Case study:Sutcliffe Park
Project overview
| Status | Complete |
|---|---|
| Project web site | |
| Themes | Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity |
| 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 | Quaggy Waterways Action Group |
| Parent multi-site project | |
| This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
Before the restoration project, the Quaggy at Sutcliffe Park was a forgotten river. It flowed underground through a concrete channel, unnoticed and providing little habitat for wildlife.
By bringing the Quaggy out of its culvert, a meandering river has been reborn. Now, the river can overflow into the park using it as a flood storage area.
And at other times, the park is there for local communities to enjoy. A network of pathways and viewing points criss-cross the park. Within the wetland areas, there are wooden boardwalks making the area more accessible for prams and wheelchairs. It is a habitat for a huge variety of plants and animals, and features wildflower meadows, wetland areas, reed beds, lakes and ponds.
The river is now a place where wildlife can thrive - from emperor dragonflies and wetland birds, to amphibians and butterflies. Several protected species have now made it their home, including the reed warbler and little grebe. The park has quickly become an important area of natural beauty and a recreational site for the local community.
It’s making a major contribution to the quality of life for local residents. Natural environments encourage regular physical activity, reduce the risk of serious diseases and improve mental well-being.
Surveys have shown that park visits have increased significantly. And people who used the park before, are now staying longer. One in four only started visiting the park after the improvements.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Catchment and 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 | Quaggy |
|---|---|
| Area category | 10 - 100 km² |
| Area (km2) | |
| Maximum altitude category | 100 - 200 m |
| Maximum altitude (m) | 135135 m <br />0.135 km <br />13,500 cm <br /> |
| Dominant geology | Calcareous |
| Ecoregion | Great Britain |
| Dominant land cover | Suburban |
| Waterbody ID | GB106039023290 |
Other case studies in this subcatchment: Colfes School, Lidl, Manor House Gardens, Manor House Gardens Gauging Station, Manor Park, Mottingham Farm, Quaggy Flood Alleviation Scheme, Quaggy channel improvements, River Quaggy- Chinbrook meadows, Sydenham Cottages Nature Reserve
Site
| Name | Sutcliffe Park |
|---|---|
| WFD water body codes | GB106039023290 |
| WFD (national) typology | Calcareous |
| WFD water body name | Quaggy |
| Pre-project morphology | Closed culvert |
| 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 | No |
| Species of interest | Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera ) |
| Dominant hydrology | |
| Dominant substrate | |
| 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
| Reach length directly affected (m) | 16001,600 m <br />1.6 km <br />160,000 cm <br /> |
|---|---|
| Project started | 1989/01/02 |
| Works started | 2003/04/01 |
| Works completed | 2004/06/01 |
| Project completed | |
| Total cost category | 1000 - 5000 k€ |
| Total cost (k€) | 36003,600 k€ <br />3,600,000 € <br /> |
| Benefit to cost ratio | |
| Funding sources | Environment Agency |
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 | Flood risk management |
|---|---|
| Hydromorphology | Channel pattern/planform |
| Biology | Fish, Invertebrates, Macrophytes |
| Physico-chemical | |
| Other reasons for the project | Community demand |
Measures
Structural measures
| |
|---|---|
| Bank/bed modifications | Planting of native species, meadering channel |
| Floodplain / River corridor | Creation of ponds, creation of a lake, wildflower meadows |
| Planform / Channel pattern | creation of new channel, deculverting |
| Other | boardwalks, paths, seating areas and viewing points |
Non-structural measures
| |
| Management interventions | |
| Social measures (incl. engagement) | |
| Other | community engagement |
Monitoring
Hydromorphological quality elements
| Element | When monitored | Type of monitoring | Control site used | Result | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before measures | After measures | Qualitative | Quantitative | |||
| Channel pattern/planform | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | |
Biological quality elements
| Element | When monitored | Type of monitoring | Control site used | Result | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before measures | After measures | Qualitative | Quantitative | |||
| Fish | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | |
| Invertebrates | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | |
| Macrophytes | Yes | No | No | No | No | |
Physico-chemical quality elements
| Element | When monitored | Type of monitoring | Control site used | Result | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before measures | After measures | Qualitative | Quantitative | |||
