Local conservationists are backing Wirral Council plans to end the maintenance of local beaches including the spraying of the spartina grass at Hoylake (pictured above).
This item published by the BBC says that Wirral Wildlife, the Wirral branch of Cheshire Wildlife Trust, believe that the money-saving plans would be beneficial to Hoylake beach.
Dr Hilary Ash from the group said trying to stop the growth of marsh grass was “fighting nature”. She said: “The council’s proposals do include stopping picking litter off the beach, and that is of course ridiculous and we obviously do oppose that. On the other hand, for years now they have been spraying marsh grass that is trying to grow on the beach and it is just fighting nature.”
Hoylake beach is a of Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) due to the birdlife that inhabits the shore. Wirral Council currently has an agreement with  Natural England that provides consent for raking, spraying, digging and vegetation removal. Earlier this year the grass was sprayed with chemicals (a process that dates back to at least 1965) and  previous actions have included strimming and even large-scale mechanical digging.
It should be pointed out that the proposed Council spending cuts are not yet finalised and a public consultation exercise ‘What Really Matters‘ continues until the end of January. The maintenance of public parks and gardens is also a possible target for spending cuts.
We’ve discussed the beach grass on several previous occasions and opinions range from “let it grow” to “dig it up”. As Hoylake RNLI need clear access in and out of the lifeboat station at least some ongoing beach maintenance will be required. But what do you think? Have your say in the comments below!
I’ve said on here before that they should let it grow like Parkgate. Anything to get all these loose dogs off the beach. They make it useless to families anyway. Let’s have a nice birdwatching zone instead.
Many of us do not want to see grass growing on the shore. As long ago as the 1960s there were groups of volunteers digging up the spartina, I think these working parties were organised by the Sailing club.
Personally I would much rather have the sandy shore with no tufts of grass spoiling it. I do not think that wild life should have priority.
We must get rid of the sparta grass while it is still trying to establish itself. If sand dunes would be the end result then fine. But it won’t, it will turn into another Parkgate with the nighmare of mosquitos all over the area.
Hoylake has been allowed to deteriate for years To save on small costs by turning the beach into a midge infested swamp is a long tyerrm disaster. Hoylake needs more investment to to do the job properly not more neglect.
GH
Oh dear! I moved here to live next to the sea, with a lovely beach – not some eyesore of a bog like Parkgate. What a shame.
With the best will in the world (as an enthusiastic digger in the past) I believe we are far beyond any digging / spraying operation. The tidal action is insufficient to clear this area and we will have vegetation. The essential difference is we are not at Parkgate down the estuary. Our natural environment is sand dunes which were here a hundred years ago before they were cleared for housing (not an environmentally sensitive idea today). Is it such a bad idea now? We will never have a golden sandy beach – it is a pity bit it is not something where we have a choice so how do we manage it?
If the council had bitten the bullet and tackd the dog problem I guess there would be unity behind clearing the grass. But most will be happy to see an end to the free running mutts. Might be less muck on the pavements too. As a family we drive to Anglesey to enjoy beaches where dogs must be led.
I see both sides of the debate but wonder whether in the current age of environmental awareness it isn’t time for us to stop spraying chemicals and maybe allow nature to do its thing? So often it seems to be overlooked that if it weren’t for natural processes we wouldn’t have the human – friendly environment we enjoy; meddling with it and not giving priority to wildlife for the sake of appearances seems to me like a very short-sighted strategy. History (modern and otherwise) has shown that the less messing about we as a species do, the less damage is done – and the better will be our legacy for future generations. Since the spraying and digging and strimming has been going on for almost fifty years and STILL nature keeps coming back to spoil some people’s version of a perfect beach, common sense would seem to suggest that it’s long past time to stop fighting a losing battle for the sake of aesthetic preferences.
I have emailed several times on this matter but Editor has ignored me.
It is impossible to stop grass from growing on Hoylake beach because of its geomorphology. In any case, as sea-level rises and stormy seas increase, the grass will help protect your houses.
Currently, grass is your first line of defence. It is to be hoped that it will be your last and most effective.
If you are going to manage anything, it is important that the management process is ongoing, and not just a one off job. The fact that it has been happening for 50 years is no reason to stop the work.
Any maintenance of any sort has to be ongoing, imagine if you only painted your house once!
The prospect of our amazing beach being allowed to turn into a swamp like Parkgate fills me with dread.
