Case study:Greenwich Peninsula

This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.

Approve case study

 

4.50

(2 votes)

To discuss or comment on this case study, please use the discussion page.

Location: 51° 30' 11.64" N, 0° 0' 10.92" E

Edit location

Loading map...

{"format":"googlemaps3","type":"HYBRID","minzoom":false,"maxzoom":false,"types":["ROADMAP","SATELLITE","HYBRID","TERRAIN"],"limit":50,"offset":0,"link":"all","sort":[""],"order":[],"headers":"show","mainlabel":"","intro":"","outro":"","searchlabel":"... further results","default":"","import-annotation":false,"width":"auto","height":"400px","centre":false,"title":"","label":"","icon":"","lines":[],"polygons":[],"circles":[],"rectangles":[],"copycoords":false,"static":false,"visitedicon":"","wmsoverlay":false,"zoom":14,"layers":[],"controls":["pan","zoom","type","scale","streetview","rotate"],"zoomstyle":"DEFAULT","typestyle":"DEFAULT","autoinfowindows":false,"resizable":false,"kmlrezoom":false,"poi":true,"cluster":false,"clustergridsize":60,"clustermaxzoom":20,"clusterzoomonclick":true,"clusteraveragecenter":true,"clusterminsize":2,"imageoverlays":[],"kml":[],"gkml":[""],"searchmarkers":"","fullscreen":false,"scrollwheelzoom":false,"showtitle":false,"hidenamespace":true,"template":"Location map popup","userparam":"","activeicon":"","pagelabel":false,"ajaxcoordproperty":"","ajaxquery":"","locations":[{"text":"\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EProject Title:\u003C/b\u003E Greenwich Peninsula\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003ECountry:\u003C/b\u003E \u003Ca href=\"/wiki/index.php?title=England\" title=\"England\"\u003EEngland\u003C/a\u003E\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EProject Status:\u003C/b\u003E Complete\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EThemes:\u003C/b\u003E Estuary\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003C/p\u003E","title":"Greenwich Peninsula","link":"","lat":51.503233321882,"lon":0.0030328444274801,"icon":"/wiki/images/a/af/Red_marker.png"}]}

Left click to look around in the map, and use the wheel of your mouse to zoom in and out.

Project overview

Edit project overview

Status	In progress
Project web site
Themes	Habitat and biodiversity, Spatial planning
Country	England
Main contact forename	Toni
Main contact surname	Scarr
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation	Environment Agency
Contact organisation web site	http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk
Partner organisations	Greenwich Peninsula Regeneration Ltd
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects	No

Tidal terraces

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.

prior to 2000 1.7km of flood defences were replaced and refurbished on the eastern side of the peninsula A further 700m proposed on the western frontage.

Greenwich Peninsula is a 190 acre development site and is therefore London’s largest regeneration scheme. The mixed use development consists of 10,000 new homes, 3.5 million square feet of office space – a brand new business district for London, with over 150 shops and restaurants. The site is being developed in phases/plots in line with the overall masterplan produced by Terry Farrell and Partners. Many of the features incorporated at this site are being used as good practice with other developers across London.

• The intertidal terraces provide valuable habitat for fish and other animals and birds, as well as creating a new landscape feature for people to enjoy. • Flood defences designed to protect from tidal flooding with an allowance made for the future effects of climate change. • Surface water flood risk reduction on each plot will be provided in line with the London Plan policies.

Monitoring surveys and results

This case study hasn’t got any Monitoring survey and results, you can add some by editing the project overview.

Lessons learnt

This case study hasn’t got any lessons learnt, you can add some by editing the project overview.

