Case study:Norman Park Bromley.

From RESTORE
Revision as of 10:49, 24 July 2014 by Djwebb (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.

Approve case study

 

0.00
(0 votes)


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


Location: 51° 23' 18.29" N, 0° 1' 35.01" E
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 Complete
Project web site
Themes Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Urban
Country England
Main contact forename Dave
Main contact surname Webb
Main contact user ID User:Djwebb
Contact organisation Environment Agency
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations London Borough of Bromley
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Deculverting

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


The Ravensbourne is a spring-fed stream flowing from its source near Keston, on the north slope of the North Downs, northwards through Bromley, Catford and Lewisham to join the Thames at Deptford Creek. In many areas such as Norman Park the stream is confined within a culvert. Culverting of small watercourses in urban and parkland areas has been common in the recent past. Burying the river was felt to reduce the flooding potential, minimise safety issues associated with open water and maximise land available for development or use as open space/playing fields. Little consideration was given to habitat loss, aesthetic and landscape appeal of rivers or the potential benefits of surface water storage. The Ravensbourne flows for 300m through a 1m diameter concrete-lined steel culvert. Smaller land drains, which had been ditches before the area was levelled to form the park, flow into the culvert at intervals along its length. The culvert is crossed close to both its northern and southern ends by park access tracks and major services, with a gas pipeline and electric supply cables crossing the culvert at the north end and a water pipe and local electrical supply cables at the southern end. Deculverting (daylighting) the Ravensbourne would help to restore the corridor by recreating an open channel (in replacement of the culverted section) with diverse in-channel and bankside habitats linking to Scrogginhall Woods just upstream of the park.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


River Corridor Survey.

Lessons learnt

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.


The park users, particularly dog walkers, now see the open Ravensbourne as a focal point, circling the area and making use of the crossing points. Children and dogs play along the banks even though the site has still to mature.

The marginal planting is suffering disturbance from dogs and children and may take longer than expected to establish a good cover, though this may eventually produce a good diversity of edge habitats. The wildflower plugs have been decimated by crows in search of worms. About a third were removed from the ground and became desiccated.

The planting scheme was designed as a balance between creating an instance impact for the local users and allowing natural processes of colonisation to occur. Even so the local users have stated that they would have expected more immediate impact from the planting. The success of the project can be attributed to the multi-disciplinary project team and the Partnership between the Borough Council and the Environment Agency.


Image gallery


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment



Site

Name
WFD water body codes
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present
Invasive species present
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)
Project started
Works started
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

Mitigation of a pressure
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications
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