vulnerable to impacts from managed and cared-for. presence of people. 116

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Location/part of LCR Theme Measure Relevant project detail Why necessary What will be achieved relevant Information on how to behave and why. Production and installation measures specific to issues and Visitors are directed, and visitor Fewer visitors to sensitive areas, Targeted locations across New Signs, geographical location on flows rationalised. Visitors visitors also feeling that it matters Strategy area, informed waymarking etc. mitigation identified for specific deflected from sensitive areas. where they go. by audit projects. In the long term, local residents Work with schools will raise Material for schools hosted on and communities will feel more General Development of awareness of general issues in local website and some printed material connected and better informed Awareness education material community, ensuring positive All available, covering wintering about the coast, potentially leading Raising for schools relationship and better waterbirds and dune ecology to more volunteers, smoother understanding. relationship with community etc. New buyer sales packs which promote responsible use of green More consistent messaging is Awareness raised of impacts of space and specifically refer to needed to educate new residents poor behaviour in countryside and All but with tailored Development of coast recreation issues are and ensure that a strategic coast, local sensitivities identified, content to local SANG Sales information prepared by different developers approach is taken, and that buyer and locally relevant content and nearby European pack content at the project level. Available as a sales pack are of a consistent delivered for each local authority sites. downloadable e-resource for quality as a mitigation measure. area. tailoring to development-specific localities. In the long term, local residents Work with schools will raise and communities will feel more Budget to help local schools with awareness of general issues in local Funding for schools connected and better informed transport costs; targeted to community, ensuring positive All transport about the coast, potentially leading schools in local area relationship and better to more volunteers, smoother understanding. relationship with community etc. App providing interpretative Modern approach to interpretation Means to communicate to wider App All material, messages etc. and information; potential to work audience and reach a wider 117

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Location/part of LCR Theme Measure Relevant project detail Why necessary What will be achieved relevant well where visitors roaming on audience. Will allow messages to intertidal and dynamic habitats. be conveyed to visitors in coastal areas where other approaches (signs, interpretation etc. not possible) Creation of website covering LCR coast and ecological issues; one stop location for information on Fundamental as information portal Project has identity and travel, parking, places to visit, Social media and for public, developers, planners momentum and wide range of codes of conduct, events etc. Plus All website and conservation community. information can be easily accessed information on mitigation project, Pivotal to project identity. by wide range of audiences. work of rangers, monitoring results etc. Links to relevant organisations and feeds Codes of conduct to cover LCR Specific issues are associated with region and main access types - different activities. Codes of Rangers, volunteers and others can boating, watersports, dog walking conduct ensure clear dialogue and ensure visitors are provided with Codes of Conduct etc. Linked to branding of overall messages to each group. Work to clear information. Visitors All mitigation approach to ensure develop codes of conduct will be understand where to go, how to consistent clear message across positive as establishes dialogue behave etc. LCR and different organisations with users. Raises profile of coast and Dedicated events such as guided estuaries with local residents and Community and local residents walks and attendance at local communities; better connection Events able to interact with project and All community events with talks, stalls and opportunity to reach wide messages disseminated widely. etc. audience with messages (e.g. codes of conduct) Dog walking is the main activity LCR Dogs in Website and information packs Dog walkers are better informed Public engagement resulting in disturbance and also All Nature Project etc. and do not approach flocks of particular issues with fouling. 118

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Location/part of LCR Theme Measure Relevant project detail Why necessary What will be achieved relevant Project provides positive approach birds or let the dog run on the to working with dog walkers and intertidal or foul in sand dunes. resolving issues. Locations where particular issues Liaison with site managers and have tailored solutions. Signage Local issues with dog walking Targeted locations across Managing sites project specific signage for dog walkers needs to be dog resolved. LCR focussed. Offering dog training is a positive Reduction in sheep worrying, Events, training, guest speakers, gesture to dog walkers and better Dog school difficult dogs, dogs running loose All advice notes trained dogs less likely to cause where birds present. problems (e.g. sheep worrying) Positive gesture and allows rangers Dog walking community better Promoting sites to dog walkers, to approach dog walkers in informed of which locations to gazetteer, information on site Dog sites sensitive locations and highlight walk their dog and dog walking All issues (e.g. grazing), mostly web- locations that will be better for over time focussed at less sensitive based and through social media them to visit. locations. Centres become a ‘go to place’ for First time and infrequent visitors information. Potential to direct Budget to contribute to visitor Infrastructure will initially visit centres for access to these locations initially Visitor centre facilities to ensure meet & on site or near information. Potential to direct ensuring all visitors made to feel All improvements/work greet/information provision to coast users, provide information and welcome and are given targeted users etc. codes of conduct. information relating to their interest and activity. Audit using visitor survey data, Audit of existing focal groups and site visits to Will identify opportunities to paths, including Strong evidence base from which identify routes and identify deflect access, better focus footfall All unofficial/informal to identify path improvements. options to rationalise/improve, while enhancing access. routes directing visitor flows etc.

119

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Location/part of LCR Theme Measure Relevant project detail Why necessary What will be achieved relevant Boardwalks, new surfacing, Trampling and disturbance Measures will deflect access, waymarking and other measures reduced and access infrastructure Path improvements concentrate footfall, join up routes All to redistribute access as identified improved, creating a sense of and enhance access. in audit coherent management Budget to ensure fencing can be Fencing protects ponds and other maintained and is robust where Fencing in the right locations to sensitive features; essential to have Fencing visitor exclusions or restrictions deflect or prevent access or All (Sefton focus) good quality fencing to achieve necessary, e.g. Natterjack pools, contain grazing animals. grazing management. grazing units etc. Fires potentially put out more Rapid response to fires and greater Fire hydrants New fire hydrants at two locations quickly, possibly with less vehicle Sefton Coast area potential to limit damage. movements too. At least one area promoted as for Gradient in recreation pressure Quiet areas always available for Refuges wildlife only and recreational use with some areas retained as ‘quiet’ Sefton Coast area birds. . deterred areas in the long term. Provision of additional dog bins at Dog fouling an issue on sand dune locations where greatest increases habitats. Provision of bins helps Dog walkers recognise that they Dog bins All in pressure from housing is enforce message that dog walkers have no excuse not to pick up. identified are expected to pick up. Interviews with random sample of visitors, to check on distances travelled and engagement/awareness with SANGs and other mitigation Informs ranger effort and other Targeted locations across Monitoring Visitor interviews mitigation project; initial survey measures can be adapted and mitigation such as SANGs. LCR required to inform core zone honed to maximise effectiveness. boundary and then repeats undertaken once mitigation project well underway

120

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Location/part of LCR Theme Measure Relevant project detail Why necessary What will be achieved relevant Clear understanding across LCR Counts of cars and possibly use of Informs ranger effort and other Visitor numbers and coast of where access focussed, Targeted locations across automated counters across range mitigation such as parking activities how different locations change LCR of locations measures. over time, where change. Provides information on Recording Various records maintained by interventions so can check and Clear record of what has been implementation of All delivery officer hone mitigation in light of done, where and when. mitigation monitoring results. Will allow ranger effort and other mitigation measures to be targeted Maintained by LPAs in a Housing change over time clearly Levels of new to relevant areas of coast. Data standardised way, collated by presented and data accessible for All development can be cross-referenced over time delivery officer different areas. with other data such as visitor numbers. Species will fluctuate in distribution Budget to contribute/fill gaps in and abundance and dynamic coast existing monitoring, potentially Mitigation measures are targeted Ecological will change over time; mitigation All relating to birds (if gaps in WeBS), as necessary. measures may need to Natterjack, Dune Habitat, Erosion change/adapt accordingly. LCR wide review auditing all parking locations on and around Large proportion of visitors travel coast, considering potential for to coast by car. Where people Clear evidence base from which to charging to be adjusted (i.e. more park influences visitor distribution Travel Review of parking make informed decisions as to All expensive at sensitive locations), and footfall. Strategic LCR wide what changes are necessary. plus potential for improvements to audit and strategy necessary to focus use and activity. Potential to inform decisions close some parking locations. Parking Changes potentially including Access can be better distributed to Changes to parking will help improvements/modi improvements, resurfacing, reduce pressure at vulnerable All redistribute visitors. fications rationalising, changes to charging locations 121

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Location/part of LCR Theme Measure Relevant project detail Why necessary What will be achieved relevant Live parking information made available through app to allow Current issues with parking on Potential to influence visitors Parking and visitors to identify where parking busy days will be exacerbated over travelling by car before they are alternative sites All (Sefton focus) full and facilitating redistribution time. People heading to coast stuck in traffic jams and spread app/website of access. Potentially working with difficult to deflect. access pressure. Mersey Travel. Potential for promotion of existing bike hire scheme (Bike & Go) at Increased use of bicycles will stations to promote sustainable reduce car-use and focus access Wider promotion of access; routes could be promoted along cycle routes which are Reduction in car-use. All bike hire and routes through app to facilitate typically set back from sensitive redistribution of access away from areas. sensitive areas 80ha greenspace, Existing site(s) enhanced to deliver with funding Flagship destinations, welcoming strategic SANG. 80ha potentially Alternative destinations to draw SANG secured for in to access, where visitors such as All providing connected, large, people away from coast. perpetuity dog walkers can be deflected. strategic sites. management

122

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Mitigation measures: SAMM An integrated package of avoidance and mitigation measures will be needed for the RMS to satisfy legal obligations including:

• Staff (including additional rangers, project delivery officer, volunteer coordinator and a manager) • Signage and Interpretation • General awareness raising • Liverpool City Region Dogs in Nature Project • Travel related measures • Infrastructure on-site (on or near the coast) • Monitoring

123

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT SANG (Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace)

8.57 The relevant authorities within the Liverpool City Region already have a good track record of spending and partnership working to enhance existing public green spaces. SANG is likely to play an important role within the overall suite of avoidance and mitigation measures but in a way that develops delivery of SANG services beyond established expectations and demonstrably evidences additional mitigation. Small sites are unlikely to offer sufficient ranges of attractions, or facilities or be of sufficient scale to materially affect visitor pressure to the coast and the emphasis therefore needs to be on effective on-site management measures (SAMM) as described above. SANG needs to be of a suitable scale (and not necessarily single sites) and offer substantial facilities if it is to represent a real alternative to visitors drawn to the coast. Ideally, sites need to be large in scale, or a combination of smaller sites with accessible links to be able to offer a facility over and above dog-walking routes in an attractive and semi-natural setting.

8.58 Green and Blue Infrastructure therefore needs to form a long-term component of the emerging RMS. Further work is necessary to review and test identified sites to establish their prospects for delivery as a strategic SANG/Country Park. From the range of locations set out below and the high cost of provision and maintenance thereafter, it is likely that a relatively small number is likely to come forward, potentially staggered over time or in response to monitoring identifying a specific need for additional measures able to reduce impacts on the coast.

8.59 SANG locations have been identified within the LCR Interim Approach which will assist with mitigating the impacts of residential development within the Liverpool City Region. It is possible that not all local authorities will be able to provide SANGs within their administration. If identification of suitable sites is not possible, a hierarchy of alternative options could be followed within the emerging RMS follows:

• Explore options with neighbouring authorities to establish cross-boundary SANG sites • Establish options for a network of smaller, local SANG sites. In so doing, local authorities should be mindful that costs for x2 40ha sites do not scale linearly to a greater number of smaller sites. • Establish options for enhancement of existing GI provision to extend and provide services more akin to those sought through SANG.

8.60 Analysis has identified that a total around 80ha of SANG would need to be delivered as part of the integrated package to deliver the necessary avoidance and mitigation and this has been used as input data for the total cost estimate of the integrated solution (see Appendix 8). SANG provision would need to be of a scale to act as a draw for recreation and be able to accommodate the kinds of activities (e.g. walks) visitors are undertaking at the coast so they function as a destination in its own right.

124

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT 8.61 Each local planning authority should develop a SANG and SAMM delivery plan to support implementation of the final RMS. Draft maps 24 – 36 are included in the Map Annexe for completeness and will be updated during final preparation of the RMS as follows:

o Map 24: Point locations of potential mitigation measures, identified in stakeholder workshop (to be updated).

o Map 25: Extent of a 5 km buffer zone around protected sites in the LCR (to be updated).

o Map 26: Core zone of influence (to be updated).

o Map 27: Core zone of influence compared to a 5km buffer around parking locations (to be updated).

o Map 28: Core zone of influence compared to travel time zones (to be updated).

o Map 29: Key tourist zone, a 1 km buffer around the Dee and Sefton SAC (to be updated).

o Map 30: Viability zones (to be updated).

o Map 31: Pie charts to show the relative number of adults, minors and dogs recorded at each survey point from the Footprint Ecology tally counts (to be updated).

o Map 32: Density of interviewee routes from Footprint Ecology survey, shown using a 100 m hexagonal grid (to be updated).

o Map 33: Distribution of all interviewee postcodes (inset map) and of only those interviewees (Footprint Ecology survey) travelling from home (main map) (to be updated).

o Map 34: Distribution of postcodes of interviewees (Footprint Ecology survey) travelling from home to the northern survey points (to be updated).

o Map 35: Distribution of postcodes of interviewees (Footprint Ecology survey) travelling from home to the southern survey points (to be updated).

o Map 36: Interviewee postcodes (travelling from home only, Footprint Ecology survey) and the convex hulls to represent the 75% and 95% nearest around each survey point (to be updated).

Avoidance and Mitigation measures: SANG SANGs can form part of an integrated avoidance and mitigation package. Costs for SANG have been calculated to allow for a total of 80ha SANG which is what is required to, along with the SAMM, provide an appropriate quantum of avoidance and mitigation to protect the European sites. Each local authority could prepare a SANGs plan to facilitate implementation in liaison with each other to encourage consistency of format and content. The guidelines included within Appendix 7 provide guidance on such an approach.

125

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

9. Overview of Implementation Options and Approaches Used Elsewhere

Review of approaches used elsewhere

9.1 There is considerable experience of implementing avoidance and mitigation measures elsewhere in the UK. Table 10 summarise strategic mitigation schemes elsewhere, and we summarise information on when each started, the number of local authorities involved, the planning context and examples of the charges levied per dwelling. Each scheme is different, tailored to the local circumstances, economic conditions and site issues, nonetheless they provide useful context as to successful approaches in place.

9.2 Strategic mitigation schemes typically operate with developer contributions as the primary funding mechanism. Whilst some have utilised other sources of income such as Government funding schemes and in-kind contributions for a small proportion of the funding required, it is recognised that local planning authority budgets are under pressure. Competent authorities, local planning authorities must secure the necessary avoidance and mitigation measures, are faced with limited options other than following the ‘polluter pays’ principle, requiring developer contributions to fund the measures.

9.3 The strategies highlighted have typically developed in a similar fashion to the approach followed in the emerging RMS albeit over a longer timescale. This is because agreement of a strategic approach is a significant undertaking requiring considerable consultation and relationship building. Implementation of avoidance and mitigation measures generally rely on building a core delivery team or enhancing existing local authority teams frequently embedded within the countryside, greenspace, parks and ranger services. Implementation is also in line with housing delivery, so the level of delivery at any given time should be such that it adequately mitigates for the volume of new housing coming forward and providing funds.

9.4 Charges for a given scheme may vary between authorities or according to dwelling size etc. so the charges given in Table 10 are examples only, for one authority and one size of dwelling. It is also important to highlight that in all of the areas covered by the schemes; house prices and viability vary markedly, and viability concerns have been raised in all. Perhaps notably, the Cannock Chase scheme involves developer contributions from a radius of 8km, which encompasses Stafford; and the Solent scheme encompasses Southampton, Gosport and Portsmouth which are very different in terms of viability to some of the more rural areas such as the New Forest or locations such as Chichester. South Tyneside has recently adopted an SPD for its European site mitigation strategy. Viability concerns were one reason for weighting the tariff to be applied to 10 units or more (i.e. the full cost of

126

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT measures was divided by the 10 unit or more allocations). Emerging schemes also include the Suffolk Coast where there is marked variation in house prices and viability issues between Ipswich and more rural Suffolk near the coast.

Viability Delivering a strategic approach to recreation pressure is a positive solution to the legislative requirements of the Habitats Regulations. Compliance is not discretionary and it is clearly stated viability is not a consideration under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). The proposed interim measures and emerging RMS do not create additional burden but rather, provide a means of facilitating the HRA process at the project level, reducing delay and costs to the developer by providing a straight forward solution to use and reduces risk to the emerging Local Plans.

Notwithstanding this, viability of development is a very important consideration for the local planning authorities within the Liverpool City Region and varies geographically within local authority areas depending on land values and the housing market amongst others. Viability will remain a challenge when meeting housing targets, encouraging investment and creating communities.

Governance considerations

9.5 Putting in place effective arrangements to Govern and monitor implementation of the emerging RMS will require discussion and agreement with the local authorities, Mayoral Combined Authority and consultation with key stakeholders such as significant land owners and land manager and Natural England. Until then, the governance arrangements to support completion of the RMS and implementation of the interim measures will continue as currently and are set out below:

• Each local authority to administer implementation of the interim measure through the existing mechanisms for planning legal obligations e.g. S106 reporting. This will need to include monitoring and reporting of measures agreed through an annual monitoring report; • Project Steering arrangements to continue with an officer Steering Group whose membership includes the 6 LCR local authorities, Mayoral Combined Authority; National Trust, Natural England and Cheshire West and Chester Council as an associate member; • Local authority Member level approvals, authorisations and reporting according to the scheme of delegation in operation; • Progress reporting to the Sefton Coast Landscape Partnership Board at regular intervals.

127

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT 9.6 Given that this draft Evidence Report is a precursor to the RMS governance structures to enable movement of resources collected through planning obligations between the local authorities will be very difficult to achieve. Thus, as an interim measure both SANG and SAMM measures will remain within each local authority area for implementation. However, this position will need to be revisited once the emerging RMS is completed.

9.7 For the emerging RMS to be implemented effectively a governance structure will need to be agreed that enables working across the LCR and across administrative boundaries. It will need to achieve an appropriate balance between local and strategic needs. A governance structure that ties in the competent authorities (local planning authorities in particular) is also necessary to have confidence that there is commitment to the delivery, and that the commitment continues through the current local plan periods and beyond. Audit trails from the developer contributions made, through to the implementation of measures and monitoring outcome effectiveness are essential and need to be reported through the governance structure in place.

9.8 A typical governance structure, applied to mitigation strategies elsewhere includes an executive group that has representation from each of the local planning authorities, Natural England and other key delivery partners as required. The delivery staff would need to be hosted by a suitable organisation most likely embedded within the local authorities, where their daily line management would be provided. Their work programme would be both locally defined and strategically directed by the executive group. It is important that the competent authorities responsible for compliance with the Habitats Regulations are represented.

128

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Interim Governance The existing governance arrangements that have overseen the preparation of initial developments of the RMS, the draft Evidence Report and proposed survey scope. Interim measures are also being developed within that context although due to Local Plan Examination timescale pressures, work has largely advanced on an authority basis.

For those local authorities that advance their own Interim Approach or secure developer contributions through planning obligations, they will be responsible for governance, collection, monitoring and reporting of the effectiveness of measures provided.

Commissioning and management of further evidence gathering will be a joint activity procured through Sefton Council.

Governance options During completion of the final RMS, Governance arrangements will need to be carefully explored. However, it is anticipated that an “executive group” will need to maintain an overview of monitoring results and mitigation delivery.

129

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT Table 1: Overview of strategic mitigation schemes and key details of how each works. Number of European sites refers to how many different, geographically separated sites are involved. Constraint zones are those where there is a presumption against development. ZOI is the zone of influence.

No. diff. Number of Start year Constraint Example Area Europea ZoI local Planning context Key references (approx.) zone charge n sites authorities Underhill-Day (2005); Liley et al. A single joint SPD sets out Dorset Heaths 2007 1 5km 400m 5 £375 +SANG (2007); South-east Dorset local mitigation across all authorities planning authorities (2016) Sliding scale based on Underhill-Day (2005); Liley et al. Thames Basin Each LPA has separate SPD in 2009 1 5km 400m 11 dwelling size: (2006); Burley (2007); Joint Strategic Heaths line with Delivery Framework £4039 for 1 Partnership Board (2008). bedroom Different for each European South-east 400m for Liley et al. (2014); Cruickshanks & 2014 3 10km 3 site; e.g. £800 Joint strategy, no SPD Devon some sites Liley (2012) for Dawlish Warren zone Sliding scale based on no. Bird Aware Solent (2017); Liley & Solent 2014 3 5.6km 15 Joint strategy, no SPD bedrooms £337 Tyldesley (2013) for 1 bedroom Overarching guidance note with Cannock Chase 2015 1 15km 6 £221 each authority implementing Underhill-Day & Liley (2012) differently £223 per Joint strategy finalised in 2014 North Kent 2016 3 6km 5 Liley & Underhill-Day (2013) dwelling and interim document A single authority strategy, with £403 per South Tyneside 2018 2 6km 1 an adopted SPD. Tariff weighted Hoskin et al. (2017) dwelling to apply to 10 units or more

130

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

10. Evidence Commissioning and Timescale

Introduction

10.1 Consultation with the RMS Steering Group on the draft RMS report (June 2018) identified significant evidence-base shortcomings that should be resolved prior to completing the strategy. The risks revolved around 3 principal issues:

• Sample size and robustness of the post-code data for non-coastal authority residents with particularly small sample sizes identified for Halton, Knowsley and St.Helens; • A skew in the postcode data outside of the bird breeding period (autumn and spring passage and winter periods), with summer post-code data under-represented in the evidence base. Whilst this skew is partly explained by the observation that majority of European sites in the LCR have designation features which are most sensitive during the non-breeding bird period several of the sites including Sefton Coast SAC and Dee Estuary SAC do have designation features that are especially vulnerable in spring and summer (outside of the non-breeding bird period). For example, the Footprint Ecology survey focussed recreation impacts and disturbance to ornithology whereas other European sites may be more sensitive to littering, eutrophication, fire damage (arson, open fires, barbeques or discarded cigarettes), trampling of sensitive habitats and erosion from people pressure such as new paths and creating blow outs in dunes; • Relying overly on recreation use data during the non-breeding bird period introduces a spring / summer skew where the visitor profiles, visitor origin, visit duration and types of activity are often very different to those during winter. This is backed up by other surveys undertaken on the LCR coast, especially those in Sefton, but which do not necessarily provide sufficient comprehensive or quality data.

10.2 The Steering Group resolved that the combination of the above three risks created sufficient doubt that completion of the RMS should be paused until such time as the priority gaps in the evidence base are addressed satisfactorily. Risks revolved around technical planning issues and in particular, the planning obligation tests (e.g. Section 106 agreements etc.) were considered by the Steering Group to be difficult to meet despite the Habitats Regulations being based on the precautionary principle because there is no means of balancing planning need and HRA processes. HRA needs to demonstrate that the project (or policy / plan for that matter) will not have an adverse impact on site integrity as a regulatory compliance test. The Steering Group also took account of relevant case history and court judgements.

10.3 A further consideration from the Steering Group was that many of the housing sites across the LCR had marginal development viability and, it could be perceived, despite legislative requirements of the Habitats Regulations, that financial payments for implementation of avoidance and mitigation measures might materially impact on development viability. This risk

130

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

has the potential to be managed through more up-to-date and comprehensive recreation user survey data.

10.4 Dialogue continued during 2019 over the scope and funding of the additional evidence gathering required prior to commissioning. This was informed by on-going visitor survey work in Sefton during 2018 and 2019 which sought to provide a greater understanding of activities and origins of visitors to Sefton’s coast during the spring, summer and autumn periods. 2018 and 2019 Survey on Sefton Coast

10.5 Analysis of the draft 2018/2019 Sefton Visitor survey reports has revealed that this evidence, albeit helpful, has not sufficiently clarified the risks raised in 11.1 – 11.3 above because of issues with survey method including number of coastal sites surveyed and an absence of Sefton-resident survey. These data did however, clearly show that a significant proportion of visitors to Ainsdale-on-Sea and Crosby Coastal Park in Sefton originated from postcodes outside of the LCR especially in Greater Manchester and Lancashire.

10.6 The Steering Group subsequently agreed that there was significant merit in setting out the essential data fields and requirements for recreational use surveys so that these could be consistently collected in all the future user surveys of the LCR coast, green and open space assets. A key outcome would therefore be a series of mandatory data fields for relevant survey commissions by public bodies and other partners across the LCR. This approach was considered to be an efficient way to help keep the evidence base up-to-date and sufficiently comprehensive in scope and spatial coverage.

10.7 Alternative sources of data have also been explored but have significant limitations in the quality of required data as well as other restrictions e.g. General Data Protection Regulations makes this more difficult if data is to be used for different purposes than for what it was originally collected. Dialogue remains on-going with partners, especially those who are land owner and managers such as National Trust and Natural England. Proposed Survey Funding and Procurement

10.8 Agreement has been reached amongst the local authorities to fund and participate in further evidence gathering to address the risks identified above and to facilitate completion of the RMS. This together with the remaining budget leaves sufficient funding available to address the priority evidence gaps and complete the emerging strategy.

10.9 The procurement process to be followed will be via Sefton’s procurement procedures. A view will also be sought from the existing contractors on the most effective ways to expedite progress. Any unallocated resource for the evidence gathering will be returned to the Local Authorities on a proportionate basis.

10.10 Given that the available evidence also conclusively shows that some coastal visitors originate from outside the LCR some non-LCR Planning Authorities will also be invited to partner and part-fund the additional survey work. The logic for this being that they will then be able to

131

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

draw upon the evidence in an efficient way for their own planning and Habitat Regulations compliance purposes. Proposed Survey Evidence Gathering

Meta Data to be collected

10.11 It is essential that complementary survey methods are used and are included in all commission specifications/briefs to provide a consistent and comparable data set. Table 16 sets these out and should be considered as essential metadata requirements for any survey work commissioned that is related to recreational use of LCR green and open spaces and especially the European sites. The objective is to create a more robust and reproducible evidence base moving forward and will facilitate keeping it up-to-date when partners commission similar work or undertake future work in-house. Consideration will also be given to providing an online survey option moving forward as a continuous monitoring mechanism (see priority 4 survey).

Item Description Survey Locations Easting and Northing Date and time of survey 24-hour clock and date format 01/01/2020 Estimated duration Rounded to the nearest hour Arrival time 24-hour clock Weather conditions Weather, approximate temperature (degrees Celsius), wind direction, clou cover (beaufort scale) and speed (mph) Mode of Transport Foot, Cycle, Car, Bus, Train, other Origin postcode Full postcode but first half essential e.g. L13 or CH44 Travel route Route used to arrive at destination Number of Users Number in Group i.e. to measure footfall Children under 13, Teenagers, Adults (18 – 65). Retired / Senior (>65) Main Activity / motivator Select from list or Other [drop down menu] for visit Main Activity Location Do you undertake this activity away from the coast? If so, where Secondary Activity Select from list or Other [drop down menu] Main Activity Location Do you undertake this activity away from the coast? If so, where Frequency of visit Daily, Weekly, Monthly [drop down menu] Seasonality of Visit All year round, winter, spring, summer, autumn Group composition – Who else is with you today? Friends and Relatives Facilities Which facilities do you use? Wildlife and Nature Does wildlife and nature make this location more attractive? Yes/No If yes, what wildlife/nature in particular Improvements in What could change to make your visit more enjoyable? visitor provision Table 15 – Essential meta-data requirements for all recreation and green, open space, park and coast recreation user surveys

132

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Survey scope

Objectives

10.12 The following proposed recreation user surveys will form the basis of a specification for tender / quotation purposes. Proposed surveys have been assigned different priorities depending on whether or not they are on the critical path for completion of the emerging RMS.

