Case study:Lower River Roding Regeneration Project: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Project overview | {{Project overview | ||
|Status=Complete | |Status=Complete | ||
|Themes=Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Urban | |Themes=Estuary, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Urban | ||
|Country=England | |Country=England | ||
|Main contact forename=Toni | |Main contact forename=Toni | ||
Line 14: | Line 8: | ||
|Contact organisation=Environment Agency | |Contact organisation=Environment Agency | ||
|Contact organisation url=www.environment-agency.gov.uk | |Contact organisation url=www.environment-agency.gov.uk | ||
|Partner organisations= | |Partner organisations=Groundwork, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, London Borough of Newham, Natural England, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister | ||
|Multi-site=Yes | |Multi-site=Yes | ||
|Project picture=Barking Barrier.jpg | |Project picture=Barking Barrier.jpg | ||
Line 32: | Line 26: | ||
This is an area of London where development has historically lead to the degradation of habitats along the River Roding and its tidal confluence with the Thames. It is therefore important that BAP habitat such as saltmarsh and mudflat is restored to the Creek. | This is an area of London where development has historically lead to the degradation of habitats along the River Roding and its tidal confluence with the Thames. It is therefore important that BAP habitat such as saltmarsh and mudflat is restored to the Creek. | ||
''MSC thesis reults'': Small size restored intertidal habitat within heavy urbanised estuaries can function as relic marsh and provide a successful nursery and feeding grounds for juvenile fish. These fragmented habitats also help establish an intertidal migratory corridor through rivers, safeguarding fry from the high flows found in the central channel. This emphasises the importance of intertidal estuarine habitat in achieving ‘good ecological status/potential’ under WFD, and the added value they could bring if included within the network of Marine Protected Areas (MPA) planned for around in the UK coast. | |||
|Lessons learn=You can set back flood defences even in highly constrained locations. In particular the A13 site is located next bridge supporting a major road into London. The steel sheet piling has been removed and intertidal banks have been restored. | |Lessons learn=You can set back flood defences even in highly constrained locations. In particular the A13 site is located next bridge supporting a major road into London. The steel sheet piling has been removed and intertidal banks have been restored. | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Case study status | |||
|Approval status=Approved | |||
}} | |||
{{Location | |||
|Location=51.528220664476535, 0.080248676562519 | |||
}} | |||
{{Image gallery}} | {{Image gallery}} | ||
{{Case study image | {{Case study image | ||
Line 55: | Line 57: | ||
{{Site | {{Site | ||
|Name=Barking Creek | |Name=Barking Creek | ||
|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 | ||
Line 84: | Line 87: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Measures | {{Measures | ||
|Bank and bed modifications measure=construction of new intertidal area, | |Bank and bed modifications measure=construction of new intertidal area, | ||
|Social measures= | |Social measures=Improved public access, Information panels for people, | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}} | {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}} | ||
Line 97: | Line 100: | ||
{{Monitoring documents}} | {{Monitoring documents}} | ||
{{Case study monitoring documents | {{Case study monitoring documents | ||
|Monitoring document=BARKING CREEK- FINAL MSc PROJECT.pdf | |Monitoring document=BARKING CREEK- FINAL MSc PROJECT.pdf | ||
|Description=MSc Project on fish | |Description=MSc Project on fish utalisation of intertidal habitats | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Monitoring documents end}} | {{Monitoring documents end}} | ||
Line 109: | Line 112: | ||
{{Additional links and references header}} | {{Additional links and references header}} | ||
{{Additional links and references | {{Additional links and references | ||
|Link=www. | |Link=www.ecrr.org/Portals/27/Publications/Estuary%20Edges%20-%20design%20advice.pdf | ||
|Description=Estuary Edges design guidance - this project is used as one of the examples | |Description=Estuary Edges design guidance - this project is used as one of the examples | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Additional links and references footer}} | {{Additional links and references footer}} | ||
{{Supplementary Information | {{Supplementary Information | ||
|Information='''[[Case_study:Barking Creekmouth]]''' | |Information= | ||
'''[[Case_study:Barking Creekmouth]]''' | |||
*Tidal backwater creating two areas of BAP habitat: 0.1ha tidal mudflat habitat and 0.9ha of saltmarsh habitat. | *Tidal backwater creating two areas of BAP habitat: 0.1ha tidal mudflat habitat and 0.9ha of saltmarsh habitat. | ||
*New site entrance | *New site entrance |
Latest revision as of 13:40, 16 September 2024
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Estuary, Flood risk management, 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 | Groundwork, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, London Borough of Newham, Natural England, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
Barking Creek near A13, Barking Creekmouth, Cuckolds Haven Nature Area, Mill Pool |
Project summary
This project was the first in Thames Region to be delivered by the Environment Agency using funding from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s (ODPM, now DCLG) Sustainable Communities Fund.