How disappointing that this is even being considered – this is more to do with cost savings than conservation I think!
Long term the costs will be even greater – someone will have to pay for the spraying and management of the marshes when they become infested with mosquitoes and rats like in Parkgate.
The longer this debate goes on and the grass takes hold, the more unlikely it will be that anything is done about it.
What happens in other areas like the beaches in Sefton?
To my knowledge that spartina grass in not nature it is man made, planted a Shotton and come over here with the tides. There was never grass on the beach when my father and his father were lads. It should be gotten rid of. As for loose “mutts” as is mentioned above, they have as much right as “Spora” to enjoy the beach, live and let live I say. The vast majority now of dog owners clean up after their dogs and it is so easy to do on sand. I was born and bred in Hoylake, as was my father and his before him and I will be devastated if I cannot take my grandchildren on to the beach where I played as a child and not a blade of grass in sight, as it should be.
Hi Lynda. Yes, it is true that Spartina grass is not native to these shores but it is a long established species which I believe first arrived in ship’s ballast tanks from the Americas and was later deliberately planted as part of land reclamation projects.
The important point though is that the growth of saltmarsh grasses is only a symptom of the problem Hoylake faces and not its cause. The problem is siltation not grass colonisation which is the natural consequence of raised beach levels which create the habitat suitable for saltmarsh vegetation.
Spartina is a pioneer species on intertidal areas not often covered by the tide so the silted beach at Hoylake is the ideal habitat. Other native pioneer species grow on the beach too such as the Common Marsh Grass. In fact native species quickly smother Spartina which occupies only a transitory ecological niche. You will see this by looking at the natural succession of plant species on the beach near Red Rocks – initial Spartina growth is rapidly succeed by other saltmarsh species which in turn are overcome by sand dune vegetation.
I hope this helps.
In considering this complex problem, it is important to understand that we are dealing with natural processes which are unstoppable and have been exacerbated by man’s interventions. These facts cannot be wished away.
We can only discuss this issue if we understand the realities of the situation, a reality that cannot be changed by wishing it were otherwise however much we might wish just that.
The Dee estuary occupies a wide glaciated valley which is fed by a small river with insufficient flow to provide the scour necessary to flush out the volumes of silt that naturally occur. The estuary is too wide for tidal scour to do the job either. It is 10,000 years since the end of the Ice Age so there has been an awful lot of sedimentation and this drowned valley is now full! This process has been strongly affected by Man’s interventions, most notably the canalisation of the Dee in the upper estuary in the 1700s to preserve navigation to Chester and to ‘reclaim’ land from the sea. This had the effect of moving the main river channel away from ports on the English shore (Neston, Parkgate, Hoyle Lake) to those on the Welsh shore (e.g. Mostyn) so contributing to the situation at Hoylake today.
The Hoyle Lake from which Hoylake takes its name was a deep and permanent tidal channel close to the shore from Hilbre to Dove Point separating the Hoyle Bank from the mainland at all stages of the tide. Sadly, it is no more!
However parallels with Parkgate are misleading as Parkgate’s position in the relatively sheltered upper estuary is in stark contrast to that of Hoylake on the North Wirral Shore where we have an open coast, hundreds of hectares of sand and much wind to move that sand landwards.
If you wish to see how the beach would likely develop you need not go far. That part of Hoylake beach from Red Rocks to West Kirby provides a real parallel, not the marshes at Parkgate.
Fronting the golf links is the Red Rocks dune system which has developed over the last century, prior to then the high water mark followed the golf course boundary fence. The pattern here has been for early saltings (such as those now seen off Hoylake promenade) to develop into a classic dune system: dune ridges with wet fresh water ‘slacks’ in between. Famously these slacks provide breeding ponds for Hoylake’s Natterjack toads.
For many year’s both Hoylake and Wirral Council tried to prevent Spartina growth on this shore but eventually they bowed to the inevitable and let nature take its course. The result is an expanded area of dunes as new ridges develop on the saltings. The new ridges are developing with brackish marshy areas in between and a narrow strip of salt marsh beyond as a transition stage. Beyond that is hundreds of hectares of golden sand. The area is aesthetically pleasing and home to a rich flora of orchids and sea holly to name but two as well as expanding the area of breeding pools for the Natterjacks.