10.13 The objectives for priority 1 - 3 surveys are to: (i) Establish the origins of recreation users and visitors to the LCR European Coast main access gateways and sites; (ii) Identify main activities and motivators for recreational visits; (iii) Identify main modes and routes of travel; (iii) Establish a baseline of frequency and duration of recreation use – note that the method used will need to take account of avoiding surveying the same individuals on the same site on different dates; (iv) Identify whether users access alternative coastal and non-coastal locations for recreation use in the CR; (v) To update the Footprint Ecology survey evidence base of 2017 and identify any changes / emerging trends in recreation use; (vi) Provide a robust data set to inform the emerging LCR RMS.

Mandatory Information

10.14 For each survey to be completed to support the emerging RMS, the contractors will be required to use a method which collects all the meta-data set out in Table 15.

High Priority Surveys

10.15 The highest priority surveys namely 1, 2 and 3 are to be undertaken to provide the evidence base for the emerging RMS.

10.16 Priority 1 - On European Site recreation user surveys. Geographic scope is to include all the LCR locations in the Footprint Ecology survey (Liley et al 2017) plus 13 other LCR coastal locations and survey method to be complementary to that earlier study as set out in Table 19 below. The survey should be undertaken over a continuous 12-month period with each coastal site surveyed on both a weekend and week day once a month. Additional survey should also be undertaken at a selection of bank holiday and holiday dates.

133

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

2016/17 Location Footprint Ecology Comment study Sefton Marshside Yes RSPB reserve Ainsdale-on-Sea Yes Sefton – Ainsdale Discovery Centre Formby Yes National Trust Crosby – north end No Additional location - Hall Road Crosby – south end No Possibly 2 additional locations – Crosby Lakeside Activity Centre and Seawall adjacent to Anthony Gormley art installation Liverpool – few accessible locations identified due to coast access restrictions due to land ownership, sea wall, other accessibility issues. Nature of European sites designation features are largely an insensitive to recreation pressure in the vicinity of Mersey Narrows due to restricted access, deep water, high seawalls and designation features being mobile (e.g. common terns). Oglet Bay shoreline No Close access to Mersey estuary shoreline, limited car parking provision. Otterspool Park and No No access to shoreline – Eastern end park and or Promenade Promenade and Riverdale Road car park Speke / Garston Coastal No Limited access to foreshore – survey from car park Reserve access and to include sailing club Halton Hale Head Yes Adjacent to Oglet in Liverpool – long distance from ca park and difficult circular route will reduce accessibility of the coast Pickerings Pasture No Halton’s primary coastal visitor location Wigg Island No Southern side of river Wirral Eastham Country Park No Limited foreshore access and limited potential for disturbance Egremont Promenade No Easy intertidal access Leasowe Bay Yes Key gateway destination within coastal park Hoylake Sailing Club No Promenade between Lifeboat station and Sailing Club Red Rocks No Access from Stanley road slipway West Kirby Yes Gateway destination focus for beach, marine lake and Hilbre islands access Thurstaston Yes Gateway and visitor centre, direct Wirral Way link Lower Heswall No Access from Sheldrakes, Sailing Club from Heswall Beach car park, Riverbank Road Non-LCR sites potentially to be surveyed subject to adjacent authority making financial contributions West Lancashire – no survey locations are proposed as the coast is not accessible and use confined to embankment. RSPB Hesketh Marsh – users are bird watchers predominantly Cheshire West and Chester – single location identified due to accessibility of the foreshore which is marsh Parkgate seafront No Whilst there is an embankment, users to access relatively narrow foreshore strip. Table 19 – Proposed Sites to be included in the Priority 1 on-European site recreation surveys

134

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

10.17 Priority 2 - SANG and Alternative Green Space and Park recreation user surveys. The objectives and method for SANG should be the same as Priority 1 for the European sites. A minimum of 2 SANG locations per local authority area should be surveys. However, due to population size, cost proposals should be prepared for 3 SANG locations in Sefton and Wirral boroughs and 4 in Liverpool City.

10.18 Priority 2 locations are defined as strategic parks and open spaces which already act as significant receptors of recreational pressure but also have potential, with appropriate investment to absorb additional recreational use and potentially reduce recreational pressure on European sites. In particular, the sites have been identified because of their spatial extent and existing connections or potential for development to absorb regular recreational use all year-round walking comprising family walking/play, running, cycling and dog walking. The same locations of potential SANGs as described in this section should be used as this will benefit the robustness of the evidence collected and facilitate keeping the evidence base up- to-date through monitoring and reporting. Potential SANG locations for priority 2 survey are as follows:

• Halton – Runcorn Hill Park LNR, Spike Island or Victoria Park; • Knowsley – Court Hey Park or Stadt Moers; • Liverpool – Croxteth Hall and Country Park, Calderstones Park, Everton Park, Newsham Park or Sefton Park or Walton Hall Park; • St. Helens – Bold Forest Park areas including Sutton Manor, Sankey Valley Park, Sherdley Park or Taylor Park; • Sefton – Derby Park, Hesketh Park, Derby Park, Leeds Liverpool Canal, Hesketh Par and Victoria Park, Rimrose Valley Park may be too complex given Highways England proposals, Marine Lake and Pier, Southport; • Wirral – Arrowe Park, Birkenhead Park, Eastham Country Park, Royden Country Park / Thurstaston Country Park or Vale Park. • It is likely that finance will dictate the number of potential SANGs surveyed.

10.19 Priority 3 – Additional survey of both Priority 1 and Priority 2 survey locations with the objective of establishing the overall level of recreation use and pressure on coastal and non-coastal sites. Two methods should be used that are as follows: (i) Completing transect counts of users and types of activity. A sampling method should be used at defined periods during the survey period i.e. on arrival at survey start, mid-point and survey end prior to departure; (ii) Driving tally count of car park use.

135

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Lower Priority Surveys

10.20 The objectives for the lower priority surveys are slightly different and include: (i) Establish the origins of recreation users and visitors to the LCR European Coast; (ii) Establish the origins of recreation users and visitors to a sample of parks, green and open spaces in the LCR; (iii) Identify main activities and motivators for visits; (iv) Establish a baseline of frequency and duration of recreation use on the coast and on parks, green and open spaces; (v) Identify any barriers to accessing parks, green and open spaces from origin postcode; (vi) Update the Footprint Ecology survey evidence base; (vii) Use the data collected to inform the emerging LCR Recreation Mitigation and Avoidance Strategy.

10.21 Priority 4 and 5 surveys are considered less urgent and may be more appropriate for monitoring purposes and improving understanding of wider patterns of green and blue open space use. The following lower priority surveys also have embedded biases in the sampling methods which will need to be corrected during analysis and interpretation. They will only be implemented subject to funding availability and funds will be allocated preferentially to Priorities 1 – 3.

10.22 Priority 4 – On-line user survey. The purpose of this survey would be to provide an opt-in facility for users to complete. It may be particularly useful for harder to reach coastal recreation users who may not be amenable to survey due to the nature of activity, safety and time constraints. For example, active water sports users such as kite surfers and swimmers may not be amenable to face to face interview due to weather and tide considerations and also because it may not be safe for the interviewer to do so.

10.23 The on-line survey design will need to consider the following: (i) Survey design including metadata and introductory text; (ii) Identify on-line platform – hosted site or individual local authority sites via planning, parks and open space services; (iii) Agree communications approach; (iv) Be continuous from commencement of Priority 1 – 3 surveys and include seasonal reporting periods – winter December to February inclusive; spring March to May inclusive; summer June to August inclusive and autumn September to November inclusive. (vi) Become integrated into the RMS monitoring and reporting mechanisms.

10.24 Priority 5a - Postcode Telephone Survey. Method based on random phone surveys using first half of postcode >5km from LCR coast. The survey method relies on commercial

136

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

survey companies buying telephone lists for LCR locations and randomly ringing the numbers until the desired sample size is reached. Telephone surveys can augment the on- side surveys are help establish: (i) Establish a proportion of users / non user of coast and/or parks/green/open spaces; (ii) Identify barriers to recreation use; (iii) For those who do access coast and/or parks/green/open spaces; • Establish whether the interviewee visits parks, green and open spaces and if so; • Strengthen baseline of frequency and duration of recreation use.

10.25 Phone surveys generally need to be very short and generate low return rates (<10%). The unsolicited nature of cold calling and introduced biases in the method including how the phone list was originated in the first place, initial call hang-ups, demographic issues e.g. work patterns and availability to complete surveys with age profile and recall / recency issues are all significant limitations to adopting this approach.

10.26 Priority 5b – Resident survey of complete housing developments of >50 units. This approach may be able to capture recreation patterns from newly completed housing developments given that the quantum of housing development is identified as an issues for the European sites.

10.27 The 50-unit size threshold on first occupation has been identified because it is more likely that a meaningful sample of occupiers will return the surveys and because there is a much higher likelihood that planning obligations can be used to include resident survey. However, the method may introduce bias including new occupiers not being familiar with the local area and local opportunities and that their recreation behaviour during the first 12-months of occupation may not be representative e.g. greater focus on home making / settling in.

Use of Survey Data

10.28 The timescale for completing survey is set out in Table 20 which has been severely impacted by C-19. The results of the survey data should be used in four main ways:

• Update of the emerging RMS by Footprint Ecology – budget has already been allocated for completion of the RMS. The update of the RMS would then be followed by consultation as appropriate and agreed by the Local Authorities; • To inform case by case HRA assessments according to the interim measures proposed within this draft Evidence Report and information by District-specific Interim Information and Guidance Notes; • To inform the Habitats Regulations Assessment process for emerging Local Plans;

137

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

• Update of the European sites conservation advice packages and site improvement plans (where they exist) to bring the evidence base and assessment of recreation effects up-to- date. Natural England should provide a timescale for updating this advice.

Timescale for Completion of the LCR RMS

10.29 Table 20 sets out the proposed timescale for completion of the evidence gathering. The timetable has been unavoidably revised following the Covid-19 outbreak and this has led to unprecedented changes in the levels and patterns of recreation use with lockdown and social distancing measures in place. The key factors leading to unusual and non-representative use include:

• Travel restrictions that will inevitably skew use towards local community; • Social distance and shielding that will change the pattern of user groups e.g. size and type of activity undertaken e.g. no organised events / team activities; • Family shielding and fewer older people leaving their homes e.g. increase in volunteer shopping; • Fear of infection and fear of prosecution; • An increase in keep fit physical activity use from those users’ who benefitted from indoor exercise (e.g. gym users) or other sports (e.g. rugby); • Home schooling and the need for children to exercise with the only option being local; • Workplace restrictions meaning larger numbers of home workers requiring outdoor space to relax / take breaks as part of well-being plans; • Travel restrictions acting as a barrier to out of area visitors; and • Limits on number of activities e.g. one daily exercise in family bubble during lockdown.

10.30 Given uncertainties around exit from lockdown and related changes in peoples’ behaviour longer term, e.g. more staycations and less foreign travel, it is considered that the data would be so severely skewed as not to be representative or robust upon which to base a longer-term strategic approach. Furthermore:

• Covid-19 fear and restrictions will substantially reduce the likelihood of face to face surveys being effective. It is likely to gain a robust sample sizes, longer effort would be needed which again introduces bias; • Practical issues of securing sufficient surveyors given organisational Covid-19 risk assessments; • Uncertainty that the level of Covid-19 restriction during the survey would change, thus altering the behaviour and further skewing the samples; • The local authorities have a fiduciary duty to spend public funds responsible and as there is a severely limited funding source, this test is not met when the results are highly likely to be non-representative and open to challenge; and • Longer term changes in recreation pattern will take time to establish. • undertaking surveys , the methods for survey will be kept under review to deliver the most effective use of limited resources to provide the best data. It will be important to

138

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

undertake the priority 1 - 3 surveys once C-19 impacts on recreation and visitor use patterns have reduced, travel restrictions have been reviewed and people feel sufficiently safe and confident to recreate once more. It will therefore be strongly influenced by vaccination progress.

10.31 The procurement route will remain the same i.e. managed by MEAS through Sefton Council’s competitive procurement process for specialist evidence gathering on behalf of the LCR local authorities. Opportunities to dual-track activity will be sought wherever possible to reduce timescale risk. However, for the multiple reasons stated in 10.29-10.30 above the survey timetable has been revised to take account of Covid-19 effects. The timescales presented in the following table are considered to currently be optimistic given the uncertainties of Covid- 19 trajectory, vaccination and recreation user response. The dates are therefore considered earliest possible.

Activity Deadline Responsibility Additional Recreation User Survey, priority 1 – 3 inclusive: - Informal consultation on methods and scope 30/9/20 MEAS - Informal liaison with Footprint Ecology 30/9/20 MEAS - Funding confirmation from Districts; 30/9/20 SG/MEAS - Agree scope of surveys; On-going March 21 SG/MEAS - Agree procurement route; March 21 Sefton/MEAS - Invitation to tender April 21 MEAS - Earliest Commissioning; 31/5/21 Tbc - Commence Evidence gathering; Earliest 06/21 Tbc - Complete Evidence gathering; Earliest 06/22 Tbc - Reporting Earliest 09/22 Tbc Table 20 – Proposed Timescale for Recreation Use Survey – Priorities 1 to 3 inclusive

10.32 The inescapable impact of the revised survey timetable is that completion and implementation of the resulting RMS will be unavoidably delayed.

139

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

11. Next Steps and Timetable

Next steps

11.1 There is a pressing need to publish the draft Evidence Report because of three principal drivers:

• To support emerging Local Plan processes including Examination Hearings for Halton and Liverpool; • To provide context and evidence for emerging Interim Approaches at LCR and local authority level; • To maintain progress and build momentum towards completion of the RMS.

11.2 The timetable completing the RMS is set out in Table 21 below. Natural England has requested the LCR local authorities provide a clear timetable to reduce deliverability risks and to increase certainty that the requirements of the Habitats Regulations will be met in the interim and as a component part of a strategic response to recreation pressure on European sites from new housing. The timescale therefore includes provision for limited consultation prior to entering the public domain

Timescale to complete RMS

Activity Deadline Responsibility Additional Evidence Base data available as: - evidence updates; 12/21 Appointed - complete survey data. 06/22 contractors - Reporting. 09/22 RMS document: - Update RMS Report 10/22 – 12/22 Footprint Ecology - Draft final RMS to Steering Group for consultation 02/23 – 4 weeks SG - Final amendments to RMS 02/23 – 2 weeks Footprint Ecology - Final RMS for local authority approval and 6-week 04/22 – 05/22 Scope to be agreed consultation Set-up financial mechanisms for 09/22 – 02/23 SG to lead / co- - Legal mechanisms to collect tariff; ordinate - Establishment of SAMM/SANG cross-authority fund - Mechanism for distribution to delivery partners; - establishment of RMS team (Implementation By 05/23 Manager first appointment);

RMS amendments following 6-week consultation 03/23 – 05/23 Footprint Ecology with SG oversight Earliest Adoption approval (delegation sought as part of From 06/23 LCR local authorities previous approval process). Earliest RMS Implementation date From 06/23 LCR local authorities

140

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT Monitoring, Reporting and Review RMS monitoring and review programme co-ordinated by From 07/23 LCR local authorities, RMS team and partners. MEAS, RMS team Reporting cycle and strategic measures of success etc to be 01/04/24 included within the final RMS RMS reporting integrated into local authority Authoring Rolling RMS team Monitoring Reports. programme: Annual updates from 12/24

Table 21 – Draft Timescale for Completion of the LCR RMS

11.3 The above timetable sets out the process for completing the RMS as clearly as possible, but it is likely to be subject to further change once the recovery strategy following the Covid-19 outbreak is known. Steering Group meetings will be timetabled to guide the process and ensure that the project remains on track, subject to non-controllable external factors.

141

12. 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.

Batey, C. (2013) The effectiveness of management options in reducing human disturbance to wetland and coastal birds. The Plymouth Student Scientist, 6, 340–354.

Beale, C.M. & Monaghan, P. (2004) Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? Journal of Applied Ecology, 41, 335–343.

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.

Bird Aware Solent. (2017) Solent Recreation Mitigation Strategy.

Booth, J.E., Gaston, K.J. & Armsworth, P.R. (2009) Public understanding of protected area designation. Biological Conservation, 142, 3196–3200.

Brambilla, M., Rubolini, D. & Guidali, F. (2004) Rock climbing and Raven Corvus corax occurrence depress breeding success of cliff-nesting Peregrines Falco peregrinus. Ardeola, 51, 425–430.

Bright, A., Reynolds, G.R., Innes, J. & Waas, J.R. (2003) Effects of motorised boat passes on the time budgets of New Zealand dabchick, Poliocephalus rufopectus. Wildl. Res., 30, 237–244.

Burger, J. & Leonard, J. (2000) Conflict resolution in coastal waters: the case of personal watercraft. Marine Policy, 24, 61–67.

Burley, P. (2007) Report to the Panel for the Draft South East Plan Examination in Public on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area and Natural England’s Draft Delivery Plan. Inspectorate, Planning.

Burton, N.H.K., Armitage, M.J.S., Musgrove, A.J. & Rehfisch, M.M. (2002) Impacts of man-made landscape features on numbers of estuarine waterbirds at low tide. Environ. Manage., 30, 857–864.

Burton, N.H., Rehfisch, M.M. & Clark, N.A. (2002) Impacts of disturbance from construction work on the densities and feeding behavior of waterbirds using the intertidal mudflats of Cardiff Bay, UK. Environ Manage, 30, 865–71.

Chapman, C. (2014) The suitable alternative natural greenspace (SANG) approach: are we missing more suitable alternatives? The Habitats Regulations Assessment Journal, 18–21.

Clark, J.A., Baillie, S., Clark, N.A. & Langston, R.H.W. (1993) Estuary Capacity Following Severe Winter Weather. British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford, Norfolk.

142

Clarke, D. & Sanitwong Na Ayutthaya, S. (2010) Predicted effects of climate change, vegetation and tree cover on dune slack habitats at Ainsdale on the Sefton Coast, UK. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 14, 115–125.

Cook, A.S.C.P., Barimore, C., Holt, C.A., Read, W.J. & Austin, G.E. (2013) Changes in Numbers of Wintering Waterbirds in the Constituent Countries of the United Kingdom, Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Sites of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSIs). BTO Research Report, BTO, Thetford, Norfolk.

Coyle, M. & Wiggins, S. (2010) European Marine Site Risk Review. Natural England Research Report, Natural England.

Cruickshanks, K. & Liley, D. (2012) East Devon, Exeter and Teignbridge Household Survey and Predictions of Visitor Use of Greenspaces. Footprint Ecology.

Cryer, M., Linley, N.W., Ward, R.M., Stratford, J.O. & Randerson, P.F. (1987) Disturbance of overwintering wildfowl by anglers at two reservoir sites in South Wales. Bird Study, 34, 191–199.

Denton, J. & Groome, G. (2017) Dogs and ponds: a case study from Headley Heath. Conservation Land Management, 15, 4–8.

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.

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.

Edmondson, S.E. & Velmans, C. (2001) Public perception of nature management on a sand dune system. Coastal Dune Management Shared Experience of European Conservation Practice, p. Liverpool University Press, Southport.

Edwards, V. & Knight, S. (2006) Understanding the Pyschology of Walkers with Dogs: New Approaches to Better Management. University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth.

England’s Northwest Research Service. (2005) Sefton Coast Research 2005. Unpublished report for Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council.

England’s Northwest Research Service. (2006) Sefton’s Natural Coast Research 2006. Unpublished report for Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council.

England’s Northwest Research Service. (2009) Sefton’s Natural Coast. Study for Sefton MBC. Part 1 Visit Profile of Coastal Users. Unpublished report for Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council.

England’s Northwest Research Service. (2011) Sefton’s Natural Coast. Profile of Coast Visitors for Sefton MBC. Unpublished report for Sefton Council.

Fitzpatrick, S. & Bouchez, B. (1998) Effects of recreational disturbance on the foraging behaviour of waders on a rocky beach. Bird Study, 45, 157–171.

Freeman, E., Akhurst, J., Bannigan, K. & James, H. (2017) Benefits of walking and solo experiences in UK wild places. Health Promotion International, 32, 1048–1056.

143

Gilburn, A.S. (2012) Mechanical grooming and beach award status are associated with low strandline biodiversity in Scotland. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 107, 81–88.

Gill, J.A. (1996) Habitat choice in wintering pink-footed geese:quantifying the constraints determining winter site use. Journal of Applied Ecology, 33, 884–892.

Global Tourism Solutions (UK) Ltd. (2017) Steam Final Trend Report for 2009-2016. Unpublished report for Sefton Council.

Godet, L., Jaffré, M. & Devictor, V. (2011) Waders in winter: long-term changes of migratory bird assemblages facing climate change. Biology Letters, rsbl20110152.

Goss-Custard, J.D., Triplet, P., Sueur, F. & West, A.D. (2006) Critical thresholds of disturbance by people and raptors in foraging wading birds. Biological Conservation, 127, 88–97.

Joint Strategic Partnership Board. (2008) Thames Basin Heaths Delivery Framework. South East England Regional Assembly, Guildford.

Kirby, J.S. & Tantram, D.A.S. (1999) Monitoring Heathland Fires in Dorset: Phase 1.

Knowsley Parks and Greenspaces Review Board. (2017) Shaping a New Future for Knowsley’s Parks. Report for consideration by Knowsley Council.

Lake, S. (2010) An Assessment of Recreational Impacts at Dawlish Warren SAC. Footprint Ecology / Teignbridge District Council.

Lake, S., Bullock, J. & Hartley, S. (2001) Impacts of Livestock Grazing on Lowland Heathland in the UK. English Nature, Peterborough.

Liley, D. (2017) Results of Vehicle Counts around the Thames Basin Heaths in 2016. unpublished report by Footprint Ecology for Natural England/Joint Strategic Partnership.

Liley, D., Clarke, R.T., Underhill-Day, J. & Tyldesley, D.T. (2007) Evidence to Support the Appropriate Assessment of Development Plans and Projects in South-East Dorset. Footprint Ecology / Dorset County Council.

Liley, D. & Fearnley, H. (2012) Poole Harbour Disturbance Study. Footprint Ecology / Natural England.

Liley, D. & Fearnley, H. (2014) Trends in Nightjar, Woodlark and Dartford Warbler on the Dorset Heaths 1991-2013. Footprint Ecology / Birds of Poole Harbour.

Liley, D., Hoskin, R., Lake, S., Underhill-Day, J. & Cruickshanks, K. (2014) 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. & Panter, C. (2017) First Year Results of Monitoring Bird Disturbance in the Presence/Absence of Rangers on the Solent. Footprint Ecology / Bird Aware Solent.

144

Liley, D., Panter, C., Marsh, P. & Roberts, J. (2017) Recreational Activity and Interactions with Birds within the SSSIs on the North-West Coast of England. Unpub., Footprint Ecology / Natural England.

Liley, D., Panter, C. & Rawlings, J. (2015) A Review of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace Sites (SANGs) in the Thames Basin Heaths Area. Unpublished Report.

Liley, D., Stillman, R., Austin, G. & Panter, C. (2015) Advice on How to Monitor the Effectiveness of the Solent Recreation Mitigation Strategy. Footprint Ecology / Bournemouth University / BTO / Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership.

Liley, D., Stillman, R.A. & Fearnley, H. (2010) The Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project Phase II. Results of Bird Disturbance Fieldwork, 2009/10. Footprint Ecology / Solent Forum.

Liley, D. & Sutherland, W.J. (2007) Predicting the population consequences of human disturbance for Ringed Plovers Charadrius hiaticula: a game theory approach. Ibis, 149, 82–94.

Liley, D. & Tyldesley, D. (2013) Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project Phase III: Towards an Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy. Footprint Ecology / Solent Forum.

Liley, D. & Underhill-Day, J. (2013) Thames, Medway & Swale Estuaries - Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy (N Kent SARMP). Footprint Ecology / Medway Council.

Lowen, J., Liley, D., Underhill-Day, J. & Whitehouse, A.T. (2008) Access and Nature Conservation Reconciliation: supplementary guidance for England.

Maclean, I.M.D., Austin, G.E., Rehfisch, M.M., Blew, J., Crowe, O., Delany, S., Devos, K., Deceuninck, B., Günther, K., Laursen, K., Van Roomen, M. & Wahl, J. (2008) Climate change causes rapid changes in the distribution and site abundance of birds in winter. Global Change Biology, 14, 2489–2500.

Medeiros, R., Ramosa, J.A., Paivaa, V.H., Almeidac, A., Pedroa, P. & Antunes, S. (2007) Signage reduces the impact of human disturbance on little tern nesting success in Portugal. Biological Conservation, 135, 99–106.

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

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.

Natural England. (2015) Public Access Nad Disturbance Theme Plan. A Strategic Approach to Identifying and Resolving Significant Effects on the Features of Natura 2000 Sites.

Nolet, B.A., Bevan, R.M., Klaassen, M., Langevoord, O. & Van der Heijden, Y. (2002) Habitat switching by Bewick’s swans: maximization of average long-term energy gain? J. Anim. Ecol., 71, 979–993.

Panter, C. (2017) Urban Heaths Partnership Monitoring Report for 2016-17. Unpublished report by Footprint Ecology for the Urban Heaths Partnership.

Panter, C. & Liley, D. (2017) Solent Car Park and Vantage Point Surveys. Winter 2016/2017. Footprint Ecology / Bird Aware Solent.

145

Plassmann, K., Jones, M.L.M. & Edwards-Jones, G. (2010) Effects of long-term grazing management on sand dune vegetation of high conservation interest. Applied Vegetation Science, 13, 100–112.

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.

Ratcliffe, N., Schmitt, S., Mayo, A., Tratalos, J. & Drewitt, A. (2008) Colony habitat selection by little terns sterna albifrons in East Anglia: implications for coastal management. Seabird, 21, 55–63.

Regel, J. & Putz, K. (1997) Effect of human disturbance on body temperature and energy expenditure in penguins. Polar Biology, 18, 246–253.

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.

Santoro, R., Jucker, T., Prisco, I., Carboni, M., Battisti, C. & Acosta, A.T.R. (2012) Effects of Trampling Limitation on Coastal Dune Plant Communities. Environmental Management, 49, 534–542.

Smith, R.K., Meredith, H. & Sutherland, W.J. (2018) Amphibian Conservation. What Works in Conservation 2018 (eds W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, N. Okendon, S.O. Petrovan, & R.K. Smith), pp. 9–65. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge UK.

