Case study:Beam washlands
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | http://www.therrc.co.uk/sites/default/files/projects/19_beam.pdf |
Themes | Economic aspects, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Monitoring, Social benefits |
Country | England |
Main contact forename | Becca |
Main contact surname | O'Shea |
Main contact user ID | |
Contact organisation | Environment Agency |
Contact organisation web site | http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency |
Partner organisations | Land Trust, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, Arup, Design for London, London Borough of Havering, Natural England |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
This multi-award winning partnership project built on a £4.5 million flood and coastal risk management (FCRM) scheme to improve the integrity and capacity of this flood storage washland, providing better protection to over 570 homes and businesses. The scheme provides a large, wildlife-rich, community parkland in one of east London's most deprived communities ((Map 1). This includes 12.6ha of Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitat, 150m of remeandering on the Wantz Stream, 600m of reprofiling and 300m of in-channel features on the River Beam. The project was completed in 2012; maintenance is funded and delivered by partners.
Increasing the storage capacity of the existing washlands from 433,000m3 to 458,660m3 provides a standard of protection to downstream properties for (approximately) up to a 1 in 25 year flood event. The provision and operation of the pumping stations provides an enhanced standard of protection of up to 1 in 150 years. This reduces the risk of flooding to 570 homes and 90 businesses.
The flood risk regulation benefits of undertaking this project provide a gross asset value of avoided flood damage benefits worth £591,000 per year compared with £193,000 per year before the scheme was constructed.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Image gallery
Catchment and subcatchment
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
|