In contrast the main front at Hoylake is a sorry sight. The tide reaches the sea wall only rarely so the sand is dirty and unwashed. The silty strip parallel to the coast is mud rather than the saltings on which dunes would otherwise develop from the abundant windblown sand. This strip impedes walkers’ access to the golden sands beyond. Aesthetically it is a mess!
So, let’s embark upon a grand restoration project. Once dunes stretched from the Red Rocks to the mouth of the Mersey, little of this ecology remains and that which does is degraded by being marooned behind seawalls without supplies of fresh windblown sand. Let us redevelop our lost natural ecosystem as a thing of natural beauty and great biodiversity. This means stopping the futile policy of grass removal that passes for ‘beach management’ in favour of working with nature not against it.
To recreate the Hoylake beach of a century ago is impossible but we can create something truly wonderful and inspirational in its place. We should rejoice in that reality!
Finally, someone who actually knows what they’re talking about!
I believe that the Residents of Hoylake have the right to decide if they want the beaches kept as Golden Sand, and they do!!! from what I hear. The people from outside Hoylake do not have the right to tell us what to do in my book!!!
Sounds like you’ve surveyed the residents of Hoylake quite carefully. Tell me, what colour were your ballot boxes? Did you need a large team to count the votes? Or, are you stating your own opinion and presenting it as the opinion of the majority, without actually having any idea what the majority really want…?
As Peter has explained, the rising beach levels at Hoylake are a natural process, which results in the salt marsh trying to form. The longer time goes on, the more expensive it gets to stop such a natural process. Look at the Red Rocks Green Beach – it has a variety of species of plant, some unusual invertebrates, and new pools where the Natterjacks bred this year. That has formed in about 10 years and the salt marsh stirp is already turing into sand dunes on its landward side. Go to Sefton and you will find that some areas of amenity beach are kept clear, as is done at West Kirby and could also be done for parts of the north Wirral coast at access points. But a very large Green Beach has been allowed to develop at Birkdale, and is much appreciated by visitors. Midges are not aproblem on that Green Beach. Salt marsh and sand dune along the Hoylake coast would also trap much of the sand that blows on shore and has to be (expensively) cleared off the coastal roads. And they would protect the sea wall from erosion as sea level rises with climate change, at least for some decades, saving our successors some council tax. By the way, the RSPB have largely stopped the midge problem at Parkgate by making a couple of big pools.
No the tidal management system has exacerbated the problem, which was created to reduce the amount of dredging that the river Mersey needs.
I think I would welcome nature, if the council took responsibility for people who want to go and enjoy it. I complained about the state of the slipway at the kings gap end and had no reply. Surely there is a way to compromise so that people can safely access the sand beyond the grass?
But to lose the sands is to lose the history of Hoylake just as the history of Parkgate seems to have been grassed over and lost. How about infosigns along the path telling of the wealth of history of the area?
There is a good deal of background information on this and other issues on the Hoylake Vision website http://www.hoylakevision.org.uk as well as results of the ‘What’s Your Vision’ survey.
I would encourage everyone to read that material, get better informed on the issues and join in the conversation.
If you have access to further background information please send it to info@hoylakevision.org.uk
I should have given the direct link to the ‘supporting reference’ pages, sorry: http://www.hoylakevision.org.uk/?page_id=1159
The last thing Hoylake needs is a waterfront like Parkgate which is untidy, collects rubbish and debris and in the summer suffers from mosquitos.
The beach at Hoylake is a treasure used for a range of pleasure pursuits, and the birdlife is wonderful. Every effort should be made to keep the beach as an attraction for both residents and visitors.
Coastlines never remain static, and because of climate change, we’re now starting to see them evolve more quickly. Worldwide, coastal communities are beginnning to recognise the role of natural defences – this includes New York following Hurricane Sandy
The sea will come back to Hoylake, but there’s no way the beach profile and Prom in the 21st century will be identical to previously. An informed community discussion on this would be good – little things matter, eg litter, but so does a long-term vision grounded in scientific realites
Hear, hear!
We don’t want to end up like Parkgate, this is a seaside resort. What about the lifeboat and the sailing in this area do people have to be deprived of hobbies and life saving for a few birds when there are already conservation areas on and around the Wirral. A concentrated effort should be made to get rid of it
This is not an issue about birds alone. I advise every reader of this subject to read the statements from Peter Wilson with whom I am in total agreement. He, I believe, lives or, at least once lived, in the area as I have done for about 25 years.