South-east Dorset LPAs. (2016) The Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework 2015-2020. Supplementary Planning Document.

Stillman, R.A. & Goss-Custard, J.D. (2002) Seasonal changes in the response of oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus to human disturbance. J. Avian Biol., 33, 358–365.

Stillman, R.A., Goss-Custard, J.D., West, A.D., Durell, S., McGrorty, S., Caldow, R.W.G., Norris, K.J., Johnstone, I.G., Ens, B.J., Van der Meer, J. & Triplet, P. (2001) Predicting shorebird mortality and population size under different regimes of shellfishery management. J. Appl. Ecol., 38, 857–868.

Stillman, R.A., West, A.D., Caldow, R.W.G. & Durell, S.E.A.L.V.D. (2007) Predicting the effect of disturbance on coastal birds. Ibis, 149, 73–81.

Stillman, R.A., West, A.D., Clarke, R.T. & Liley, D. (2012) Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project Phase II: Predicting the Impact of Human Disturbance on Overwintering Birds in the Solent. Solent Forum / Bourneouth University / Footprint Ecology.

Stock, M. & Hofeditz, F. (1997) Compensatory limits: energy budgets of Brent Geese, Branta b- bernicla, the influence of human disturbance. Journal Fur Ornithologie, 138, 387–411.

Swanson, J. (2005) Grazing Stock on Sites with Public Access. GAP.

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

The Land Trust. (2018) The Economic Value of Greenspaces. The Land Trust.

146

Thiel, D., Jenni-Eiermann, S., Palme, R. & Jenni, L. (2011) Winter tourism increases stress hormone levels in the Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus. Ibis, 153, 122–133.

Thomas, K., Kvitek, R.G. & Bretz, C. (2003) Effects of human activity on the foraging behavior of sanderlings Calidris alba. Biological Conservation, 109, 67–71.

Thomson, D.L., Monaghan, P. & Furness, R.W. (1998) The demands of incubation and avian clutch size. Biological Reviews Of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 73, 293–304.

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

Underhill-Day, J. & Liley, D. (2012) Cannock Chase SAC Visitor Impacts Mitigation Report. Unpublished Report, Footprint Ecology.

Walker, B.G., Dee Boersma, P. & Wingfield, J.C. (2006) Habituation of Adult Magellanic Penguins to Human Visitation as Expressed through Behavior and Corticosterone Secretion. Conservation Biology, 20, 146–154.

Watola, G. & Heard, V. (2015) Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore Sites of Special Scientific Interest - Investigation into the Impacts of Recreational Disturbance on Bird Declines. Natural England Commissioned Report, NECR201, Natural England.

Watson, H., Bolton, M. & Monaghan, P. (2014) Out of sight but not out of harm’s way: Human disturbance reduces reproductive success of a cavity-nesting seabird. Biological Conservation, 174, 127–133.

Weimerskirch, H., Shaffer, S.A., Mabille, G., Martin, J., Boutard, O. & Rouanet, J.L. (2002) Heart rate and energy expenditure of incubating wandering albatrosses: basal levels, natural variation, and the effects of human disturbance. J Exp Biol, 205, 475–83.

Williams, D.., Child, M.F., Dicks, L.V., Okendon, N., Pople, R.G., Showler, D.A., Walsh, J.C., zu Ermgassen, E. & Sutherland, W.J. (2017) Bird Conservation. What Works in Conservation 2017 (eds W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, N. Okendon, & R.K. Smith), p. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge.

Yasué, M. (2005) The effects of human presence, flock size and prey density on shorebird foraging rates. Journal of Ethology, 23, 199–204.

147

Appendices

Page

Appendix 1 – European Sites Summary 149

Appendix 2 – Condition of Component SSSIs of European Sites 153

Appendix 3 – Issues Identified in Site Improvement Plans 155

Appendix 4 – Coastal Recreation Access Assessment and Maps 164 per local authority area (Excel, Jpeg, PDF and Word documents)

Appendix 5 - Footprint Ecology Visit Data from 2016/17 169

Appendix 6 – Summary of Local Authority Housing Data 184

Appendix 7 – SAMM and SANG Measures in More Detail 195

Appendix 8 – SAMM and SANG Interventions and Costs 226

Appendix 9 – Zones of Influences for the Interim Measure 241

148

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Appendix 1: European sites summary

The table below summarises the relevant European sites included in the strategy. Links in the first column are to the Natural England website and the relevant conservation objectives (SPAs and SACs) and for Ramsar sites, the Ramsar citation. # indicates species/habitats where the UK has a special responsibility.

European site Interest Features H2130# Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes") H2150# Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes (Calluno-Ulicetea) H2170 Dunes with Salix repens ssp argentea (Salicion arenariae) H2110 Embryonic shifting dunes Sefton Coast SAC H2190 Humid dune slacks H2120 Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ("white dunes") S1166 Triturus cristatus: Great-crested newt S1395 Petalophyllum ralfsii: Petalwort A156(NB) Limosa limosa islandica: Black-tailed godwit A048(NB) Tadorna tadorna: Common shelduck A143(NB) Calidris canutus: Red knot A183(B) Larus fuscus: Lesser black-backed gull A137(NB) Charadrius hiaticula: Ringed plover A157(NB) Limosa lapponica: Bar-tailed godwit A050(NB) Anas penelope: Eurasian wigeon A144(NB) Calidris alba: Sanderling A038(NB) Cygnus cygnus: Whooper swan A140(NB) Pluvialis apricaria: European golden plover A149(NB) Calidris alpina alpina: Dunlin Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA A193(B) Sterna hirundo: Common tern A040(NB) Anser brachyrhynchus: Pink-footed goose A050(NB)* Cygnus columbianus bewickii: Bewick swan A162(NB) Tringa totanus: Common redshank A141(NB) Pluvialis squatarola: Grey plover A151(B) Philomachus pugnax: Ruff A052(NB) Anas crecca: Eurasian teal A130(NB) Haematopus ostralegus: Eurasian oystercatcher A037(NB) Cygnus columbianus bewickii: Bewick swan A054(NB) Anas acuta: Northern pintail Seabird assemblage Waterbird assemblage Criterion 2: Supports Natterjack Toad Epidalea calamita Ribble and Alt Estuaries Ramsar site Criterion 5: Waterbird assemblage of international importance Criterion 6: Regularly supports 1% population of:

149

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

European site Interest Features Larus fuscus graellsii Lesser black-backed gull Charadrius hiaticula Ringed plover Calidris canutus: Red knot Pluvialis squatarola Grey plover Calidris alpina alpina Dunlin Limosa limosa islandica Black-tailed godwit Calidris alba Sanderling Larus fuscus Lesser black-backed gull Cygnus columbianus bewickii Bewick swan Cygnus Cygnus Whooper swan Anser brachyrhynchus Pink-footed goose Tadorna tadorna: Common shelduck Anas crecca: Eurasian teal Anas Penelope Wigeon Anas acuta: Northern pintail Haematopus ostralegus: Eurasian oystercatcher Limosa lapponica: Bar-tailed godwit A052(NB) Anas crecca: Eurasian teal A048(NB) Tadorna tadorna: Common shelduck A054(NB) Anas acuta: Northern pintail A140(NB) Pluvialis apricaria: European golden plover Mersey Estuary SPA A156(NB) Limosa limosa islandica: Black-tailed godwit A162(NB) Tringa totanus: Common redshank A149(NB) Calidris alpina alpina: Dunlin

Criterion 5: Waterbird assemblage of international importance Criterion 6: Regularly supports 1% population of: Common shelduck Tadorna tadorna Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa islandica Mersey Estuary Ramsar site Common redshank Tringa totanus totanus Eurasian teal Anas crecca Northern pintail Anas acuta Dunlin Calidris alpina alpine A177(NB) Hydrocoloeus minutus: Little gull A143(NB) Calidris canutus: Knot Mersey Narrows and North Wirral A193(B) Sterna hirundo: Common tern Foreshore SPA A193(NB) Sterna hirundo: Common tern Waterbird assemblage A157(NB) Limosa lapponica: Bar-tailed godwit Criterion 4: critical stage in life cycle/refuge: Little Gull Hydrocoloeus minutus Common Tern Sterna hirundo Mersey Narrows & North Wirral Criterion 5: Waterbird assemblage of international importance Foreshore Ramsar site Criterion 6: Regularly supports 1% population of: Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica Knot Calidris canutus islandica Dee Estuary SAC H1130 Estuaries

150

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

European site Interest Features H1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines H1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide H1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts H1310 Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand S1395 Petalophyllum ralfsii: Petalwort [Wales] S1095 Petromyzon marinus: Sea lamprey S1099 Lampetra fluviatilis: River lamprey H1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) H2110 Embryonic shifting dunes H2120 Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ("white dunes") H2130# Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes") H2190 Humid dune slacks Waterbird assemblage A048(NB) Tadorna tadorna: Common shelduck A052(NB) Anas crecca: Eurasian teal A054(NB) Anas acuta: Northern pintail A130(NB) Haematopus ostralegus: Eurasian oystercatcher A141(NB) Pluvialis squatarola: Grey plover A143(NB) Calidris canutus: Red knot Dee Estuary SPA A149(NB) Calidris alpina alpina: Dunlin A156(NB) Limosa limosa islandica: Black-tailed godwit A157(NB) Limosa lapponica: Bar-tailed godwit A160(NB) Numenius arquata: Eurasian curlew A162(NB) Tringa totanus: Common redshank A191(NB) Sterna sandvicensis: Sandwich tern A193(B) Sterna hirundo: Common tern A195(B) Sterna albifrons: Little tern Criterion 1: Extensive intertidal mud and sandflats, saltmarsh (see Dee SAC for Annex 1 habitats) Criterion 2: Breeding Natterjack Toad Epidalea calamita Criterion 5: Waterbird assemblage of international importance Criterion 6: Regularly supports 1% population of: Tringa totanus Common redshank Anas crecca Eurasian teal Tadorna tadorna Common shelduck Dee Estuary Ramsar site Numenius arquata Eurasian curlew Haematopus ostralegus Eurasian oystercatcher Anas acuta Northern pintail Pluvialis squatarola Grey plover Calidris canutus Knot Calidris alpina alpina Dunlin Limosa limosa islandica Black-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed godwit

151

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

European site Interest Features

A001(NB) Gavia stellata: Red-throated Diver A065(NB) Melanitta nigra: Black (common) scoter Liverpool Bay SPA Waterbird assemblage A001(NB) Gavia stellata: Red-throated Diver A065(NB) Melanitta nigra: Black (common) scoter

152

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Appendix 2: Condition of component SSSIs of European sites

Condition of component SSSIs of European sites (information obtained from Natural England website, January 2018).

Unfavourable SSSI Favourable Key reasons for unfavourable status Notes recovering

Sefton Coast and the Ribble and Alt Estuaries • Inappropriate agricultural and ditch Ribble Estuary SSSI 99% management

• Scrub encroachment, presence of woodland on Small area of dunes at Ainsdale has Sefton Coast SSSI 70% 12% dunes, non-natives, interrupted natural truncated zonation due to geomorphology recreation Mersey Estuary • Decline in the populations of Teal, Pintail, Wigeon and Golden Plover by more than 50% Mersey Estuary SSSI 46% 53% compared to numbers at designation • Inappropriate livestock grazing Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore Mersey Narrows • Loss of Turnstone habitat through previous 22% 78% SSSI placement of groynes Circumstantial evidence that Bar- • Decline in Turnstone (habitat changes) and Bar- North Wirral tailed Godwit numbers have tailed godwit (possibly disturbance). Foreshore SSSI 0% 0% declined due to disturbance. They

have been displaced from the roost at North Wirral Foreshore and

153

Unfavourable SSSI Favourable Key reasons for unfavourable status Notes recovering move to other sites during the high tide.

Dee Estuary Low number of recreational craft moored at seaward extent of unit when assessed in 2010, not Dee Estuary 100% adversely affecting saltmarsh condition - continued monitoring of boat numbers and use recommended • 90% reed cover in Natterjack pools, zero toadlets productivity recorded at time of Red Rocks SSSI 72% assessment (2012) • High level of invasive species in dunes

154

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Appendix 3: Issues identified in Site Improvement Plans

Summary table highlighting current pressures and threats experienced by the Sefton Coast and Ribble and Alt Estuaries European sites (based on Site Improvement Plan). Direct effects from recreation highlighted in bold.

Issue Pressure Threat Interest feature affected Notes The coastline is eroding around Formby Point. Woodland Shifting dunes, Shifting dunes with behind the eroding dunes means that the natural process of Coastal Squeeze  marram, Dunes with creeping willow, roll-back cannot occur, leading to fragmentation of dune Humid dune slacks habitats and loss of embryo and mobile dune habitats. Shifting dunes, Shifting dunes with Nitrogen deposition exceeds critical loads and causes rapid marram, Dune grassland, Coastal dune growth of vegetation on transitional dune habitats; leading to Atmospheric N  heathland, Dunes with creeping willow, loss of early successional vegetation communities and deposition Humid dune slacks, Great-crested newt, associated habitats and species. Early successional vegetation Petalwort communities need to be restored Shifting dunes, Shifting dunes with Inadequate control of encroaching scrub into fixed dunes and Scrub marram, Dune grassland, Coastal dune  dune slacks, due to lack of mowing and /or grazing leads to encroachment heathland, Dunes with creeping willow, loss of dune habitat. Humid dune slacks Dune grassland, Dunes with creeping Encroachment of non-native vegetation (white poplar, willow, Humid dune slacks Japanese rose, Sea buckthorn) is affecting dynamism of mobile dune habitats and vegetation composition on fixed dunes. Liverpool Docks support several species of marine invasive non-native species (Japanese skeleton shrimp, Invasive species  Caprella mutica and seaweed species Undaris pinnafitida. The Dee Estuary has also recorded Chinese Mitten crab Erocheir sinensis - all of which can spread to the site and affect roosting or feeding habitat (e.g. through competition with native species on which the birds depend)

155

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Issue Pressure Threat Interest feature affected Notes Dunes with creeping willow, Humid dune Available water in the dunes is affected by presence of Hydrological  slacks, invasive scrub, plantations and drainage systems within the changes Great-crested newt, Petalwort adjacent urban settlement. Bewick's Swan, Whooper Swan, A040(NB), Pink-footed Goose, Common shelduck, Wigeon, Eurasian Teal, Pintail, Eurasian oystercatcher, Ringed Plover, Golden Disturbance of bird populations through terrestrial and Plover, Grey Plover, Red knot, Sanderling, marine recreation (walkers, joggers, dog walkers, off-road Dunlin, Ruff, Black-tailed Godwit, Bar-tailed vehicles, sand yachting, kitesurfing, jet ski, boating, angling) Public  Godwit, Common redshank, Lesser Black- and disturbance to dune and foreshore species and habitats access/disturbance backed Gull, Common Tern, Shifting dunes, through these recreational activities. Localised nutrient Shifting dunes with marram, Dune enrichment of dune flora by dog fouling and disturbance of grassland, Coastal dune heathland, Dunes dune slacks by dogs. with creeping willow, Humid dune slacks, Great-crested newt, Petalwort, Seabird assemblage, Waterbird assemblage Authorised parking on Ainsdale Beach, regulated by Sefton Council, interrupts development of the Green Beach. Shifting dunes, Shifting dunes with Rubble used to stabilize the coast at Crosby has now become Coastal marram, Dune grassland, Coastal dune   exposed and forms an artificial shingle beach, of value to management heathland, Dunes with creeping willow, some species. There is an associated risk to human health Humid dune slacks, Great-crested newt from hazardous waste and natural coastal processes are inhibited. Assessment and possible management of some commercial fishing activities required. There is a potential commercial electro-clam razor fishery on the Sefton Coast. Fishing can Fisheries  Oystercatcher, Knot cause issues relating to access and disturbance; competition for bird food; disturbance through quad bikes and other vehicles. Shooting/scaring  Seabird assemblage, waterbird assemblage There are concerns that consented cull of Herring Gulls and

156

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Issue Pressure Threat Interest feature affected Notes Lesser Black-backed Gulls on the Ribble Estuary may result in significant disturbance of the breeding colony and other species, if the conditions are not adhered to. Erosion and retreat of the dune system leads to the exposure Shifting dunes, Shifting dunes with of historic remains from the cigarette industry (nicotine Change to site marram, Dune grassland, Coastal dune  waste) at Formby. This has resulted in increased levels of conditions heathland, Dunes with creeping willow, nutrients, leading to changes in plant species. The nicotine Humid dune slacks cliffs also affect natural dune processes.

Summary table highlighting current pressures and threats experienced by the Dee Estuary and Mersey Narrows European sites (based on Site Improvement Plan). Note that pressure and threats that are only relevant in Wales, outside of the area considered for this report, have been omitted. Direct effects from recreation highlighted in bold.

Issue Pressure Threat Interest feature affected Notes Common shelduck, Eurasian Teal,A054(NB) Pintail, A130(NB) Eurasian oystercatcher, Grey plover, Red knot, Sanderling, Dunlin, Black-tailed Godwit, Bar-tailed Godwit, Direct disturbance to birds as a result of public access and Public Curlew,Common redshank, Little gull,   recreation activities (including dog walking, kitesurfing, sand Access/Disturbance Sandwich tern, Common tern, Little tern, yachting, parascending, hovercrafts etc) Intertidal mudflats and sandflats, Glasswort and other annuals colonising mud and sand, Shifting dunes, Shifting dunes with marram, Dune grassland Common shelduck, Eurasian Teal,Pintail, Terrestrial and freshwater invasive non-native species are Grey plover, Red knot, Dunlin, Black-tailed affecting the site and include (not exhaustive) Crassula helmsii, Invasive species   Godwit, Bar-tailed Godwit, Curlew, Giant hogweed, Himlayan balsam, Japanese knotweed, and Common redshank, Estuaries, Intertidal Clematis. There is also a threat from the spread and increase in mudflats and sandflats, Glasswort and density of marine invasive non-native animal species such as 157

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Issue Pressure Threat Interest feature affected Notes other annuals colonising mud and sand, the Mitten crab, Asian shore crab, Pacific oyster, Slipper limpet Atlantic salt meadows, Shifting dunes, and Wireweed. Shifting dunes with marram, Dune grassland, Humid dune slacks, Sea Lamprey, River Lamprey Common shelduck, Eurasian Teal,Pintail, Eurasian oystercatcher, Grey plover, Red knot, Dunlin, Black-tailed Godwit, Bar-tailed Higher tidal surges and changes to beaches/geomorphology of Godwit, Curlew, Common redshank, Little the estuary are damaging dune systems and threatening gull, Sandwich tern, Common tern, Little Climate change   nesting tern colonies. There may also be potential impacts on tern, Intertidal mudflats and sandflats, the life-cycle of fish features arising from increases in water Glasswort and other annuals colonising temperature and changes in rainfall. mud and sand, Shifting dunes, Shifting dunes with marram, Dune grassland, Humid dune slacks, Waterbird assemblage Common shelduck, Eurasian Teal,Pintail, Eurasian oystercatcher, Grey plover, Red knot, Dunlin, Black-tailed Godwit, Bar-tailed Godwit, Curlew, Common redshank, Little Existing hard defences and the threat of future development, gull, Common tern, Estuaries, Intertidal combined with sea level rise, may reduce the intertidal habitat Coastal squeeze   mudflats and sandflats, Annual vegetation and the ability to achieve a succession of the intertidal habitats of drift lines, Glasswort and other annuals (roll back), potentially impacting on supporting SAC habitats colonising mud and sand, Atlantic salt and habitats used by SPA birds. meadows, Shifting dunes, Shifting dunes with marram, Dune grassland, Humid dune slacks, Petalwort, Waterbird assemblage Annual vegetation of drift lines, Atlanticsalt Scrub invasion on the dune systems is suppressing beneficial meadows, Shifting dunes, Shifting dunes Scrub encroachment  mobility of the dunes and affecting diversity within the with marram, Dune grassland, Humid dune vegetation communities. slacks

158

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Issue Pressure Threat Interest feature affected Notes The Dee Estuary and Lower River Dee may be nutrient enriched. Industrial sites (including historic sites) and historic Water pollution   As above plus Sea Lamprey, River Lamprey waste sites surrounding the Estuary pose a risk of diffuse and point source pollution.There is also a risk from unregulated activity. Fisheries As above The impacts of commercial fisheries require review. Estuaries, Intertidal mudflats and sandflats, Annual vegetation of drift lines, Glasswort In some locations the inappropriate removal of strand line and other annuals colonising mud and material, vegetation and raking is considered to be affecting or Coastal management sand, Atlantic salt meadows, Shifting reducing the potential formation of embryonic dunes and dunes, Shifting dunes with marram, Dune vegetated strandlines. grassland, Humid dune slacks, Common shelduck, Eurasian Teal, Pintail, Eurasian oystercatcher, Grey plover, Red Increased grazing pressure caused by Canada Geese, in Over-grazing   knot, Dunlin, Black-tailed Godwit, Bar-tailed combination with grazing sheep, could result in overgrazing on Godwit, Curlew, Common redshank, saltmarsh in parts of the site. Atlantic salt meadows Direct impact from Glasswort and other annuals colonising Risk that the hand gathering of Glasswort could increase  third party mud and sand significantly, resulting in gathering on a commercial scale.   Estuaries, Intertidal mudflats and sandflats, Annual vegetation of drift lines, Glasswort Marine litter accumulates in the Estuary and can smother and other annuals colonising mud and Marine litter habitats and plant species and act as an abrasive and can also sand, Atlantic salt meadows, Shifting entangle or be ingested by birds. dunes, Shifting dunes with marram, Dune grassland, Humid dune slacks Predation  Common tern, Little tern Ground and avian predators have an adverse impact Common shelduck, Eurasian Teal, Pintail, The assessment of cumulative, in-combination and off-site Planning permission Eurasian oystercatcher, Grey plover, Red impacts may be inadequate given the range of planned  general knot, Dunlin, Black-tailed Godwit, Bar-tailed developments; there may also be inadequate provision of Godwit, Curlew, Common redshank, Little suitable and sufficient avoidance, mitigation and compensation

159

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Issue Pressure Threat Interest feature affected Notes gull, Common tern, Estuaries, Intertidal measures. mudflats and sandflats, Annual vegetation of drift lines, Glasswort and other annuals colonising mud and sand, Atlantic salt meadows, Shifting dunes, Shifting dunes with marram, Dune grassland, Humid dune slacks, Sea Lamprey, River Lamprey Common shelduck, Eurasian Teal, Pintail, Eurasian oystercatcher, Grey plover, Red knot, Dunlin, Black-tailed Godwit, Bar-tailed Godwit, Curlew, Common redshank, Little gull, Sandwich tern, Common tern, Little There are a variety of consented marine activities that may be Marine consents and tern, Estuaries, Intertidal mudflats and  reviewed. There is new evidence on increased turbidity on permits sandflats, Annual vegetation of drift lines, feeding SPA bird Glasswort and other annuals colonising mud and sand, Atlantic salt meadows, Shifting dunes, Shifting dunes with marram, Dune grassland, Humid dune slacks, Sea Lamprey, River Lamprey Annual vegetation of drift lines, Atlantic salt meadows, Shifting dunes, Shifting Deliberate fires regularly occur on dune areas and in the upper Wildfire/arson  dunes with marram, Dune grassland, saltmarsh of the site. Humid dune slacks As above + Estuaries, Intertidal mudflats There are a variety of sources of air pollution including from Air pollution  and sandflats, Glasswort and other annuals the industrial areas adjacent the Estuary. Nitrogen deposition colonising mud and sand exceeds site relevant critical loads. Common shelduck, Eurasian Teal, Pintail, There is a potential for a significant increase in current levels of Transportation and Eurasian oystercatcher, Grey plover, Red  vessel activity and this has potential to cause disturbance to service corridors knot, Dunlin, Black-tailed Godwit, Bar-tailed waterbirds. Godwit, Curlew, Common redshank, Little

160

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Issue Pressure Threat Interest feature affected Notes gull, Sandwich tern, Common tern, Waterbird assemblage Common shelduck, Eurasian Teal, Pintail, Eurasian oystercatcher, Grey plover, Red knot, Dunlin, Black-tailed Godwit, Bar-tailed Godwit, Curlew, Common Redshank, Little gull, Common tern, Estuaries, ntertidal A reduced level of freshwater input flushing into and through Physical modification   mudflats and sandflats, Annual vegetation the Estuary from the River Dee could be impacting on the of drift lines, Glasswort and other annuals features - more investigation is needed. colonising mud and sand, Shifting dunes, Shifting dunes with marram, Dune grassland, Humid dune slacks, Sea Lamprey, River Lamprey

Summary table highlighting current pressures and threats experienced at Liverpool Bay (based on Site Improvement Plan). Direct effects from recreation highlighted in bold.

Issue Pressure Threat Interest Feature Affected Notes Fisheries: Red-Throated Diver, Common Scoter, Commercial marine  Subtidal Sandbanks, Reefs, Waterbird and estuarine Assemblage There is existing heavy use of the area for shipping in Transportation and Red-Throated Diver, Common Scoter, established corridors that birds avoid. Proposals for shipping  service corridors Waterbird Assemblage and transport routes outside of the established corridors would have high potential for disturbance to SPA birds. There is a threat of disturbance to SPA birds from Fisheries: Red-Throated Diver, Common Scoter, recreational vessels (classified as pelagic) located largely Recreational marine  Waterbird Assemblage closer to shore, with the impact of this being poorly and estuarine understood. Pelagic: sub-activity includes gear that does not 161

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT interact with the seabed e.g. pelagic trawls, drift nets and pelagic long lines. They also use handlines and rod & line angling (vessel-based) including where no anchoring occurs. Aggregate dredging results in the affected dredged area Red-Throated Diver, Common Scoter, Extraction: non-living becoming unsuitable habitat for organisms living on and in the  Subtidal Sandbanks, Reefs, Waterbird resources seabed. The effect of this on the SPA bird features is not fully Assemblage understood. As a result of recent changes in the use of dredged material Red-Throated Diver, Common Scoter, from the Mersey, some of which is now disposed of within the Siltation  Subtidal Sandbanks, Reefs, Waterbird Mersey Estuary system, rather than at a disposal site within the Assemblage Liverpool Bay SPA. The removal of this deposit from the SPA may result in habitat improvement at the disposal site. Red-Throated Diver, Common Scoter, The site faces a risk of oil spills or other pollution incidents Water Pollution  Waterbird Assemblage from shipping and industry

Summary table highlighting current pressures and threats experienced on the Mersey (based on Site Improvement Plan). Direct effects from recreation highlighted in bold.