| Nutrient concentrations | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | |
Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic
| Element | When monitored | Type of monitoring | Control site used | Result | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before measures | After measures | Qualitative | Quantitative | |||
| stakeholder liaison | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | |
| health benefits | No | Yes | No | No | No | Improvement |
| economic benefits | No | Yes | No | No | No | Inconclusive |
| River Corridor Survey | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | |
| Bat Survey | Yes | No | No | No | No | |
| Mammel survey | Yes | No | No | No | No | |
| birds | Yes | No | No | No | No | |
Monitoring documents
Image gallery
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
| Link | Description |
|---|---|
| http://www.therrc.co.uk/rrc case studies1.php?csid=46 | River Restoration Centre Case Study |
Supplementary Information
Edit Supplementary Information
construction The works were designed to alleviate flooding in the Lewisham area. The flood detention area was constructed on the Quaggy River. The location of the detention area is approximately 3km east of Lewisham, in the London Borough of Greenwich, in Sutcliffe Park, formerly eight football pitches. The construction includes a 2.5m high x 480m long earth embankment, which surrounds Sutcliffe Park. The embankment is 2.5m high at its highest point to the west side of the site and at existing ground level to the east. The embankment retains floodwaters within the reservoir basin that has been excavated. The culvert carrying the river follows two sides of the park and is to remain. The low flow inlet control structure was formed through cutting slots into the side of the culvert and a reinforced concrete channel to direct the flow into the park. A few metres downstream of the low flow inlet is a 0.5m high weir to direct the majority of the flow through the park.
The high flow inlet also has slots cut into the side of the culvert and a concrete slab in front to prevent erosion. Just downstream of the high flow inlet a flume has been constructed within the culvert to constrict the flow. The spillway also has slots in the side of the culvert and the landform is at a lower level to allow the water back into the culvert at this location. The outlet structure is constructed from reinforced concrete and has a plastic pipe connecting the flow from the park back into the culvert. The low flow inlet and outlet structures have penstocks within them to control the water movements.
description The plans for the river restoration programme date back as far as 1989, although the work did not commence until April 2003 and the park was re-opened in June 2004. Prior to the restoration work, Sutcliffe Park was described as a flat area of open greenspace with a lack of biodiversity, with the mown grassland primarily used for sporting activities. It consisted of 11 football pitches and an athletics track, with only the track remaining since the enhancements. It is about 1.6 km in circumference with numerous entrances and exits. Since the 1930s the River Quaggy has ran underground along a concrete channel, referred to as a “culvert”, around two sides of the park.
The park has now been re-landscaped to create a naturalised river, which flows through the park at surface level. The culvert still exists, but now overflows into the park when it is full. The design of the park allows a controlled flood to occur which covers the lower lying sections of the park, where the river feeds into the lake. An important influence of this scheme is the presence of a local action group called “The Friends of The Quaggy / QWAG”. Community participation and involvement of local residents played a key role in identifying and campaigning the viable alternative to river channelisation.
The restored park is more of a wetland environment as it provides a variety of habitats for local wildlife, including reed beds and a shallow lake. The park is now rich in biodiversity and users have commented on the “joy of watching nature doing its own thing”. It has a more formal feel at one end due to its wrought iron railings and traditional benches, whereas the opposing end is more natural with bridges, boardwalks and outdoor furniture. There is a circular seating area which acts as a meeting place for local residents and school children to convene. The abundance of flora and fauna allows visitors an opportunity to learn about environmental matters.
Users of Sutcliffe Park include predominantly dog walkers and joggers. It is also used by family groups to feed the ducks and as a thoroughfare to bus stops. The establishment of a “Friends of Sutcliffe Park” is currently emerging and a recommendation for the local walking group “Green chain” to include the park within their routes is being addressed.