Barking Riverside Green Roof Ecomimicry Experiment
Barking Riverside piloted an ecomimicry approach to green roofs to conserve a regionally important brownfield invertebrate community, including target species such as the brown-banded carder bee (Bombus humilis) and Gymnosoma nitens. Roof test bays reproduced open-mosaic niches (varied substrate depths, recycled aggregates, ephemeral pools), and monitoring showed these designs could retain pre-development biodiversity while delivering connectivity and ecosystem services. Since then, the method has been formalised in guidance and peer-reviewed research and used to inform wider green infrastructure across the development. At borough scale, by end-2017 Barking & Dagenham hosted 51,658 m² of green roofs, with over 25,000 m² at Barking Riverside (nearly half the borough total), evidencing roll-out beyond the initial trials. Current planning documents continue to mandate ecologically sensitive roofs, with Stage 2 South (2023) targeting 40% of total roof area as green roofs and 10% as brown roofs, and the 2024 Local Plan reinforcing green/brown roofs and locally appropriate planting. Early delivery included ~50 homes (≈20 m² each) and a 2,100 m² roof (1,500 m² vegetated), preceding the broader programme.
Overview
Post-industrial brownfield site that supported important biodiversity now being redeveloped to provide 11,000 homes
Achieve vegetation cover supporting >110 plant species, with spontaneous colonisation.
Retain stormwater up to 80 mm temporarily.
Match or exceed the water retention of standard sedum roofs.
Improve floral and faunal richness over two years of monitoring
| Authority type | Authority name | Authority role | Comments | Authority responsibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Barking Riverside Ltd | Initiation of the measure | Developer; coordinated implementation | Responsible |
| Research institute / University | University of East London | Monitoring | Scientific lead for research and monitoring. | Supporting |
| Local water authority | London Borough of Barking and Dagenham | Implementation | Local authority; involved in planning and governance. | Responsible |
| Local water authority | Greater London Authority (GLA) | Implementation | Strategic oversight; partner in public-private cooperation. | Responsible |
| Research institute / University | Institute for Sustainability | Determination of design details of the measure | Provided sustainability expertise. | Supporting |
| Architects / Engineers | Green Infrastructure Consultancy | Determination of design details of the measure | Design specialists for GI integration. | Supporting |
| Architects / Engineers | Hertalan UK | Determination of design details of the measure | Provided roofing membrane expertise. | Supporting |
| Architects / Engineers | Shire Aggregates Ltd | Implementation | Supplied substrates mimicking local soil conditions. | Supporting |
| Other | European Commission (DG Research and Innovation) | Financing | Major funder via FP7/TURAS | Supporting |
Site Information
Design and Implementation
Green roofs installed on 40% of buildings (exact m² not specified)
Each test green roof: 6 × 3 m, with 9 test roofs in the experiment
No intensive vegetation management historically, enabling colonisation by rare species.
Financing
PhD studentship (3 years): €70,000
Policy and Governance
| Directive | Relevant pressure |
|---|---|
| WFD identified pressure | Pressure from urban development and hydromorphological changes. |
| WFD identified pressure | Risk of pluvial and fluvial flooding in urbanised London. |
| Other non-EU | Biodiversity Strategy for England & UK BAP: Protection of Open Mosaic Habitat. |
| Directive | Relevant impact |
|---|---|
| WFD identified pressure | Supports better ecological status through diffuse pollution mitigation. |
| Floods Directive identified pressure | Reduced runoff volumes and flood risk. |
| Other non-EU | UK Biodiversity Action Plan: Mitigation for loss of Open Mosaic Habitat. |
| Other non-EU | Climate Adaptation Policy: Contributes to urban cooling and water retention. |
| Requirement directive | Specification |
|---|---|
| WFD-mitigation of significant pressure | Urban runoff |
| Floods Directive-mitigating Flood Risk | — |
| Wider plan type | Wider plan focus | Name | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| National | Urban | National Planning Policy Framework (UK) | Urban regeneration & brownfield reuse. |
| Regional | Urban | London Plan | Regional policy for sustainable development and green infrastructure. |
| — | Urban | TURAS FP7 | EU-funded urban sustainability programme. |
Impacts and Monitoring
Monitoring System
Invertebrate community composition using pitfall traps.
Seasonal and spatial variation in vegetation development.
Maintenance
Impact Assessment Methodology
Socio-economic Impacts
Improved local microclimate: Urban cooling benefits from increased evapotranspiration.
Compliance with planning conditions: Enabled development approval.
Research and innovation opportunities: Hosted PhDs and research funding.
Local engagement: Enhanced community value through aesthetic and nature-connected spaces.
Increases habitat connectivity for urban biodiversity.
Raises awareness and engagement around nature in urban development.
Enhances academic-practice partnerships and supports educational use.
Biophysical impacts: Hydrology
Roofs retained water in substrate and surface pools. Geotextiles at base also held and gradually released water.
Biophysical impacts: Biodiversity
Plant species: 114 species recorded (36 planted, 78 spontaneously colonised). Many colonisers were characteristic of high-quality brownfield sites.
Invertebrates: 53 species recorded, including Scybalicus oblongiusculus (RDB1), Bombus humilis (UKBAP), and Lasioglossum pauperatum (RDB3).
Community benefits: Created habitat heterogeneity with mounds, wet and dry areas, and bare ground, supporting a wide range of taxa.
Soil fauna and benthos: Not assessed due to rooftop context, but surface biodiversity was strong.
This confirms the effectiveness of ecomimicry for rare and conservation-priority species.
Biophysical impacts: Water & Soil Quality
Biophysical impacts: Others
Habitat connectivity at roof level, acting as a “stepping stone” for species movement.
Microtopography impacts (mounds, slopes, depressions) enhanced diversity of niches.
Lessons Learned
The partnership model between academia, developers, and public bodies was crucial.
| Success factor type | Success factor role | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Attitude of relevant stakeholders | Main factor | Positive, with collaborative engagement. |
| Available support tools | Secondary factor | TURAS FP7 provided structure. |
Design adapted over phases to improve habitat simulation.
The system could revert to standard green roof function if pooling layer failed.
The project was designed to be context-sensitive, allowing other regions to adapt similar principles to different habitats.
- The ecomimicry approach (using local habitat templates) is universally applicable.
- Modular roof design adaptable to different species and substrates.
Challenges:
- Requires site-specific ecological knowledge and design expertise.
- Architects may resist standing water unless managed carefully.
- Must ensure drainage does not compromise roofing infrastructure.
Opportunities:
- Suited to urban redevelopment with biodiversity goals.
- Strong potential where brownfield land is being lost