Whole Scheme, funding and rating the options
1. Please rank the Red, Blue, Pink and Orange options in order of the one you most prefer being number 1 to the one you least prefer being number 4. This will help us to understand which option the community prefers.
Please rank these from 1 to 4
(Required)
Option Red
1
Option Blue
2
Option Pink
3
Option Orange (national economically preferred option)
4
Text box to add views on why people ranked the options
My preferred option would be pre-emptive (not reactive) regular maintenance with stress testing and replacement of any components predicted to fail. One would imagine this would be the cheapest option year-by-year and the most 'green' option. The fact that Wilderness Sluice is broken indicates a serious lack of regular maintenance and is indicative of a "buy brand new" approach rather than a let's keep it working approach.
3. Please list in the text box below any issues that stop you using the river corridor for informal recreation and exercise, with details of any specific locations where these issues arise. There are many things that could limit your access to the public rights of way and open spaces in the vicinity of the river. These include; quality of footpath surfaces, steep slopes, width of access points, fear of personal safety and lack of shorter circular route options.
Text box to add response for any issues that stop you using the river corridor
The are many restrictions on the use of the river corridor. Many sections have no towpath or access. For example, between Island Barn Sluice and Albany and around the west side of Island barn reservoir. A public footpath from the Thames to Dorking would be a good aim to achieve over the next 100 years.
4. Please tell us in the text box below if you have any other ideas for improvements to the river corridor for amenity, leisure and recreation purposes.
Text box to add response for any other ideas for improvements to the river corridor
Keep the water level high and provide an exit to the Thames for resident recreational purposes.
5. You live and are invested in the area that makes up the Lower Mole Flood Alleviation Scheme. The materials and questions you have responded to will help us to make a final decision on which option we want to take forward. We would like to take this opportunity to ask if there is anything else important to you about the rivers, what they mean to you and how you use them? Please tell us in the text box below.
Text box to add response for anything else important to you about the rivers, what they mean to you and how you use them
1. In a world of global warming a 100-year life seems unlikely. I would assume a new scheme will be needed in about 30 years.
2. There is a Thames flood alleviation scheme which impacts the area. Surely the two schemes should be considered together?
3. The most "common sense" option has not been considered. That is to carry out pre-emptive (not reactive) regular maintenance with stress testing and replacement of any components predicted to fail. One would imagine this would be the cheapest option year-by-year and the most 'green' option.
4. The options mention plant and animal habitat but not recreational use and visual appeal. A lower water level might increase biodiversity but would it result in a weed-clogged mess?
5. The invasive pennywort problem has not been addressed in the options. This clogs the river and must increase flood risk. An earlier proposal was to open the sluice gates to lower the level in spring to kill the weed and then close the gates to raise the level for amenity and visual appeal. This, of course, requires gates that open and close.
2. There is a Thames flood alleviation scheme which impacts the area. Surely the two schemes should be considered together?
3. The most "common sense" option has not been considered. That is to carry out pre-emptive (not reactive) regular maintenance with stress testing and replacement of any components predicted to fail. One would imagine this would be the cheapest option year-by-year and the most 'green' option.
4. The options mention plant and animal habitat but not recreational use and visual appeal. A lower water level might increase biodiversity but would it result in a weed-clogged mess?
5. The invasive pennywort problem has not been addressed in the options. This clogs the river and must increase flood risk. An earlier proposal was to open the sluice gates to lower the level in spring to kill the weed and then close the gates to raise the level for amenity and visual appeal. This, of course, requires gates that open and close.
Molember Sluice and the surrounding river
1. The shortlisted options present a range of water levels. Some of the options propose fixed weirs or a rock ramp in place of gates. These options will lower water levels and allow water to flow more freely with less impoundment, leading to the formation of riffles, pools and a meandering channel. How much do you favour lowering the water levels to create a more natural habitat?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
I strongly favour lower water levels
Radio button:
Unticked
I moderately favour lower water levels
Radio button:
Unticked
I moderately favour retaining existing water levels
Radio button:
Ticked
I strongly favour retaining existing water levels
Island Barn Sluice and the surrounding river
1. Would the permissive path in the map below be useful to you? We will explore the possibilities of providing permissive access along the west bank of the river around Island Barn Sluice. The proposed route on our land would be open for members of the public to walk on. It would not be a public right of way, but we could agree to permit access. The possible new route would be accessible from the public right of way north of Island Barn Sluice. It may not be possible to link it with public footpaths further south.
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Don't know
Text box to add response for permissive path
I am a regular walker and would use the proposed path. However, without some exit at the south it would mean walking down and back again. A circular path around Island Barn reservoir would be much preferred.
2. We will explore the possibilities of providing specific features along the route. Are there any specific features you would like to see along this route? Please select which measures you would like to see.
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
An accessible surface
Radio button:
Ticked
Seating areas
Radio button:
Unticked
Standing supports
Radio button:
Unticked
Information boards
Radio button:
Unticked
Other
Text box to add response for other permissive route feature options
An occasional seat to enjoy the view and eat a snack would be pleasant.
Viaduct Sluice and the surrounding river
1. The shortlisted options present a range of water levels. Some of the options propose a rock ramp in place of gates, with some proposing a second rock ramp within the River Ember channel. These options will lower water levels and allow water to flow more freely with less impoundment, leading to the formation of riffles, pools and a meandering channel. How much do you favour lowering the water levels to create a more natural habitat?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
I strongly favour lower water levels
Radio button:
Unticked
I moderately favour lower water levels
Radio button:
Unticked
I moderately favour retaining existing water levels
Radio button:
Ticked
I strongly favour retaining existing water levels
2. We will look to explore different methods to help mitigate access for lower water levels upstream of Viaduct. Please select which measures you would like to see.
Please select all that apply
Checkbox:
Unticked
Steps/ramps for foot access
Checkbox:
Ticked
Viewing areas
Checkbox:
Unticked
Boat ramps
Checkbox:
Unticked
Planting/screening