Case study:Greenwich Peninsula

Project overview

Edit project overview

Status	Complete
Project web site	http://www.estuaryedges.co.uk/
Themes	Estuary, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Social benefits, Spatial planning, Urban
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 Greenwich Peninsula. A further 700m is 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.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.

• 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.

Lessons learnt

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.

cost neutral

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.

Image gallery

Edit Image gallery

during construction

planned development

Catchment and subcatchment Select a catchment/subcatchment Edit the catchment and subcatchment details (affects all case studies in this subcatchment) Catchment River basin district Thames River basin London Subcatchment River name Thames Middle Area category Less than 10 km² Area (km2) Maximum altitude category Maximum altitude (m) Dominant geology Ecoregion Great Britain Dominant land cover Urban Waterbody ID GB530603911402 Other case studies in this subcatchment: Barking Creek near A13, Barking Creekmouth, Chambers Wharf, Cuckolds Haven Nature Area, Lower River Roding Regeneration Project, Mill Pool, Saving Chiswick Eyot, Wandsworth Riverside Quarter 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 1997/01/01 Works started 1997/01/01 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 Fish No Yes No No No Improvement 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 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 http://www.ecrr.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=toZTNTJ5zXA%3d&tabid=2624 Estuary Edges design guidance link 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 to this is shown in the design for the terracing at Site 3, where a series of terraces sloping in three dimensions was created in the form of an ‘ecological sculpture’. (In future schemes, cutting down of the old sheet pile to beach level should be considered to avoid the creation of barriers to certain fish species). • Limited scope for human access, which might be addressed in future schemes by a variety of slipways or floating pontoons (where ecological and safety constraints permit). • Overall considered to be a highly successful, benchmark design, though a few gabions appear to be breaking down after ten years (probably due to use of welded gabions) and repairs/renewals may be necessary to retain certain terraces (woven and plastic-coated gabions are always the preferred option if gabions are to be used).