Case study:Broom Road Recreation Ground: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Case_study_status
{{Case study status
|Approval status=
|Approval status=Approved
   
   
   
 
 
   
      Draft
}}
}}
{{Location
{{Location
Line 21: Line 14:
|Partner organisations=Thames Landscape Strategy, London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, Environment Agency, Teddington School
|Partner organisations=Thames Landscape Strategy, London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, Environment Agency, Teddington School
|Multi-site=No
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=Zsl london logo.png
|Project summary=Aim of scheme:<br>- enhancement of tidal defences<br>- conservation enhancements<br>- recreation provision<br>Work undertaken:<br>- cleaning up of existing foreshore<br>- creation of new shingle beach<br>- attachment of horizontal and vertical timbers to promote algal growth<br>- reed planting in Bullhead dock<br>- reducing size of jetty  increasing direct light to the foreshore The site is adjacent to the River Thames in Rotherhithe.  Bellamys Wharf and Bullhead Dock were a sand and gravel unloading facility with a high jetty.<br>The initial proposal was to infill both docks, however only a small encroachment was allowed to enable the rebuilding of a new river wall at the other dock.
|Project summary=Aim of scheme:<br>- enhancement of tidal defences<br>- conservation enhancements<br>- recreation provision<br>Work undertaken:<br>- cleaning up of existing foreshore<br>- creation of new shingle beach<br>- attachment of horizontal and vertical timbers to promote algal growth<br>- reed planting in Bullhead dock<br>- reducing size of jetty  increasing direct light to the foreshore The site is adjacent to the River Thames in Rotherhithe.  Bellamys Wharf and Bullhead Dock were a sand and gravel unloading facility with a high jetty.<br>The initial proposal was to infill both docks, however only a small encroachment was allowed to enable the rebuilding of a new river wall at the other dock.
Concept ideas being scoped 2009-2010 but constraints include funding and public perception
Concept ideas being scoped 2009-2010 but constraints include funding and public perception
Line 41: Line 35:
|Reach length directly affected=100 m
|Reach length directly affected=100 m
|Project started=2009/01/01
|Project started=2009/01/01
|Funding sources= Possible funding - As part of the TLS, Restoration of the host, Floodplains initiative, EU Life+
|Funding sources=Possible funding - As part of the TLS, Restoration of the host, Floodplains initiative, EU LIFE Programme,
}}
}}
{{Motivations
{{Motivations

Latest revision as of 13:10, 2 January 2019

0.00
(0 votes)


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


Location: 51° 25' 19.66" N, 0° 18' 25.79" W
Loading map...
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 Planned
Project web site
Themes Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity
Country England
Main contact forename Alison
Main contact surname Debney
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Zoological Society of London
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations Thames Landscape Strategy, London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, Environment Agency, Teddington School
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Project picture

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Aim of scheme:
- enhancement of tidal defences
- conservation enhancements
- recreation provision
Work undertaken:
- cleaning up of existing foreshore
- creation of new shingle beach
- attachment of horizontal and vertical timbers to promote algal growth
- reed planting in Bullhead dock
- reducing size of jetty increasing direct light to the foreshore The site is adjacent to the River Thames in Rotherhithe. Bellamys Wharf and Bullhead Dock were a sand and gravel unloading facility with a high jetty.
The initial proposal was to infill both docks, however only a small encroachment was allowed to enable the rebuilding of a new river wall at the other dock. Concept ideas being scoped 2009-2010 but constraints include funding and public perception

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


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Catchment

River basin district Thames
River basin Maidenhead to Sunbury

Subcatchment

River name Thames (Egham to Teddington)
Area category 1000 - 10000 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category Less than 100 m
Maximum altitude (m) 7171 m <br />0.071 km <br />7,100 cm <br />
Dominant geology Calcareous
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Suburban
Waterbody ID GB106039023232



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Chertsey meads, Hampton Court Palace, Hurst Park, Teddington Wharf, The Barge Walk, Hampton Court


Site

Name
WFD water body codes GB106039023232
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name Thames (Egham to Teddington)
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body No
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present No
Invasive species present No
Species of interest
Dominant hydrology
Dominant substrate
River corridor land use
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

Reach length directly affected (m) 100 m0.1 km <br />10,000 cm <br />
Project started 2009/01/01
Works started
Works completed
Project completed
Total cost category
Total cost (k€)
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources Possible funding - As part of the TLS, Restoration of the host, Floodplains initiative, EU LIFE Programme

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

Mitigation of a pressure
Hydromorphology Channel pattern/planform
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Bank reprofiling, Removing of sheet piling
Floodplain / River corridor
Planform / Channel pattern
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions
Social measures (incl. engagement)
Other


Monitoring

Hydromorphological quality elements

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

Biological quality elements

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

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

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


Monitoring documents



Additional documents and videos


Additional links and references

Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information