Issue Pressure Threat Interest Feature Affected Notes reports indicate there have been large decreases in bird Common Shelduck, Eurasian Teal,) Pintail, Changes in species numbers on this SPA compared to local SPAs and regional  Golden Plover, Dunlin, Black-Tailed Godwit, distributions trends. There is a need to Common Redshank, Waterbird Assemblage investigate and understand reasons for these changes The population of Canada geese has significantly increased on the site introducing resource competition with some bird species e.g. via increased grazing and increased Invasive species   Common Shelduck, Eurasian Teal,Pintail nutrient pressure. There is a threat from the spread and increase in density of invasive non-native species, such as Chinese mitten crab. Public  Pintail, Golden Plover, Black-Tailed Users of public footpaths immediately adjacent to the north

162

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT Access/Disturbance Godwit, Common Redshank shore of the site can cause disturbance to birds roosting and feeding at this location

163

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Appendix 4 – Coast Recreation Access Assessment

MEAS completed a coast access assessment for recreation use for the RMS study area. The assessment is for 4 local authority areas which have accessible coast, much of it designated as European site, namely Halton, Liverpool, Sefton and Wirral. Maps are provided for each local authority area.

An accessibility assessment method based on nil, low, moderate and high access. The criteria used to assess accessibility are set out in an accompanying spreadsheet which enables individual sections of coast to be assessed.

164

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Halton

165

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Liverpool

166

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Sefton

167

Towards a Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: DRAFT EVIDENCE REPORT

Wirral

168

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Appendix 5: Footprint Ecology visitor data from 2016/17

4.1 Footprint Ecology undertook surveys for Natural England during the winter 2016/17. The surveys included face-face interviews and counts across a wide stretch of coast, eight locations fell within the Liverpool City Region and a further two were on the northern side of the Ribble Estuary (and therefore potentially relevant as they are on one of the European sites that this strategy is focussed and potentially within travel distance of Sefton. The distribution of the survey points is shown in Map 18.

4.2 To inform this strategy new analyses are presented in this Appendix, extracting the data from the Footprint Ecology surveys for the relevant European sites.

Visitor numbers

4.3 The surveys included tally counts that recorded the levels of access, in terms of number of people entering or leaving at the access point to visit the protected sites. The mean number of people recorded entering the site via the access point during each two-hour session is shown in Figure 3. The mean number was highest at the National Trust site of Formby (point 13) with on average 45.5 people recorded entering in a two-hour session. Access was lowest on average at the RSPB Marshside site (mean 6 people per two hours, point 11). Some of the quietest individual two-hour sessions were recorded at Marshside, but also Hale Head (point 18).

4.4 The Sefton area had the highest average level of access but was the most variable, given the high levels at Formby, but relatively low levels at Ainsdale-on-sea. Overall, most areas had around 20 people per two-hour session ‘entering’, with exceptions at the Sefton Coast (much higher), and the Mersey Estuary (which was much lower).

169

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Figure 1: Mean number of people recorded entering per two-hour session at each survey point (8 sessions surveyed). Error bars show standard error in the mean for the sessions. Data from the Footprint Ecology surveys (Liley et al. 2017). 4.5 Tally counts also recorded separately the number of adults, minors and dogs, and the relative number of each of these could be variable between sites. The results from these counts are summarised in Map 31.

4.6 The highest number and proportion of minors was recorded at Formby, with on average 0.5 minors per group (e.g. every other group with a child). This also resulted in a high overall group size, with on average 2.6 persons per group, the highest recorded at each of the survey points. This was followed by Thurstaston Country Park and Hale Head where group sizes were also above two people per group (mean people per group 2.1 and 2.0 respectively).

4.7 The two survey points with the highest relative number of dogs per group was at Ainsdale- on-sea and Leasowe Breakwater, with 1.3 and 1.2 dogs per group on average. The numbers were also high at West Kirby and Thurstaston CP, with a mean of 1.0 dog per group. At the four remaining sites the mean number of dogs per group was always less than 1 per group.

Visitor Activities

4.8 The majority of interviewees described their main activity as dog walking (251 interviewees, 65%) followed by walking (71 interviewees, 18%) and outing with the family (26 interviewees, 7%). The top ranking of dog walking, followed by walking was fairly consistent across the survey points. Sites where this was ranking was notably different were, the high proportion of people jogging/power walking at Hoylake Trinity Road (25%, point 15) and

170

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

bird/wildlife watching at Marshside (19%, point 11). However, at both these sites dog walking remained the most common activity.

4.9 Dog walking was lowest at Formby (point 13), just 30% of interviewees, followed by walking (29%) and family outings (25%). At Ainsdale (point 12) the highest percentage of dog walkers was recorded, with 88% of interviewees, followed by West Kirby with 86%.

Figure 2: The percentage of interviewees conducting different activities at each survey point location. Data from the Footprint Ecology surveys (Liley et al. 2017). Tourist vs Residential use

4.10 In total, at the 8 locations, the survey involved 388 interviews. Of these, 5 interviewees were on holiday or staying with friends/family, as opposed to on a short visit, having travelled directly from home (Table 17). At five locations all of the interviewees were on a short visit from home.

171

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Table 1: Summary of number of interviewees and percentage of interviewees who were visiting directly from home

Total number of % of interviewees visiting ID Location Name interviews directly from home

11 Marshside 26 100 12 Ainsdale-on-sea 48 100 13 Formby 56 91 14 Leasowe Breakwater 49 100 15 Hoylake Trinity Road 44 98 16 West Kirby 73 95 17 Thurstaston CP 61 100 18 Hale Head 31 100 Total 388 98

4.11 The Wirral visitor and stakeholder research study estimated 79% of visitors were day visitors.

Transport use

4.12 Interviewees modes of transport are summarised for each survey point in Figure 15. The relative proportion of car to foot visitors could be highly variable between interviewees. Across all 8 Liverpool City Region survey points, 75% of interviewees arrived by car and a further 22% on foot.

172

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Figure 3: Modes of transport of interviewees at each survey point. Data from the Footprint Ecology surveys (Liley et al. 2017). Visit duration

4.13 Across all 8 survey locations, 163 interviewees (42%) were visiting between 30 minutes and an hour and a further 37% of interviewees were visiting for between 1-2 hours. Responses are shown by site in Figure 16. Visits were longest at the National Trust Formby (point 13), where the highest proportion of visits for three hours or more were recorded (23%), due in part to the high proportion of groups on family outings who often spend longer visiting. The highest proportion of visits for less than 30 minutes was observed at West Kirby (point 16), where 26% of interviewees said they were visiting for this duration.

4.14 Using the frequencies reported by each interviewee, we calculated an approximate average visit duration1. While this is highly simplistic, and values are considered very approximate, it serves well to give an indication, allow comparison and provide a ranking to the sites, as used in Figure 16. Visits at Formby (point 13) and Hale Head (point 18) were estimated to be over 80 minutes for an average interviewee. While for Ainsdale-on-sea (point 12), West Kirby (16) and Fairhaven (9) the visits were estimated to be typically less than 1 hour.

1 The number of interviewees in each category was multiplied by the approximate duration, the totals for each category summed and then divided by the number of interviewees. Approximate duration values used for each category were: “Less than 30 minutes” = 20 minutes, “Between 30 minutes and 1 hour” = 45 minutes, “1-2 hours” = 90 minutes, “2-3 hours” = 150 minutes, “3-4 hours” = 210 minutes, “4 hours +” = 240 minutes. Those assigned to ‘other’ excluded.

173

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Figure 4: The duration of visit reported by interviewees at survey points. Survey points are ranked by duration from longest to shortest. Values for minutes indicate the averaged approximate visit duration of at each site. Data from the Footprint Ecology surveys (Liley et al. 2017).

Visit frequency

4.15 Across all eight survey points, 31% of interviewees were daily visitors and a further 19% visited most days. At Formby (point 13) the highest proportion of interviewees were on their first visit to the site (18% of interviewees) and around a third visited no more frequently that once a month (33%). In contrast, the survey point at West Kirby (point 16) recorded a single interviewee on their first visit (1%), and only three interviewees (4%) who visited no more frequently than once a month. Instead, the majority of interviewees (56%) said they visited the site daily, and 92% visiting once a week or more frequently. For comparison across sites, we calculated estimated averages by assigning values to the visit frequency classes2. This is a rudimentary estimation and is used with caution, but helps to give a feel for the likely number of visits per year. The results indicated that on average each interviewee typically made 183 visits per year. The average values for each survey point are shown in Figure 17 and used as the ranking for survey points.

4.16 At sites such as West Kirby (point 16) and Ainsdale (12) the high proportion of interviewees visiting daily or most days means the number of visits made by an average interviewee was estimated at over 250 per year. Most survey points fell into the region of 169 to 211 (5 out of the 10) visits per year by an average visitor. At Formby visits were for an average visitor were estimated be just under 100 per year.

2 (‘Daily’ =365 visits per year, ‘Most days’ = 200, ‘1 to 3 times a week’ = 110, ‘2 to 3 times per month’ =27.5, ‘Once a month’ =10.5, ‘Less than once a month’ =3.5, ‘First visit’ =1

174

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Figure 5: Visit frequency of interviewees at each survey point. Survey points are ranked by averaged frequency from most to least estimated annual visits. Data from the Footprint Ecology surveys (Liley et al. 2017). 4.17 The frequency with which interviewees visited and how long they spent at sites are often closely linked. Figure 18 shows the relationship between how often interviewees visited (estimated average interviewee duration in minutes) and how long the spent at sites (estimated average interviewee frequency of visits, expressed as visits per year).

Figure 6: Plot of approximate average interviewees visit frequency (visits per year) against visit duration (minutes on site) for each of the survey points. Data from the Footprint Ecology surveys (Liley et al. 2017). Awareness of nature conservation issues

4.18 The Footprint Ecology survey included questions which sought to understand visitor awareness of the conservation importance of the area. Interviewees were asked if they were aware of any designation or environmental protection for this area of the coast. Overall, 26% of interviewees said they were aware, but this could differ markedly between different survey points, as shown in Figure 19. For survey points along the Dee (16 and 17) awareness was reported to be around 71%, while at most other sites this was on average just 10%.

175

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Figure 7: Interviewees awareness of conservation designations or environmental protection on this part of the coast. Data from the Footprint Ecology surveys (Liley et al. 2017). 4.19 Interviewees were also asked for their awareness of any habitats or species which are vulnerable to the impacts of recreation occurring at the site they were visiting. Overall, across the 8 survey points, 281 interviewees (72%) were unable to name any habitats or species. For those who could name some species or habitats, most related to breeding terns/waders on the beaches or wintering waterbirds (e.g. wildfowl, waders, geese). However, this differed greatly between different parts of the coast, as shown in Figure 20.

Figure 8: Awareness of interviewees for each conservation species/habitat, shown as the average percentage of interviewees across the survey points which make up each of the five areas of the coastline. Data from the Footprint Ecology surveys (Liley et al. 2017).

176

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT Reasons underpinning site choice

4.20 Interviewees were asked to describe their reasons for visiting this area rather than another local site. All reasons given were recorded and categorised, but the surveyor then proceeded to ask for a single main reason from the list given.

4.21 Results for the 8 Liverpool City Region survey points are summarised in Figure 21. Near the coast/water was the most common reason for site choice, followed by scenery/views, good for dog/dog enjoys it and close to home. Close to home was the most commonly given main reason.

Figure 9: Reasons for interviewees visiting the site, categorised with main reasons (single choice per interviewee) and other secondary reasons (multiple reasons per interviewees allowed).

177

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT Visitor routes

4.22 Visitor routes were mapped as part of the interview. Overall, across all interviewees at the eight survey points the median route was 2.99km. The longest routes (median greater than 3km) were at Ainsdale, Formby and Thurstaston. Many of the routes are within or partly through the protected areas, as shown in Map 32 and summarised in Table 18. Overall 88% of routes passed through European sites and 11% of routes were entirely within European site boundaries. All interviewees along the Sefton coast (survey points 11,12 and 13) had part of their route within the protected areas, along with all interviewees at survey points 16 and 18.

Table 2: Summary table of route lengths recorded by survey point. Data from the Footprint Ecology surveys (Liley et al. 2017).

% routes % routes passing entirely Location N Mean ±SE Median Range through within European European site site

Marshside (11) 26 2.84 ± 0.27 2.65 0.41 - 7.7 100 96 Ainsdale-on-sea (12) 48 3.82 ± 0.25 3.56 1.34 - 9.77 100 36 Formby (13) 56 4.6 ± 0.33 3.86 1.26 - 12.64 100 0 Leasowe Breakwater 49 2.47 ± 0.25 2.20 0.43 - 8.69 86 0 (14) Hoylake Trinity Road 44 2.4 ± 0.16 2.54 0.53 - 4.99 80 0 (15) West Kirby (16) 70 2.92 ± 0.22 2.61 0.37 - 11.07 100 3 Thurstaston CP (17) 61 4.8 ± 0.28 4.63 1.40 - 13.24 56 0 Hale Head (18) 31 3.33 ± 0.19 2.83 1.76 - 7.03 100 0 Total 388 3.46± 0.10 2.99 0-13.29 88 11

4.23 Typical route lengths were also different between the activities. Small route lengths were typical for interviewees who were doing photography, enjoying the scenery or bait digging (all medians less than 2.25 km). Long routes (median over 3.5 km) were conducted by those walking, cycling/mountain biking, jogging/power walking or meeting up with friends. The median route length for a dog walk, the most common activity, was 2.81km.

Table 3: Summary table of route lengths recorded by activity. Table sorted by the number interviewees in each group. Data from the Footprint Ecology surveys (Liley et al. 2017).

Location N Mean ±SE Median Range

Dog walking 251 3.23+0.12 2.81 0.37 - 13.24 Walking 71 4.49+0.31 3.83 0.45 - 12.64 Outing with family 26 2.81 ± 0.25 2.45 1.03 - 5.61

178

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Location N Mean ±SE Median Range

Jogging/power walking 18 3.9 ± 0.0.44 3.72 0.80 – 7.45 Bird/Wildlife watching 10 4.1 ± 0.56 3.97 1.76 - 7.7 Photography 3 1.84 ± 0.76 2.02 0.43 – 3.06 Cycling/Mountain Biking 3 3.65 ± 0.38 3.54 3.07 - 4.35 Other 2 2.33 ± 0.43 2.33 1.90 - 2.76 Meet up with friends 2 5.90 ± 2.8 5.90 3.10 - 8.69 Enjoy scenery 1 2.19 2.19 2.19 - 2.19 Bait digging 1 1.26 1.26 1.26 - 1.26

Visitor Origins

4.24 In the Footprint Ecology survey, from the ten survey points that included the Ribble, 483 interviewees provided a valid georeferenced postcode; these are shown in Map 33. Using the GIS we were able to calculate the linear distance from home postcode to the survey point for each interviewee. In this section the analyses include the two northern survey points on the Ribble (these are outside the Liverpool City Region) as a check to determine the extent to which Liverpool City residents do visit other parts of the Ribble outside the region. This is important to check as mitigation measures may be relevant for areas outside the region.

4.25 One of the key factor for these distances was the interviewee’s type of visit. For those visitors who described their visit to the area as on holiday or staying with friends and family, the linear distances ranged from 39km to 215km (the latter from near Peterborough). For those interviewees who were travelling from home that day, on a short visit, the linear distance values ranged from 107m to 125km (Tamworth), with the majority living in close proximity. These data are shown in Maps 33-35.

4.26 The number of interviewee postcodes by local authority are summarised in Table 20. Only interviewees from home have been used, and overall 26% came from districts outside the Liverpool City Region. However, this total includes survey points 9 and 10 which were on the Ribble to the north (outside the Liverpool City Region). By including these points, we are able to show that visitor use from the Liverpool City Region does not extend to the north side of the Ribble. Removing these two survey points, only 6% of interviewees were visiting from outside the Liverpool City Region districts. The highest of which at a single survey point was 21% of interviewees at Thurstaston (location 17).

4.27 Across all 8 survey locations in the Liverpool City Region, 4% of interviewees (that were on a short visit from home) were from Halton, 4% from Liverpool, 2% from Knowsley and 1% from St. Helens.

179

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Table 4: Number of interviewee postcodes by local authority. Only interviewees who had travelled directly from home were used (e.g. excluding those on a short visit and staying with friends/family or on holiday in the area). For each row the number of interviewees in the local authority area is shown, and the percentage of all shown in brackets. Highest value for each row is highlighted in bold. Data from the Footprint Ecology surveys (Liley et al. 2017).

number of

Halton District District authority Liverpool Knowsley St. Helens Other Local interviewees Wirral District Sefton District Total Survey Point ID

Fairhaven (9) 54 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 54 (100) Church Scar Lytham (10) 46 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 46 (100) Marshside (11) 25 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 22 (88) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (12) Ainsdale-on-sea (12) 48 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 48 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Formby (13) 51 0 (0) 2 (4) 3 (6) 40 (78) 2 (4) 0 (0) 4 (8) Leasowe Breakwater (14) 49 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 49 (100) 0 (0) Hoylake Trinity Road (15) 43 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 41 (95) 1 (2) West Kirby (16) 66 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 66 (100) 0 (0) Thurstaston CP (17) 58 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 46 (79) 12 (21) Hale Head (18) 31 15 (48) 5 (16) 10 (32) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) 110 2 0 202 121 Total (10 survey points) 471 15 (3) 7 (1) 14 (3) (23) () (43) (26) 110 202 Total (8 LCR survey points) 371 15 (4) 7 (2) 14 (4) (30) 2 (1) (54) 21 (6)

4.28 For interviewees from home only and arriving by car, the average distance was around 2.8km (median) or 5.5km (mean), with a minimum distance of just 340m. For those arriving on foot, the average was around 0.77km (median) or 1.73 km (mean), with a maximum of 16km (for an interviewee who was long distance running, at survey point 18).

4.29 The linear distances for each estuary area could vary, with larger apparent draws for the Mersey and Dee, compared to the Wirral and Ribble. Table 21 presents a summary of the values for each area, but it is important to note the different sample sizes for areas and the variability that exists within the individual survey points. These differences between survey points are presented in Figure 21 and Table 22. In Map 36 we show convex hulls around the data for each survey point. Convex hulls enclose a group of points (in this case postcodes) and work in an equivalent way to an elastic band stretched to encompass all the points. The convex hulls are drawn for individual survey points and show the area where the majority of visitors originated, capturing 75% (darker shading) and 95% (paler shading) all interviewees.

180

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

4.30 Unsurprisingly one of the largest draws was at survey point 13, the National Trust Formby car-park. The site has a very large car-park, a range of facilities and infrastructure and charges for entry. At this survey point, the interviewees linear distance from their home postcode to survey point was on average 7.9 km (mean), and half of all interviewees lived within 3.3 km and three quarters within 11.4 km. In comparison, one of the smallest draws was at survey point 15, Hoylake Trinity Road (north Wirral foreshore), where the mean was 2.1 km, and half lived within 0.6 km and three quarters within 1.1 km. The character of this area was very different, a road within a residential area which immediately abuts the intertidal. The area has only roadside parking and the only nearby facilities are a public toilet block.

Table 5: Summary of linear distances between interviewees home and the survey area. Only those interviewees travelling from home are used for these calculations. Data from the Footprint Ecology surveys (Liley et al. 2017).

Area [n survey points] N Mean Median Q3 (75th percentile)

Ribble [3] 125 2.44 1.26 2.25 Sefton [2] 99 5.12 2.45 4.35 North Wirral [2] 92 2.38 1.49 2.76 Dee [2] 124 6.34 2.81 6.32 Mersey [1] 31 5.42 5.18 8.20 All [10] 471 4.22 1.94 4.13

Figure 10: Boxplots of the linear distance between interviewees home postcode and the survey point at which they were interviewed at, show for each survey point. Only interviewees who were travelling directly from home (i.e. not on holiday or seeing friends/family) are used. Outliers have been removed. White dots indicate the mean value. Data from the Footprint Ecology surveys (Liley et al. 2017).

181

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Table 6: Summary of the linear distances between interviewees home and the survey point location. Only those interviewees travelling from home are used for these calculations. A short description of the location and % of interviewees on foot at each location is added for reference. Data from the Footprint Ecology surveys (Liley et al. 2017).

- -

th Survey N N

Description car Point % of Median Q3 (75 Maximum percentile) Minimum Mean (±SE) Mean interviewees by

At seawall, western corner of Fairhaven, beside car-park (c. 90 spaces). Also lots of roadside Fairhaven 1.73 ± 0.39 - parking nearby. In town centre, 54 46 0.97 1.86 (9) 0.34 17.07 adjacent to Fairhaven Lake, includes sports facilities, gift shops and café. On tarmac path along sea wall, Church some roadside car-parking Scar 2.09 ± 0.17 - nearby and c. 30 space car-park. 46 29 0.96 1.79 Lytham 0.47 16.54 Surroundings area is residential (10) or playing fields. RSPB Marshside car-park. No charges to enter, site has visitor Marshside centre with toilets. Immediate 4.64 ± 0.73 - 25 96 1.95 4.44 (11) area is fields, but edge of town 1.19 21.57 of Marshside less than 1 km away. To south-west of Discovery Centre. Small car-park nearby (c. Ainsdale- 25 spaces), plus some roadside 2.23 ± 0.67 - on-sea 48 98 1.8 2.74 parking. Beach is opened for 0.21 7.39 (12) parking on in the summer. Also Pontins is adjacent. Formby National Trust, vantage point in dunes south of car-park c. 175 spaces adjacent in Formby 7.85 ± parking area to survey point 51 79 3.26 11.36 1 - 35.72 (13) 1.17 (second large car-park nearby). Café and Toilets on site. Charges to enter. Vantage point on dune along from end of large car-park (c. 75 spaces). Shoreline with hard Leasowe seawall and access onto 0.69 - Breakwate 49 90 2.6 ± 0.21 2.24 3.33 intertidal. Surrounding area 8.73 r (14) includes two Golf Clubs and North Wirral Coastal Park and other smaller car parts

182

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

- -

th Survey N N

Description car Point % of Median Q3 (75 Maximum percentile) Minimum Mean (±SE) Mean interviewees by

On seafront at end of Trinity Road. Parade road on hard Hoylake seawall with access to intertidal. 2.14 ± 0.11 - Trinity 43 30 0.55 1.13 Roadside parking only and 0.74 26.86 Road (15) surrounded by residential. Public toilets only facilities. Off Macdona Drive, provides foot access to West Kirby Beach. West Kirby 2.72 ± 0.27 - Lots of residential housing 66 66 1.65 4.43 (16) 0.32 10.29 adjacent, but no formal car-park near. At access point down to beach from cliff top. Adjacent to Wirral Thurstasto 10.47 ± 1.19 - Country Park, with café, large 58 89 4.48 8.81 n CP (17) 2.51 125.23 car-park (c. 75 spaces) and large caravan site adjacent. Survey point at end of Lighthouse Road. car-parking is limited, but possible along Hale Head 5.43 ± 0.94 - roadside (c.500 m from survey 31 58 5.19 8.32 (18) 0.59 11.51 point). Surroundings are rural and lighthouse is a clear feature. No facilities. 4.22 ± 0.17- Total 471 1.94 4.13 0.38 125.23 Total survey 4.84 ± 0.17- 371 2.31 5.06 points 0.47 125.23 11-18

183

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Appendix 6: Summary of Local Authority Housing Data

6.1 Each of the relevant local authorities provided GIS data relating to future housing. These data are a snapshot but provide an approximate overview of the in-combination, cumulative levels of housing that this strategy needs to address. For each authority the data are slightly different as each authority is at a different stage in their local plan. The table below summarises the GIS data provided and gives the housing totals within that data. Subsequent sections have been provided by each authority and describe how the GIS data have been put together. It is important to note that several authorities are undergoing Examination of their Local Plans at time of writing and as such housing numbers in Table 1 are subject to change following the Examination process.

184

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT Summary of housing data and totals provided by each Local Authority.

Total sites Total housing Total sites without Total Overall total with Planning from windfall Local Planning housing housing (no. Permission (no. units per Notes Authority Permission (no. from units, no. (no. units, no. annum and units, no. sites) sites sites) sites) years) 1,047 (52.3 per GIS as the single file. Split is PP vs allocated Halton 2,995 (96) 8,891 (181) 11886 12,933 (277) year for 20 years) in CS/UDP (based on column “Plan_Status”) GIS as the single file. Split is PP/under construction vs allocated in CS/UDP/SHLAA Knowsley 3,379 (80) 4,824 (56) 8203 n/a 8,203 (136) (based on column “Type”)

Based two separate GIS files provided; PP and Reg19housingdev. PP file gave net Liverpool 14,631 (20) 2320 (23) 16951 n/a 16,951 (43) capacity, rather than remaining, but none are completed and those under construction appear large scale redev/apartments. GIS as the single file. Split is Dev Comp/Started, Full/outline granted vs No Sefton 2,694 (177) 7,434 (77) 10128 n/a 10,128 (254) application /StratBF NoApp (based on column “PlanningSt”) Based two separate GIS files provided; PP and Local Plan preferred options. 1395 (93 per year, St Helens 3238 (225) 4,084 (16) 7322 8717 (241) Two GIS files, SHLAA & Local Plan Preferred for 15 yrs ) Options Safeguarding (e.g. in Green B) not used. Based three separate GIS files provided; PP, 900 (60 per year, Local Plan Category 1 Sites (exc cat 2/3) and Wirral 2,577 (362) 7,925 (43) 10502 11,402 (405) for 15 yrs) the single site Wirral Waters. One GIS files, SHLAA sites not used. 185

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT Halton

Future Housing Requirement

6.2 The latest completed Strategic Housing Market Assessment (Mid-Mersey SHMA 2016) identified an objectively assessed need for housing in Halton (OAN) of 466 dwellings per annum until 2037 (assuming ‘baseline’ economic scenario).

6.3 A draft Liverpool City Region Strategic Housing and Employment Land Market Assessment (SHELMA), which was published for public consultation in October 2017, based on the national 2014-based household projections and revised economic forecasts for the latest Liverpool City Region Growth Plan , identified a potentially revised OAN for Halton at between 326 (baseline economic scenario) and 566 (growth scenario) dwellings per annum until 2037, but is unlikely to be finalised until early 2018.

6.4 Both these assessments may now, however, be superseded by Government proposals to introduce a simplified national method for calculating OAN, based on the latest national household projections and the ratio of house prices to average household income, which suggested a figure for Halton of 285 dwellings per annum between 2016 and 2026 .

Housing Land Supply

6.5 Halton’s 2017 SHLAA identified a potential deliverable supply of 5,283 dwellings across 127 sites in years 1 to 5, with a further 1,858 units potential developable supply across 139 sites in years 6 to 10.

6.6 Halton has recently published the first (Publication) draft of its Delivery and Allocations Local Plan (incorporating revised Core Strategy Policies). This seeks to identify land for 10,718 net dwelling gain in the period 2014 to 2037. This requires significant Green Belt release.

Knowsley

Current and future housing requirement

6.7 Our Local Plan Core Strategy was adopted in January 2016 and set a target for the delivery of 8,100 homes over the 2010-2028 plan period, representing an annual average of 450 homes (see Core Strategy Policy CS3).

6.8 The draft Liverpool City Region Strategic Housing and Employment Land Market Assessment (SHELMA), which was published for public consultation last year, produced an Objectively Assessed Need for Knowsley of 280 dwellings per year, while the government’s proposed standard methodology (also published in 2017) suggested a need for 275 homes per year. While both of these figures are lower than that in the Core Strategy, Knowsley

186

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

remains committed to diversifying its housing market and securing population growth, and we have no plans to review our current target in the light of these figures.