The problem is siltation a natural process created, for us here on the NW corner of Wirral by the canalisation of the River Dee at the head an already full glaciated river valley. If the river has insufficient flow and the sea insufficient volume, how would you propose overcoming build-up of silt? Spartina, as a pioneer species, does not stay for long being superceded by others of native origin. King Cnut successfully demonstrated the inabilities of man at a location not very far from here! Make the most of what is going to happen.
But, do your research before complaining.
Please do go to the Hoylake Vision website to read a range of background material on the issues, both evidence and opinion based, and from various perspectives. Research is important, informed conversation is the best way forward.
If you feel there is insufficient supporting material available, please send more, and feel free to leave your comments.
Had a pro-chemicals leaflet through the door today. Anyone up for a pro-nature rearguard?!
If you read the so called pro-nature comments you would believe that the natural environment can not be changed, but that is simply not the case. The evidence on any building site or land reclamation project, or even farm shows that to be wrong.
Unlike some earlier flippant comments I am not talking about stopping the tide coming in, but I do think that we should be trying to prevent Hoylake evolving to look like the rat infested area near Red Rocks.
Guy
@Guy.
Your description of the dune system and narrow strip of saltings at Red Rocks is not something I recognise. It is beautiful and teeming with flowers and wildlife. It is a SSSI for goodness sake!
A management regime for the main Hoylake frontage needs to work with the grain of nature not against it. The restoration of a natural sand dune strip on the upper beach seems the best option surely?
The beach at Hoylake has one use – as a wild, dangerous and uncontrolled dog playground. This means it’s entirely useless to everyone else. If there was a ‘dogs must be led’ rule then I’d be interested in keeping it sandy. But I think nature can reclaim this beach from the dogs in a way that the council and concerned residents never can. Whatever happened to ‘dogs must be led’?? The Continentals are so much better at controlling their pets than the lazy Brits.
You really don’t like dogs do you spora,
Glad to see you can overcome your personal hatred and look at the grass growin problem objectively….
Watched people sand sailing kite, bugging and horse riding yesterday on the beach, and some very happy looking families having picnics, lots of lovely and friendly well controlled dogs around too,
As a resident of the area for almost 70 years I am passionate about preserving as much beach as possible. I consider flora should remain on dry land and I curse the introduction of spartina because it changes the environment and cannot be prevented from spreading nor can it be eliminated. Whereas flora has to be tolerated now that it is so well established we need to control spartina for the foreseeable future in the same context as we all have to remove pernicious weeds from our gardens.
I am going to take over a campaign – instigated by Mr Langley Davis – to form a pressure group to convince the Council that spraying of spartina is a priority for Hoylake and West Kirby beaches. No doubt those we pay to represent our wishes will protest that Council money is in short supply and will mean making some sacrifices to ensure our environment is well maintained.
Please email miles@milesmj.com if you wish to be kept informed and you support this cause. Thank you.
I endorse everything that Peter Wilson has written.
That the work to stop beach grasses growing has been failing since 1965, should tell you all that you need to know.
The beach height is increasing by sand accretion as the result of insufficient tidal flow and cannot be stopped.
You are trying to stop nature. King Cnut demonstrated that that is impossible even for a king. The only way that you will succeed is to take away the sand faster than it accumulates and even that may not work because if you create a hole, it will be filled.
This is not a wild life primary issue. It is simply one of tidal action. The wild life issue is secondary, for as the grass increases, so will bio-diversity.
Neither is it a matter of allowing Hoylake’s deterioration and saving small costs. A great deal of money has been wasted because nothing has been achieved. There is nothing that can be done to stop sand accretion. Excess sand can be dug out, of course, but do you really want machinery out on your beach constantly at work with other consequences caused by changed tidal flow. For examples of changed tidal flow, look no further than Parkgate, West Kirby and the entrance to the River Mersey.
It is tidal action that is the cause of the problem for it is that that is allowing extra, unwanted sand to accumulate.