In May 2004 we submitted a bid to the ODPM for £1million to undertake a series of environmental enhancements along the River Roding in its lower reaches where it passes through the London Boroughs of Barking & Dagenham and Newham. The funding bid was approved in October 2004 and the project had to be delivered by the end of the funding period in March 2006.
BACKGROUND The River Roding is a tributary of the River Thames. It rises to the north east of London and flows south through East London, through and along the boundary of a number of London Boroughs, before joining the River Thames in Barking. The lower reaches of the River Roding are tidal and the land adjacent to the River Roding throughout the project area is protected from tidal and fluvial flooding by flood defences. In addition to these defences the Barking Barrier protects the area from extreme high tides. This barrier is part of the Thames tidal defences. The Barking Barrier is situated at the confluence of the River Thames and the River Roding.
The Lower Roding Regeneration Project covers 4.5km of the River Roding where it flows through the London Boroughs of Barking and Dagenham and London Borough of Newham, between grid references TQ 436848 and TQ 458816.
The lower reaches of the River Roding are extremely urbanised and many of the riverside areas are of low environmental quality with poor aesthetic appeal and are difficult to access. Infrastructure barriers currently make it a difficult landscape to easily navigate and enjoy. These barriers include a railway line crossing and the A13 trunk road, creating east-west barriers, and the A406 North Circular Road running parallel to but set back from the west bank of the river.
Monitoring surveys and results
A number of environmental and amenity enhancements were delivered by this project. These included improved habitat for wildlife (including provision of Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitats), improved access to waterside areas, new seating/viewing areas, retreated and renewed flood defences and increased flood storage capacity.
This is an area of London where development has historically lead to the degradation of habitats along the River Roding and its tidal confluence with the Thames. It is therefore important that BAP habitat such as saltmarsh and mudflat is restored to the Creek.
MSC thesis reults: Small size restored intertidal habitat within heavy urbanised estuaries can function as relic marsh and provide a successful nursery and feeding grounds for juvenile fish. These fragmented habitats also help establish an intertidal migratory corridor through rivers, safeguarding fry from the high flows found in the central channel. This emphasises the importance of intertidal estuarine habitat in achieving ‘good ecological status/potential’ under WFD, and the added value they could bring if included within the network of Marine Protected Areas (MPA) planned for around in the UK coast.
Lessons learnt
You can set back flood defences even in highly constrained locations. In particular the A13 site is located next bridge supporting a major road into London. The steel sheet piling has been removed and intertidal banks have been restored.
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, Mill Pool, Saving Chiswick Eyot, Wandsworth Riverside Quarter
Site
Project background
Cost for project phases
Supplementary funding informationIn May 2004 we submitted a bid to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s for £1million to undertake a series of environmental enhancements along the River Roding in its lower reaches where it passes through the London Boroughs of Barking & Dagenham and Newham. The funding bid was approved in October 2004 and the project had to be delivered by the end of the funding period in March 2006.
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
|