Housing Land Supply

6.9 Our Local Plan Core Strategy allocated seven Sustainable Urban Extension sites for full or partial residential development, with an indicative capacity for 3,021 dwellings. We also carried forward policies and housing allocations from our 2006 Unitary Development Plan. Most of the housing sites in the UDP have already been built, or are being built out now; the site of the former Kirkby Stadium remains allocated for residential (or mixed use development including residential), with a capacity of around 200 dwellings.

6.10 We last updated our Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment in late 2016; and our housing monitoring to cover the year from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 (although at the time of writing the full monitoring report is not complete). From this information, we have prepared the housing data for this project.

6.11 Completions so far are running behind the Core Strategy 450 homes per year target, but this is broadly in line with expectations in the trajectory set out alongside Policy CS3. We expect delivery to accelerate as more of the Sustainable Urban Extension sites begin to be developed in the next couple of years.

Completions over the plan period (to 31 March each year)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Gross Completions 365 355 255 360 616 310 557 Losses (demolitions and 230 118 83 15 83 17 82 conversions) Net 135 237 172 345 533 293 475

GIS data

6.12 We have provided a single MapInfo file for this project, which includes the following information:

• Reference – this is either our SHLAA site reference or a planning permission reference. • Site name – self-explanatory. • Type – this explains whether the site is currently allocated for housing development, identified in our most recent SHLAA, or already has permission for housing: o Allocation-CS – Sustainable Urban Extension sites allocated by the 2016 Core Strategy. o Allocation-UDP – the remaining undeveloped 2006 UDP allocation at the former Kirkby Stadium.

187

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

o SHLAA2016-0-5 – sites identified in the 2016 SHLAA as likely to come forward before 2021. o SHLAA2016-6-10 – sites identified in the 2016 SHLAA as likely to come forward between 2022 and 2026. o PermissionOrUnderCon – sites with planning permission, including those already under construction. Also includes sites where residential permission has recently lapsed if these are not already picked up in SHLAA categories, and sites completed in 2016-17. • Dwellings – either an indicative capacity (for allocated and SHLAA sites) or the number of dwellings for which permission has been granted. • Area – the site area in hectares. • Remaining dwellings – the number of dwellings still to be completed at 31 March 2017. • Status – provides additional information about sites classed as ‘PermissionOrUnderCon’ in the ‘Type’ field (principally if they are already under construction or completed in the 2016- 17 year). • Permission year – calendar year of planning permission. • Size – total development size or potential, categorised as follows: o 1-10 homes o 11-25 homes o 26-50 homes o 51-100 homes o 101-250 homes o 251 homes and above.

6.13 At 31 March 2017, there were 8,203 dwellings remaining to be delivered across 118 sites.

188

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT Sefton

Future Housing Requirement

6.15 The adopted Sefton Local Plan (SLP, April 2017) requires a minimum of 11,520 new homes to be built in Sefton between 2012 and 2030. This equates to an average of 640 dwellings pa. This figure is broadly similar to the figure in the draft Liverpool City Region Strategic Housing and Employment Land Market Assessment (SHELMA) of 594 dpa, and the CLG’s standardised OAN calculation for Sefton (654 dpa). As a result, we have no plans to review our Local Plan for the foreseeable future.

Housing Land Supply

6.16 The Local Plan allocates 47 sites for about 7,264 homes (Policy MN2 of Local Plan). The remainder of the supply will be provided by 1616 dwellings completed 2012 – 2017); sites with planning permission; small sites identified in the 2016 SHLAA; and windfall sites.

6.17 To date, as the following table shows, 3,498 new homes have been built/converted to 31st March 2019, but 861 dwellings have been demolished, leading to a net increase in the number of homes of 2,637.

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Totals Completions (inc 459 331 641 391 644 447 587 3,498 conversions) Demolitions 54 16 177 550 22 23 23 861

Net completions 405 315 464 -159 622 564 564 2,637

6.18 As at 31 March 2019 the sites allocated in the Local Plan, 13 sites have received planning permission. This is for a total of 1,525 homes. A further 37 sites at this date had not received planning permission (although a number have since). The total number of homes on allocated sits without permission (at 31 March 2019), based on the indicative capacity in the Local Plan, is 5,672. However, not all of these sites are expected to come forward in the Local Plan period (i.e. to 2030).

6.19 As at 31 March 2019 the Council has extant planning approvals for 4,391 homes (to 2030). Of these 733 are on small sites (<10 homes). Therefore, taking account these approvals and completions (2012-19) this leaves a residual Local Plan need of 4,492 homes (i.e. 11,520 minus 2,637 (completions) minus 4,391 (approvals)). Based on previous delivery and known schemes coming forward we estimate that 16% of this requirement (718) will be on small sites. This leaves an assumption that the amount of homes required to be consented post March 2019 on large sites (10 homes+) is 3,774. As the number of homes in the Local Plan are indicative figures only, and the evidence is that we generally secure more homes overall, a 10% buffer can be applied (377). Therefore, the total homes that are likely to be on large

189

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

schemes to 2030 is 4,151. Further information can be found within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2019 - https://www.sefton.gov.uk/media/2723/shlaaand5yrsupply-forweb.pdf

6.20 Most applications are likely to be built out at a rate of 30 – 50 dwellings a year although this may increase on our largest sites once more developers acquire parts of the site.

6.21 With regard to windfalls, by definition, these cannot be predicted. However, given the nature and character of Bootle, Crosby and Southport, it is likely that most will arise in these areas in the future as opposed to the settlements in central Sefton (Formby and Maghull) which expanded rapidly during the second part of the 20th century. In Netherton, the main source of windfall housing is likely to be as a result of the redevelopment of closed schools, which also contributes to the supply in Bootle.

GIS data table

6.22 The Sefton data is provided in a single GIS table.

6.23 This table includes all extant housing sites as at March 2017 and includes SHLAA sites and Allocated Sites as well as sites with Planning Approval.

6.24 The field StatusMar17 indicates the status of the site at 31 March 2017:

• Allocated Site – an allocated site without planning approval • OnSite – a site with planning approval that is under construction • OnSite (dem) - a site where the demolition has been complete but the new build is yet to start. • PPGranted – A site with planning approval where works are yet to start. • StratBF and StratGF – Strategic housing sites without planning approval that are brownfield (BF) or greenfield (GF).

6.25 The field RemCap indicates the remaining undiscounted capacity on all sites. This is a draft figure that takes into account some recorded completions since 1 April 2017.

6.26 The field PJCompDate is a trend-based projected completion date which will be overwritten for sites of 20 units or above during the ongoing SHLAA Update work.

Windfalls

6.27 This data does not include any figures for future windfall sites. This windfall analysis has not yet been completed for 2017 but below is an extract from the 2016 SHLAA Update report outlining the contribution from Windfalls that do not yet have planning approval.

6.28 Calculating a Future Windfall Allowance

6.29 The pattern of historic windfall delivery set out above has been used to project forward a windfall allowance. This has been calculated as follows:

190

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

6.30 Between 2008 - 2016 the average windfall delivery from smaller non-exceptional sites was 135.5 per annum.

• Years 0 – 5: windfall completions are assumed in years 3 – 5 only. By definition, windfall sites do not have planning permission at the base-date of the study. Therefore, a 24 month lead in time has been assumed to allow for the first windfalls sites to gain permission, and site works to be undertaken, before new housing is completed. In addition, the historic rate of windfall delivery was discounted by 10% in years 0-5 (the same rate of discount applied to small sites with planning permission). This translated into an annual rate of windfall delivery of 122 per annum in years 3 – 5 (366 in total). However we also deduct 30 per year from years 2 to 5 for demolitions. These are often connected with demolitions of sites to create space for the new development. • The vast majority of small sites (less than 20 dwellings) with a current planning permission are forecast to complete in years 1 and 2. There is therefore very little overlap between these sites, and windfall sites assumed to deliver in years 3-5. • Years 6-10 and 11-15: a windfall contribution has been assumed in Southport and Crosby only in years 6-15, which are areas that have historically delivered the most windfall permissions. This is consistent with NPPG, which states: • “Local planning authorities have the ability to identify broad locations in years 6-15, which could include a windfall allowance based on a geographical area (using the same criteria as set out in paragraph 48 of the National Planning Policy Framework)”. • It was not considered appropriate to assume a windfall allowance in Netherton, Formby, and Maghull in years 6-15, as these areas have historically delivered few windfalls. In addition, no windfall assumption was made in Bootle for years 6-15, as historic windfall permissions in this area have been very uneven. In addition, the 2014 ‘Local Plan & Community Infrastructure Levy Economic Viability Study’ found that the viability of small housing schemes in Bootle was generally negative. • In years 6-15 a reduced rate of windfall delivery is assumed (75% of historic delivery). This is to reflect the uncertainty inherent in projecting this far ahead. 6.31 This approach is summarised in the table below:

2016 SHLAA Windfall Assumptions

Plan Period Assumptions No. of units

90% of historic net windfall delivery assumed in years 3 – 5 (122 x 3) – 30 0-5 years 246 per year demolitions from years 2 – 5.

75% of historic windfall delivery assumed in Southport and Crosby in 6-10 years 370 years 6-10

11 – 15 75% of historic windfall delivery assumed in Southport and Crosby in 370 years years 11-15

191

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Total: 986

St. Helens

6.32 The following GIS data has been provided:

1. Housing sites with planning permission: • Housing sites with planning permission cover all sites with extant planning permission as of 21/12/2017. • Current housing allocations - none have been supplied as the last housing allocations in St.Helens were made in the 1998 Unitary Development Plan and so have either been developed, have planning permission or the SHLAA has found them to be undeliverable. 2. SHLAA sites: • SHLAA sites: The 2017 St.Helens SHLAA (base date of 1st April 2017) has a threshold of 0.25 ha for its sites and does not include sites with planning permission. The SHLAA covers the period 2017 - 2032. 3. GIS layer for use in windfall allowance assessment: • Windfall allowance: The SHLAA assumes sites a continued delivery of 93 dwellings per year from small sites under 0.25 ha - this can be considered to be the windfall allowance. No windfall allowance for larger sites was considered appropriate as there had been few large "windfalls" as the SHLAA is very comprehensive. We do not have a breakdown of assumed windfall on a parish/settlement basis as requested instead the Borough wide allowance should be used. A GIS layer of the entire Borough “STH wards poly” has been provided in case this is required. 4. Local Plan Preferred Options proposed allocations for housing (i.e. 2018 - 2033). 5. Local Plan Preferred Options Green Belt proposed sites for safeguarded for housing (i.e. 2034 - 2048). • Proposed housing allocations and safeguarded land: the St.Helens Local Plan Preferred Options (December 2016) sets out the Council's preferred sites to be removed from the Green Belt and allocated for housing (2018 - 2033) or safeguarded for housing (2034 - 2048). The version of the Local Plan that the Council wants to see adopted will be published in Summer 2018 for comments, before it is submitted for examination by the Planning Inspectorate. While there may be some changes between the LPPO and the Summer 2018 version, these sites, together with the planning permissions and the SHLAA sites, is the best indication of future housing development in the Borough at this time.

192

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT Wirral

Future Housing Requirement

6.33 The Council’s latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA, May 2016), based on the national 2012-based household projections and economic forecasts from December 2015, identified an objectively assessed need for housing in Wirral (OAN) at between 875 and 1,235 dwellings per year until 2032 (current anticipated Core Strategy Local Plan period) and 855 to 1,185 dwellings per year until 2037.

6.34 A draft Liverpool City Region Strategic Housing and Employment Land Market Assessment (SHELMA), which was published for public consultation in October 2017, based on the national 2014-based household projections and revised economic forecasts for the latest Liverpool City Region Growth Plan1, identified a potentially revised OAN for Wirral at between 664 and 737 dwellings each year until 2037 but is unlikely to be finalised until early 2018.

6.35 Both these assessments may now, however, be superseded by Government proposals to introduce a simplified national method for calculating OAN, based on the latest national household projections and the ratio of house prices to average household income, which suggested a figure for Wirral of 803 dwellings per year between 2016 and 20262.

Housing Land Supply

6.36 Outside Wirral Waters, (which has outline consent for 13,521 new dwellings and is not included within the housing land supply because of its long term strategic nature), the Borough does not currently have the five year housing land supply required under national policy, which is therefore the main issue to be addressed as part of the Local Plan. Initial calculations of the Borough's five-year housing land supply at April 2017 indicate that under the SHMA scenarios (875 and 1,235 dwellings per year) the five year supply ranges from 1.7-2.8 years while under the Government’s proposed methodology the five year supply ranges from 3.4-3.9 years. The calculations will need to be re-assessed once the Government’s proposals have been confirmed, in early 2018, and the final housing requirement to be contained within the Local Plan has been established.

6.37 The Council has also identified that an additional 60 new build dwellings per annum could come forward as windfalls over a 15 year period. This figure is based on previous delivery in the Borough and cannot be apportioned to particular areas/sites.

1 https://www.liverpoollep.org/articles/liverpool-city-region-works-together-brighter-future/ 2 https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/planning-for-the-right-homes-in-the-right-places-consultation- proposals

193

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT Background to the GIS layers provided

6.38 ‘Category 1 Sites 2017’ - sites in Wirral Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2016 which could come forward by 2022, amended as part of the Council’s Monitoring Report 2017 and to take account of the draft Wirral Employment Land and Premises Study 2017. – comprises 42 sites with capacity of 825 dwellings

6.39 ‘Housing Planning Permissions at 31 March 2017’ – sites with planning permission for residential development at 31 March 2017. ‘Units_remaining’ field sets out number of units expected to come forward and ‘Deliverability’ sets out whether units are likely to come forward in year 0-5 (by 2022); 6-10 (by 2027) and 11-15 (by 2032). Comprises 362 sites with a remaining capacity of 2,577 dwellings.

‘East Float and Northbank boundary’ (Wirral Waters)

6.40 Wirral Waters has a 22 year outline consent for 13,521 new dwellings approved in May 2012. Requirement to submit first reserved matters application within 5 years (extended by a further year). Wirral Council has agreed in principle to support the first 500 unit scheme to be called Wirral Waters One. Indicative housing trajectory prepared at the time of the outline planning application identifies a total of 7100 units by 2027.

194

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Appendix 7: SAMM and SANG Measures in More Detail

Staff

7.1 The need for additional staff resources has been identified as a priority by the steering group and was a strong recurring theme at the stakeholder workshop event. Dedicated staff to implement a strategy and communicate issues on the ground has become critical to timely and coordinated delivery in other strategic European site schemes. A team of staff is proposed as the foundation of the strategy, and the team described here provides a combination of good on the ground coverage in recognition of the large geographic area, and theme specific staff in recognition of the importance of particular work areas to create a successful strategy in response to the specific circumstances and opportunities of the area.

7.2 The team of staff will have discrete individual roles but will collectively deliver the strategy through their promotion of positive visitor behaviours. Essential skills will therefore be their engagement with people as well as being knowledgeable about nature conservation.

7.3 The following team of staff is proposed for the strategy:

Strategy Delivery Manager

Voluteer Rangers Project Delivery Coordination Officer Officer

Strategy delivery manager

7.4 The appointment of a strategy delivery manager would be the first step for the strategy. There is a clear need to create a post as soon as the strategy is agreed, to get all other strategy measures up and running and oversee their implementation. The strategy delivery manager would essentially oversee the entire strategy and be the main contact point. They would manage the other staff in the team and be the first line of reporting to a steering group/executive group.

195

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

7.5 As developer contributions grow there will be more resources to fund mitigation and the strategy delivery manager will therefore need to oversee the budget and match the implementation to the funds available, with guidance and authorisation from the steering group/executive group. The strategy delivery manager would ensure that the strategy complements other work to protect and enhance European sites, potentially also bringing additional benefits from funding elsewhere, whereby match funding can open up enhancement opportunities over and above the mitigation requirement. The strategy delivery manager would have the following duties:

• Develop initial priority projects; • Establish relationships with stakeholders (landowners, NGOs, statutory bodies, local authorities, existing rangers and site management staff etc.); • Appoint and oversee the rangers, education, volunteer co-ordination and project delivery posts; • Report to the steering group, planners and others regarding work done, • Ensuring a clear audit trail, collating information from each authority to show levels of development and funding collected; • Organise funding for projects, both gaining funding from the developer contributions ‘pot’ through the steering group but also linking with stakeholders and seeking other opportunities for additional funding, for example through reserve-based projects, tourism initiatives, HLF etc.; • Lead on some specific projects within the mitigation package, working with consultants, contractors and partners as relevant; • Oversee a project website and other publicity opportunities, explaining the strategy and providing information on the strategy (e.g. to developers, planners and others); • Establish and run the monitoring and review of the strategy.

7.6 Over time the duties of the strategy delivery manager will shift. Initially the work will need to focus on initiating the strategy, establishing early priorities, engaging with stakeholders and putting in place administrative procedures relating to finance and reporting. The strategy delivery manager will need to oversee the recruitment of the rest of the strategy team. This will include setting up the ranger team and their work. Once the strategy team is established the strategy delivery manager would step away from specific projects (now being picked up by the team) and cover overarching themes of the strategy such as communication. fund raising, publicity, monitoring, reporting and eventually working on planning for some of the longer-term measures.

7.7 The manager post will need to run for at least 15 years and would be a full-time post.

7.8 The manager (and team) should preferably be based within a host local authority, shared service or local partnership that most effectively enables the officer to liaise with relevant staff within the local planning authorities and wider local partnerships that will be key to strategy delivery. It may be that hosting can also change over time, reflecting a change in focus for the post. Establishing good working relationships with a wide range of local stakeholders will ensure that the team is able to identify opportunities that will enhance the

196

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

success of the strategy, such as adding to existing initiatives or identifying local delivery bodies for particular projects.

Rangers

7.9 A mobile ranger team is a feature of other mitigation schemes such as the Solent, the South-Devon sites, the Thames Basin Heaths and the Dorset Heaths. In these examples the rangers form a mobile team that spend the majority of their time outside, talking to visitors, influencing how visitors behave and showing people wildlife. The advantage of such an approach is that the staff can focus their time at particular sites/locations as required. This means that as particular projects are set up, as development comes forward, or if access issues become a concern at a particular location, the staff can be present and target their time accordingly. Monitoring data can help inform the ranger effort and ensure their work is directly linked to where development comes forward and where there are issues. The roles of the rangers can also include helping with the delivery of site-specific and local projects and monitoring.

7.10 Key locations to target are those where there are known access issues or where there are particularly sensitive features. For example, where waders roost at sensitive locations the wardens can be present at the necessary tide state and in a position where they can point out the roost to anyone passing and intercept anyone they believe might flush the roost and ask them to walk round/put dog on lead etc.

7.11 Rangers will need to be recognisable and therefore some distinctive branding or clothing will be important, and this should be recognisable to visitors. The use of branded vehicles and even display boards (e.g. A-frame noticeboards or similar that can be put up when the ranger is standing at a particular location) will help give a recognisable presence to visitors. Ensuring an ‘official’ look and instantly recognisable identity will help the work of the rangers by ensuring visitors understand who they are and react to what they say. The identity and work of the rangers should be promoted through social media.

7.12 We envisage that the number of rangers and where they are targeted could change over time and it would need to be flexible. The new rangers would need to fit alongside and complement existing wardening effort and visitor engagement, by the National Trust, the local authorities and other bodies. Options exist for the ranger posts to sit within existing teams or to be separate (as they are on the Thames Basin Heaths and the Solent). The choice should ensure that any confusion for existing site staff or the public is minimised (i.e. in terms of the rangers role, duties and powers/responsibility). The new rangers role will be a face-face one, with them out on site talking to visitors, rather than undertaking estate work, habitat management, etc. As such the role relates directly to visitor engagement and there should be the potential to ensure little overlap with existing rangers. On the Dee there is already a voluntary wardening team and the rangers could work closely with that scheme, providing support for the volunteers and perhaps expanding the role of volunteers (e.g. covering additional sites). This would link into the volunteer co-ordination officer role.

197

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

7.13 We initially propose two full-time rangers and one part-time ranger (winter only). The full- time nature ensures year-round coverage with the part-time post helping with the wider area relevant to cover during the winter. Wintering and passage birds are potentially present from late July through until May, with numbers peaking in the mid-winter. During the spring and summer visitor numbers and pressure on sand dune habitats will be greatest but potentially more localised. Therefore, the rangers will be busy throughout the year, targeting different locations depending on the season, issues and where development has taken place.

7.14 While each ranger could have their own geographic remit, it would be possible for all to work together for particular events or if support was required. We have assumed rangers would be working on their own, but the ability to work together would help if there are health and safety concerns1. It would also be ideal if each ranger had close links with local stakeholders, landowners and organisations, potentially even spending some time working from the offices of local organisations. This would ensure that the rangers were complementing existing engagement/wardens/initiatives and fitting alongside existing ranger/wardens. As the strategy develops the level of ranger effort should be reviewed. We have recommended costs for a time period of 15 years, providing cover through to around 2033. Monitoring data will help inform of any emerging issues or particular locations that need to be targeted and there may need to be adjustments to the number of staff over time.

7.15 One of the roles of the rangers (and any volunteers) should be to occasionally run guided walks (see events section, from para 9.41), supplementing those already being run by other organisations. The walks should work for local visitors and/or tourists and help visitors to see and appreciate the special wildlife, boosting the general understanding of the conservation importance and issues.

7.16 The work for the rangers should also extend to occasional work with schools, particularly important for the Sefton area given previous issues and challenges in the area relating to community opposition to habitat management. Some work with schools would allow the rangers to be involved with the local community and directly communicating the challenging issues relating to management of the coastal zone. Such school related work should influence the local community through positive engagement, with education work raising awareness of coastal processes, dynamic change and the importance of management and responsible access. It would be anticipated these messages would then filter through, over time, to the wider community. The work could involve leading groups of school children on site visits and perhaps visiting schools directly.

7.17 School visits should be a relatively small component of the rangers work as there is a risk of their time being diverted away from being out on site. In order to maximise the potential

1 The South-Devon rangers currently operate in pairs for health and safety reasons, while on the Solent the rangers on the Bird Aware Project tend to work more independently.

198

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

for school work/support, costs are included in the mitigation package for education material (including web-based resources and printed material) and school transport (coaches) to provide support to schools while reducing ranger time/input.

Volunteer Co-ordination Officer

7.18 The nature of the sites, the types of site users and the combination of both local residents and tourists means that the strategy lends itself well to developing a volunteering focus. The opportunity for local residents to help to convey information to visitors, and be part of a new project that is positively promoting sustainable visitor use rather than piecemeal enforcement is likely to be of interest, and there are good examples elsewhere of giving volunteers integral roles in influencing visitor behaviour and engaging with visitors, for example the Morecambe Bay Partnership has a Natural Ambassadors programme where volunteers help to communicate key issues about birds and disturbance.

7.19 The volunteer co-ordination officer would be responsible for all volunteer management, including equipment, training, health and safety, data protection, and allocating volunteers to different tasks or projects that other members of the team are taking forward. A strong social media presence would be required to ensure the volunteering maintains momentum.

7.20 Volunteer co-ordination is a time-consuming role and requires the officer to be available to talk to volunteers, possibly at weekends. This role is envisaged as a part-time role (0.5 fte), with some weekend working required. The likely success of the post and volunteers will be difficult to predict, but success is likely to be maximised if closely linked to other measures (such as rangers, social media, website etc.) that together raise the profile of the issues around the coast.

Project Delivery Officer

7.21 The project delivery officer would lead specific projects that contribute to the strategy. The main project to implement would be the dog project but other projects such as visitor centre improvements, path audits and code of conduct may need specific pulses of staff time and key points. As such we envisage a part-time post (0.5 fte) with the option that this could be merged with the volunteer co-ordinator to create a single full-time post.

7.22 The project delivery officer would need to work closely with the delivery manager and other members of the delivery team. In addition, the post would involve working closely with partners/stakeholders to develop project proposals that can be submitted to the executive group for funding. The post would run for fifteen years as a full-time post, and ideally would be based in a similar location/base to the other team members.

General Awareness Raising

7.23 General awareness raising measures will naturally fall to different members of the team to take forward within their work areas. Some suggestions for awareness raising are provided

199

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

below and would need to be developed further by the individual staff members, potentially in the form of a communications plan.

7.24 Raising the profile of the coast as a valuable natural asset that hosts rare and internationally important wildlife underpins the other areas of the mitigation package, for example backing up the work of the rangers. For many areas of the coast, visitors are drawn to undertake recreation activities that do not relate to the wildlife interest and in many areas, there is little indication to visitors that the area they are visiting is internationally important for wildlife. Without the understanding of the nature conservation importance, visitors are likely to struggle to understand why particular behaviours – such as allowing their dog to run off-lead on intertidal areas, or kitesurfing near to wader roosts – is an issue.

Social media and website

7.25 A strong website presence and communication through social media will ensure visitors can access information about the mitigation package, the work being undertaken and be made aware of particular initiatives. This will extend the reach of the rangers and help provide links to the wider conservation community in the area.

7.26 The website could potentially include the following:

• Social media feeds and information on events • Background information on the key species and wildlife interest of the Liverpool City Region coast • General information for visitors, particularly relating to where to park • Information on how to see wildlife without causing disturbance • Education resources for schools • Background evidence and reports relating to the mitigation strategy, e.g. monitoring results, minutes from meetings, financial reports etc. This would provide developers and others with clear information on how tariff used and justification.

7.27 Social media will help extend the reach of the project, engage potential volunteers and quickly disseminate news. It may be possible to push particular messages, for example relating to sensitive locations or times of year (fire risk, presence of grazing animals, cold weather putting extra stress on wintering birds) and target those to particular users. It will be essential that the mitigation team includes staff specifically skilled/trained in the use of social media.

7.28 The website will need to help create the identity for the mitigation project, part of a general project branding. This branding will extend to rangers’ clothes, vehicles, printed material etc. The website will also need to fit comfortably alongside the other various relevant project and organisation websites, news feeds etc. complementing them and directing visitors to these other sites rather than competing with them.

Apps

200

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

7.29 Closely linked to the social media and website element above would be the development of an app or series of apps to help visitors understand and interpret their surroundings. Apps would also have the potential to influence visitor behaviour by indicating when the user was in an area with sensitive nature conservation interests or directing access. Potential elements for the app to include would be:

• Interpretation and background information at particular locations, for example relating to shipwrecks on the Sefton Coast, enabling the visitor to interpret a wreck they can see without the need for interpretation boards or other more traditional infrastructure; • Way-finding information, helping visitors follow particular routes; • Flagging when there are particular nature conservation sensitivities in an area or at a particular time, for example when there is a high fire risk; when livestock are in particular area. This could extend to an alert when dogs need to be on leads in particular areas; • Helping the visitor with health and safety information, for example relating to tides, safe areas to access the water etc.; • Live parking feed, indicating when parking areas are full; • Gazetteer of sites to visit and information on when and where to go, potentially helping to redistribute access and promote other greenspaces/SANGs.