The reason for grass having not been seen on the beach by earlier generations is that then the beach height was too low to allow grass to become established. As the beach height rises, so the grasses and other species establish themselves. DEFRA tells us that Spartina alterniflora was introduced in ships’ ballast water from the east coast of North America to Southampton Water prior to 1870 and was first found on mudflats near Hythe. See http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1680
Jackie, some of the people outside of Hoylake to whom you refer live in West Kirby and witness for themselves the result of sand accretion and grass invasion: you need only to look at our beach. Even so, some of us understand the processes that have given rise to your issues much better than do most of the complainants and problem solvers on this page. As Peter Wilson says, the tidal currents are insufficient and the Dee Estuary is full.
The level of the land north of a line approximately from Bristol to Hull is rising and as it does so, tides will recess and as that happens, grasses and other species will establish themselves.
That is nature and the only way to reverse nature is to adopt an industrial scale solution.
Does anyone know where and when the first bit of spartina was planted. The sparse bit of information available suggests this was at Shotton in the 1920s to strengthen the river banks.. And all of today’s woes are a result of this initial area of grass spreading. I’ve been reading through the debate re Hoylake with interest.and having started to plan a film project about the decline of the Dee – it appears to me that stopping the spread of this invasive grass is neigh on impossible. . .
James
I think you are missing the point when you say “all of today’s woes are a result of this initial area of grass spreading”.
The ‘woes’ are a consequence of post-glacial siltation exacerbated by human intervention especially the canalising the River Dee. The raised beach levels form a habitat suited to Spartina and its presence does accelerate siltation by trapping sediment but if Spartina didn’t exist you would still get the growth of other species once the beach levels got a little higher and were inundated less frequently. Common Marsh Grass for example is the dominant species at The King’s Gap.
So the cause of beach greening is higher sand levels and the Spartina is simply the first species that can grow as tidal inundation becomes less common; it is a symptom not a cause of the fundamental problem.
Good luck with your film-making but should you call it the ‘decline of the Dee’ for in reality although it has declined in terms of navigation it has not really declined in any other way, it has simply changed which is always the case in a dynamic environment such as this. In any event the story needs to go back at least 10,000 years to the end of the most recent glaciation if not before.
I’d like to continue this discussion outside of this debate in connection with my filmmaking. I’ve tried to link to you via LinkedIn – but not sure if this has been accepted not having your email address.
I don’t disagree with any of the points you make.
We should.not let it grow.! Suppress the growth of Spartina grass by spraying and ignore the arguments put forward by this small group of conservationists. These academics often ignore practicalities of the beach usage by the vast majority of the public in favour of their prejudices.
Let the silent majority join together as a pressure group to convince the Council to retain their existing policy.
If you agree with me please voice your opinion on the Council website “What really matters ” before the end of the month.
Good luck and thanks.
I am not a conservationist; I am an environmentalist. Conservationists desire no change, whilst I want to understand and protect what we have.
Academics (and scientists) do not ignore practicalities, they try to understand and explain.
The silent majority may become as large and as vociferous as it may but the facts cannot be changed. Peter Wilson says here all that needs to be said: the process began after the last period of glaciation. The lack of scouring in the Estuary and Bay is exacerbated globally by climate change that is causing the inexorable rise of mean sea level, made worse locally by the 18th Century canal builders of Chester.
I am a pragmatist. Does not the digging and spraying of the past recent years tell you something? As we dig and attempt to remove from our gardens the pernicious weeds, which are the indigenous species, do we not see the impossibility of stopping the growth of grasses on our beaches? Whilst regretting the introduction of Spartina (if it was not that then it would be something else) and the digging of the canal from Chester to the estuary, we must accept that what is done cannot be undone.
In this knowledge, how do you feel about Council’s wastage of our hard-earned Taxes on this never-ending task and the dangers to your children from spraying with powerful chemicals?
Scientists often need to prove what is obvious to practical people and then announce their findings as though it is news worthy.
What is obvious is that the changes to the Dee Estuary are relatively recent and are were mainly instigated by man. What the silent majority seem to demand is that further deterioration to our heritage should be suppressed by man management .
It was only very recently determinedthe that spot spraying is the only effective and the cheapest way to manage grass on the beach.
The chemicals approved for this purpose have been approved by the responsible agency and the limited amount used quickly dissipates without harm to Humans or Creatures.
There has been a great deal of misinformation by environmentalists and the foregoing has been ratified by experts as the best way forward.
I cannot believe that the Council will waste the chemicals in stock and hopefully they will decide that the small annual investment to keep our beaches clean will prove acceptable while recognising the need for economies in other areas.