Case study:Haynes Park

From RESTORE
Revision as of 12:25, 27 October 2015 by Hazel Wilson (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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° 34' 50.57" N, 0° 12' 50.49" 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 Planned
Project web site
Themes 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
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
This case study hasn’t got a picture, you can add one by editing the project overview.

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Removal of three weir structures, removal of concrete bank and bed protection works. The river is in a semi-natural state though concrete bank protection works have been undertaken in the past and the river bed has also been lined with concrete in places. Three concrete flumes (same as those stupidly put in Harrow Lodge Park) break to continuity of the river and probably are to deal with the change of plan form gradient.
Manholes were observed in close proximity to the watercourse, possibly indicating a sewer pipe. However, huge gains could be made within the confines of this space, although it may be that bank reprofiling would have to be adapted. Works to the left bank are constrained due to it being owned by numerous different people whose properties abut the watercourse. It is unclear if this has always been the case or whether land take has taken place over the years.

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 Roding, Beam and Ingrebourne

Subcatchment

River name Rom / Beam (from Ravensbourne confluence to Thames)
Area category Less than 10 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category Less than 100 m
Maximum altitude (m) 1818 m <br />0.018 km <br />1,800 cm <br />
Dominant geology Calcareous
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Suburban
Waterbody ID GB106037028100



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Dagenham Washlands Phase 2, Harrow Lodge Park


Site

Name
WFD water body codes GB106037028100
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name Rom / Beam (from Ravensbourne confluence to Thames)
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) 500 m0.5 km <br />50,000 cm <br />
Project started
Works started
Works completed
Project completed
Total cost category
Total cost (k€)
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources Mayor’s Priority Parks funding?

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 Removing of concrete structures, Weir removal
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