Catchment and subcatchment

Select a catchment/subcatchment

Site

Edit site

Name	Greenwich Peninsula
WFD water body codes	GB530603911402
WFD (national) typology	intertidal
WFD water body name	THAMES MIDDLE
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body	Yes
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present	No
Invasive species present	Yes
Species of interest
Dominant hydrology	Estuary
Dominant substrate	Estuarine mud
River corridor land use	Urban
Average bankfull channel width category
Average bankfull channel width (m)
Average bankfull channel depth category
Average bankfull channel depth (m)
Mean discharge category
Mean annual discharge (m3/s)
Average channel gradient category
Average channel gradient
Average unit stream power (W/m2)

Project background

Edit project background

Reach length directly affected (m)	24002,400 m <br />2.4 km <br />240,000 cm <br />
Project started	1998/01/01
Works started	1999/01/01
Works completed
Project completed
Total cost category
Total cost (k€)
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources

Cost for project phases

Phase	cost category	cost exact (k€)	Lead organisation	Contact forename	Contact surname
Investigation and design
Stakeholder engagement and communication
Works and works supervision
Post-project management and maintenance
Monitoring

Reasons for river restoration

Edit reasons for restoration

Mitigation of a pressure	Flood risk management, Navigation
Hydromorphology	Structure & condition of intertidal zone
Biology	Fish, Macrophytes
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project	millenium project; housing development

Measures

Edit Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications	Bank improvement, creation of intertidal terraces
Floodplain / River corridor
Planform / Channel pattern
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions
Social measures (incl. engagement)
Other

Monitoring

Hydromorphological quality elements

Edit Hydromorphological
quality elements

Element	When monitored		Type of monitoring		Control site used	Result
	Before measures	After measures	Qualitative	Quantitative

Biological quality elements

Edit biological
quality elements

Element	When monitored		Type of monitoring		Control site used	Result
	Before measures	After measures	Qualitative	Quantitative

Physico-chemical quality elements

Edit Physico-chemical
quality elements

Element	When monitored		Type of monitoring		Control site used	Result
	Before measures	After measures	Qualitative	Quantitative

Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic

Edit Other responses

Element	When monitored		Type of monitoring		Control site used	Result
	Before measures	After measures	Qualitative	Quantitative

Monitoring documents

Upload monitoring documents

Image gallery

Edit Image gallery

during construction

planned development

Additional documents and videos

Upload additional documents

Case study no 4

Design Guidance includign Greenwich as an example

Additional links and references

Edit links and references

Link	Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information

"The site" • Tidal range 7m. • Over 1300m of sheet piling was in poor condition and needed to be replaced. • Peninsula being redeveloped for high-density, high-value housing and facilities.

"What the developers did" • In all locations, the existing sheet pile wall was cut down to near beach level and capped. • Approximately 7–15m inland, either sheet pile or an L-shaped concrete wall were installed. • Site 1: infill material was installed over wide area at stable angle of repose and allowed to colonise naturally. • Sites 2 and 3: terraces were created between the new wall and the foreshore using gabions and wooden piles, maximising the area between Mean High Water Neap and Mean High Water Spring tide levels wherever possible at slopes of 1:7 or less. Growing medium initially protected under coir matting. • Sites 2 and 3 were planted with a variety of saltmarsh plants through coir matting. Substrate particle size distribution was a close match to foreshore for both stability in local area and habitat value. Eastern wall, Greenwich Peninsula, London: Site 2 during construction

"The result" • Wave action led to lifting of the matting and extraction of many young plants, necessitating some replanting, though there was also considerable natural colonisation. • Re-planting of Sites 2 and 3 directly into substrate without erosion matting was most successful with Common Reed, Grey Club-rush Sea Club-rush and Sea Aster, several species surviving well below or above the main ‘saltmarsh zone’. • Failure to install rhizome breaks has led to excessive dominance by Common Reed, which may need to be corrected. • Freshwater outfall locations became areas bare of much vegetation, and reinforced geotextile mat used at these locations eventually looked unsightly. • Extensive monitoring has shown intense use of the terraces by Sea Bass and other species. • Flounder and adult Common Goby did not appear to ascend submerged terrace steps. One solution