RIVER REPORT March 2007 Mangrove manifesto THE jury is back on the issue of invasive saltwater mangrove proliferation along the Brisbane River. The verdict … overwhelmingly in favour of allowing judicious pruning, replacing what many call draconian prohibition with commonsense management. We were swamped (if you'll excuse the intentional pun) with responses to our survey, enclosed with the October 2006 DIXON JOHNSTON Quality Property River Report, seeking your views on river mangrove management. Within weeks, 199 completed questionnaires flooded in - an astonishing response considering there are only around 850 individual residential properties along the river. Of these 199 respondents, a whopping 195 agreed selective trimming of saltwater mangroves should be permitted under certain conditions. Importantly, the vast majority took great care to stipulate support for pruning - not removal - on the proviso no environmental harm would result. The concern and frustration expressed on this issue was immense, our readers' outcry so decisive, we lead this edition of the River Report with an analysis and report on the mangrove survey results. Indeed, many respondents conveyed heartfelt gratitude that someone was making a constructive effort to put mangrove management on the public agenda. Thanks to your participation, we now have a 'mangrove manifesto' that surely cannot be ignored by politicians and public servants. As you will read overleaf, we have compiled the survey results and provided them to government leaders, senior bureaucrats, river precinct MPs and councillors, seeking their official response. The plea for action is firmly on the table. So, thank you for your input. Of course, this edition includes our regular commentary of the residential river market. Last year saw a slight rise in residential sales activity on the river and, more importantly, continued growth in values. Also, in response to readers' requests for articles on Brisbane's rich riverside history, we explore Chelmer's 'links' to the past. But first, more on mangroves … Josephine Johnston-Rowell RIVERFRONT DIRECTOR [email protected] DIXON JOHNSTON Quality Property Pty Ltd Contents 70 Sylvan Road, Toowong, Call to permit pruning ‘salties . Page 2 Brisbane ...mangrove survey swamped Please direct mail to: River rewards continue to flow . Page 4 P.O. Box 789, Toowong, ...intrinsic value in riverfront land Qld. 4066 Mangrove survey results. Page 6 ...response sought from leaders Phone: (07) 3858 8888 Chelmer’s historic links. Page 7 Full details at www.dixonjohnston.com.au Riverfront sales. Page 8 Call to permit pruning ‘salties’ ...mangrove survey swamped GIVE the river back to the - 91% (181) were “strongly in favour” location, with 32 of these living there people of Brisbane! In a of a controlled study being between 30 and 64 years - not to desperate plea to be heard, undertaken to ascertain the impact of mention the Oxley Sailing Club which 98 per cent of respondents to selective trimming and / or removal of has notched up 105 years of river mangroves. a survey on mangrove experience. management have come - 32 respondents wanted residents to Those whose tenure on the river was down firmly in favour of lifting be given an unrestricted right to less than 10 years accounted for 46% the blanket prohibition on prune mangroves. of respondents. Around 25% of all pruning the prolific saltwater - Ecological / habitat support and bank respondents had lived on the river for mangroves that now wall off stabilisation / erosion mitigation were five or fewer years which, on detailed much of our waterway. recognised as the most important analysis, may account for several of positive values of mangroves. those who reported observing little or The survey, distributed late last year to no mangrove growth. all river owners, drew a massive 199 - Negative impacts of mangroves responses. A full breakdown of the highlighted by respondents were: Still, of the 91 respondents with less results is published on P.6 of this restriction of river views (90%), than 10 years on the river, 54% said report. Key findings include: restriction of river access (68%), they had seen “significant” growth. reduced enjoyment of your property - 65% (129) of respondents observed Understandably, “significant” growth (68%), and compromised security “significant” growth in the height and spread was reported by 76% of (48%). and/or spread of mangroves the long-term (20 years+) residents. In adjacent to their property, while 18% LIFETIMES BY THE RIVER all cases, of course, the response to described growth as “moderate”, To put these findings into context, it is this question depended on the river 11% as “slight” and 6% reported important to understand the reach / location of residence. observing no growth. “experience” of those who participated WHY, OH WHY! - 98% (195) of respondents wanted in the survey. By and large, these are The views expressed by the vast selective trimming of riverside people whose views are based on mangroves to be permitted under long-term first