Chatham, United Kingdom
City population: 260417
Duration: unknown – 2011
Implementation status: Completed
Scale: Meso-scale: Regional, metropolitan and urban level
Project area: 700000 m2
Type of area: Previous derelict area, Other
Last updated: October 2021

In 2011, the Great Lines Heritage Park was formed by connecting the Great Lines, Lower Lines, Inner Lines, Forst Amherst and Medway Park together. To do so, a former military area was transformed. The intervention connects the heritage towns of Chatham and Gillingham and the Chatham Waterfront. By connecting the heritage of the town and the waterfront, the project aimed to emphasize both these aspects of the area, but also to improve visitors' access and be a habitat for a number of species (Ref 2). The area has been created from a site that is of international heritage significance. The park is located within the Thames Gateway priority housing area, Europe’s largest regeneration project (ref. 3).

Great Lines Heritage Park (2015)
Simon Lewis (Medway Council Communications Team), retrieved 08/15/2018

Overview

Nature-based solution

  • Parks and urban forests
  • Large urban parks or forests

Key challenges

  • Green space, habitats and biodiversity (SDG 15)
  • Habitat and biodiversity restoration
  • Habitat and biodiversity conservation
  • Green space creation and/or management
  • Regeneration, land-use and urban development
  • Promote natural styles of landscape design for urban development
  • Social justice, cohesion and equity (SDG 10)
  • Environmental education
  • Social cohesion
  • Social interaction
  • Health and well-being (SDG 3)
  • Creation of opportunities for recreation
  • Cultural heritage and cultural diversity
  • Protection of historic and cultural landscape/infrastructure

Focus

Creation of new green areas, Maintenance and management of urban nature, Ecological restoration of ecosystems

Project objectives

The aims were: 1. To draw renewed attention to a site of international heritage significance 2. To connect the towns of Chatham and Gillingham 3. To connect the heritage sites with the waterfront 4. To improve access for visitors 5. To provide a habitat for various species 6. To provide a green corridor for wildlife 7. To provide recreational outdoor space (Ref 2, 3)

Implementation activities

1. Transform a former military site into a green site that connects other green sites to provide a total of 75 hectares of greenspace 2. Create 3 km of connecting pathways 3. Install lighting to emphasize the heritage buildings and statues 4. Habitat enhancements to 30 hectares of chalk grassland (ref. 2, 4)

Biodiversity conservation or restoration-focused activities

Biodiversity conservation:

  • Protect and enhance urban habitats
  • Create new habitats
  • Reduce negative impacts and avoid the alteration/damage of ecosystem
  • Protect species
  • Undertake specific measures to protect species

Biodiversity restoration:

  • Rehabilitate and restore damaged or destroyed ecosystems
  • Restore species (native, endangered, or unspecified)
  • Public engagement

Main beneficiaries

  • Local government/Municipality
  • Citizens or community groups

Governance

Management set-up

  • Government-led

Type of initiating organisation

  • Local government/municipality

Participatory approaches/ community involvement

  • Consultation (e.g. workshop, surveys, community meetings, town halls)

Details on the roles of the organisations involved in the project

The HTA Landscape Design consultants (private sector) were asked by the governments of the relevant areas (great lines, lower lines, innter lines, fort Armherst and Medway Park) to connect these areas (Ref 2). The project was parly funded by the regional Government's Parklands Thames Gateway Fund. The design was based on a consultation with the residents and land owners (Ref 2).

Project implemented in response to ...

... an EU policy or strategy? Unknown
... a national policy or strategy? Unknown
... a local policy or strategy? Yes (1. The Wildlife, Countryside and Open Space Strategy for Medway 2008-2016 (Ref 2), which is meant to be a strategy to inform the regeneration plans for Medway as a successful and thriving city, where the most is made of the benefits that the already existing natural surroundings have to offer (Ref 5), 2. The Medway Cultural Strategy 2009-2014 (Ref 2), which is meant to be strategy to catalyse the cultural development of Medway so that its vibrancy and physical regeneration is to increase, to establish pride in Medway, to recognise the rich cultural offer that already exists, to bring prosperity to the local economy, to enhance the touristic appeal by boosting the creative sector and to enhance Medway's reputation and cultural offer (Ref 6))

Financing

Total cost

€2,000,000 - €4,000,000

Source(s) of funding

  • EU funds
  • Public regional budget

Type of funding

  • Direct funding (grants, subsidies, or self-financed projects by private entities)

Non-financial contribution

Unknown

Impacts and Monitoring

Environmental impacts

  • Environmental quality
  • Improved waste management
  • Green space and habitat
  • Increased green space area
  • Increased number of species present

Economic impacts

  • Unknown

Socio-cultural impacts

  • Social justice and cohesion
  • Improved social cohesion
  • Fair distribution of social, environmental and economic benefits of the NBS project
  • Improved access to urban green space
  • Increased opportunities for social interaction
  • Increased access to healthy/affordable food
  • Health and wellbeing
  • Improved physical health
  • Gain in activities for recreation and exercise
  • Cultural heritage and sense of place
  • Protection of historic and cultural landscape / infrastructure
  • Education
  • Increased support for education and scientific research
  • Increased knowledge of locals about local nature

Type of reported impacts

Achieved impacts

Presence of formal monitoring system

Yes

Presence of indicators used in reporting

Yes

Presence of monitoring/ evaluation reports

Yes

Availability of a web-based monitoring tool

No evidence in public records

References