]> 2026-04-22T05:59:42+00:00 Case study:Greenwich Peninsula 500 en thamescasestudies.pdf Estuary Edges structurally engineered designs.pdf Case study no 4 Design Guidance includign Greenwich as an example Estuary Edges design guidance link Approved Bank improvement creation of intertidal terraces Yes No No Improvement No Fish,No,Yes,No,No,No,Improvement Fish No Environment Agency Greenwich Peninsula Regeneration Ltd Great Britain Yes No Yes true Greenwich 1.jpg Greenwich 2.jpg during construction planned development Yes cost neutral 51.50323,0.00303 Toni Environment Agency Scarr Bank improvement, creation of intertidal terraces,, ,,, * The intertidal terraces provide valuable habitat for fish and other animals and birds, as well as creating a new landscape feature for people to enjoy. * Flood defences designed to protect from tidal flooding with an allowance made for the future effects of climate change. * Surface water flood risk reduction on each plot will be provided in line with the London Plan policies. 1199 Greenwich Peninsula Regeneration Ltd Tidal terraces Greenwich.jpg 1997-01-01Z 2450449.5 Complete Prior to 2000 1.7km of flood defences were replaced and refurbished on the eastern side of the Greenwich Peninsula. A further 700m is proposed on the western frontage. * Greenwich Peninsula is a 190 acre development site and is therefore London’s largest regeneration scheme. * The mixed use development consists of 10,000 new homes, 3.5 million square feet of office space – a brand new business district for London, with over 150 shops and restaurants. * The site is being developed in phases/plots in line with the overall masterplan produced by Terry Farrell and Partners. * Many of the features incorporated at this site are being used as good practice with other developers across London. * A large amount of green roofs and other SUDS were agreed as part of the outline planning permission. These are part of the landscape, ecology and surface water management plans. Greenwich Peninsula greenwich peninsula http://www.estuaryedges.co.uk/ No 2400 London Thames Thames Middle thames middle Greenwich Peninsula greenwich peninsula Less than 10 km² THAMES MIDDLE GB530603911402 '''The site''' • Tidal range 7m. • Over 1300m of sheet piling was in poor condition and needed to be replaced. • Peninsula being redeveloped for high-density, high-value housing and facilities. '''What the developers did''' • In all locations, the existing sheet pile wall was cut down to near beach level and capped. • Approximately 7–15m inland, either sheet pile or an L-shaped concrete wall were installed. • Site 1: infill material was installed over wide area at stable angle of repose and allowed to colonise naturally. • Sites 2 and 3: terraces were created between the new wall and the foreshore using gabions and wooden piles, maximising the area between Mean High Water Neap and Mean High Water Spring tide levels wherever possible at slopes of 1:7 or less. Growing medium initially protected under coir matting. • Sites 2 and 3 were planted with a variety of saltmarsh plants through coir matting. Substrate particle size distribution was a close match to foreshore for both stability in local area and habitat value. Eastern wall, Greenwich Peninsula, London: Site 2 during construction '''The result''' • Wave action led to lifting of the matting and extraction of many young plants, necessitating some replanting, though there was also considerable natural colonisation. • Re-planting of Sites 2 and 3 directly into substrate without erosion matting was most successful with Common Reed, Grey Club-rush Sea Club-rush and Sea Aster, several species surviving well below or above the main ‘saltmarsh zone’. • Failure to install rhizome breaks has led to excessive dominance by Common Reed, which may need to be corrected. • Freshwater outfall locations became areas bare of much vegetation, and reinforced geotextile mat used at these locations eventually looked unsightly. • Extensive monitoring has shown intense use of the terraces by Sea Bass and other species. • Flounder and adult Common Goby did not appear to ascend submerged terrace steps. One solution to this is shown in the design for the terracing at Site 3, where a series of terraces sloping in three dimensions was created in the form of an ‘ecological sculpture’. (In future schemes, cutting down of the old sheet pile to beach level should be considered to avoid the creation of barriers to certain fish species). • Limited scope for human access, which might be addressed in future schemes by a variety of slipways or floating pontoons (where ecological and safety constraints permit). • Overall considered to be a highly successful, benchmark design, though a few gabions appear to be breaking down after ten years (probably due to use of welded gabions) and repairs/renewals may be necessary to retain certain terraces (woven and plastic-coated gabions are always the preferred option if gabions are to be used). Flood risk management Habitat and biodiversity Hydromorphology Social benefits Spatial planning Urban Estuary intertidal GB530603911402 THAMES MIDDLE 1997-01-01Z 2450449.5 2012-08-22T18:22:32Z 2456162.2656482 2025-12-02T10:27:46Z 2461011.9359491 Greenwich Peninsula 500 1 plainlist 5 [[Category:Case study]] [[Project title::!Greenwich Peninsula]] [[Subcatchment title::THAMES MIDDLE]] Greenwich Peninsula# QUERY476d91c449f7ca8875bf56b6c5b01ab1 Case study:Greenwich Penisula 500 en Greenwich Penisula REDI 102 en REDI