Case study:Mill Pool: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
Hazel Wilson (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
{{Site | {{Site | ||
|Name=Mill Pool | |Name=Mill Pool | ||
|WFD water body code=GB530603911402, | |WFD water body code=GB530603911402, | ||
|WFD (national) typology=Intertidal, | |WFD (national) typology=Intertidal, | ||
|WFD water body name=THAMES MIDDLE | |||
|Pre-project morphology=Estuary (tidal), | |Pre-project morphology=Estuary (tidal), | ||
|Heavily modified water body=Yes | |Heavily modified water body=Yes |
Latest revision as of 14:22, 23 October 2015
Location: 51° 32' 1.80" N, 0° 4' 23.10" E
Left click to look around in the map, and use the wheel of your mouse to zoom in and out.
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Urban |
Country | England |
Main contact forename | Toni |
Main contact surname | Scarr |
Main contact user ID | User:Ascarr |
Contact organisation | Environment Agency |
Contact organisation web site | http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk |
Partner organisations | |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
Edit project overview to modify the project summary.
Previous site use/issues
- There was poor riverside habitat as the site was formed of concrete banks and concrete revetment. The site is above a tidal barrier but does receive tidal variations on spring tides.
- The seating area on the edge of Mill Pool and the River Roding was largely redundant and unused.
- The design of the site limits the views from the site.
- The site did not convey any understanding about historic importance of the Mill Pool to Barking.
Enhancements
- ’Terracing’ of existing concrete riverbank to create intertidal habitat. The terraces are back filled with an appropriate gravel substrate and clad with timber sourced sustainably.
- Redesign of riverside seating area to improve outlook and convey information about historic importance of the Mill Pool.
- Worked in collaboration with local authority and local artist to produce seating area design.
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.
Image gallery
Catchment and subcatchmentSelect a catchment/subcatchment
Catchment
Subcatchment
Other case studies in this subcatchment: Barking Creek near A13, Barking Creekmouth, Chambers Wharf, Cuckolds Haven Nature Area, Greenwich Peninsula, Lower River Roding Regeneration Project, Saving Chiswick Eyot, Wandsworth Riverside Quarter
Site
Project background
Cost for project phases
Reasons for river restoration
Measures
MonitoringHydromorphological quality elements
Biological quality elements
Physico-chemical quality elements
Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic
Monitoring documents
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Supplementary InformationEdit Supplementary Information
|