Swamp guardians fight urban development plans

Press, 7 October 1988, Page 9

Swamp guardians fight urban development plans

Story:

JANE DUNBAR

Christchurch’s largest and most accessible freshwater swampland may soon vanish beneath a new suburb.

But it will not disappear without a struggle. The proposal to build two retirement villages, a primary school and shopping centre on a 760-section development at Travis Swamp, Burwood, is being challenged by a range of objectors.

Conservationists are fighting for the swamp’s wildlife, fishery and botanical values.

Some question the need for new housing development in Christchurch, and the North New Brighton Community Council fears the project will cause flooding problems for the Avon River.

A special meeting will be held at the Waimairi District Council on Monday to hear the objections, which range from the mundane to the far-fetched. The South Island Unusual Phenomenon Investigation, for example, wants to stop the de-

Photographs: JOHN COSGROVE velopment because “the world will be invaded by aliens in 1993.” March Construction, Ltd, and Merritt Homes are the developers behind the proposal, calling themselves Travis Country Estates, Ltd. In 1987 they lodged an application to develop the 80-hectare swamp block with the Waimairi District Council. The land, which they bought in 1984, is bordered by Travis Road near Queen Elizabeth II Park, Mairehau Road, and the proposed Bexley Expressway. More than 730 residential and 30 rural-residential lots are planned in the multi-million dollar proposal, which is not the first for the area. Several proposals, such as

those for artificial lakes, have been made in the past, but all have failed. Some hope this new proposal will suffer a similar fate. Tom Hay, from Friends of the Earth, says the conversion of Travis Swamp into an urban settlement is “a disaster in the making.” “The swamp is a place for spring eel, pied stilts and plovers, not people,” he says. Similarly, Anne Flanagan, from the North New Brighton Community Council, argues “the swamp is the natural home of the pukeko, not an unnatural roost for senior citizens who often suffer from bronchial troubles.” But her other concern lies with drainage. “We’re struggling to stop the development as it could contribute to flooding problems in the Avon,” she says. Flooding was already a problem when spring tides combined with heavy rainfalls. If the development went ahead "vast amounts of water” would have to be drained from the area into the river. “I feel angry on behalf of the people living close to the swamp and in the lower reaches of the river who will be at risk.” “Bland assurances” from the Christchurch Drainage Board that building on the swamp will not create “a potential disaster area” are laughable, she says. Mrs Flanagan has no faith in local authorities who say: “Leave it to us, we know what we’re doing.” People only have to look at places like Abbotsford, Thames, the Bay of Plenty, and Pleasant Point, to see this is not the case, she says. Modifying natural landscapes results in all sorts of problems, and it is always the ratepayer who ends up having to foot the bill, she argues. Dr Colin Meurk, a D.S.I.R. scientist, admits the swamp is already highly modified, but still believes it is worth protecting. His preference is for there to be no development at all, but if it does go ahead he wants two areas kept as reserves. The developers are interested in “some sort of a compromise,” which he guesses is “partly because the areas of specific concern are outside the central core of development.” Dr Meurk stresses that Christchurch was originally a large swampland which has all been reclaimed apart from the “miraculous preservation” of places like Riccarton Bush. Travis Swamp is the largest and most accessible freshwater swampland left to the people of Christchurch, he says, and is important for educational, scientific, historical and aesthetic reasons. "Swamps are dreary places for some. But for others they’re exciting and dynamic.” Dr Meurk is particularly keen

to protect an area of raupo and purei (tussock sedge) along Travis Stream, and a small stand of manuka and willow woodland on Landcorp land to the western edge of the swamp. The woodland has a dense and attractive layer of native fern and other native shrubs, he says. Central to the success of retaining such areas would be longterm restoration work done by local conservation groups. Other countries were taking on such challenges and New Zealand was “a little behind the play,” Dr Meurk says. The Netherlands and Britain in particular are putting much energy into integrating their natural heritage into urban areas, says Dr Meurk.

The botanical values, however, of Travis Swamp have been debated. In 1985 a D.S.I.R. survey by Dr Trevor Partridge described them as “minimal.” Another report prepared for the Commission for the Environment by Mr Stuart Moore, of the Wildlife Service, said the area

was too small and highly modified by grazing to be a wild life habitat of note. But both men favoured the retention of the wetland in any development scheme.

“It’s a shame to lose areas like this in the city,” said Mr Moore. Dr Meurk argues that it is misleading to say the botanical values are minimal. Some areas were under water when previous studies were done, and it was only recently that sundew, for example, had been found. Sundew, a herb, was last found in Christchurch before the turn of the century when there were more swamps around. “The sundew is quite a find,” says Dr Meurk.

Travis Swamp has been modified, “but when you’ve got nothing else, beggars can’t be choosers.”

There is plenty of scope for improving the swamp, and as a semi-wild area in an urban area it should be protected, Dr Meurk says.

The chief executive of the Canterbury United Council, Malcolm Douglass, believes “anyone seeking a return to an open space wetland is flying in the face of the reality of what has occurred around the swamp.” Twenty years ago people argued for a biological corridor from Travis Swamp through to

Ferrymead, he says. But economic forces, the perceived need for more subdivision, and the City Council’s desire for development, dictated that land was zoned for residential purposes. In Mr Douglass’ view, Travis Swamp was now too small a remnant area to be worth preserving. In any case, he says, the key environmental, drainage and feasibility issues were sorted out in the early 1970 s and the land zoned residential by the Planning Tribunal. Some people might now be questioning whether the development was needed, but it was up to the developers to decide whether there was a market for it or not. The Waimairi District Council’s planner, Mr David Hinman, says there is some debate about the need, with some people saying: “Christchurch isn’t growing, so why on Earth create new sections?” But developers have argued that more land was needed and it had to be zoned well in advance. Planning schemes certainly had to look 20 years ahead, and Travis Swamp had been zoned residential years ago. That meant it was no longer an issue whether a large area of new housing was needed or not.

Malcolm Douglass also disputes the claim that Christchurch is not growing. Although the Christchurch population is only increasing about 1 per cent per annum, the number of households is growing, he says.

Many households have been splitting into smaller units, and there has been an increasing demand for housing. Dr Meurk suggests the engineering aspects of building on the swamp could be difficult, but engineers say it should be straightforward.

The area needs to be raised about one metre, and the developers plan to use material from a privately owned forest at Spencerville as fill. They propose to pipe the fill with water through a pipeline from the Styx and across Bottle Lake Plantation and Burwood Hospital land. Anne Flanagan believes Travis Swamp is a ponding area, which if filled will cause flooding elsewhere.

But that argument is rejected by both the Drainage Board and the North Canterbury Catchment Board. They say that new stopbanking work being done on the lower Avon is designed to take the extra water from the swamp if it is developed. Answers to the question of whether the development will go ahead will be closer after the joint hearing of objections by the Waimairi Council and the Catchment Board on Monday. The important issue of a reserve will also be discussed. The proposal already includes nearly 9ha of reserve, as the developers are required to do so by law. In addition, they appear willing to set aside a 3ha reserve along Travis Stream. But conservationists are fighting for more. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, for example, believes at least lOha is needed to maintain the pukeko and pied stilt population. Whether Waimairi is prepared to take on responsibility for an extra reserve is another important issue to be discussed. Meanwhile, objectors, such as Anne Flanagan, are preparing for battle. Mrs Flanagan says she has a new plan of attack, and the hearing on Monday promises to be a fiery one.

Sundew herb found

Rise of metre needed