Case study:Sandwich Tidal Defence Scheme

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Project overview

Edit project overview
Status Complete
Project web site http://www.therrc.co.uk/sites/default/files/projects/55_sandwich.pdf
Themes Estuary, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Marine
Country England
Main contact forename Sandwich Town
Main contact surname Defences Scheme
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Sandwich Town Defences Scheme
Contact organisation web site http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sandwich-town-tidal-defences/sandwich-town-tidal-defences
Partner organisations Environment Agency, Kent County Council, Pfizer
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.


Sandwich is a historic town and civil parish on the right bank of the River Stour in Kent (Map 1). A major inundation in the Sandwich and Deal area occurred in January 1953 when a North Sea surge – 4.7m Ordnance Datum (OD) at Pegwell Bay – caused the banks of the River Stour to overtop and breach, resulting in extensive flooding. A surge event occurred in 1976, estimated 1 in 25 (4% annual exceedance probability, AEP) and again in 1983, estimated 1 in 10 to 1 in 5 (10% to 20% AEP), causing flooding at Sandwich Quay with 16 properties suffering direct flooding. A scheme was constructed in 2015 to reduce the risk of flooding to the local community and businesses.

The scheme provided a 1 in 200 standard of protection to both banks with 50 years of sea level rise included in the design. This protects 486 homes and 94 commercial properties in Sandwich (Photo 1). It cost £21.7 million, with £11.5 million provided in partnership funding from Kent Country Council and Pfizer.

The scheme consisted of 14.4km of strengthening and improving the existing tidal river defences, and creation of a 240ha tidal flood relief area between Sandwich and the mouth of the River Stour. Part of this enabled the creation of 20ha of new Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitat, which includes a mosaic of wetland habitats.

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.
0.00
(0 votes)


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


Location: 51° 17' 24.62" N, 1° 22' 28.21" E
Loading map...
Left click to look around in the map, and use the wheel of your mouse to zoom in and out.


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 2013
Works started
Works completed
Project completed
Total cost category
Total cost (k€) £21.7m"£" is not declared as a valid unit of measurement for this property.
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources Flood Defence Grant-in-Aid, Pfizer, Kent County Council

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 and coastal erosion protection
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications
Floodplain / River corridor
Planform / Channel pattern
Other Salt marsh and mudflat restoration
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