hand experience. majority of survey respondents can certain circumstances. only be described as passionate and Significantly, 54% (108 of the 199 definite. The overarching themes can - 79% (158) were in favour of allowing returned questionnaires) indicated they be summarised as: pruning to be done by either the had lived on the river for 10 years or affected land owner or a qualified longer. Further, 30% of the total had - we advocate pruning only - not contractor, within guidelnes. spent 20 years or more in their i river removal. e based on long-term first hand experience iews ar V Chelmer Reach - photo taken 1986 continued next page . Page 2 Dixon Johnston Quality Property River Report - March 2007 by Josephine Johnston-Rowell Riverfront Director - we appreciate the importance of units ($225,000) for an offence under up of mud and sediment, affect on mangroves to the river eco-system section 123 of the Act which states water flow, levels and potentially and bank stability. that: heightened flood risk, rubbish build- up, reduced breezes, white ants, - we absolutely want to see the A person must not unlawfully - snakes, feral animals, fire risk and 'science' on mangrove management, (a) remove, destroy or damage a danger to children. because all commonsense and marine plant; or anecdotal evidence suggests Environmental and lifestyle concerns trimming would promote, inot harm (b) cause a marine plant to be were clearly dominant. In fact, only mangrove health. removed, destroyed or damaged.” three respondents mentioned concern about property values being - historic evidence shows the saltwater ANXIETY AND FRUSTRATION threatened. Five made the valid point mangrove is not natural to river It is clear from our readers’ responses, that they are paying rates based on reaches beyond the inner eastern many accompanied by extensive “riverfront” values, yet they can't even suburbs, rather, a consequence of comments, letters and notes of see the river. human intervention; and support, this issue is causing widespread stress and anxiety. The Given the lack of action, or even - as one resident of 10 years summed sense of frustration is perhaps evident interest in this issue by the relevant it up - mangroves constitute an in the fact that, when asked to identify authorities, who could blame residents invasive species which did not the positive impacts of mangroves, 57 for feeling their worries are being e clearly dominant previously exist in the area, so it is ticked the box marked 'none'. ignored for the wrong reasons. ridiculous to regard them as a Consider this poignant note by one 'protected species'. Most, however, frankly acknowledged respondent: mangroves, in addition to providing One reader who returned our environmental benefits, enhanced their “We are adjacent to a park. Soon the questionnaire included copies of lifestyle and amenity. They just can't public will not be able to see the river ns wer correspondence from the Queensland understand why trimming would either. Permits to trim now (eg for Department of Primary Industries and compromise the ecological or bank pontoons) are prohibitively expensive. Fisheries' legal department. He was stabilisation attributes. Fair question! It is always assumed that those who alleged to have “damaged” (ie. live on the river have large cash flows. The negative impacts listed in addition trimmed) some saltwater mangroves Not so! We have just lived here for a to those previously noted, were many. on his property. The letter duly long time. Resident 40 years The strongest to emerge was informed him: excessive mosquitos and midgies, in “The Fisheries Act 1994 provides for some cases causing abject misery. Survey results - and more on this issue severe penalties of up to 3000 penalty Other problems highlighted were build …. page six onmental and lifestyle concer Envir Chelmer Reach - Same view photo taken 2006 Dixon Johnston Quality Property River Report - March 2007 Page 3 River rewards continue to flow ... intrinsic value in riverfront land BRISBANE'S love affair with river living continued to drive the prestige residential market in 2006. Sales of houses and vacant land on the river were up on the 2005 tally but, more significantly, we achieved yet another all-time record average price for absolute riverfront homes and vacant homesites. eal mover In our interim River Report (Oct '06), we predicted a soft landing for the river market, despite a more pronounced 'correction' across the wider residential real estate market after the 2003 boom. That has indeed proved to be the case, with the 2006 turnover of riverfront houses and land lifting to 51 Highest Absolute Riverfront House Sale - New Farm from 49 in 2005, and the average house price climbing another 3.5 per $155,125,500. This is actually down been in decline since 2003, it picked cent to reach $2,761,290. on 2005 ($188.67 million), but should up last year, though only slightly. not be seen as a reflection of the Notably, the market has recognised As we've so often stated, riverfront residential market.