60-acre lake in Travis Swamp development

Press, 11 August 1977, Page 6

60-acre lake in Travis Swamp development

A Christchurch company 1 spent more than nine hoursl on Tuesday putting its case for the development of the I, Travis Swamp to the Wai-|i main County Council’s town-planning hearings com-" mittee. Christchurch Devel- 1 opments, Ltd, wants to transform the area into a; subdivision of 1000 sections,! a 60-acre lake, open recrea-l tion areas, and a 25-acre! “village centre," to be I' known as Sandringham. 1 The centre would contain shops, a medical centre, al kindergarten, Plunket rooms, a church, and a community hall. There would be an ad-l jacent light industrial area. Five witnesses gave evidence for the company, but| it was the lake which i created most interest, and! occupied most of the ques-,i x* from the committee of ttur; Crs I. Calvert (chair- i man) 1. G. Clark. H. M. Tait,! and E. L. Bonisch. Mr P. Yeoman, a consulting engineer, said the ex-' cavation of the lake would l provide fill for the subdivision, as well a surplus which could be sold to the; owners of land in the city I

I just to the south. If it was| | not required by them, his clients might w-ant to reduce! : the size of the lake to 45 acres, to make it economic-! [ally viable. The lake was intended to be an asset to the city as a whole, with yachting and boating facilities. Mr Yeoman said the company would put a landj scaped area around the lake, lit had in mind a meandering I path with trees and a grass berm, and considered eight I metres would be wide 'enough for this purpose. The I statutory requirement was one chain. A narrower area would rei quire the approval of the ■Minister of Lands. The Department of Lands and SurI vey would recommend such a move to the Minister if it had the support of the; , county, he said. I Adjacent to the lake; would be a one-acre forming a wildlife refuge for; the many ducks and pukeko, I in the area. | I Cr Clark questioned, whether one acre would be sufficient to support the ; iwildlife in the area. He said, ; he believed the company had' (originally planned to set!

[aside five acres. “I am con[cerned about the wateringIdown of features originally put to us,” he said.

Cr Calvert said he was concerned that the Wildlife Service of the Department of Internal Affairs was not represented at the hearing.

The committee decided to resume the hearing on September 7 to allow the Wildlife Service and the Canterbury Regional Planning Authority to make submissions.

Mr A. E. Jackman, a landscape architect, said in evidence that there would be a “central spine” of open space in the housing development. It could be used for paths, bicycle tracks, play areas, and for planting trees an'- 1 laying service lines. He said the provision for I open space, which included tthe lake, was greater than [any planned elsewhere.

He considered a block of land on the north-west corner of the site — not owned by the company — essential to the plan. If the council rezoned the land recreational. boating, playground, and picnic facilities could be built on that shore.

I Cr Calvert asked if the I facilities could be put on the (north-east lobe of the lake, if they were essential. Mr Jackman replied that they would be more convenient for yachting if put on the north-west shore.

Mr M. Douglass, a townplanning and transport consultant, said he did not consider the north-west block of land essential to the development, although it was desirable.

He said the internal road network of the site was arranged to discourage needless through-trips, while ensuring residents had relatively direct access to facilities in the suburb.

The shopping centre would have no significant effect on shopping in New Brighton or Linwood. It would fulfil complementary functions with Shirley, he said.

Mr Douglass said SandI ringham would provide a balanced pattern of land uses. It would complement surrounding urban zones, giving additional open space, village centres, and employment opportunities.

Other witnesses who ap-

peared for the company were Mr M. J. Brooks, manager of Christchurch Developments, Ltd, and Mr M. G. Tansley, a property development consultant.

The committee then heard objections from representatives of local residents. The Christchurch City Council and the Christchurch Drainage Board also made submissions.

Mr D. A. Busby submitted evidence on behalf of 25 residents of Clarevale Street.

He said they objected to the insufficiency of detail in the plan submitted by the company, particularly in relation to reading patterns, population density, recreational reserves, and other environmental factors. He said detailed reading patterns already approved by the council for the Travis estate had been omitted by the company in its plans.

Mr Busby said residents were concerned that Ciarevale Street was intended to be used as a distributor road. He said that it had been a virtual cul-de-sac for more than six years, and the close-knit community atmosphere that had developed would be spoilt if it became a through road.

Mr J. G. Dryden, a senior town planner of the Christchurch City Council, said the council considered the provision of employment in the suburbs an important planning objective. The development of the Travis Swamp area was a good opportunity to provide a well-planned centre, centrally located in relation to future population growth.

He said the council had been considering the establishment of an industrial area on the south side of Travis Swamp, but the company’s site appeared more appropriate.

Mr P. J. Adams, a design and planning engineer, presented evidence on behalf of the Christchurch Drainage Board.

He said the board was concerned about the drainage of the area. The board needed to know what use was planned for the southern part of the swamp, before it could design drainage for the company’s site on the northern section.

It asked the company to match the stages of the development with available sewage outfall.