7.30 There is much further work necessary to develop the app(s), further clarifying the geographical scope, likely market, target audiences, other funding options and design. There could be potential to utilise approaches/design used elsewhere or jointly develop some of the basic elements.

Crosby and Southport wildlife tourism initiative

7.31 The stretch of coast between Crosby and Southport has considerable tourism infrastructure and is promoted for tourism. Visitor attractions include the numerous golf courses, funfair, amusement arcades, splash world and a range of museums. The Anthony Gormley ‘Another Place’ sculptures draw visitors to the beach and intertidal areas at Crosby and there is the marine lake providing a venue for a range of watersports. Tourist accommodation in the area includes a holiday camp and a range of seafront hotels. There is potential to enhance the role of wildlife tourism in this mix. The wildlife interest has the potential to draw visitors outside the peak period and to draw visitors who are more aware of the nature conservation issues. Increasing the numbers of such tourists will increase the footfall at sensitive sites, but such visitors are likely to listen to conservation message and influence the presence of other visitors. Increasing the traffic of such visitors through relevant accommodation providers, cafes and local shops will help raise the profile of conservation issues and may help generate local support for nature conservation. In addition, where natural processes have led to a change in the character of the beach (e.g. the development of the “Green Beach” between Birkdale and Ainsdale), the wildlife interest of the site may be key in its terms of ongoing interest to tourists.

201

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

7.32 The initiative should therefore focus on working with the Sefton Coast Partnership, local tourist providers (hotels, museums, attractions) and other stakeholders with specialist input as needed to help develop the local tourism offer, raising the profile of the nature conservation interest within the tourism mix. There could be potential to extend the work to other areas within the Liverpool City Region.

Codes of Conduct

7.33 Codes of conduct set out clearly how users undertaking a particular activity should behave, and are most relevant to sporting activities, including watersports. Where there is plenty of space, relatively few users and few conflicts, there is unlikely to be a need for any agreed code of conduct. Developing good, clear codes with user groups ensures that safety issues, insurance, consideration of other users and nature conservation issues can be accommodated, ensuring users can enjoy their chosen activities while minimising any impacts. Codes of conduct are particularly relevant where there are a wide range of users, potentially not linked to a particular club, and a range of complicated issues, or where lots of multiple activities overlap. Casual and sporadic visitors to a location are unlikely to be fully informed of all local issues and politics. A code of conduct serves to set out where there are particular issues and provides the user with all the information they need to undertake their chosen activity safely, within the law and without creating conflict with others.

7.34 Codes of conduct can be established by directly working with local users, even by the users themselves. Codes are likely to be most effective where they are developed with stakeholders and are not overly restrictive. One of the key issues with codes is ensuring that they are read and circulated widely and that visitors are aware of them. Getting people to 'sign up' to voluntary codes of conduct is potentially tricky and may be particularly difficult to achieve where many users are ad hoc, casual visitors and where there are multiple access points (i.e. no central location at which users can be intercepted).

7.35 There are a range of examples from around the UK where codes of conduct have been developed to resolve particular concerns. We suggest that separate codes of conduct should be developed for all main activities across the sites, with one code for each of the following:

• Dog walking • Bait collection • Horse Riding • Kitesurfing and windsurfing • Canoeing, Kayaking and Paddle boarding • Jet skiing • Sailing • Fishing/Angling

202

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

7.36 These codes would be developed with users and stakeholders, and provide clear guidance on where to go, how to behave, which areas are sensitive etc. Each code would contain a map highlighting key access points, where to park, locations to avoid, sources of further advice/information etc. Codes would raise particular issues as relevant, for example including fire, litter, disturbance etc. The codes would then be widely disseminated and made widely available. They would be promoted by the warden/ranger team and link to some other elements within the strategy - such as the dog project (there would be a code of conduct for dog walkers).

Events

7.37 Events would include guided walks, attendance at community events (fetes etc.), talks to local community groups and attendance at events such festivals etc. targeted at tourists. Staff attendance/involvement could potentially be any of the staff involved in the project – the delivery officer, rangers, education officer or dog project lead. The events would need to be carefully selected and targeted to maximise reach and effectiveness without taking staff time from other duties.

7.38 The inclusion of events within the strategy is to enable the mitigation project to reach a wide audience and raise community awareness, even with those who only visit the coast sporadically. Events will engage users so that they become advocates and volunteers themselves. Key messages will relate to the nature conservation importance of the Liverpool City Coast, the need for management such as scrub clearance and the importance of community support. Budget will allow purchase of material (such as display boards, imagery etc.).

203

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT Liverpool City Region Dogs in Nature Project

7.39 The primary project to be taken forward by the project delivery officer will be a dog project. Visitor surveys at European sites across the country and the surveys on the Liverpool City Region coast show that dog walkers are the most significant user group at these sites. Particular impacts are also associated with dog walking. For example, dog walkers flushed 89% of the birds recorded as flushed during the bird disturbance work on north-west estuary sites in 2016/17 (Liley et al. 2017) and impacts such as fouling, contamination of ponds and livestock worrying and unique to this activity. Dog walkers are likely to be seeking extensive natural greenspace that is attractive, but also where they feel that their dog has a good experience (Edwards & Knight 2006), for example where it is possible to undertake longer and/or off lead walks.

7.40 The inclusion of a project that pays particular attention to dog walking has proven to be a positive addition to recreation focussed strategic mitigation schemes elsewhere, including schemes for European sites in Devon and Dorset. These projects are in various stages of implementation, but all have a dedicated website to view. Other European mitigation schemes are still establishing the dog project aspect of their work and more examples will therefore be available in due course. Useful examples include:

• Devon Loves Dogs • Dorset Dogs • Humber Hounds

7.41 It is recommended that a dog project forms part of the suite of measures for this Strategy, for the following reasons. The Liverpool City Region sites provide extensive dog walking opportunities, and dog owners are a key user group for the beach and estuary sites. There is an active dog walking community at Sefton, which has its own social media page providing discussion and information.

7.42 The Nature Conservation Task Group for Sefton Coast SSSI is a sub-part of the Sefton Coast Landscape Partnership and involves a group of Natural England staff, local experts and wildlife recorders and the site managers for the nature conservation sites along the Sefton coast. It is a voluntary group, who work together to implement some of the actions set out in the Sefton Coast Plan. This Task Group has sought to work positively with dog owners locally, and a Natural England officer from the group has run a series of events for dog owners and those wishing to understand more about dog behaviour. This has included the following:

• Talks explaining the wildlife sensitivity and importance of the Sefton coast • Ideas for improving off lead control of dogs when out on walks • Safety for dogs and people around livestock • Nature conservation volunteer awareness of dog behaviour • Dog fun walks including information on what to do to keep your dog from disturbing wildlife whilst still giving a dog a great walk experience.

204

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

7.43 This was a pilot project and was partially funded by a sponsor, with in kind contributions from Task Group members and contacts in terms of venues and event leaders.

7.44 In addition, Sefton Borough Council have also run events in the past that have sought to engage dog owners, such as events to encourage dog owners to meet the graziers who provide the livestock for conservation grazing on the designated site.

7.45 This strategy should build on these foundations and the existing networks and groups already undertaking positive activities to ensure that dog walking remains an enjoyable use of the coast whilst adequately protecting sensitive features. A lot of the activity to date is local, voluntary and reliant upon people giving their time or organisations providing resources for free. By including a dog project within this strategy, there can be a more comprehensive co-ordination of a formalised project, run by the project delivery officer within the strategy team. This should provide an opportunity for the work undertaken to date and the groups formed to continue within a larger scale and Liverpool City Region wide project.

7.46 The project delivery officer will develop the Liverpool City Region dog project in detail once in post. The following structure to the project is recommended, which the project delivery officer can refine and align with the full programme of strategy delivery. Importantly, the project must be promoted as one that is engaging with a key user group rather than seeking to constrain that user group. Whilst there may be some instances or locations where dogs may need to be discouraged, the primary aim of the project is to work positively with dog walkers to enable continued sustainable use of the sites for this activity.

7.47 The ‘Liverpool City Region Dogs in Nature Project’ is a suggested title that conveys a positive message about the objectives of the project. The project is not seeking to exclude dogs from the European sites, rather its purpose is to ensure that dog walking in nature continues responsibly. The project will work on a number of themes that enable dog walkers and dogs to have a positive experience when visiting the sites, managed within a framework of measures collectively ensure that this activity does not have negative impacts, either in the short or longer term, for the sensitive wildlife of the sites.

7.48 It is recommended that the project should be run with a formal structure that allows for discussion and decision making across stakeholders and experts, monitoring and review of agreed activities, whilst encouraging working groups to develop ideas under particular themes. The project should be led by the project delivery officer and a panel of representatives.

7.49 The recommended structure and themes have been developed based on an understanding of dog projects being implemented or currently being designed elsewhere, the current progress with dog related measures in the Liverpool City Region, and discussion with relevant members of the steering group for this strategy. Success would be monitored as part of the wider monitoring (see later sections) with information logged on the number of

205

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

people attending activities, numbers signing up to the project and patterns of incidents relating to dogs (e.g. sheep worrying).

7.50 A suggested structure for the project is provided in Figure 9 below. The project would run with activities under various themes, and a theme lead would be nominated to oversee those activities and sit on the project panel. The project panel would also include representatives from key organisations and relevant stakeholders. This should give a broad range of interests across the themes, and the panel should meet to discuss new projects for each theme, allocation of budgets, any issues with activity progression or localised problems and how to resolve them. Each activity under the themes will need to be monitored by the theme lead, and monitoring reported back to the panel.

7.51 Activities under each theme may link into other themes, and some activities may be developed that are cross cutting for all the themes. The most appropriate theme lead would need to be nominated. For all activities, the project delivery officer is responsible for implementation, but will draw on the panel and any working groups under each theme to take forward activities. The project should therefore be a combination of formal staff and key organisation representatives, alongside local volunteers and groups. It is anticipated for example that the Sefton Dogs Group would be represented on the panel and may wish to focus on the ‘dog places’ theme. Liaison with this group is essential to ensure that their local work is recognised and dovetails into the project. It is strongly advised that this group is contacted at the earliest opportunity.

206

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Project Delivery Officer and Project Panel

Public Managing sites Dog School Dog Places engagement

LCR Dogs in Solutions for Link to Dog Events, Nature website – managing access Places webpage publications, would have links for dog walkers from main talks and to each theme alongside site project website. page. Resourced management. workshops for helping dog and regularly Engagement with owners to have a updated. On site signage local dog walking positive dog walk and interpretation community, day experience in Social media and boards. visitors/holiday sensitive wildlife Apps makers. areas. Facilities (agility Maps/updates for areas, etc) Promotion of Talks on sensitive/less diverse types of understanding sensitive On site staff dog walks (short, wildlife impacts. locations at liaison with the long, off lead, on various times of public, graziers lead, path types, Guest speakers year. etc, promoting landscape etc). positive from Kennel Club, etc, Information behaviours, Dog friendly accreditation packs for new understanding, accommodation, options for home owners alternative sites. eateries, local graduating from dog businesses dog school, work Liaison with Developing signed up to the with local dog local positive on -site project. trainers. breeders/rescue relations with objectives. centres. regular dog

Figure 1: Liverpool City Region Dogs in Nature project structure

207

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT Signage and interpretation

7.52 One of the challenges for parts of the coast covered by the strategy is that not all visitors realise they are visiting a location sensitive for wildlife or important for nature conservation.

7.53 New signage and interpretation, alongside warden presence and other measures will need to address this and ensure visitors are aware of the issues. Signs direct people or inform them of how they should behave whereas interpretation provides information about the place being visited. Signs can be simple symbols or way markers while interpretation is traditionally on boards. In order to be effective:

• Consistent branding is important, as it allows visitors to recognise where the signs have come from - ensuring visitors recognise that signs are official and not installed by some third-party. • Signs directing behaviour (e.g. dogs on leads or water sports speed limits) need to ensure a very clear message. A bold graphic (e.g. as a triangle or circle with stylised graphic of dog on lead) is better than lengthy text - there are many standard pictograms for dogs on leads, no entry etc. that can be adapted. Regulatory messages should be clear, bold and authoritative. • Where signs direct behaviour (such as dogs on leads), signs should also be present to indicate where such restrictions end, so it is clear to visitors. • Interpretation should not be overly detailed as many people will often not want to stand still for long periods. Simple and bold notices are more effective for clear instructions. Readers can be directed to sources of additional information, for example through the use of QR codes. • 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). • 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 designations etc. • Signs that convey key messages relating to changing behaviour are unlikely to be effective if put up in isolation, they should be part of an overall visitor management/engagement strategy (consistent branding ensuring visitors can link signs and interpretation to websites, face-face engagement etc.). Visitors are unlikely to respond if other users are already ignoring messages and effectiveness is likely to be best achieved if put in place alongside other changes such as modification of parking, footpaths, fencing etc. • Seasonal signage will need to be removed to stay ‘fresh’ and permanent signage well maintained and cleaned to keep people’s attention. Which signs are permanent or seasonal will need to be effectively managed. • Link with apps, social media and other forms of communication to ensure reach is maximised.

208

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Audit of existing signs and interpretation

7.54 Prior to any existing interpretation or signage being commissioned, an audit of the existing ones should be undertaken. Some examples of existing signs and interpretation are shown in Figure 10. This highlights the range and variation currently in place along the coast. An audit should identify:

• Locations where there is potential for replacements, • Locations where new interpretation has been recently installed, • Opportunities for new interpretation and signage • Locations where potentially issues with vandalism or damage • Messages currently conveyed • Key messages that need to be conveyed

7.55 The audit will therefore identify locations where there is an immediate need, i.e. where a lack of signage, or inappropriate/ineffective signage, is currently leading to access behaviour that poses a risk to interest features. The audit should also consider how Strategy wide signage can fit with existing initiatives and will provide an opportunity for close discussion and consultation with landowners, site managers and existing users.

New Signs and Interpretation

7.56 The audit will consider the potential for new branding, or an approach that draws together and fits with existing interpretation, seeking a cost efficient but effective solution. It is envisaged that graphic design work will ensure a design and style that is flexible and can be adapted and provide a range of designs that landowners and organisations can pick and choose from and adapt as they require. Where there is existing signage or interpretation this can be retained and over time replaced/added to as appropriate or necessary. For example, it is envisaged that the following designs could be commissioned:

• Small, dogs-on leads signs, potentially just a symbol on a disc that can be added to existing infrastructure (e.g. way-posts and gate posts) and promoted via the dog project, by the wardens etc. and used across the area where required. • Signs indicating dogs on leads and explaining why • Signs indicating the need to pick up after dogs and explaining why • Interpretation boards explaining that the area is important for wildlife, that the wildlife is vulnerable to impacts from recreation, these impacts are cumulative as a result of lots of different activities and events. In the areas that are sensitive it is necessary to be aware of the issues and modify behaviour. A range of designs reflecting different locations/habitats but also such that different organisations/landowners can adapt to include their own logos etc.

7.57 The Strategy could provide the opportunity for ‘branding’ to be taken up by other partners/stakeholders to give wider consistency and recognition within linked projects, even if not fully funded by the Strategy. Simple adaptation of signage branding would therefore be required.

209

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

7.58 Potential locations (identified during the stakeholder workshop) for signage and interpretation are shown in Map 24. This provides an indication of possible locations and would be a starting point for the audit.

210

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Figure 2: Selected examples of interpretation and signage from the LCR coast.

211

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT Infrastructure on or near the coast

7.59 This section relates to infrastructure within the European sites or around their periphery.

Visitor Centre Improvements/work

7.60 Visitor centres provide a focal point, drawing visitors and providing facilities to engage with those visitors and provide them with information about what to do and where to go. There are a number of existing centres that could benefit from an upgrade or improvement and there are gaps in provision, for example the Sefton Coast Plan highlights the lack of a single visitor centre for the Sefton Coast. Improvements to centres will act as mitigation, in terms of helping to draw visitors to particular locations (particularly those that are infrequent or first-time visitors) and providing information. However, some potential improvements may also be outside the scope of mitigation funding, for example relating to retail improvements. Some other funding sources may be available for the centres (for example through core funding from the relevant organisations or through outside bodies such as the Heritage Lottery Fund). In addition, such centres could to some extent generate revenue through parking charges, café/shop sales etc. As such visitor centres are included within this strategy as longer-term options that need some further work to develop the opportunities and carefully review the potential mitigation benefits, clearly setting out what any work might achieve. We envisage funding could help to refresh/create relevant displays, information material, refurbishment or similar. An indicative amount is included within the costs and this could be used for match-funding as part of a funding bid or to fund particular changes in the centres (such as a refurbishment). How this money is spent will depend on opportunities and liaison by the project delivery officer with relevant parties. The funding could be spread across different centres or targeted to one location. Such decisions can be informed by the results of the monitoring and the review of parking.

7.61 Centres that may warrant improvements or further work funded though this strategy (as identified in the stakeholder workshop) are indicated on Map 24 and possible centres include (but are not limited to):

• Ainsdale Discovery Centre • Leasowe Lighthouse • Thustaston Country Park • Eastham • Woodside and Seacombe Ferry terminals • Mersey Gateway • Pier Head ferry location • Albert Dock Centre

7.62 There may also be opportunities for smaller scale centres, for example RNLI lifeguard huts or mobile centres that could serve to disseminate information and provide opportunities to interact with visitors.

Audit of paths/visitor routes and improvements

212

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

7.63 Works on paths and visitor routes could include measures such as :

• Provision of new routes that draw access away from sensitive areas, for example paths that route visitors inland away from roost sites or sensitive dune habitats; • Provision of boardwalks through dune habitats; • Improvements to existing paths and associated infrastructure, for example improving steps, gates or other features on certain routes so that visitors are more likely to use them; • Changes to existing fixed paths (e.g. tarmacked routes) such that they do no restrict existing dune processes.

7.64 In order to identify potential locations for such works, an audit of existing paths and visitor routes is necessary. This should encompass public rights of way and more informal routes, drawing on data collected through visitor surveys and data on the web (such as OpenStreetMap2) or within GPS apps where users record running, cycling or other routes. The audit should identify where there are potential opportunities to connect existing routes or re-route users away from particularly sensitive features. Monitoring data collected on visitor numbers will help inform where footfall is highest and help identify areas where access could be focussed more. While the audit should focus on the European sites, adjacent areas of land should also be included, for example there may be opportunities for new routes inland, particularly where there is land in local authority control. Some path issues may be challenging to address but should be considered within the audit, for example the promenade at Crosby becomes blocked with blown sand and this fixed route is preventing an embryo dunes system (that would catch the sand) from developing. Any proposals for new or alternative routes will need to take into account/link with existing nature conservation strategies such as the draft Sefton Coast Nature Conservation Strategy and relevant shoreline management plans and coast defence strategies.

7.65 Locations where path works were identified in the stakeholder workshop are shown on Map 24.

Fencing

7.66 Fencing works would link to the path audits and would be important in a number of locations, such as:

• Around Natterjack pools to keep dogs and people away • Alongside boardwalks and other stretches of path where the aim is to contain access within areas of sensitive habitat • Close to wader roosts to direct people or deflect access away from sensitive locations • Grazing units, where existing fencing is in place but could benefit from repair or enforcing where there are access issues.

2 OpenStreetMap is an open source dataset that includes data uploaded by the public and users

213

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

7.67 As such fencing works are likely to be quite specific. Some locations where fencing works may be warranted are shown in Map 24, identified during the stakeholder workshop. Any proposals for fencing will need to take into account/link with existing nature conservation strategies such as the draft Sefton Coast Nature Conservation Strategy and relevant shoreline management plans and coast defence strategies.

Refuges

7.68 In some other European site mitigation strategies, voluntary refuges have been created. These are areas where people are discouraged, ensuring that some parts of the site are relatively quiet and undisturbed. For example, on the Exe Estuary two refuge areas have been established, these encompass intertidal habitat (sandflats, mudflats, saltmarsh and eel grass beds) and are marked with buoys. The zones are widely promoted and mapped and have been carefully selected so as not to particularly limit any current activities or overly restrict use. Both areas provide important foraging and roosting habitat for the wintering and passage bird interest.

7.69 Careful consultation and liaison is necessary to establish such refuges and in order to be effective they will need to be actively promoted, for example by the Rangers and on signage and interpretation. As such they need a relatively long lead-in time. A potential location is identified on Map 24, between Formby and Hightown. The MOD training area and long stretch of coast between access points means use here is already relatively low and a long-term aim could be to maintain this as very low key for access.

Dog bins

7.70 There are already dog bins in place at many locations around the coast. Dog fouling is mostly of concern with respect to dune habitats and there may be opportunities for additional dog bins. Few locations were identified in the stakeholder workshop (see Map 24) but there may be opportunities for additional bins or changes to locations of bins, perhaps linked to car-park changes. Some budget is therefore included in the costings for additional bins (and emptying) at a limited number of locations, which would be identified as opportunities arose, through the dog project work or following the parking and path audit and recommendations.

Fire hydrants

7.71 Two potential locations for fire hydrants were identified in the stakeholder workshop and these are shown in Map 24, reflecting areas where frequent fire incidents have occurred. These locations are indicative but reflect potential for improved resources for the emergency services to be able to respond to fire incidents and a greater likelihood of fires being able to be dealt with rapidly. Liaison with landowners, emergency services and other relevant stakeholders will be necessary to finalise locations/details, the costings include budget for new hydrants.

214

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT Other

7.72 There may also be opportunities for other infrastructure projects in addition to those set out above. The dynamic nature of the coast, with shifting habitats and shorelines will result in some areas requiring new or different infrastructure or novel responses to adapt to climate change. There may be potential, for example, to set back parking and tourist infrastructure over time, such that it is further from the coast. Changes in land ownership or interests may lead to opportunities for new access infrastructure. While it is hard to predict such opportunities, the strategy should be flexible enough to respond to opportunities as they arise.

Travel related measures

Review of parking and changes to car-parks

7.73 A review of parking on the coast and nearby areas is necessary before specific interventions can be identified and costed. The review would need to include a compete audit (i.e. not limited to formal car-parks), mapping all locations and recording parking capacity, current charging, condition etc. This initial audit would be necessary early in the strategy as it would also provide the foundation for the monitoring of visitor numbers (car-park transects, see para 9.84).

7.74 Following the audit, initial access monitoring results (showing levels of use at each location) and ecological data (for example that collated within this report), should be reviewed to make recommendations relating to future management of parking. These recommendations could possibly cover:

• Consideration of potential for changes/modifications to parking charges (using the parking charges to help redistribute access); • Identification of new parking locations that could be established, potentially including temporary locations that could be utilised at busy periods (e.g. agricultural land, community centres, school playing fields or similar within walking distance of the coast), such temporary locations could help to reduce queues, bring revenue to the local community and spread access away from more sensitive locations; • Improvements/changes to car-parks, for example resurfacing, redesigning so easier to park/better able to accommodate vehicles, better design to improve traffic flow; • Closure of parking locations (where close to sensitive nature conservation sites or locations are too costly to maintain); • Provision of live signs on approach roads to indicate if car-parks are full, allowing drivers to switch location before becoming stuck in long queues.

7.75 Some indicative locations (identified during the stakeholder workshop) for parking measures are shown in Map 24.

Parking and alternative sites app/website

215

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

7.76 An issue for some parts of the coast is the very high visitor volumes on certain days. Visitor volumes are such that long queues form, with people waiting up to two hours to find places to park. These queues have the potential to antagonise both local people and visitors. This risks creating hostility towards site-based staff and is unlikely to be sustainable. Options to redistribute people and help visitors make decisions to switch destination in advance of becoming stuck in queues are necessary. One approach could be live feeds that can be accessed via an app and on the web. Such a feed would allow visitors to identify which car- parks are full, where queues are forming and could provide directions to alternative parking locations. The development of such an app would be follow from the car-park audit (see above) and the potential for new parking locations to be opened up (perhaps temporarily). The app and website could be a standalone product or integrated within the other project apps/website. Wide promotion would be necessary (for example allowing local radio and social media feeds to pick up when there are high numbers of people and share information). The audit of parking and review of initial monitoring results on visitor numbers will inform the potential and key design elements.

Wider promotion of bike hire

7.77 Another potential way to reduce the long queues is to reduce car-use. Shuttle buses have been tried in the past, but these were unsuccessful due to the slow moving traffic. Better promotion of cycle hire and cycling opportunities could make a difference. MerseyTravel promote bike hire and there are existing schemes that allow visitors to pick up bikes at railway stations, including Formby, Ainsdale, West Kirby and Bidston. While such hire schemes are primarily used by commuters, there is potential for more visitors to the coast to travel by train and bike, rather than by car. Cycling routes can allow visitors to beat queues of cars and through careful promotion of routes access levels can be carefully managed and targeted. Cycling provides the potential for visitors to pick-up bikes at one station and drop-off at another, again helping to redistribute visitor use. In order for this to be effective as mitigation it will be necessary to draw a significant proportion of car-users and this may mean additional bikes being made available at some locations on peak days. Promoted routes and use of bikes will have to be focussed on routes that do not add to disturbance (for example cycling on a promenade or route that is set back from intertidal habitat is likely to have much less disturbance impacts to birds compared to foot access on the beach). Further work is necessary, potentially involving some survey work with visitors who arrive by car, to ascertain how successful this may be and what opportunities exist.

Monitoring

7.78 Monitoring is necessary as an integral part of mitigation delivery. Monitoring is necessary to pick up emerging issues or changes that require the mitigation focus to shift. For example, different activities can become popular, new areas become a focus for recreation or distribution of key species can change over time. Some measures may need refining over time and monitoring will provide the feedback to help target resources effectively, for

216

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

example by recording how many visitors to the coast have met wardens and how understanding have changed over time will help focus the amount of wardening time.

7.79 Monitoring results should therefore be compiled annually as part of a report that provides basic information for rangers, volunteers, planners, developers and other stakeholders. Such reports will summarise key annual changes and results from a range of different monitoring threads; rather than detailed, complex multivariate analyses (which would be more appropriate at strategic review points), these annual reports would simply present the monitoring results, trends and key findings, for example visitor numbers, bird numbers, etc. Some other strategic mitigation schemes such as the Solent have a dedicated, separate monitoring strategy (see Liley et al. 2015) and these provide useful context for the recommendations here.

Visitor numbers and distribution

7.80 Comprehensive, and reliable, data on visitor numbers will be important basic information, providing data on how use changes over time and how use patterns change according to the infrastructure changes and other measures set out within the strategy. Climate change and the dynamic coastline will mean visitor patterns may shift spatially and temporally, for example due to different weather conditions or following coastal change. Understanding such change will be fundamental to successful delivery of the strategy.

7.81 Two approaches will be best deployed to record visitor numbers and distribution. A series of regular transects should be established whereby parked cars are counted and a ‘snapshot’ count undertaken of people (and dogs) visible within a pre-defined count area. This approach is used in a range of other locations, such as the Solent. Surveyors can drive between car-parks and suitable vantage points (where people on the beach/count area) can be counted. A number of such locations can be visited in a short period, potentially with a small team ensuring relatively simultaneous data collection. Such counts should be established to be undertaken at set times of year and repeated on an annual basis (for examples of similar approaches see Liley 2017; Panter 2017; Panter & Liley 2017). The data, over time, will provide information on which parts of the coast are experiencing changes in visitor use. Count locations should include greenspace sites as well as the coast. Monitoring should record weather and tide conditions so these can be taken into account in analyses.

7.82 These count data can be supplemented with a small number of automated counters (beam counters, passive infra-red sensors or similar). These record the number of people passing, typically by the hour. We suggest around 10 such counters at carefully chosen locations, where sensitive features occur and distributed around the coast (i.e. on the European sites). The counters will provide detailed data which will accurately show trends in footfall for a very specific point. Counters should be allowed to run for a number of years, providing detailed information on trends and variation in use across different days and times of year.

Visitor questionnaires

217

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

7.83 Visitor survey data are required urgently to inform the core zone boundary, in particular the 10km extension for the Sefton Coast SAC. The visitor work will need to be undertaken during the summer, and we understand a survey is scheduled for 2018 (and as this is already scheduled it does not need to form part of the strategy). This survey will help inform future monitoring as it will establish additional baseline data.

7.84 Visitor questionnaires should subsequently be undertaken at three-yearly intervals for the first 9 years of the strategy, however this timing is not necessarily fixed and should be adjusted to provide data at key review points for the strategy (which are likely to be dictated by local plan reviews) and the need to inform mitigation delivery (e.g. ranger deployment). This level of repeats allows changes to be detected and emerging issues without overly drawing funds away from implementation of measures. Interviews will be at a selection of locations, potentially linked to some of the locations where automated counters are in place, and the questionnaires will identify where people have come from (home postcodes), routes on site, activities undertaken, reason for site choice and awareness of different measures/interaction with the mitigation team. These data will help identify to what extent ranger coverage needs to target particular groups/locations and help to target/direct mitigation effort, for example finding out to what extent visitors are aware of other greenspaces, how they use of social media etc. The data on visitor postcodes will allow periodic reviews/checks of zones. Monitoring will include European sites and other greenspace sites, both near the coast and set back from the coast. The proposed frequency will ensure data early on in the strategy are available to inform review and hone mitigation, and in the longer-term repeats can be undertaken as necessary at key review points.

Ecological monitoring

7.85 As with visitor numbers and distribution, climate change and coastal change may result in changes in the interest features of the European sites, and it will be important to understand these in order to respond effectively. Some existing monitoring is already undertaken through for example Natural England’s SSSI Condition Monitoring, volunteer surveys and other specific surveys commissioned by landowners and managers.

7.86 Regular bird counts are already undertaken by volunteers coordinated by the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) as part of the Wetland Bird Survey (‘WeBS’). The data should be collated locally and summarised as part of the annual reporting. Key information will be marked changes in numbers of birds for different sections of coast. There will be cost implications for obtaining the data from the BTO.

7.87 Petalwort is monitored at regular intervals (3-5 years) along the Sefton Coast and funded by Natural England. The Back from the Brink project will generate further survey data and has identified new populations. The Back from the Brink project will end in 2020 and beyond this date monitoring will be necessary. Given that the species is hard to find, has a wide potential distribution across the dune systems and the distribution may fluctuate, monitoring should be targeted such that key locations are covered with a standard

218

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

recording approach at regular (3 yearly) intervals and additional searches/coverage, potentially involving volunteers is recorded separately, so real change can be identified and variation in search effort ruled out as a cause.

Mitigation delivery and housing/tourism accommodation change

7.88 Other important monitoring data that will be necessary to collate on an annual basis will be:

• New residential development (planning permission and actually built; locations, numbers, contributions to strategy); • New tourism development (planning permission and actually built; locations, numbers, contributions to strategy); • Measures implemented, recording how monies are spent and precise details/timing (for example time spent by rangers at different locations, number of people spoken to, number of dog walkers signed up to dog project, changes to car-parks, charging, new greenspaces etc.). • A log of incidents, recorded in a standard fashion for particular locations and recording fire incidence, sheep worrying, vandalism etc. • Other changes around the coast, for example major floods, blowouts or other factors that might change influence access patterns or the ecology.

7.89 Accurate recording of development being built and development contributing to the strategy will be important as it will help inform whether the tariff is having any impact on the delivery of house building and pick-up whether the tariff is influencing where development is coming forward. It will also be fundamental to informing where mitigation needs to be targeted.

Summary of monitoring

7.90 The monitoring measures together will provide information to help hone and target mitigation delivery and will enable future reviews to adjust the tariff and resources to ensure efficient and cost-effective delivery. The monitoring elements are summarised in Table 8.

Table 1: Summary of monitoring integral to mitigation

Monitoring Data collected How used component Overview of vehicle numbers across LCR coast. Will inform where to target ranger presence and management of parking; Car-park transects Counts of parked vehicles trends over time for different locations will indicate where future resources need to be targeted; Will inform where access patterns are Snapshot people counts as Numbers of people, activities changing, where ranger presence needs to part of car-park transects be targeted; local trends over time will

219

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Monitoring Data collected How used component indicate where future resources need to be targeted. Postcode data will allow reviews of zones and charging scales. Questionnaire Visitor profiles, postcodes, influence of responses will show how Visitor interviews mitigation on behaviour, understanding attitudes/behaviours are changing, informing reviews of strategy and targeting of resources. Distribution and numbers of key species will inform where resources need to be Changes in distribution and numbers of Ecological monitoring targeted. Issues may change over time. key species Also provides information for ranger team to share with public. Data on volume of housing contributing to New residential strategy and being built will inform budget Numbers and locations development and reviews; mitigation should be targeted to locations affected by development. Data on volume of tourist development contributing to strategy and being built will New tourism development Numbers and locations inform budget and reviews; mitigation should be targeted to locations affected by development. Will show how money has been spent and Details of all measures, including time inform future iterations of strategy. Measures implemented and costs; for on-going measures such Potential to link changes in visitors or as rangers records of effectiveness ecological data to mitigation. Will show the extent to which issues such as Standardised reporting of key issues fire, vandalism, sheep worrying etc. are Incident log such as fires changing over time and where issues continue. Other factors may influence visitor distribution and species distribution. Record of key changes Log of changes that may provide Record of such changes may mask changes around coast context for other data associated with mitigation, therefore important that these can be included in any reviews.

Measures not included

7.91 The package of measures described above provides a range of mitigation approaches, involving push and pull measures and the focus is very much on access management and awareness raising. We have deliberately refrained from recommending habitat management and restoration work as this should be undertaken routinely and there is already a statutory duty for landowners and public bodies to ensure such management is

220

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

undertaken. The strategy therefore is based on the assumption that appropriate habitat management measures are in place.

Broad SANGs Guidelines

7.92 It is anticipated each local authority will develop a separate SANGs strategy that will set out how SANGs will work to provide mitigation within their District. It is anticipated that SANGs will be delivered either by developers (for example on large sites) or by the local authority. It may be that some authorities can work together such that SANGs funding is used across authority boundaries to help create larger, ‘destination’ sites; alternatively the tariff may be used solely within individual local authority boundaries.

7.93 The following guidelines are intended to provide the basis for each local authority to produce their own SANGs strategy. The guidelines are adapted from existing SANGs guidelines produced by Natural England for the Thames Basin Heaths. However, the role of SANGs in the Liverpool City Region is different to the Thames Basin Heaths, due to the particular draw and nature of the coast. As such we have adapted the guidelines to relate to the particular circumstances of the Liverpool City Region.

7.94 Within Knowsley, Kirkby Municipal Golf Course is situated adjacent to the junction 6 on the M57, just north of the A506. Its location on the western side of Kirkby provides an opportunity for a strategic SANG in this area to intercept some traffic travelling west from Kirkby and north along the M57. The Golf Course is owned by Liverpool City Council. The site could potentially offer similar facilities to Croxteth Country Park located to the south.

7.95 Colliers Moss Common, Wheatacre Farm (owned by the Forestry Commission) and Clock Face Country Park lie in St Helens. These sites are accessible from either junction 8 of the M62 via the village of Burtonwood, from the west via the A670 and A569 from Clock Face, or from the A572 to the north. The area is within the Bold Forest Area and close to Sankey Valley Park. Combined these sites offer a well-connected series of open spaces that have the potential to be extended in the future. The sites would need enhancement to ensure that a diverse range of activities were available to provide a draw for developments further to the west (south of Prescot) or for traffic arriving from further east.

7.96 Bootle Golf Course lies just north of the A5036 in Litherland, close to Rimrose Valley Country Park. This site offers opportunities for an accessible site to the east of the Leeds and Liverpool Canal but may not necessarily work as a SANG due to the golf use and potential costs. The site could offer recreational opportunities for development proposed south of the A5036 as well as those proposed on the eastern edge of the District around Maghull. The golf course is located close to Rimrose Country Park (although access across the Leeds and Liverpool Canal is currently limited) and woodlands managed by the Forestry Commission around Lunt. These areas combined could offer network of accessible sites in this area within the Sefton Forest Park project area.

221

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

7.97 Arrowe Country Park is located in the middle of the Wirral peninsula and is readily accessible from junction 3 of the M53 and could function as a gate way site to intercept traffic heading to the coast, and serve as an alternative location during peak times. The site is located close (c3km) to the Wirral Country Park and visitors could be directed to Arrowe Park as an alternative site. The integration of the existing golf course into the site greatly increases the extent of accessible land for visitors to explore. There are a number of National Trust sites in close proximity to Arrowe Country Park. This cluster of sites, located close to the coast but away from the European sites could be promoted as alternative destinations to the coast. Bidston Moss and Port Sunlight River Park are other candidates for SANGs.

7.98 Along the Sefton Coast linear sites such as the Leeds and Liverpool Canal (managed by the Canal and River Trust) link a series of sites such as the Rimrose Valley Country Park, Sefton Meadows Community Woodland and walking routes such as the Trans Pennine Trail. The use of linear linking routes to join a series of open spaces could be promoted as an alternative destination to the Sefton Coast.

Role of SANG

7.99 The role of SANGs is to provide alternative green space to divert visitors from the Liverpool City Region coast and estuaries, within the designated European sites. It is recognised that the coast and estuaries have a particular appeal for recreation and only a proportion of visits are likely to be diverted. SANGs will need to be tailored to each local authority and options for SANGs will vary across the Liverpool City Region. SANGs delivery will be over and above other greenspace requirements (such as sports pitches and children’s play areas).

7.100 SANGs will be most effective as part of an overall mitigation package whereby there are also measures in place on the European sites to help divert the access and promote alternatives.

7.101 SANGs may be created from:

• Existing open space of SANG quality with no existing public access or limited public access, which for the purposes of mitigation could be made fully accessible to the public;

• Existing open space which is already accessible, but which could be changed in character so that it is more attractive to the specific group of visitors who might otherwise visit the European sites;

• Land in other uses which could be converted to SANG.

222

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

7.102 Given that the focus of SANGs is recreation, and access will be encouraged, welcomed and promoted, SANGs should avoid sites of high nature conservation value where there is a risk of impacts from increased numbers of visitors.

Types of access

7.103 SANGs are most likely to work for recreation activities that are not necessarily specific to the coast, such as dog walking or running. While there may be potential to create access for watersports (e.g. inland water-bodies), these are likely to only cater for a small proportion of users given the particular characteristics of the coast (scale, winds, waves etc.). Visitor data (see Section 5 and Appendix 4) shows that a high proportion of coastal visitors are dog-walkers and typical visit times are around an hour, allowing routes of around 3km. While the proximity to the coast/water and scenery/views are important elements underpinning site choice, visitor surveys also reveal a relatively high proportion of people also visit the coast because it is good for the dog and because it is close to home. Good parking and access by car is important.

Guidelines for SANGs

Size

7.104 The aim should be to create large, expansive destination sites that provide the space to accommodate routes of 3km. This will potentially involve sites of 30-40ha3. Resources are therefore best focussed on a small selection of key sites.

Accessibility

7.105 SANGs should be accessible by car, with good easy parking and close to the locations of new development. Car-parks should be clearly signposted and free.

Networks of sites

7.106 It may be possible to join-up existing greenspaces by creating links and thereby providing opportunities for longer routes. Where long routes cannot be accommodated within individual SANGs it may therefore be possible to provide them through a network of sites. Such networks are however likely to be less attractive (to visitors who would otherwise visit the European sites), though this is likely to be dependent on the local circumstances. For example, visitors are likely to be less put off by green areas between SANG than by urban areas, even if they restrict access to rights of way and require dogs to be kept on leads.

3 A circle with a circumference of 3km has an area of 70ha, providing an indication of the scale of site needed for a 3km route. Sites will of course not be pure circles but will have variable edges and there will be potential to design routes to maximise the length that can be walked, hence sites much smaller than 70ha will still be able to accommodate the desired route length.

223

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT Character of sites

7.107 SANGs will need to feel natural and wild to visitors. As such urban parks with tightly mown lawns and tarmac paths are unlikely to be effective. SANGs will also need to be free of loud noises, smells and intrusive structures (for example major pylons, water treatment works etc.). There may be localised opportunities to utilise areas of brownfield or urban greenspaces where these are close to the coast or match nearby areas of European sites with access.

7.108 Locations with expansive views, ideally including the coast or estuaries are likely to work well. Varied topography is likely to add to the interest and appeal of a site. Steep hills are however likely to deter visitors. Water features, such as ponds and lakes may act as a focus for visitors but are not essential.

7.109 Sites must feel safe and welcoming to visitors.

Infrastructure

7.110 Any infrastructure will need to be carefully targeted to match the character and feel of the site. Paths do not necessarily need to be surfaced, but there may be need for bridges, boardwalks or some surfacing where ground conditions are wet or likely to deter access. SANG will be expected to have adequate car parking with good information about the site and the routes available. Some subtle waymarking would also be expected for those visitors not acquainted with the layout of the site.

7.111 Other infrastructure would not be expected and should generally be restricted to the vicinity of car parking areas where good information and signs of welcome should be the norm, though discretely placed benches or information boards along some routes would be acceptable.

Dogs

7.112 A high proportion of visitors to the European sites come to exercise their dogs and so it is imperative that SANG allow for pet owners to let dogs run freely over a significant part of the walk. Access on SANG should be largely unrestricted, with both people and their pets being able to freely roam along the majority of routes. This means that sites where free- roaming dogs will cause a nuisance or where they might be in danger (from traffic or such like) should not be considered for SANG.

7.113 The provision of dedicated areas where dogs can swim and access the water is likely to increase the effectiveness of SANGs. Creating such water features and ensuring they are widely promoted will be beneficial. There may be scope to enhance larger sites for dogs through the provision of dog agility areas or fenced training areas, but these are not essential and should be carefully planned so as not to make spaces feel cramped or impede access.

224

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT Monitoring

7.114 SANGs should be monitored to ensure they are used and any emerging issues can be resolved. Monitoring would typically involve counts of people (either through spot counts or automated counters) and interviews with a sample of visitors. Interviews should involve questions relating to the management of the site so that any issues can be picked up and resolved.

225

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Appendix 8: SAMM and SANG interventions and costs

Proposed interventions and costs

9.1 Following the approach successfully used in other mitigation strategies, we have calculated the cost of the individual measures set out above, to give an overall cost for the mitigation package. This total can then be divided by the number of dwellings anticipated to come forward in order to give a per dwelling cost, allowing a tariff to be estimated for new development. These figures are given in Table 12 (SAMM costs), Table 13 (SANG costs) and Table 14 (summary of SAMM and SANG costs and per dwelling costs). Figure 12 provides a breakdown of the costs by key themes. This approach has been repeatedly found to be sound for strategic mitigation strategies in place elsewhere, through inclusion in Local Plans tested at Examination in Public.

9.2 There are some key considerations to this approach and these are discussed below. It is also important to remember that any development can in principle choose to provide its own avoidance and mitigation measures. This is likely to be exceptional, as it will be very difficult for a project level HRA to demonstrate that it can deliver a package of measures, and long- term monitoring and adaptation of those measures over time, with the same level of certainty in effectiveness as this strategic approach, where measures are large scale and working together in an integrated way. It is anticipated that developers will recognise the cost efficiencies of the tariff in comparison to the cost of establishing and justifying a bespoke approach. As part of the audit trail, it would be necessary to keep an account of any development projects that successfully demonstrate no adverse effects on site integrity, and the subsequent monitoring and any adaptations put in place. If large numbers of houses were able to proceed on this basis, it would affect the overall tariff and this auditing information is therefore relevant to strategy review.

9.3 The avoidance and mitigation measures are an integrated package of measures, in that they work together, covering a wide range of recreation management options. The measures are designed to function in combination, to give certainty that the overall result will be effective, even if there are some aspects that require modification in light of monitoring. By developing a package that is comprehensive, this builds in confidence that overall, the package will be successful, and there is contingency if individual aspects are delayed, have unexpected outcomes or need to be individually reviewed and amended. The package set out in this strategy has been carefully designed to ensure it is suitably comprehensive without being over designed or unnecessarily expensive. If the package relied on just one or two measures (for example simply SANG), there is a much greater risk that the overall objectives of the strategy will not be met, and recreation pressure could increase to the extent that it adversely affects sensitive wildlife features before there is the opportunity to

226

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

rectify the situation. A failed strategy could take significant time to re-focus and re- implement. This would leave the local planning authorities in breach of their legislative duties under the Habitats Regulations.

Measures relating to staffing, access management and monitoring (‘SAMMS’)

9.4 Costs for many measures are only approximate, simple estimates ensuring sufficient budget for delivery, finer details and precise specifications will need to be produced as part of the implementation of the strategy. Regular review will allow the costs to be refined. For example, once the ranger team is established, annual running costs will be clear and may even reduce over time once the approach is up and running smoothly.

9.5 Following on from the individual Local Plan HRAs establishing the mitigation need, the package relates to the mitigation necessary for the cumulative total of tourist and residential development anticipated over a 15-year period (or so, depending on individual Local Plan timescales), as established in the data provided by the steering group. These developments will come forward over time and therefore the mitigation measures also need to be phased over time. Measures are categorised into three phases:

• Short-term/initial priority • Mid-term, once initial priority measures in place • Longer term/more aspirational/opportunistic

9.6 For each measure, costs are split between capital or one-off costs and annual costs. In order to work out the total cost of each measure we have added the capital cost and the annual cost, multiplied by the number of years the measure applies to. It is important to note that not all measures will start immediately. There will be a rolling programme of implementation due to the availability of funds and furthermore some measures will take time to establish and get up and running. For short-term measures we have multiplied by 15 years; for mid-term measures we have used a factor of 10 years and for longer term/more aspirational measures a factor of 5 years, recognising the point at which they will come forward in the 15-year period.

Costs for the wider zone

9.7 Large developments (above 10 dwellings) beyond the core zone could also potentially contribute to the strategy. Depending on the location and individual circumstances such developments could generate additional recreational use of the coast and would therefore need to be subject to HRA. Development that is further away from the coast will be expected to result in reduced visit rates, and therefore it makes sense any per dwelling contribution should be less. However, it is potentially difficult to set a relative proportion given the curvilinear relationship between visit rates and distance (see Figure 23 in Appendix 5). Essentially development just beyond the core zone will in fact generate relatively similar levels of access to equivalent scales of development just inside the zone. Development outside the core zone will not be expected to contribute to SANGs, as people

227

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

prepared to travel 5km to the coast are unlikely to be deflected to alternative locations. This already means a clear difference in the level of contribution for development beyond 5km. We suggest a simple approach whereby large developments contribute to SAMM at a level that is half that of development within the core zone.

Costs for SANGs

9.8 Costs for SANG would only be relevant for development within 5km. Costs for SANG have been calculated based on delivery in-perpetuity. For this we have used 80 years, the minimum recommended by Natural England. Following the advice of the steering group, we have applied discount factors based on the Treasury Green Book. This is contrary to other strategic mitigation schemes running around the country, for example the Solent strategy also aims to fund mitigation measures in perpetuity and has used an 80-year time- period from the end of the current plan period. In order to do this, a proportion of the money received each year from developer contributions is transferred into an investment fund. That 'in- perpetuity fund' will grow each year through those annual cash transfers and the interest earned, such that by 2034 it will be sufficiently large to fund the mitigation measures every year thereafter. Details of how these are calculated on the Solent are set out on the strategy website.

9.9 SANGs costs are complex, as there are initial establishment costs, annual maintenance costs and cyclical replacement costs, plus staff costs. Some of these costs are likely to be very site specific. We have used a generic average cost, based on two 80 ha SANGs the Land Trust is managing in southern England, these are sites that have had their budgets approved and both are to act as destination points in their own right. These costs are summarised in Appendix 8. Using the figures in the Appendix we have cyclical and annual costs to which the discounting has been applied to give a net total commuted budget.

9.10 While the above approach has provided a figure that we have used to estimate a per dwelling tariff, it is important to note that there are other approaches to funding SANGs in- perpetuity, and while these may be more expensive they have the potential to provide additional security. For example, the Land Trust, who have extensive experience of delivering SANG management in perpetuity tend to invest capital endowments to generate investment returns which are assumed at a rate of 3.5% in perpetuity. These investment returns are spent on managing the SANG on a year by year basis. These endowments also grow with inflation, assumed at an annual rate of 2.2% and are not eroded, therefore they ensure that monies are provided to fund Green Infrastructure beyond a fixed period (e.g. 80 years). These endowments are ring-fenced to the site for delivery of the Trust’s charitable objectives that they were calculated for and are not cross subsidised. Such endowments are approved by Natural England as an in-perpetuity funding mechanism suitable for SANG.

228

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT Table 1: Estimated costs of proposed measures: SAMM.

No. years

Capital/ to budget Annual Measure one-off for Total Cost Notes on how cost calculated Cost Theme Cost annual cost Costs calculated as: £37,000 annual salary plus 35% (to cover NI, superannuation, Delivery manager £49,950 15 £749,250 etc.). Costs per warden would be: £20,000 annual salary, plus 35% (to cover NI, 1 Ranger (full time) £31,500 15 £472,500 superannuation, etc.) and in addition vehicle costs (£4,500 per annum). Costs per warden would be: £20,000 annual salary, plus 35% (to cover NI, 1 Ranger (full time) £31,500 15 £472,500 superannuation, etc.) and in addition vehicle costs (£4,500 per annum).

Costs per warden would be: £20,000 annual salary, plus 35% (to cover NI, 1 Ranger (part time) £15,750 15 £236,250 superannuation, etc.) and in addition vehicle costs (£4,500 per annum). 0.5 f.t.e Staff Costs would be: £20,000 annual salary, plus 35% (to cover NI, superannuation, etc.) Project delivery officer £15,750 10 £157,500 and in addition vehicle costs (£4,500 per annum); scaled by 0.5 as part time Costs would be: £20,000 annual salary, plus 35% (to cover NI, superannuation, etc.) Volunteer coordinator £15,750 10 £157,500 and in addition vehicle costs (£4,500 per annum); scaled by 0.5 as part time

Executive Group £0 No costs necessary as Delivery Manager will organise Administration and £0 No costs allocated; each local authority may need to set as necessary accountancy Undertaken by delivery officer/wardens, small budget to cover costs of report Audit of current provision £1,500 £1,500 production £12,000 for design of new interpretation with different designs, covering a range of Graphic design for new £12,000 £12,000 different issues (sand dunes, natterjack toads, wintering waterfowl); may need to allow interpretation and signs for refresh/update of design during plan period. £2,000 per board for production of timber frame and graphic panel, delivery and

New interpretation boards £120,000 £120,000 installation. Estimate of 30 boards. Costs allowed for 1 X replacement within plan period, therefore 60 total Cost based on 100 posts at £300 per post to cover production, delivery and

Signage& Interpretation New Signs, waymarking etc. £28,000 £28,000 installation. Treated softwood marker posts, 1.6m high with slanting top and coloured band or marking incorporated. Costs allowed for 1 X replacement within 229

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

No. years

Capital/ to budget Annual Measure one-off for Total Cost Notes on how cost calculated Cost Theme Cost annual cost plan period, therefore 200 total. Additional £2000 for waymarking discs or signs made of glass reinforced plastic for longevity (£2000 allows for 2 sets of discs - 2 designs, 500 of each). Development of education Estimate for design and printing, consultancy input working with delivery manager £20,000 £20,000 material for schools and ranger team Funding for schools transport £3,450 10 £34,500 Approximately £230 per day for coach, coast assumes 15 school trips per annum Costs likely to be more and will require additional funding, potentially from other App £50,000 £50,000 organisations. Tourist bodies, advertising etc. Social media and website £15,000 £1,000 15 £30,000 Costs to cover design and annual fee for updates, hosting etc. Crosby & Southport wildlife £15,000 £15,000 Estimate of budget for external commission tourism strategy 8 new codes of conduct, designed for web and printing; cost allows for printing and

Codes of Conduct £15,000 £15,000 reprints/refresh through plan period; codes to include maps of key locations (i.e. GeneralAwareness Raising gazeteer type information), zones, permits, etc. Events £1,000 10 £10,000 Small budget to cover resources for ranger team when attending events Costs to cover graphic design, liason with specialist consultants (dog focussed), LCR Dog Project £15,000 £15,000 liasion with focal groups (dog owners etc). website design estimated at £10,000 with annual cost to allow update/refresh and Public engagement £25,000 £1,000 15 £40,000 new material; £3000 allows for 3 sets of 85mm discs - 3 designs, 500 of each; e.g. potentially paw

Managing sites £4,500 £4,500 prints in traffic light colours to show where no dogs, dogs on lead and dogs welcome; £1500 for purchase of gazebo for events on site funds cover specialist support (trainers etc); dedicated events, printing of material etc. Dog school £9,000 £2,000 10 £29,000 Some potential for donations or small fees from participants to help cover costs

Dog sites £0 costs incorporated into website and delivery officer time LCR Dogs in Nature Project Nature in LCR Dogs Visitor centre Budget significant but would not cover new building or other major works; instead £500,000 £500,000 improvements/work sufficient to cover major overhaul of interpretation or other facilities within existing 230

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

No. years

Capital/ to budget Annual Measure one-off for Total Cost Notes on how cost calculated Cost Theme Cost annual cost buildings. Cost potentially spread between different venues. Audit of existing paths,

including unofficial/informal £20,000 £20,000 Budget allows for consultancy support to undertake audit routes £35m2 for hoggin surfacing: budget would allow for 0.5km of path works at £35m Path improvements £17,500 15 £262,500 (estimate for hoggin surfacing) per annum. Fencing £15,000 15 £225,000 Cost spread over 15 years, 0.5km of fencing per year at £30 per m Hydrants at 2 locations at £22,500 each; cost based on similar provision on Dorset Fire hydrants £45,000 £45,000 Heaths. identified within codes of conduct and other elements, promoted by rangers; no Refuges £0 additional cost implications £600 per bin initial cost, for timber fronted dual waste bin; £400 per bin per year to

Infrastructure on site or near coast near or site on Infrastructure Dog bins £3,000 £2,000 15 £33,000 empty One-off cost for consultancy report, all car-parks visited, mapped and assessed and Review of parking £20,000 £20,000 strategic review to consider potential changes Potential for costs to be used in conjunction with revenue collected for parking Parking charges; £300,000 would be the equivalent of 3 new car-parks with around 25 spaces. £300,000 £300,000 improvements/modifications Costs anticipated to be spread more widely for more minor changes across more car-

Travel Travel parks. Parking and alternative sites £50,000 £50,000 Aspirational and potentially would need funding from other sources; app/website Wider promotion of bike hire £50,000 Aspirational and potentially would need funding from other sources and routes estimated cost for repeat surveys involving interviews with visitors at stratified sample

Visitor interviews £25,000 £25,000 of locations across relevant European sites. ng Biannual monitoring involving repeated transects/car-park counts and other counts Monitori Visitor numbers and activities £10,000 8 £80,000 done by consultant (potential to also use wardens/volunteers)

231

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

No. years

Capital/ to budget Annual Measure one-off for Total Cost Notes on how cost calculated Cost Theme Cost annual cost

Recording implementation of £0 no cost as undertaken as part of core work by delivery officer mitigation

Levels of new development £0 no cost as undertaken as part of core work by delivery officer/LPAs Annual sum available for targeted monitoring/match funding as required. Potential Ecological £5,000 15 £75,000 for ranger time and delivery officer time as additional support.

Total £4,305,500

10% Contingency £430,550

Total inc. contingency £4,736,050

232

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT Table 2: Estimated SANGs cost, summarised from Appendix 5. Annual management and cyclical replacement costs relate to an 80 year period and are discounted figures following Treasury Green Book guidance.

Net Establishment Budget £904,080 Net Commuted Annual Management Budget £2,950,503 Net Commuted Cyclical Replacement Budget £657,554 Net Total Commuted Budget £4,512,137

Figure 1: Breakdown of costs of mitigation package, showing how the overall mitigation package (£9,248,187) is split between different elements.

233

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT Table 3: Summary of SAMM and SANG costs and per dwelling costs

Total cost mitigation package (exclusive of administration, monitoring and reporting) £9,248,187 Total cost of SAMM (includes 10% contingency) £4,736,050 Total cost of SANG (includes contingency) £4,512,137 Number of dwellings both zones 68,334 Number of dwellings core zone only (inc Sefton 10km extension) 26,073 Number dwellings 10 or more outside core zone 42,261 Per dwelling cost in core zone (SAMM and SANG combined) inclusive of administration, monitoring and reporting £299 Per dwelling cost in wider zone inclusive of administration, monitoring and reporting £63

Table 4: Breakdown by authority for number of dwellings within core zone and potential mitigation costs for each authority (development within both zones) inclusive of administration, monitoring and reporting.

Approximate Approximate number of Total cost number of Total cost Local dwellings dwellings authority SAMM & SANG SAMM & SANG expected within in core zone expected in in wider zone core zone wider zone

Halton 4464 £1,342,583 8469 £832,870 Knowsley 1395 £416,701 6808 £428,359 Liverpool 2277 £680,163 14674 £923,288 Sefton 7435 £2,220,909 2693 £169,443 St. Helens - - 8717 £548,474 Wirral 10,502 £3,137,052 900 £56,628 Total 26,703 £7,797,408 42,261 £2,959,062

234

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Costs The total cost of the mitigation package is estimated at £9,248,187 exclusive of administration, monitoring and reporting. Roughly half (£4,736,050; 51%) of this is SAMM and the remainder (£4,512,137) is SANG.

Using the estimates of potential new housing, per dwelling tariffs for the core zone (including the Sefton 10km extension) and in developments of 10 net additional dwellings of more would be £298.71 inclusive of administration, monitoring and reporting, which would include SANG and SAMM for the interim measure and period until such time as the RMS is approved and implemented.

Per dwelling costs for housing outside the core zone (and in developments of 10 net additional dwellings or more) would be £62.92 as an interim measure.

In the interim financial payments would be retained within each local authority area for local deployment.

9.11 This table sets out typical costs for the establishment and management of 80ha of SANG, to a high specification to create a ‘destination’ site that will work as a strategic SANG. The establishment costs are based upon unit rates from SANG projects the Land Trust has worked on previously. The annual management costs are based on actual costs agreed for the management of two 80ha sites the Land Trust is working on in southern England.

235

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Activity Qty Unit Rate Total (£) Comments

1. Establishment

Infrastructure car-parking for 100 spaces. No dig solution, cellular web surfacing, with car-park 1.00 no 200,000.00 200,000.00 associated infrastructure in height barrier. Assumes access onto highway already provided and no drainage issues. Assume total 3km route to be surfaced 2m wide self binding gravel, Primary SANG footpath 6,000.00 m2 35.00 210,000.00 timber edged path Assumes total length of boundary to be dog proof fenced. 1.2m post and Fencing 3,740.00 m 25.00 93,500.00 mesh Pedestrian gate 7.00 no 500.00 3,500.00 Timber kissing gate, 1 per 500 linear metres of boundary fencing Vehicle gate 2.00 no 500.00 1,000.00 12 foot field gate - 1 provided in each car-park for maintenance access. Bench 16.00 no 600.00 9,600.00 Hard wood bench, 1 per 5 hectares. Strategic locations/view points Hard wood frames, A0 size, 1 per 5 hectares. At entrance points to SANG Map/interp board 16.00 no 1,500.00 24,000.00 and focal points Timber fronted dual waste bin, 1 per 5 hectares. Strategic locations within Bin 16.00 no 550.00 8,800.00 close proximity to entrance points Hard wood posts, 1 per 5 hectares installed at footpath junctions and Finger post 16.00 no 275.00 4,400.00 unsurfaced routes Nominal total to be positioned at car-parks and main pedestrian access Visitor Counter 5.00 no 1,200.00 6,000.00 points. Vegetation 0.00 Wildflower meadow sowing 8.00 ha 5,500.00 44,000.00 1 hectare wildflower sown per 10 hectare of land. Woodland and shrub planting 8.00 ha 8,000.00 64,000.00 1 hectare of planting per 10 hectares of land Standard tree planting 400.00 no 75.00 30,000.00 5 standard trees planted per hectare of land Hedgerow planting 1,600.00 lin m 18.50 29,600.00 100 linear metres hedgerow planted per 5 hectares of land Other budg Ranger vehicle 1.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 4x4 vehicle for the 2 rangers. et

236

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Activity Qty Unit Rate Total (£) Comments budg Leaflets 1.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 Production of 10,000 leaflets with info and maps et Subtotal 753,400.00 20% as estimated works are not based upon a real life site. Contingency 20% Contingency 20% 150,680.00 allows for unknown works. NET Total Establishment 904,080.00

2. Annual Management

Annual Management Operations Qty Unit Rate Total (£) Comments Costs per total ranger salary would be: £20,000 annual salary, plus national FTE Ranger 2.00 salary 30,500.00 61,000.00 insurance (£2,500 per annum), internal admin (£2,000), and overheads (£6,000 per annum) giving a total of £30,500. budg Cost of senior management teamwithin Local Authority overseeing the 2 Senior management support 1.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 et rangers. budg Cost of finance team within Local Authority raising orders, paying invoices, Finance support 1.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 et financial reports bude Fuel 1.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 Fuel for vehicle and tractor with flail t budg Tractor and flail hire 1.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 Leasing of tractor and flail to undertake meadow cuts et budg Budget to replace/repair equipment items e.g. chainsaws, brush cutters, Equipment replace/repair 1.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 et hand tools, health and safety equipment etc. budg E.g. tree surgeons for arboricultural works, car-park repairs, pond Specialist contractors 1.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 et dredging or reprofiling, budg Assumes that Rangers will undertake the majority of the repairs to Materials and consumables 1.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 et infrastructure e.g. fencing, footpaths, benches, bins, etc. Dog bin emptying 16.00 no 400.00 6,400.00 Third party contractor undertaking weekly bin emptying budg Skip/waste disposal 1.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 Cost for ranger to dispose of flytipping, littering etc. et Visitor counter servicing 5.00 no 200.00 1,000.00 Third party monitoring and repairing on annual basis

237

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Activity Qty Unit Rate Total (£) Comments budg Site insurance 1.00 500.00 500.00 et Sub total 93,900.00 10% as cost is relevant to an 80 ha SANG. Overall budget is reasonable for 10% Contingency 10% 9,390.00 a project of this scale. NET Total Annual Budget 103,290.00

Annual Avg 3. Capital Replacement Sinking Fund

25 Year Replacement - budg car-park 1.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 Assumes 25 year replacement same spec as establishment. et budg Footpath replacement 1.00 210,000.00 210,000.00 Assumes 25 year replacement same spec as establishment. et budg Fencing replacement 1.00 93,500.00 93,500.00 Assumes 25 year replacement same spec as establishment. et budg 20% as estimated works are not based upon a real life site. Contingency 20% Contingency 1.00 100,700.00 100,700.00 et allows for unknown works. Sub total 604,200.00 10 Year Replacement - budg Pedestrian gate 1.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 Assumes 10 year replacement same spec as establishment. et budg Vehicle gate 1.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 Assumes 10 year replacement same spec as establishment. et budg Bench 1.00 9,600.00 9,600.00 Assumes 10 year replacement same spec as establishment. et budg Map/interp board 1.00 24,000.00 24,000.00 Assumes 10 year replacement same spec as establishment. et budg Bin 1.00 8,800.00 8,800.00 Assumes 10 year replacement same spec as establishment. et 238

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Activity Qty Unit Rate Total (£) Comments budg Finger post 1.00 4,400.00 4,400.00 Assumes 10 year replacement same spec as establishment. et budg Visitor counter 1.00 6,000.00 6,000.00 Assumes 10 year replacement same spec as establishment. et budg Ranger vehicle replacement 1.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 Assumes 10 year replacement same spec as establishment. et budg Leaflets 1.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 Assumes 10 year replacement same spec as establishment. et budg 20% as estimated works are not based upon a real life site. Contingency 20% Contingency 1.00 16,460.00 16,460.00 et allows for unknown works. Sub total 98,760.00 NET Total Annual Budget 702,960.00

239

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT Assumptions used to derive SANG costs

9.12 The following assumptions relate to the above table and the SANGs cost estimates

• Assumes that the site will already be an established and mature site. Infill planting of woodland, shrubs and hedgerows will be required to enhance the site and break up large areas into smaller compartments. This will help enable more visitors to use the site without it feeling too crowded. Woodland estimated at 1 ha planting required per 10 ha of site. Hedgerow at 100 linear metre planting required per 5 ha of site. • Modest areas of wildflower meadow will be planted to increase aesthetics and biodiversity. Green hay could be used in future management operations to increase wildflower coverage. Allowed for 1 ha of wildflower to be sowed per 10 ha of site. • It has been assumed that the footpath will be the maximum 3km length and that it will be 2m wide and bound gravel surfaced. • The entire boundary of the site will require to be dog proof fenced for dog security and confidence of visitors to let their dogs off leads. The perimeter has been estimated from the 80 ha Kirby Municipal Golf Course to provide indicative length. • It has been assumed that 2 car-parks of 100 spaces will be required to be created in order to facilitate access. These car-parks will be no dig solution, cellular web surfacing, with associated infrastructure in height barrier. Assumes access onto highway already provided and no drainage works. There may be car-parks in place already, budget available can be used to increase size of existing car-park, upgrade etc. Natural England require 1 space per hectare, there has been an over allocation for this SANG as it expected to be a destination point and should be able to provide extensive parking. • All establishment unit rates include for infrastructure supply and installation. • The majority of the annual management will be undertaken by the 2 FTE rangers employed by one of the local authorities within the Liverpool Coastal Region. This includes the aftercare of new planting in the first 2 - 5 years. • The organisation that employs these two rangers will require additional admin cost to those included within the salary, to be provided. These have been included as: senior management support and finance support. • The indicative annual budgets are representative of a similar scale SANG/Mitigation project in the South of England and have been agreed with a Local Authority Countryside Service Team that will be undertaking the management. • There are cyclical works associated with the dredging, reprofiling of waterbodies within the sites, this will be required to be investigated in more detail. However for the purposes of this SANG it is assumed that the 10% annual contingency should be able to cover the cost. • Costs do not include for the removal, demolition etc. of existing infrastructure or buildings etc. that will not be required when the site is operated as SANG. • Given that this project is expected to be a destination point to attract visitors a visitor centre/café could be provided and would enhance the site, it is however not essential. Costs for a café/centre have not been included as there could be some income stream associated with such a venue and it is not necessarily essential. • These costings are indicative and are subject to further review once more detail on each site is known and the strategic approach to the provision of SANG is agreed.

240

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Appendix 9: Zones of Influence for the interim measure

Zone of influence: residential development

Core zone

8.1 The Footprint Ecology visitor survey data is the only survey that provides visitor postcodes from across the Liverpool City Region coast, and is therefore the only data that can be used to identify a broad zone of influence within which increases in the number of houses would be particularly associated with changes in access levels to the coast.

8.2 The 75th percentile for the distance from home to survey point has been used in other strategic mitigation schemes to set the area within which new development is expected to contribute towards mitigation measures. The use of the 75th percentile ensures the zone captures the majority of use. The Footprint Ecology visitor survey data relates to winter use and will therefore perhaps reflect more local use compared to peak summer holiday times. As such any zones derived from the data are likely to be potentially conservative.

8.3 The survey points within the Liverpool City Region, support a 5km zone (the 75th percentile, taking all the data from survey points in the Liverpool City Region only, was 5.06km). There was of course variation across the different survey periods, which reflect a range of locations. The 5km reflects the 75th percentile from the pooled data and therefore reflects typical use.

8.4 5km represents a consistent, pragmatic distance that can be applied across the whole Liverpool City Region. It encompasses much of Sefton, Liverpool and virtually all of Wirral. Around half of Halton lies within the 5km while for Knowsley it is only the southern part of the authority boundary that falls within the zone. St. Helens is entirely beyond 5km.

8.5 Map 25 shows the 5km zone. The 5km is drawn around the European site boundaries. It can be seen there is tiny parcel of land within the centre of the Wirral which falls outside 5km but is so small as to warrant being ignored for any kind of zone.

8.6 The zone needs to reflect the area within which access will originate and be straightforward and easy to apply. Overtime access points, parking, types of use and the distribution of the interest features may change, so any zone needs to not be overly complex so as to require constant review and adjustment. The choice of 5km distance matches that used in other strategic mitigation schemes (e.g. Thames Basin Heaths, Dorset Heaths, the Solent) where the zone is consistently applied to multiple protected sites. These examples provide a useful check. Those zones were based on similar visitor data, applied in a similar way and have been subject to scrutiny at public inquiry and a range of local plan examinations.

241

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

8.7 The basis for the 5km does however relate to visitor survey data collected during the winter. For the Sefton Coast there are particular interest features and sensitivities that relate to spring and summer recreational use, for example the fire risk, dune trampling and impacts to herptiles. During the spring and summer, the Sefton Coast receives much higher levels of recreation use and there are issues that relate to the SAC interest that are not necessarily relevant to other parts of the coast. While visitor origin data are currently not available for this time of year, it is to be assumed that visitors are travelling from further afield and an extension to the 5km zone around the Sefton Coast SAC would seem appropriate. Visitor survey data are urgently required to clarify the distances people travel to visit the SAC during the spring and summer1. In the meantime, we recommend that the 5km zone is extended by a further 5km, i.e. 10km drawn just around the Sefton Coast SAC boundary. This would be an interim approach until further visitor data relating to summer use and visitor postcodes are available. 10km has been chosen as it is in line with the 75th percentile from the Footprint Ecology interviews conducted at Formby and would seem a sensible distance within which regular summer day trippers might originate. Furthermore, the distance is broadly in line with the zones used in South-Devon (Dawlish Warren is potentially a similar site, being an SAC designated for its sand dune system, used by day visitors and tourists, with a large city relatively close). The extension can be adjusted as soon as visitor data are available for the relevant time of year. The 5km zone and the extension are shown in Map 26.

8.8 Parts of the coast and estuary shorelines do not have public access, for example commercial port areas or the southern shore of the Mersey in Halton, where the Manchester Ship Canal is an effective barrier alongside the shoreline. Taking such areas into account however makes little difference to a zone. This can be seen in Map 27, where Map 26 is repeated, however the core 5km zone have been drawn using a 5km buffer around all the main car- parks. These car-park data were compiled by Ross et al. and represent the locations marked on Ordnance Survey 1:25,000 Explorer Maps. Using these to generate a buffer provides a useful check on the approach and, given the similarity between the two maps, the use of the European site boundaries to derive the buffers is the best approach. This is preferred because it is more simplistic. It is also important to note that only car-parks shown on OS 1:25000 maps have been used in our checks, and there are many more parking locations available to visitors. These locations can change over time, meaning any zone based on parking locations would have to be regularly reviewed and updated.

8.9 One further consideration regarding the use of a consistent 5km zone around the European sites is however the effect of the coastline and in particular the Mersey Gateway on travel patterns. It is notable that no interviewees from the Footprint Ecology surveys at Hale Head came from south of the Mersey. In Map 28 we show bands which reflect travel distance

1 Visitor survey data should involve interviews with a random sample of visitors at a selection of locations along the Sefton Coast and should ascertain the home postcodes of those interviewees along with questionnaire data relating to activity, route taken, visitor profile, etc. Surveys should be timed to be at peak times when day visitors are most likely to be encountered, e.g. sunny weekends during April-September etc.

242

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

from the European sites. To generate the map, we used the Ordnance Survey Open Road GIS data and identified all nodes (i.e. ends of roads or road junctions) that fell within 50m of the European site boundaries. A small number of main car-parks fell just outside this selection, and these were manually added, to provide a point layer representing points where there was road access or parking close to the European site boundaries. Using these points, we then mapped travel distance bands2 (based on the road network) using 2km bands. The shading (red to purple) therefore reflects areas of increasing travel distance (along the road network) from the coast. The map also includes the Footprint Ecology visitor survey postcodes and shows the core zone of influence. It can be seen that 5km zone based on the ‘straight-line’ distance corresponds very closely to the 6km travel distance, but there does appear to be a marked discrepancy for the upper part of the Mersey, where the travel bands indicate there is a much greater travel distance, despite falling within 5km of the European sites. This would suggest there is merit in the zone following the north shore of the Mersey east of Widnes rather than encompassing the south side of the Mersey in Halton.

8.10 We therefore recommend a core zone of influence that is drawn at 5km around the European site boundaries and then the boundary adjusted as follows:

• The boundary is extended to include areas within 10km of the Sefton Coast SAC, as an interim approach until summer postcode data are available; • The boundary is cut in Halton, east of Widnes to follow the north shore of the Mersey to reflect the extra travel distance to reach the European sites.

8.11 This zone is shown in Map 26 and 28 and it can be seen it effectively encompasses visitor postcodes from the Footprint Ecology survey. The zones have been derived using the best available evidence. The data are however from the winter only and from 8 locations within the Liverpool City Region. Further survey work during the spring and summer are required and the zones should be subject to checks and review as further visitor data (home postcodes) becomes available. Checks should focus on adjustments to the zone to reflect day trips to the open coast (the current 10km extension) and the relative draw of the more urbanised and developed estuary shorelines.

Proportions of the shoreline within 5km of different authorities

8.12 It is possible to compare the different authorities in terms of the amount of shoreline within 5km of the authority boundary. This provides a check of the 5km zone and its applicability across the Liverpool City Region. If each local authority had small and different sections of coast within 5km, then it would make sense that mitigation was established entirely on an authority by authority basis. Alternatively, if the same sections of shoreline fall within 5km of multiple authorities, a joined-up approach is mitigation is relevant.

2 These were drawn using the Routefinder Tool for MapInfo, using voronoi-based polygons.

243

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

8.13 We created a simple shoreline boundary in the GIS that was a single polyline stretching from the edge of the Alt & Ribble SPA near Preston down to Neston. The line followed the edge of the European sites or the Mean High-Water Mark, simplified to give a linear edge where there were saltmarsh, creeks and other complex shoreline features. This simple shoreline was 141km in length. The amount of this shoreline within 5km of each authority is summarised in Figure 11, and the shading represents different sections of coast/estuary. The comparison highlights that Wirral, Liverpool and Sefton have the highest proportion of shoreline within 5km but shows that for Halton and Knowsley the amount is not that much less. For St Helens there is no shoreline within 5km. With these comparisons it should be noted that a 5km radius does encompass land on the opposite side of an estuary, for example: the north Wirral shoreline is within 5km of Sefton and likewise the east Wirral shoreline is within 5km of both Sefton and Liverpool. There is also variation in the degree of access to the foreshore.

Figure 1: Amount of European site shoreline within 5km of each authority. Shoreline boundary approximate and simplified to remove creeks, saltmarsh etc.

Wider zone (for large developments)

8.14 Beyond the core zone of influence set out above, large developments in the Liverpool City Region may also generate additional recreational visits to the coast. We can use visitor data to identify the scale of development beyond 5km that would be equivalent (in terms of access to the European sites) to a single dwelling within 5km. Using the data in Appendix 53 a single dwelling at 2.5km (the mid-point of our 5km zone) would be associated with the

3 In particular the decay curve in Figure 23 and the derived figures in Table 23.

244

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

same number of coastal visits (during the winter) as 9 dwellings at 7.5km (i.e. well outside most of the core zone). We therefore suggest that developments of 10 houses or more outside our core zone should be subject to project level Habitats Regulations Assessment and using the GIS data we can identify that approximately 10,900 dwellings are anticipated within the Liverpool City Region outside of the core zone in developments of 10 or more dwellings.

Levels of potential new housing within the core zone

8.15 Using the housing data provided by the local authorities we can estimate the volume of housing anticipated to come forward within the zone of influence. The total for the core zone (i.e. 5km from the coast, extended to 10km around the Sefton Coast SAC) is 24,395, this is the approximate total for anticipate dwellings, excluding those already with planning permission.

Zone of influence for residential development We recommend a core zone of influence that is drawn at 5km around the European site boundaries and then the boundary adjusted as follows:

The core zone reflects where new housing will result in changes in access to the European sites. Outside this core zone (including the 10km extension), large developments (10 or more dwellings) could also result in increased levels of access such that they would need project level HRA/contribute to any strategy.

Additional survey work is required during the summer on the Sefton Coast SAC to check visitor postcodes and the 10km extension. Zones should be subject to periodic review, based on postcode data.

Zone of influence: tourism

8.16 It is apparent that the primary focus of tourism growth that may bring additional visits to the coast is within Wirral and Sefton. Whilst Liverpool has aspirations for increased tourism, this is predominantly related to promoting a city break destination and its major waterfront events. Wirral and Sefton are the two authority areas where sandy beaches occur, and tourism accommodation in close proximity to these parts of the coast are likely to be the

245

Liverpool City Region European Sites Recreation Mitigation Strategy: CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

primary destinations for visitors who are seeking a holiday in close proximity to a beach, and who will be accessing the coastal European sites. For these types of holidays, accommodation in close proximity and with easy access to the coast will be sought and new tourism accommodation could therefore be potentially adding to the recreation pressure anticipated from new residential growth in the City Region.

8.17 We therefore recommend a zone of 1km for tourism development around the Sefton Coast SAC and Dee SAC. These two designations encompass the sensitive habitats where trampling and summer recreation issues are most acute. Furthermore they encompass the areas where there is likely to be a tourism draw that relates to the coast and the recreation opportunities it provides.

8.18 This zone is shown in Map 29. This zone should be subject to review and visitor survey data should be used to justify any adjustments to the zone.

8.19 It is important to note that this strategy does not cover individual large-scale tourism events such as air shows, golf tournaments and boat races. These should be the subject of project level HRA for each individual event by the relevant competent authority approving or running the event.

Zone of influence for tourism accommodation development Tourism is a particular focus within the Local Plans for Wirral, Sefton and Liverpool and future tourism development that is orientated towards the coast or has strong links to the coast is likely to be within Sefton or the Wirral. These are the locations where people accessing the coast as part of a beach focussed holiday are likely to seek accommodation. New tourism accommodation in close proximity to the sandy coast potentially adds to the recreation pressure anticipated from new residential growth in the City Region. We recommend a 1km zone, for mitigating for the impacts of new tourist accommodation. The zone will be around the Sefton Coast SAC and the North Wirral shoreline round to West Kirby. The zone should be subject to review, based on visitor survey data.

246

Map 1: Overview of the Liverpool City Region (LCR).

Map 2: Relevant SAC sites.

Map 3: Relevant Ramsar sites.

Map 4: Relevant SPA sites.

Map 5: Map of priority habitats within and around (1 km radius) protected sites.

Map 6: Distribution of habitat interest features within the Sefton Coast SAC.

Map 7: Distribution of habitat interest features within the Sefton Coast SAC.

Map 8: Distribution of species records for Great Crested Newt and Natterjack Toad around the Sefton SAC.

Map 9: Distribution of species records for Petalwort around the Sefton SAC.

Map 10: Distribution of species records for Great Crested Newt and Natterjack Toad around the Dee SAC.

Map 11: Distribution of key habitat and species interest features for the Sefton Coast SAC.

Map 12: Key locations used by SPA birds.

Map 13: Ownership and access.

Map 14: Distribution of parking locations and access paths around the four SPAs. Extracted from Ross et al. (2014).

Map 15: Location of key facilities for watersports and intertidal access around the LCR.

Map 16: Location of visitor survey points relevant to the LCR used by Footprint Ecology in winter 16/17.

Map 17: The location of visitor survey points used by Thompson Ecology in 2015. Values for each survey point indicate the number of interviews conducted.

Map 18: Distribution of mudflat and disturbable mudflat around the four SPAs, sourced from Ross et al. (2014).

Map 19: Weighted housing metric values for 500m sections of shoreline, sourced from Ross et al. (2014).

Map 20: Current housing density shown using a 500 m hexagonal grid. Housing values from 2017 postcode data and the number of residential properties at each.

Map 21: Potential new housing density (500 m hexagonal grid).

Map 22: Potential new housing (data provided by local authorities).

Map 23: Greenspaces in the LCR.

Map 24: Point locations of potential mitigation measures, identified in stakeholder workshop.

Map 25: Extent of a 5 km buffer zone around protected sites in the LCR.

Map 26: Core zone of influence.

Map 27: Core zone of influence compared to a 5km buffer around parking locations.

Map 28: Core zone of influence compared to travel time zones.

Map 29: Key tourist zone, a 1 km buffer around the Dee and Sefton SAC.

Map 30: Viability zones.

Map 31: Pie charts to show the relative number of adults, minors and dogs recorded at each survey point from the Footprint Ecology tally counts.

Map 32: Density of interviewee routes from Footprint Ecology survey, shown using a 100 m hexagonal grid.

Map 33: Distribution of all interviewee postcodes (inset map) and of only those interviewees (Footprint Ecology survey) travelling from home (main map).

Map 34: Distribution of postcodes of interviewees (Footprint Ecology survey) travelling from home to the northern survey points.

Map 35: Distribution of postcodes of interviewees (Footprint Ecology survey) travelling from home to the southern survey points.

Map 36: Interviewee postcodes (travelling from home only, Footprint Ecology survey) and the convex hulls to represent the 75% and 95% nearest around each survey point.